Was it George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin screaming for help?
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?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.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.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.
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.
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.
No, Martin started the altercation when he assaulted Zimmerman! again, 911 operators have no authority to issue orders.
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.
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.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?
But that could mean you are saying the woman is more guilty of the rape than the man who followed her.
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?We still don't know if Martin actually did attack him.
You think he broke his own nose?
Not guilty, get over it!
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.
Neither of those things are illegal!
Not guilty!You misunderstand. Some of us think he is culpable even though he was found not guilty in a court of law. Some others seem to think he is not culpable at all because he was found not guilty in a court of law.
We see the evidence differently than you. Get over it.It doesn't matter how you see it! You see it wrong, I am over it, I was over it the day it happened. The race baiters need get over it but I doubt you ever will.
LOL, there is nothing for me to personally "get over." I'm here just like you, debating on the internet.
I don't mention race at all, but you do all the time.
If you are unable to see why Zimmerman was found not guilty then your objection is for no other reason than race. Where is the outrage for a white two year old shot in the face by a black robber? Nonexistent from you or the media. Where is the outrage for a white couple who attended the university of Tennessee savagely murdered by four blacks? Nonexistent, you may not have even heard of these cases because the media doesn't cover them. Reverse the races and its wall to wall coverage, never ending even after the real victim in the Zimmerman case is found not guilty!
You are a liberal, race is the tool you use.Yes, I see. You are unable to imagine that someone might disagree with you for legitimate reasons.
Nice. Take a look in the mirror.What legitimate reasons could you possibly have given the FACT Zimmerman was found innocent? Let me take a shot, you feel you know the case better than the six women who heard all of the evidence, deliberated and found him innocent? You know better....right? The case is settled and settled EXACTLY the way I said it would be last week.
NOT GUILTY!
The only people who should be prosecuted are the incompetent prosecutors who wasted taxpayer money on this joke of a trial!I have a right to look at the facts and form my own opinion. Not guilty in a court of law means only that. It is not a guarantee of innocence.
Really, what facts are you privy to that the jury wasn't? Your opinion is that Zimmerman is guilty of murder and your opinion is wrong and has been shown to be.
Its over, he can never be tried for it again, too bad for people incapable of reading a law and comprehending the words.
Sad.You are aware that different people can come to different conclusions from the same facts, aren't you? As I have repeatedly stated, but you can't seem to comprehend, the jury found him not guilty and I accept that. However, my opinion has not been "shown to be wrong." The only way that could happen is if definitive proof was found. George Zimmerman's words are not definitive proof.
I'm sure you went to this much trouble after the OJ verdict.
What trouble is that? OJ was found not guilty and that was the end of it.
Well, you are one of the few who accepted it right away, good for you.
I lead by example, when will you accept this jury's verdict?
Why not, are you familiar with the Florida law or are you one of those who rely only on emotion?
I just believe the evidence was one sided and relied too much on what Zimmerman told them happened. But, I'm willing to put it behind me. I don't want to think of him any more.
I just don't like the fact that the dead 17 year old is being vilified like he was a serial killer or something. He seems to be being made a scapegoat for every single black teenager who has gotten in trouble. He was not a perfect person, but he was far from being a monster.What are you watching that leads you to that conclusion?
I believe he was a punk who would have been shot sooner or later by someone but thats because I am not dependent on our horrible media.
He was more than likely a burglar, he was found in possession of jewelry and tools commonly used in burglary.
I do not feel sorry for him at all.I am not depended on US media either.
I like to think the best of people. He had applied and been accepted to university. You can't decide on a whole person's life just on things they did as a teenager.Lol, terrible media? Let me guess, you watch Fox News?
i would bet he did what everyone outraged by the OJ verdict did, went home and hoped for OJ's eventual comeuppance. That is not what is happening now as the beatings of Whites and Hispanics begins and Al Sharpton rubs his hands in glee.
Suggested Search Terms:
George Zimmerman
Bernard Goetz
Yankel Rosenbaum- Crown Heights Riots - "Diamond Merchants"
Freddies Fashion Mart - White Interlopers - Morris Powell
Tawana Brawley - Steven Pagones' unpaid judgement - Pery McKinnon
Duke LaCrosse Team
Al Sharpton has left broken people in his wake all in the desire to keep his face one TV. MSNBC has made this mendacious scoundrel a major figure on their network - and liberals call Fox News names.
Al Sharpton will let nothing stop his racial agenda, including reality, truth and fact, thus making him a good liberal.
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
Most of what you just stated is according to George. It can not be proved or disproved.
Lets face it. No matter how many facts are thrown out there or how good of a case someone on the internet argues for ZImmerman's innocent or the fact that a jury acquitted him you'll be blinded by race PrettyPanther and think the guy's guilty.
And it has to be over race PrettyPanther because with all the facts of the case for you to believe that ZImmerman is guilty you either have to be stupid or racist. (Plus when I think Panther I think Black Panther and you've mentioned your black before-Panthers being the Black version of KKK)LOL, I've never mentioned I am black because I'm not! I've posted my pic on the forums before, although it was quite a long time ago. I am a fair-skinned redhead.
You're the one who keeps bring up race; I have not done it. I am neither racist nor stupid, just willing to let my opinion be known that a grown man should be held responsible for his actions. We have no idea for certain if Trayvon instigated the physical altercation. We have no witnesses to the start of the fight, only George's word.
I'm beginning to wonder about your intelligence and your attitude about race, though, since you imagine that I am black just because I think George Z. was wrong to do what he did and am not afraid to say it.
Here is something not from Zimmerman. Trayvon Martin waited four minutes for Zimmerman to catch up. He was less than 100 yards from his own front door and safety but chose instead to wait on the "creepy cracker." Trayvon Martin was in Sanford because he was suspended from school for a crime, that the police and the school treated like a disciplinary rather than a criminal action. It was his second suspension for a crime in six months.
The FBI conducted their own investigation and found no racial component in the events of that night - they were of course wrong, Saint Trayvon let his bigot flag fly on the phone to his girl friend.
Now opinion, if he had not been coddled by the school and had not revered the "thug life," as too many people do, he would have: 1) been in juvenile detention for his actual crimes and 2) been far less likely to act on his own racist, violent impulses.
The facts are available. I don't care about the reaction to the opinion. George Zimmerman is free and real justice is finally served for a man who should never have been arrested in the first place. Now let the Black on White violence begin, because that is what another vile criminal, Al Sharpton, really stands for.Homicide is always an arrestable offense, regardless of the circumstances. Said circumstances just determine the severity of the sentence.
He did not commit homicide and there was no evidence of his having committed homicide at the time. Multiple sources have said that he was brought to trial because of the protests. Mob justice is not justice. Perhaps Florida should have just tossed him to the crowd so they could maul him to death or maybe employ some time honored mob justice technique involving rope, That is what is being called for now. Are you on board for that?
@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) 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. 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.@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 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.
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.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=132sThey 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.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.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.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."Those people in Florida who initially heard about the Trayvon Martin case reasonably concluded that this was another example of prejudice and racial bias..."
No, they didn't. Ten seconds thought will tell anyone that a few hours (and there were screams that Zimmerman be jailed and charged immediately) isn't going to provide sufficient evidence for every murder charge. There was nothing "reasonable" about those cries, partly because they were made without thought and partly because they weren't cries for a trial. They were, pure and simple, cries to hang Zimmerman regardless of what had happened or why. And they were made because Zimmerman was not black - racism.
There may be no evidence to refute the claim that the cops were racist in the case of Zimmerman, but there is none to support it, either. Remember the old adage "innocent until proven guilty"? Not to racists; to them it's "guilty unless the same race as I, and then innocence is a given".
"An arrest is just holding someone in custody while an investigation is undertaken." Yeah. In some states that can be done for 48 hours; in others it is stretched to a whole 72 hours. At that time formal charges must be filed, and "suspicion" of whatever doesn't cut it. Given the complexities of the case, the lack of obvious evidence and above all the possibility of "stand your ground" the decision to file formal charges wasn't easy. Anyone with half a brain could see that (and don't forget that the cops can't file charges at all but must wait for the prosecutor), but of course it didn't matter, did it? Again, the point was not justice - it was to punish someone of a different race.
Zimmerman was not arrested for six weeks; not until after the racism and politics had come into full voice. And now; now it becomes evident that the local prosecutor was right all along. There was insufficient (grossly insufficient) evidence to convict. That trial was a political ploy to placate the racists of the country and nothing more, and a ploy that George Zimmerman (and others including David and Elaine McClain) paid the price for. No prosecutor in their right mind would have voluntarily taken that case on - there was just no evidence at all of any form of murder.
Don, I see it this way. Any time decisions are made, conclusions drawn or actions commenced based solely or primarily on the race of an individual it is racist. It (coupled with similar actions due to religious belief, gender, sexual preferences or any of a 100 other perceived differences) is a major problem in this country and race is probably the largest. Sexual preference is in the news right now, but overall racism is a bigger problem. As such, it deserves no quarter in our fight and will get none from me. I will NOT excuse overt racism because of historical or even recent wrongs. Yesterday's racist acts against Joe Blow does NOT give Joe an excuse to become racist today. Not even a lifetime of such acts does; we are individuals and should be treated as such, not according to a personal bias resulting from the color of our skin and someone else's actions. Until we ALL learn that the problem isn't going to go away, and making excuses for the "black community" (your term, not mine) and their own racism only makes the matter worse. It differs from that of the KKK only in degree of action, not in underlying nastiness.Why, when there have been numerous previous instances of racial bias and corruption within Sanford PD, should anyone in the local community (not just the local black community) give Sanford PD the benefit of the doubt? As you know trust is something that is earned, and can also be lost. Sad to say, but I believe many in the local community don't trust Sanford PD to be impartial. I'm sure their perception is not entirely fair, but that is the problem with not addressing issues of corruption, racial bias etc. Those things breeds mistrust. The result, as in this case, is that when there is any ambiguity, or nuance to a situation, people immediately fear the worst.
Racism is generally the belief in the superiority/ inferiority of a group based on their race. Highlighting perceived racial bias within a police department does not constitute racism. The perception is not that Zimmerman is white, therefore guilty. The perception is that Sanford PD treated Zimmerman favourably, giving him the benefit of the doubt, because he was white; And a perception that if the victim had been white and the shooter black, the outcome and reaction from the police (and possibly the jury) would have been very different. Are those conclusions fair? Yes and no. Are they racist? Only for those who don't understand the term. People who are angry because of a perfectly understandable belief that racial bias exists within the local PD and legal system, are not similar to the KKK in any regard. You are either oblivious to how deeply offensive and insensitive that comment could be to some people, or just don't care. Either way, it demonstrates why a national debate on the subject is so badly needed. Perhaps dispelling such ignorance is the one good thing that can come out of all 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."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.@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.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.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.
So that's why the jurors were pointing to the wording of the law as the only reason why he wasn't convicted?
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?Wow, that has to be the most ignorant and racist thing I've ever heard.
What accusing Al Sharpton of what he has proven himself to be for decades, a Black Supremacist and an Anti-Semite? How is that racist, it is not a comment on his race. It is not a comment on the race of Trayvon Martin. It is a comment on Al Sharpton's own rotten history and the bloody trail he cuts through the world.
Retief your making too much sense and going to blow a fuse in Cody's poor liberal brain.
This would be true if the tendency among liberals was to employ their brains for the processing of fact and attempting to understand reality, they do not. Liberals use their brains to break everything in to tiny, narrow bits that do not challenge and fit comfortably in their presupposed and emotion driven catalog of wounds. Liberals use language skills to pigeon hole and label so they can attack, not with reason but with those same pigeon holes and labels. It is a narrow, miserable, hateful little world they occupy, thank God I don't live there.
Lol....says the guy who affiliates himself with a group who is on the wrong side of every issue in this country and hasn't had a good idea in over 150 years.
Did you get a label maker for Christmas, aren't they handy and so simple to use.
I notice you never said I was wrong.....
Been good debating with youNo point in debating a label maker. Take the point. As a liberal, wrong is a default setting.
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) ... 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.1) I believe charges of violence against a law enforcement officer, allegations of domestic violence, and being ordered to take anger management classes indicate that Zimmerman is prone to violent behaviour.
2) Your fixation with Al Sharpton doesn't change the fact that many people of all different backgrounds including black, white, hispanic and jewish think this case highlights the issue of inequality within the justice system. That's why (rightly or wrongly) the Zimmerman case has become a focal point. Fixating on particular individuals within the mass of people drawing attention to this will not address the issue, and will not make it go away.
3) You are using racist terminology and I'm calling you on it. I believe your comment that the President and Attorney General have "third world" impulses is a deliberate racial slur, and nothing you have said so far leads me to believe otherwise. There are a myriad of other terms you could have chosen to convey the fact you think there is executive overreach in the current administration. I believe you chose the phrase third world because the people you are referring to are black. Associating a person with the negative attributes you associate with the third world, because they happen to be black is racism. Indeed associating people who are actually from the third world with negative attributes is text-book racism. Do you understand that some people who live in the third world want to live in a lawful, just society as much as you do?
"There are people who use the anonymity of the internet to say things that would get them punched in the nose and rightly so." Yes, and there are people who would shoot someone dead for punching them on the nose, and apparently that's perfectly legal.Done with you, vomit your hatred on someone else.
If we can't have a frank and open discussion about racism on a personal level, on an internet forum, how can there be a frank and open discussion on a national level?
The fact I think your comment is racist does not mean I hate you. It means I think you hold a certain negative/positive attitude towards people which is informed by race, and your comments reflect that attitude. You may feel the need to walk away from such a conversation, that's your right, but if you are uncomfortable or afraid to talk about yourself in this regard, then shift the spotlight onto me because I am not:
I am racist.
Before you get the wrong idea, I do not deliberately treat people differently because of the color of their skin, nor do I believe one race is superior or inferior to another. I do all I can to make sure I'm aware of the sensibilities of others, and I challenge racist attitudes where I see them, including my own. However my assumptions and attitudes sometimes reveal a form of inherent racism, and like many I am guilty of occasionally stereotyping people based on what they look like. I am not afraid to openly acknowledge any of that, and neither should I be. These underlying attitudes are the root of the issue and can only be addressed by examining them, along with the thoughts and language we use (language is the foundation of thought so can therefore shape the thoughts and perceptions we hold).
So yes, I think your comment about Obama and Holder having third world impulses is racist, but no pointing that out is not hateful (I certainly don't hate myself). You can throw a hissy fit because someone said something you don't like, or you can continue to discuss your attitudes and opinions and why you hold them. Entirely your choice, but there is no "liberal" conspiracy here. The fact I (and others on this thread) have taken some of your remarks to be racist might be because the attitudes you have expressed and the language you have used to express them have racist undertones. Whether you accept that criticism or not is up to you, but challenging you on those comments is not fuelled by hate. Quite the opposite.
- PrettyPantherposted 10 years ago
0I 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.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.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.
And?
The prosecution is giving the "dead teenagers" side of the story, poorly!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.
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?
Don't know, don't care, screams are just a sideshow.
How are they "just a sideshow"? This is part of Zimmerman defense
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.
The screams stop INSTANTANEOUSLY with the sound of the gun. They do not sound muffled. Seems like they are quite useful.
Weird, he didn't die "INSTANTANEOUSLY" according to the pathologist.
You're right. The medical examiner testified that he died between 1 and 10 minutes after he was shot. He also testified he was shot in the heart and lung. I'm not a doctor but I have a feeling it would be hard to keep screaming loudly under those circumstances.
You're right you are not a Doctor, so any opinion you have is just your opinion. My opinion is mine, and it is my opinion that Zimmerman acted in self defense against a thug and will be found not guilty!
In spite of Obama's ridiculous pandering to the thugs parents and MSNBC doctoring 911 calls.Sounds like you just really, really want an unarmed teenage boy to be guilty.
It isn't about what I want it is simply that he was a thug and now he's dead because he acted on his thug tendencies.
Everyday occurrence in the ghettos of this country, where is your outrage over those kids? Oh, its because other thugs are doing the killing.
When you have an almost white guy kill a thug its because of race, sorry to break it to you but he's dead because of the actions he took!Yeah, he was totally out for blood with his Skittles and Pepsi, THUG LYFE FO LYFE!!
So he isn't a thug because he likes skittles and pepsi?
Fine analysis.You have yet to share your "analysis." LOL
You implied you believe it was GZ. When pressed, you then say you don't care. Fine analysis.I didn't imply anything, I have said I don't know and don't care!
You, in response to my observation that the screaming ends the moment the shot rings out: "I guess if you just shot your attacker there wouldn't be any more reason to scream."
We know that GZ shot Trayvon so you implied that GZ was screaming by this statement.And what about the scream leads you to believe it was Martin?
I told you. You said you don't care so why are you asking?
They most certainly aren't the first things I'd pick up if I were going to assault a guy. If I were a thug out walkin' the streets, livin' da thug lyfe, I'd get something a bit more suited for the task like, you know, a gun. Or maybe a pipe. Or even a 50¢ switchblade knife.
But I most certainly wouldn't go cowboy on a guy twice my size with a bottle of soda and a bag of Skittles.Zimmerman was smaller in stature then Martin, just another way the media has used the little kid picture to tell a lie that the predisposed to accuse the "white hispanic" turn into a means to reject reality - the most uncomfortable thing for a liberal to acknowledge. Are angry, racist teenagers barred from purchasing a snack? Does carrying a snack preclude the possibility of attacking someone? I am sure the most hard core criminal probably has a snack every once in a while.
Certainly reasonable proof that Trayvon Martin didn't attack Zimmerman is that he was carrying a snack.We know Zimmerman was (incorrectly) suspicious of Martin, pursued and deliberately approached him based on that suspicion, and brought a lethal weapon.
We know Martin had no knowledge of Zimmerman until approached, was on a shopping errand, and was unarmed.
You may not get a feeling about the motivations of the two men from that, but I do. And if anyone was required to show sense and not escalate the situation, I would suggest it was the legal adult, not the minor.1) An unfamiliar man in a hoody is in your neighborhood - suspicion is prudent.
2)Pursued is not known neither is approached
3)It is a Constitutionally protected right and a prudent action to be lethally armed, but especially when patrolling your neighborhood, alone at night.
4)If the minor jumps, punches and slams the adults head into the side walk and then sits on his chest beating on him I would suggest that the minor's actions are inexcusable and his motives suspect.
Trayvon Martin was an angry teenager, angry teenagers kill people every day, all over the world.Yup we do know he pursued Martin, listen to 911 tape "Zimmerman: he is running, (sound of Zimmerman running) 911 operator: Are you following him? Zimmerman: yes Operator: Ok we don't need you to do that"
As for that description of the fight only one witness of the seven gave it, most said very different things.
Seems you don't know the first thing about the case.Considerably more conversation proceeds and follows the running, with Zimmerman expressing his frustration with break ins that remain unresolved and his pursuit of someone who appeared suspicious. How evil?!? He hunted him down then beat his face into that poor boys hands until he was bruised an bleeding and then just shot him. Evil?!?
Zimmerman expressed quite plainly in the 911 transcript that he thought the unknown person might have something in his hand - what could it have been? Skittles glow in the dark don't they?
It will be hard to prove murder or manslaughter. The prosecution should have gone for a lesser charge but silliness polluted the process.If I was a seventeen year old being followed by a middle aged man talking on a phone and staring at me I was a dumb eneough kid that I probably would have gone up to him directly, Trayvon being smarter than I was forty plus years ago actually ran, now if that person who was following me now started chasing me I would defend myself if he caught up, according to his girlfriend (far from a perfect source I know) Trayvon was attacked while talking to her, certainly he was talking to her when the fight started so obviously he wasn't looking to fight, no one goes looking for a fight while talking on the phone.
I never said Zimmerman was evil, I am sure he didn't go out to kill someone, he tried to play cop and grab someone he incorrectly thought was committing a crime and thus committed assault and then when that person defended himself he realized he was losing and was in trouble so he shot him. That seems the most likely scenario to me given the evidence.
So I am seventeen some middle aged man is creeping me out and following me talking on the phone, I am scared, I run, he chases me, I call a familiar person to tell them I am being followed, then this person finds me and according to his girlfriend grabs me so the phone goes out of my hands, obviously I fight back, he pulls a gun and shoots me. I did nothing wrong and was murdered simple as that.
We don't know if that happened but it is very much a possibility which needs to be investigated.A possibility is not enough to convict and evidently, you haven't spent much time with angry teenage boys who can drop their lunch trays and start fighting for making the wrong kind of eye contact.
Nope possibilities have to be proven, we will see whether that can be proven.
The temperamental nature of some young males is totally irrelevant to this case.Trayvon Martin's temperament is germane but the courts have denied any mention Martin's pictures, his own gun, his twitter posts, his own real violence. This case was about getting "whitey." If Al Sharpton hadn't assumed that a guy named George Zimmerman was white it is likely this case would have never seen a courtroom. Zimmerman's crime was surviving the encounter. If he had been another young black man this wouldn't even have made the news - witness the near blackout on Chicago carnage.
Yes but no one ever talked about height.
Trayvon martin weighed 160 pounds according to the Sandford Police department, Zimmerman has put on some weight since but weighs about 300 pounds now, if you know anything about any combat sport or fight game you will know that classes are drawn up by weight because it is excepting extreme cases the most important part of the physical characteristics of a fighter or someone involved in a fight.
More to the point we know full well that Trayvon Martin didn't go out looking for trouble #1 because he was on his way back home from the store #2 because we know from the 911 call that he ran away from Zimmerman who chased him.
The truth is it's not a because of the perception of a white man is always the villain it's because of the perception that an adult armed with a gun who follows and kills an unarmed minor after chasing him when he ran away is the villain. We know for a fact that he did all those things.
BTW to counter your witness there are two witnesses who says that the fight had stopped and they had separated before any shots were fired. There are a lot of conflicting witnesses.Have you ever been a competitive fighter? Known one? Youth, speed, physical conditioning are more substantial factors in a fight than size - unless there is a huge physical difference, in this case that difference by the angry, punk attitude of the poor innocent attacker - Trayvon Martin.
"More to the point we know full well that Trayvon Martin didn't go out looking for trouble #1 because he was on his way back home from the store" Omniscience must be painful. I know they weren't looking to fly the planes into the buildings because they had the fish and not the chicken. WOW.
"#2 because we know from the 911 call that he ran away from Zimmerman who chased him." Chased? Chased? is that word anywhere in the recounts of the events?? Tell the story how you like. Martins knuckles were bloody and Zimmerman's head was wounded. Don't let that influence you. OJ didn't do it either.
As for being a "minor" Billy the Kid was a minor also. Minors brutalize and murder people everyday.
" two witnesses who says that the fight had stopped "- Why hasn't that been big news? If true that is the most significant testimony of the trial and yet hasn't been on any networks highlights. Were they actual eye witnesses? We have heard here that the cries for help didn't stop until the gun shot. Which is true?Yup I boxed a bit when I was younger, and that is completely false, fighters peak in their 30s even late thirties, have a look at all the champions there have been not just in boxing but in MMA or whatever flavor you like you will see the average age is late twenties early thirties, never seventeen funnily enough.
Chased is the correct word for a man on a 911 record who can be heard running after someone while saying he is doing so after saying that the person he is chasing is running away. That would be the dictionary definition of chase which is the correct word.
Did I ever say there wasn't a fight?
We were discussing perceptions, people perceive a minor as being more helpless, which in this case he was since he was not armed and his pursuer was.
It has been big news, as I said it seems you know nothing about the case. Either that or get all your news from Fox and co.As for your two other witnesses, please site a source. ABC, NBC and USAToday didn't have any such story. Minors are rarely helpless, when angry enough and unruly enough. I have broken up enough high school fights to know that they can also hit hard enough. As for professional fighter vs. some doughy guy patrolling the neighborhood, if I was 17 I would prefer the doughy guy.
http://www.cfnews13.com/content/dam/new … 012012.wav
That is the direct witness interview of one of them.
It's also covered here:
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/05/18/new … ould-know/
"her friend, who assisted in translating for the eyewitness, was “adamant” that there was no physical fighting taking place when the shot rang out. Both were taken to the police department for more questioning."
Obviously no one would pick the professional fighter of any weight and neither of them was a professional fighter, between a seventeen year old and a thirty year old twice his weight I would easily prefer the seventeen year old.A blitz attack by a seventeen year old resulting in a ground and pound position is very different than a stand up fight. How did Zimmerman end up on the bottom with his head bashed and no damage to Martin except banged up knuckles and a gunshot wound?
That is one witness and she was uncertain which one was in the superior position during the fight - or at least the translation wasn't clear. How about witness two? How about the eyewitness who was just a few yards away who testified that Martin was on top pounding on Zimmerman?
If Zimmerman was unmarked I would be disposed to agree with your points, but he was well banged up with a reasonable expectation of real harm. Sounds like self defense. Prosecution still has to convince the jury that Zimmerman is guilty. He is innocent until the verdict.
I can see how objective you are about this matter, true rightwinger to the end. Any black kid with candy and a soda is a thug, right LD? Maybe you had better turn your lie detecting device on yourself?. Why pretend that you are here to discuss the subject of the thread when you obviously have your mind made up.
Too bad that the technology of the CSI TV series cannot be used here but I will be damned if that man walks without penalty.Then you will be damned, because he is gonna walk!
I'm sure you will survive.
Yes, I have formed an opinion of the screaming based on testimony and hearing the recording. It is just an opinion. On what do you base yours?
Okay, specifically what in the prosecution's report makes you believe the screaming is Zimmerman's? I'm genuinely wanting to know.
Don't know who is screaming and I don't care who is screaming. My opinion is that Zimmerman will not be found guilty.
Pretty Panther, it is obvious that you waste your time with this Lie Detector fellow, like most rightwingers he is firmly enclosed by 'the bubble' most of them live in. Black teen= thug. He does not want to go into it because he is basically takes a racist point ov view and does not want to appear less than polite. He couldn't care less about pursuit of the truth. People like this reflect a larger problem in this culture of ours.
Its about time the racist charge was brought out, what took so long? The only thing it could be is racism...right?
I'm confused as to how you know what race I am? What if I'm black?
By the way, it doesn't concern me in the least if you think I'm racist, something else I don't care about.
Nice edit, why didn't you leave it the way it was?
Good thing I copied your original post
"Pretty Panther, it is obvious that you waste your time with this Lie Detector fellow, like most rightwingers he is firmly enclosed by 'the bubble' most of them live in. Black teen= thug. He does not want to go into it because he is a racist and does not want to appear less than polite. He couldn't care less about pursuit of the truth. People like this reflect a larger problem in this culture of ours."Yes, you are right, and I know better. Sometimes I'm in the mood to mess around with them because I'm a frustrated liberal living in the reddest rural area of a red state.
I gave up on having an actual discussion when it became clear you had no interest in it. Therefore, my continuing to reply to you means that I'm just messing around with someone who, in my view, only continues to expose a lack of thought about the original OP which, in case you forgot, was about who was screaming, a point that you have repeatedly said you don't care about it.
You make about as much sense as a screen door on a submarine.
Nice edit, why didn't you leave it the way it was?
Because it might not be accurate, don't want to cross the fine line of refering to you as a racist, while your attitude here seems to have you acting like one. If you are black then you need to visit a psychiatrist's sofa!
So, I was in error and corrected myself, I am not the first nor the last who has and will make editorial adjustments, so what is your beef? So, what you have is an original post that no longer exists. You appear incapable of discussing this topic with an open mind and objectivity, typical of a dogged rightwinger type....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.
Your opinion is Zimmerman stalked and murdered the poor defenseless skittle eating pepsi drinking angel.
You won't change your opinion so why should I change mine.
I know what you are, and will ignore your cowardice.
I would have some respect for you if you had left your original post up.Aw, someone edited their post to make it less inflammatory. How dare they?
I've done it about a million times. See above. LOLWe have Zimmerman's word that Martin attacked him. We don't have Martin's side because he is dead. So, we must rely on other evidence, much of it circumstantial. The sound of the screaming is one very important piece of evidence. Zimmerman, after all, has motivation to paint himself in the best light possible. Martin doesn't have that luxury.
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"?
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?"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.By ignoring your cowardice I really meant I was going to ignore you.
I guess I had to explain that to you.
Thats sad.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!
Not any sadder than most conservatives on these boards being nothing more than trolls.....
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.
- Sooner28posted 10 years ago0
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. 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.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."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?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.
Cool. I didn't mean you personally I meant whom ever is posting
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?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.
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.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)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?Wasn't it raining that night? Also if you want to talk about credibility lets examine the Medical Examiner...didn't he change his story?
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/7/5/ … s-Opinions
Another way to explain no blood/dna on his hand could simply be that the medical examiner sounds a bit incompetent. Besides changing his story they messed a few other things up (read above link). Also with TM now alive for much longer couldn't he have wiped off the blood himself?
If the wounds on Zimmerman were self inflicted wouldn't this smart top of his class law student also put some blood on Trayvon's hands? Also who falls on their knuckles? Palm of their hands, elbows sure...but knuckles?
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.That's part of the problem, isn't it? NONE of the sources appear credible. About the only "witness" we can believe is the 911 tape and even that could be (and was) doctored to indicate something besides the truth.
Good point - that seems to make sense, that it was Z's blood they were looking for.
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.
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.
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.
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.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=wAPtUfOs7GsIt 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.
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.
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?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?....
Stay away from drugs Span they are bad for you.Seth Winter,
Try a self-evaluation and see if you can't elevate your ideology to a capacity compatible with society.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?
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.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?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.
- PrettyPantherposted 10 years ago0
"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.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.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.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
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 himBut 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.There is no factual indication that Trayvon was a burglar. None whatsoever.
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.Perhaps the soda bottle was his window-breaker. And the Skittles were his...dog repellant?
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."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"
So a suspicious guy is automatically identified as a black kid in a hoodie with skittles and a soda pop? There is a certain mindset for people like Zimmerman, the only thing is that I had outgrown it in Middle school... I am a black guy, what are you following me around for? How do I know that you don't mean to do me harm? By being professional and taking proper instruction from authorities, tragedy can be averted.
Were you not 17 once? Regardless of how this trial turns out, Zimmerman has shown that he is not fit for the law enforcement profession simply due to his stupidity and poor judgment that needlessly cost a teen his life. .He could not be trusted to properly diffuse a hazardous situation as just a flunky security guard! .A suspicious character can be anyone walking around in the dark, let alone a rainy night. So yes, a black kid in a hoodie with skittles and a soda walking in the rain/dark is suspicious. Might as well drop the soda and skittles line though, it was dark and far away Zimmerman probably didn't know what was in Trayvon's hands.
As for Zimmerman being unfit to be a police officer I can't attest to that. But I can say he probably acted rightly. Trayvon deserved a bullet if it went down like Zimmerman said. Some guy punching you senseless, smashing your head into the concrete and only moments before screaming "You're going to die tonight," if it went down like that then he acted rightly.
Although I doubt he will be able to go into law enforcement after this. Too many racists wanting to make a name for themselves. His best bet would be to stay away from Law Enforcement, change his name and maybe plastic surgery.
http://www.examiner.com/article/twitter … ite-people"So yes, a black kid in a hoodie with skittles and a soda walking in the rain/dark is suspicious."
I saw the link, not much different from the stuff I was hearing from Whites after the OJ trial, I dismiss people of all groups who behave in this way.
Seth, that is your bias and one of the reasons why so much attention has gone to this case. Profiling is a negative practice and is going to stir trouble with ethnic communities and deservably so. So if he were a white kid, would you have believed that Trayvon qualified as 'being suspicious"? You did mention that the fact that he was a black kid gave you just cause to be suspicious.......BTW I saw the link, not much different that the stuff I was getting from whites after the OJ trial, do have a lot of respect for mob behavior regardless of the source.
"So yes, a black kid in a hoodie with skittles and a soda walking in the rain/dark is suspicious."
I think the point was that taking out the descriptive term "black" results in a sentence that is just as true. Or replacing "black" with "white", "hispanic", "oriental" or any other race. The preceding sentence in the post, after all, says just that.Taking a quote out of context way to go Credence. Like Wilderness pointed out the preceding sentence said it all. I'll fully quote myself and answer your question.
"A suspicious character can be anyone walking around in the dark, let alone a rainy night. So yes, a black kid in a hoodie with skittles and a soda walking in the rain/dark is suspicious. "
So you could say this "A White(Hispanic, etc) kid in a hoodie with skittles and a soda walking in the rain/dark is suspicious.
And IMO one of the reasons this case has been so popular is because of people like you Credence. AKA people who want to make a race issue out of everything. Get over yourselves and stop the victim mentality. If you want to find a true racial issue just read the news, it happens all the time. White against black, black against white, hispanic against white, etc. But this case, was a case of a man defending himself again a kid who made poor choices.
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.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.I didn't say carrying a gun makes George a bad person. He is obviously a stupid person with poor judgment.
And why does Trayvon need to be vindicated at all? There is NO evidence he did anything. Yet, he is dead because cowardly George Z. got scared after a situation he created out of his own stupidity and self-importance went bad.
I cut the guy no slack."He is obviously a stupid person with poor judgment." What makes you think this? What evidence are you going by to claim Zimmerman is stupid with poor judgement. Or is he stupid with poor judgement because he's half white?
Well if the scene went down like Zimmerman claimed it did then Trayvon died an attempted murderer. Stating "Your going to die tonight" right before attempting to brain a person is wrong you know.Geez, what is with you and the "white" thing? I have not mentioned race once, yet you keep bringing it up.
Let's see, what would make me think George Z. has poor judgment?
1. He followed a teenager after being told not to by the 911 operator. Following is also against the guidelines for his neighborhood watch association. Once he made the call, his duty ended and the fact that he kept going shows poor judgment.
2. He did not identify himself to Trayvon. A simple, "Hi, I'm George. I'm with neighborhood watch" might have been enough to allay Trayvon's fears.
3. If George can't defend himself against an unarmed young man without shooting him, then what the hell is he doing following someone who he thinks is a bad guy?
Stupidity and poor judgment all the way around.
Ok, Wilderness and Seth, I hear you, but I still say the Zimmerman's choice was one of poor judgement and a trigger happy state, looking for a confrontation when he should have followed directions of authorities. His comments over the phone call certainly would make one believe that racial bias played a role in all of this. That my problem with your folks generally and we are going to have to work to correct it if we are going avoid confronting one another over similar issues in the future. For the black community, these sorts of things are not going away.
You may certainly make any choices you wish, but...
The 911 call has just one reference to race - when the operator asked what race the "suspect" was. There is no reason to think Zimmerman was racist as the evidence points otherwise. You may still make the decision to declare that asking a man what race another person is and getting an honest answer means they are racist of course, and seem to have done so.
I also understand that too many of the "black community you evidently identify with" (and other races as well) will make that type of decision; being racist themselves they cannot accept that others are not.
"My folks", whether black, white, hispanic or any other, do not make such calls. Answering a question as to race with a truthful observation does not a racist make.Did not Zimmerman make racial slurs over the telephone, tell me if that was not true
I think he did, although some people will deny it because it isn't crystal clear.
Not that I heard. Martin apparently did, but I think you've really got to dig and make some pretty unwarranted calls to "hear" it from Zimmerman. As PP says, it isn't very clear at all.
I remember hearing about racial slurs early on - but then it was determined that a radio station (or something) had altered the audio to make it appear racial in nature.
Out of curiosity, I listened to the audio and could not hear anything that sounded like a racial slur. The Prosecution did not present anything along those lines so I'm guessing even they did not think they could make the jury believe there was a racial slur.
Maybe Zimmerman meant blacks when he said "f-ing punks" but that's not evident on the tape.
I wonder if this jury will take a long time to deliberate once it gets the case? Or, if they will all agree early on and it'll all be (thankfully) over?
This has been in the news for so long - I think we're all ready for it to be over, no matter what the jury decides.
B&E is frequently a crime of opportunity and usually a youth crime.
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.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.I have no response to this. It is clear my point went whoosh right over your head. It is equally clear where your inability to see it comes from.
Apparently you had no real point to make since Zimmerman isn't white any more than Barrack Obama is white, no real point there. Teenagers who commit B&E at night are far more common than serial killers, so where is the point. Still looking for it. As for your assumption about my motivations - why not elucidation. Could it be the all too easy and all too typical?
I don't think whites are any more likely (percentage wise) to be serial killers than other races.
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.Look, this is ridiculous. Of course, as a neighborhood watch member, it was a legitimate concern for GZ to wonder why Trayvon was walking around in the rain at night. He called the police and that is where it should have ended. George violated the request of the 911 operator who said he shouldn't follow Travon AND he violated neighborhood watch protocol that says he should not follow anyone.
George stupidly created a situation that resulted in the death of a young man. Whether Trayvon attacked first or not, it doesn't matter to me. If I was being followed at night in the rain by a guy who trails me in his vehicle then gets out of his vehicle to follow me I would be afraid he were a rapist, a killer, or a kidnapper. George Z created his own problem. I can't believe anyone would defend his stupidity.Zimmerman obviously did not trust the authorities to handle the situation.
He wanted to be a hero and he wanted to make sure that this time the (expletive deleted) did NOT get away.
Did he set out to kill Trayvon Martin?
I doubt it.
Still, what did he really expect to do if he apphrehended Martin?I agree Mighty Mom. He was playing the role of hero - and it went wrong...badly.
He took his Neighborhood Watchman job WAY too seriously. I agree that he probably did not set out to kill Martin, but his behavior was stupid. Sadly, there is no law against being stupid.
I'm guessing that he will walk, but I haven't followed the trial like some others here have, so who knows?I won't be surprised if he walks. If he does, don't be surprised if certain wannabe cops with guns start walking around at night looking for a reason to shoot those guns to stop the bad guys, just like good ol' Georgie.
Amazing! We agree on something! Logic would tell me to take it and run... but being a liberal and thus not logical, I just have to chime back in.
The jury is going to have the option to find Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter instead of murder.
Here's what I found on the definition of Manslaughter in the state of Florida:
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
.
The original manslaughter jury instruction was approved by the Supreme Court in 1970.
The Court also approved a culpable negligence instruction that same year. The definition of "culpable negligence" in the two instructions was not identical.
The manslaughter instruction defined "culpable negligence" as follows.
Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care. Reasonable care is that degree of care which a reasonably careful person would use under like circumstances. Negligence may consist either of doing something that a reasonably careful person would not do under like circumstances or in failing to do something that a reasonably careful person would do under like circumstances.
Culpable negligence is a conscious doing of an act or following a course of conduct which any reasonable person would know would likely result in death or great bodily injury to some other person when done without the intent to injure any person but with utter disregard for the safety of others.Strictly speaking, Zimmerman does not appear to be guilty of Manslaughter.
I think he expected to either keep an eye on Martin until the cops arrived or to be in a position to stop him if he did try to do something, but at the very least he wanted Martin to know he was being watched. Unfortunately, things didn't work out like he had it in his mind as Martin switch from flight mode to fight mode and as such Zimmerman was forced to go to plan B which is to take the action he needed to take to survive. In regards to the OP, I can't say for sure whose voice it is because I never heard either Martin or Zimmerman speak, but If I were in Zimmerman's position and I knew I had a Gun, I'd be too focused on getting to my gun if I was getting my butt kicked to be doing any screaming.
Wanting to be a hero and wanting to make sure the police have sufficient information to make an arrest - Interesting - God forbidden there ever be people who act heroically - even when they set out to be heroic. I Don't think Zimmerman is either one.
Nothing in the 911 call record suggests that he was trying to apprehend Martin, just follow him so that police knew where he was.
Pretty Panther here's a few things for you to chew on...
Robin Hudson and Valerie Russell did more then call the cops, stupid neighborhood watch saved a 13 year old girl from being raped.
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index … s_sav.html
Julie Zmerzlikar is also a person who is stupid (at least according to PrettyPanther). She's a neighborhood watch block captain who followed a Bulgar in her car until they police were able to arrive.
http://www.thepress.net/view/full_story … es-the-day
'
Another story of neighborhood watch members who saved four people in a capsized canoe...stupid people should have let those in the canoe drown and waited for the police to arrive.
http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/ba … tch_m.html
In short PrettyPanther I completely agree neighborhood watch should let people die in favor of allowing the police arrive late (I hope nobody missed the heavy sarcasm).I didn't miss the sarcasm, but In this specific example, She stayed in her car while following the burglar til cops arrived[/] (Proper Neighborhood watch protocol. Zimmerman [b]Got out of his car to follow Martin. Neighborhood watch is a very valuable community resource, but there are still rules and guidelines that Zimmerman chose not to follow and his actions led to Martin's death. I agree that Neighborhood watch should not be dismantled, but the people involved should follow the protocols and there should be more of a legal ramification for going outside of those rules if it results in the harm of another person
Exactly. I didn't read every one of those examples, and I specifically said GZ did his duty by calling 911. I am all for responsible neighborhood watch programs. I am NOT for letting a stupid man like GZ shoot someone without consequences after stupidly following a person in such a manner that would understandably create great fear in that person.
"In short PrettyPanther I completely agree neighborhood watch should let people die in favor of allowing the police arrive late (I hope nobody missed the heavy sarcasm)."
Yeah, death by skittles is a horrible thing (I hope nobody missed the heavy sarcasm). Death by gun, however, is real. Trayvon Martin is dead because GZ behaved counter to his specific instructions and training and he should not walk away without consequences for his irresponsible and destructive behavior that resulted in the death of a minor.Not to mention the potential danger Zimmerman placed himself in by his actions.
So he does not have the right to defend himself because he made bad decisions. Good to know, I am sure that will be reassuring to any young woman who has chosen the wrong bar or alley or dorm room.
Um, a young girl hanging out in a dorm room or walking in an alley is not equivalent to a grown man following a teenager in the dark, in the rain, first by vehicle then on foot without identifying himself. Not even close.
So Zimmerman is to be stripped of his freedom because he made bad decisions in following the wrong person. The wrong person is a common denominator in both scenarios. Bad decisions are common denominators in both scenarios. Not as different as some would like to pretend. Reality is uncomfortable for liberals.
Zimmerman should be stripped of his freedom because he shot an unarmed boy. In this scenario, he caused the situation with his own actions.
I'm not going to get into what is a "bad decision" in other scenarios.So he should have lain on the pavement and get pounded to death? So when someone leaves their front door unlocked - a stupid thing to do - and confronts a home intruder(before he says or takes anything), with a pistol tucked in her robe pocket and, in the subsequent struggle, shoots him to death, despite his not being armed, she should be stripped of her freedom?
Started with her doing something stupid
She confronted him rather than just let him take what he wanted and go - even though she confronted him before he took anything
There is a struggle
She shoots the unarmed boy to death
wicked stupid womanThere is a difference between a person confronting a home intruder and shooting an intruder in defense of their home..
Zimmerman is not guilty of murder by any means, but he is guilty of manslaughter because his actions (getting out of his car in violation of watch rules and against advice of 911) led to the death of another person. Him shooting martin may not have been malicious, but it was negligence. That is why manslaughter was added as a lesser charge.
That's like DUI manslaughter. there may not be intent, but the chosen actions still lead to death. Difference here Zimmerman knew exactly what he was trying to do (though things didn't work out how he pictured it in his head) and though He didn't intend for Martin to die, his actions still caused death.. He should be imprisoned.One big difference, Martin also took actions that precipitated his death. The person killed by the drunk driver does not actively participate. As for belonging behind bars, we will have to disagree.
Martin had the right to defend himself against someone who got out of their car to follow him. Martin didn't know what Zimmerman wanted and it is reasonable to believe that someone getting out of their car to follow AFTER following in his car may be a kidnapper, stalker, or killer himself. Martin defended himself against a perceived threat and was killed defending himself.
PrettyPanther, because girls who dress slutty (bad decisions) deserved to be raped.
Wow, really. That is what you take away from all of this? Typical.
I also have not followed this story very closely, but I would like to ask a serious question to PrettyPanther.. How was Zimmerman to know he was following a 17 year old... in the rain.. in the dark... wearing a hoodie... walking away from him? How was he to know that Martin was defenseless? I personally think both parties did stupid things and if Martin had killed Zimmerman he too would have a case of self-defense. I don't think Zimmerman murdered him, but neither do i think he was perfectly innocent.
Ah, well, I had not listened to the 911 call. No need to get testy about it.
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"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"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 carNicely 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.
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?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.
like I said you buy Zimmerman's story and for you that's that
You don't know if he's telling it the way it "all went down" or not, every counter argument you make is because you buy his version of the events.
if Martin could tell his side of the story you'd probably still believe Zimmerman anywayOkay, so lets assume I'm buying Zimmerman's story completely. Your telling me Martin has no story, because he's dead. Then what exactly do the supports (like you) base their belief on? Are you blindly supporting someone who's side doesn't have a legitimate story, because the Lawyers or family should of been able to come up with something?
I'm guessing you don't and I'm just going to finally drop the "bomb" here. Why are you blindly supporting him? Probably because of skin color. Racism. Same thing goes for most of the supporters.
If you think he's innocent and if you think your not supporting Trayvon because of certain peoples skin then answer this one SIMPLE question.
What happened that? Throw out a theory that supports the facts. You can't and you won't because you support Trayvon because (you both?) is blackWow calling people racist huh?
Ok story totally in line with the facts we have:
Trayvon is walking home and Zimmerman is following him talking on the phone, Trayvon notices he is being followed and as is scared (as any teen should be when being followed by a middle age man at night) the first thing he does is he runs (as Zimmerman said in the 911 call) and Zimmerman chases after him after being told not to by the 911 operator and even though neighborhood watch rules are specifically not to do so. In my view being chased at night by a middle aged man is more than enough to make any teen fear for his life/safety.
It appears that Trayvon is able to lose him for a minute so he pulls out his phone and calls his girlfriend to tell her he is being followed, he probably hopes that being on the phone with someone will make him safer, he is obviously scared. At this point Zimmerman finds him, his girlfriend says that it sounds like Zimmerman grabs him and he drops the phone, Trayvon at this point has been followed, chased after trying to escape and probably assaulted, he defends himself as he is fully within his rights to do and Zimmerman shoots him.
It's obvious that Trayvon didn't go looking for the fight because he ran first and then was on the phone when the fight started.Interesting take, and the first time I think I've seen anyone promote the idea that Zimmerman made the first "touch" by assaulting Martin.
"story totally in line with the facts we have" - what "facts" would support that idea? That Zimmerman had previously reported many suspicious characters without ever touching them? That it would be an exceedingly stupid thing to do while tailing a person, waiting for the cops to show up? That Zimmerman was suspicious that Martin was engaged in criminal activity and thus needed to be assaulted? That Zimmerman excelled in law classes and knew assault was illegal?As I said it's what his girlfriend who heard it happen said, she said the phone was knocked out of his hand and she thought it was from him being grabbed.
And that does make complete sense if Zimmerman was chasing someone and he got away then found him again he might well want to grab him to stop him from getting away again.
BTW did you know every single person Zimmerman reported as suspicious was black?
If Zimmerman was so smart and well versed why did he violate the rules of neighborhood watch and put himself in a situation where he ended up chasing and shooting an unarmed and innocent kid before being put on trial for murder?
No a smart person well versed in what he was doing would simply call the police and follow neighborhood watch rules.I see. The girl friend, listening on the phone and who has no idea why the phone was dropped, says it was because Zimmerman assaulted Martin. The same girl friend that has changed her story at least once. Good reason to make the call, I suppose, if we're not particularly interested in actual facts.
What makes you think Zimmerman was "so smart"? His actions indicate otherwise... And what does following the rules of neighborhood watch have to do with the law on assault? Even more importantly, what do the rules have to do with being assaulted while walking back to his car?
Absolutely, a smart person would have reported their suspicious and then gone home. Especially after the police have failed several times to get there in time to find the suspicious character and there have been a rash of break ins, one should not keep a suspect in visual range - just go home and wait for the cops to take too long again.
"BTW did you know every single person Zimmerman reported as suspicious was black?" Zimmerman's 91 calls:
12. Nov. 25, 2007 – 12:21 a.m.
Type: 911
Subject: Disturbance
Report: White male ex-roommate last seen wearing a red Florida State University shirt
10. June 24, 2007 – 12:48 a.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Suspicious activity
Report: “By the pool”, two Hispanic males and one white male with “slim jim”
1. Aug. 12, 2004 – 9:59 a.m.
Type: 911
Subject: Suspicious activity
Report: Places a call reporting a male in a green Ford pickup
32. Oct. 2, 2010 – 1:55 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Disturbance
Report: Zimmerman reports “blu jeep grand Cherokee female driver yelling at elderly passengers … windows are tinted” … “the veh was rocking back and forth and he could hear the female yelling”
In addition, there are many more where race isn't mentioned. It would appear that your "information" is much like the girl friend's report; someone spreading rumors that have no basis in fact.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … e-log.htmlYeah she did and actually one can get a pretty good grasp of what is going on from listening to it, as she is the only witness to what happened then except for the guy who has every single reason in the world to lie about it I would say that is the best evidence available.
Yeah he failed to follow the rules of the neighborhood watch and chased a teenager for no reason except he looked suspicious, I have no trouble believing he would grab him.
Yup and a smart person wouldn't have killed an innocent boy and be on trial for murder.
In fact a smart person would know that you are creating a terrible situation when you as a middle aged man follow and chase a teen while armed, but that requires brain cells to rub together to figure out.
As for the last thing my bad, I misread the article it was this year, of the 9 calls.
So yes totally in line with the facts of the case. Frankly I think if someone is following and then chasing you and obviously making you fear for your life/safety you have the right to defend yourself. Don't you?I'd have to disagree that the girlfriend is an objective witness. She didn't see anything (just made conclusions from hearing sounds), she changed her story and is about as objective as Zimmerman is.
I saw a couple of reports of Z's 911 calls, listing nothing but black males. Really objective they were, and totally not racist as well. Not.
"I think if someone is following and then chasing you and obviously making you fear for your life/safety you have the right to defend yourself. Don't you?"
Personally, I'd have to say that your fear does not give you the right to smash someone's nose without prior physical provocation. There are simply too many other options to counter being followed at a distance, particularly with a phone in hand. I'd also have to say that claiming that Zimmerman was "chasing" (mental picture of Martin pounding down the street with Zimmerman in hot pursuit at full gallop and quickly closing the distance) is a little out of line. I don't think Z had any intention of coming into contact with Martin; he only wanted him in sight. At some point, Martin became the stalker, stalking Zimmerman in order to confront and that takes it away from self defense. At least that's the impression I get; I would expect the trial to bring that out if it is at all relevant.So you are saying you think Trayvon after having run away, then turned around, pulled out his phone, started talking to his girlfriend, then while talking to her ambushed Zimmerman and beat him down? That is actually what you think happened?
If so then there is nothing more to discuss.
Josak
it doesn't matter what other version you present to Seth he will dismiss it because he already has his mind made up and he's not really open to questioning Zimmerman's motives or if he's lying.
The prosecutors in their closing statements today presented all the lies and contradictory statements Zimmerman made about "how it all went down";
But that won't and doesn't matter to Seth because to him it's only the "black racists" who would question Zimmerman's questionable actions in this case. He sounds like he has some pent up anger about black people and racism.The girlfriend you mean the statutory rapist? You know having sex with minor's is against the law right? Irrelevant though.
Josak a few gaps in your story. What happened after Zimmerman supposedly assaulted Trayvon? DId he throw punches, when did begin screaming for help, when was the gun drawn?
(side note: I wonder if Trayvon used the can of Arizona Ice Tea as a blunt object for bashing in Z's nose? That would explain no DNA)No I don't mean the statutory rapist. Firstly she is under age too so she can't be a statutory rapist and secondly Florida has a closeness of age law, meaning that even if she was 22 and Trayvon was 17 that would have been legal. Does the qualify as spreading false rumors?
We have no idea what happened in the fight, we would be guessing. Witnesses differ on when he was shot, one witness said he was shot while they were fighting with Trayvon on top, another witness said the fight was over when he was shot, it's pretty confused and not that relevant.
I assume they would check the can too, Zimmerman would have mentioned it and it would leave very different marks so I think we can probably say no.
Well the Law of Closeness might protect her but she is 18. Check your facts. A simple google search would do it or if you don't believe that watch the trial. So she's only a rapist in some states, but a perjury in all. Lying under oath.
As for the fighting it's extremely relevant. In an above post I posted a challenge. For the racist Trayvon Supporters to show they weren't blindly supporting someone based on color, that they were in fact basing their support on facts. But like your above post I see a lack of facts.
Those who believe Zimmerman have an account that sounds legit. Trayvon supporters don't.Well if she is 18 then the law of closeness would means he did nothing wrong.
However I would like a link to prove she is as I think you a e wrong that she was 18 at the time. She may have turned 18 since but it's been a long time. Also you would have to prove she actually had sex with him.
No the fight isn't relevant, what matters is who started the fight, what happened during the actual fight has no legal consequence except in terms of whether Zimmerman felt in fear for his life and no one is disputing that here. SO it's irrelevant.
We also have no way of knowing hat happened at the start of the fight so it's all just guessing.
Zimmerman supporters actually have no believable story at all. That story (believing what Zimmerman says) requires you to believe that Trayvon Martin ran away, then called his girlfriend telling her he was being followed and was worried, then turned around, still talking to his girlfriend, then ambushed Zimmerman (while still talking to his girlfriend). That is not a believable story in the slightest, in fact it makes no sense at all. If you are going to ambush someone you hang up, it's laughable actually.
The real reason a lot of people support Zimmerman, such as yourself is like you have said before is because you think Trayvon was a dog and it was good he was put down which "obviously" has nothing to do with race.
Unable to do a google search on the age huh? I guess typing it up can be hard..but here you go.
http://www.legalspeaks.com/2013/06/rach … s-volumes/
Rachel Jeantel (Trayvon's booty call/friend-not his girlfriend) has changed her account multiple times...been caught lying under oath. So actually if you remove the liars statement his story check out.
As for thinking of Trayvon was a dog...I have said that. But I believe he tried to kill Zimmerman in cold blood, and would have if Zimmerman didn't have a gun. It's nothing to do with race, if you try to murder someone for no real reason and you end up dead...well then that's on you.
The fighting is relevant. You just don't want to address things like who screamed for help? IF Trayvon was screaming for help, when did he scream? Was it as simple as Zimmerman aka "Creepy azz Cracka" grabbing him moments before shooting him? But that leaves out the wounds on the knuckles (Martin) and head wounds of Zimmerman.
Josak, you want to think of the fight as irrelevant because you can't think of any way it went down that people won't pick it apart with facts.Cool she was 18, which means it was totally legal and not statutory rape.
Well no even if you completely ignore her story (lying about your age is irrelevant anyway) but even if you do then the phone records themselves show Trayvon was on the phone the whole time, no one ambushes and attempts to murder someone in cold blood while on the phone, especially after having already run away, it makes no sense at all. It's ludicrous in fact.
It's not relevant at all to whether Zimmerman is guilty or not. Simple as that.
But since you insist I imagine (and we are guessing here) that Zimmerman grabbed him, Trayvon grabbed him back, they wrestled a bit, they fell, Trayvon was on top and hit him maybe covered his mouth (or just grazed his hand when he fell who knows especially since there is no DNA on his hands), Zimmerman pulled the gun and shot him in the heart, Zimmerman said he grabbed for the gun but there is no gunpowder residue on Trayvon's hands so is almost certainly false.
I have no idea who was yelling for help.
Go ahead man pick it apart with the facts
The reason I didn't cover it is because legally what happened during the fight does not matter at all. Please demonstrate the legal significance of what happened after the fight began." no gunpowder residue on Trayvon's hands "
A clean pistol, in the rain, not recently fired would leave no GSR. If Martin's hand had been on the pistol when it was fired there would have been GSR, but expert testimony said Martin was in a seated position when shot - not a prone position.
"what happened during the fight does not matter at all"
Indeed it does, if Zimmerman feared for his life this immediately becomes self defense. Being in a fight in which one is being pounded on the side walk is certainly a life threatening situation, however one need not even be touched to fear for one's life - LEGALLY.Yeah which proves he was not going for his gun when he shot him.
I said exactly that before:
"what happened during the actual fight has no legal consequence except in terms of whether Zimmerman felt in fear for his life and no one is disputing that here. So it's irrelevant."
~Me a few minutes ago.
Although it is worth noting that Martin had every reason to feel that his life was threatened when being chased by a middle aged man who had followed him.Not in the quote excerpted, unless later edited. As for Martin in fear, he had a phone and yet no 911 call - isn't that the universal solution for liberals? He was near his father's home yet no dash to the safety of home? No fear expressed to the incredible ear witness who can tell when a phone slips from a rain slick hand and when some "creepy cracker" jumps Trayvon?
As for feeling in fear for his life, that is all that is required for a legal action of self defense. If Zimmerman feared for his life, which "no one is disputing ...here," than Zimmerman should be acquitted.
Thanks for clearing up that simple logic.What does being liberal, or conservative for that matter, have to do with this case? I know quite a few conservatives who think George Zimmerman is an idiot who created his own mess then got scared and took the cowardly way out by shooting an unarmed teenager.
It is sad the conservatives can be so silly.
You are right, of course, he should have let Martin beat him to death.
Let me remind you of all that really matters, since the Martin family cannot have their son back - though I would think everyone, even that sociopath George Zimmerman, wishes they could.
"As for feeling in fear for his life, that is all that is required for a legal action of self defense. If Zimmerman feared for his life, which "no one is disputing ...here," than Zimmerman should be acquitted."Again, we only have Georgie's word that he was about to be beaten to death, a George is a proven liar. For a guy near death, he sure had a lot of energy immediately following the fight and didn't even see a doctor until the next day and that was because his employer required it so he could return to work.
Proven liar? So the prosecution proved he lied? Than the jury should have no troubles. I wonder if the defense tried to prove Martin was a dope smoking, gun loving, angry teenage thug? Neither really matter if the evidence is insufficient to prove Zimmerman guilty of a crime. Think of him as the Hispanic OJ.
Yes, the prosecution proved he lied about multiple things. Pay attention.
Any of them actually germane to the case? Lie or was mistaken or forgot, all very different things.
Well, his wife and he did lie about how much money had been raised for his defense.
Another example of a lie he told? Try and follow along with the conversation.
Is he obligated to tell how much money he has raised? There has been so many lies and manufacturing of "evidence" that there isn't any reason to believe you or anyone else.
Kid attacked him and he had every right to defend himself, probably shouldn't have brought skittles to a gunfight!Since she lied to a judge I'd say, yes, he and his wife were obligated to reveal how much money had been raised if asked by a judge.
Ok, I knew about that one. I seriously thought we were talking about something directly related to this trial. It may speak to credibility, but the past misconduct of a defendant unrelated to the charges in a subsequent trial are usually excluded. It is, after all, a court of law not a court of feelings or opinions. Zimmerman may have lied about assets available for posting bond, but that is not related to the charges he currently faces.
It is as if he were a pimp and facing manslaughter charges, he may be a reprehensible person but that is typically inadmissible - unless one is directly related to the other, like the pimp killed his hooker while roughing her up for money. No one denies the defendant profession is illegal but that is not germane.Then why has Treyvon Martin's past been brought up again and again as if it is why he was killed?
In the court room? Are Trayvon's efforts to illegally purchase a firearm damaging enough to his character to believe he initiated the fight? Or is it, as I believe, immaterial. However, the prosecutor's office hid that, and much more, from the defense. Does that call their ethics into question?
To me it sets a pattern of a man who is willing to lie about anything. Why believe anything he says then?
Are you a jurist? Ibet Bill Clinton is happy you weren't in the Grand Jury to which he lied.
Does it matter? A lie is a lie and that is what we're talking about.
Yes it matters, it is a criminal offense to lie under oath. I have no obligation to tell you the truth otherwise.
The facts remain constant, Martin attacked Zimmerman and he was killed. Nothing else matters!He defended himself against a man with a gun who was following him. IF he actually did fight Zimmerman and managed not to get any DNA on his hands or blood...
Zimmerman has been in trouble with the law more than Martin was, Zimmerman has proven that he is a liar (regardless of under oath or not, he DID lie to a judge)Other things matter. What happened that caused Martin to attack Zimmerman? Did Martin pull Zimmerman out of his car or did Zimmerman decide that martin was a burglar and get out of his car trying to be hero? Bottom line (though you may choose to ignore it) Had it not been for Zimmerman's actions (though not malicious intent has not been proven), Martin would still be alive. At the very least, Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter.
"As for feeling in fear for his life, that is all that is required for a legal action of self defense. If Zimmerman feared for his life, which "no one is disputing ...here," than Zimmerman should be acquitted."
Doesn't even require physical contact, legally. Not even a doctor's excuse.Site references, please, for the Zimmerman is a liar position. Been searching but not found specific references to specific lies addressed by the prosecution. Of course, liars are not allowed the right of self defense.
Then you clearly haven't been watching the trial.....
I have been reading and watching multiple summaries - I have a life. Still site the source or the specific "lie" since lie is a very specific thing.
Zimmerman appeared on Sean Hannity's show and said he had not heard of the stand your ground law until after the shooting. His professor testified that the stand your ground law was discussed multiple times in a course in which George Zimmerman was a student. He remembered George Z. as one of his best students and George received an "A" in the course.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50150225n
That is just one lie. If you've truly been following the case you would know about the others.
So basically, your argument is that he's innocent because you think liberals are stupid?
FWIW, I have a feeling that Zimmerman will be convicted of manslaughter.
As do I, though the evidence does not prove it. It is hard to not get the verdict the prosecution wants when it is also the verdict that will keep riots from breaking out and keep mindless reactionaries like Al Sharpton, Eric Holder and Barrack Obama happy. Zimmerman will by thrown to the wolves to silence the mob - sounds like another time and place, but the faces have changed.
Already making excuses for Georgie in case he gets convicted of manslaughter, I see. To suggest that a jury of six people who have been sequestered during the trial and who have heard every piece of evidence presented will base their decision upon keeping Al Sharpton and Barack Obama happy is an indication that your thinking about this case is tainted and warped.
They love to throw the names of the "boogey men" around, no matter what the circumstances
Yes, he seems to think poor Georgie is the victim, even though he's the one still breathing.
He is the victim, the one not breathing was the guilty party.
So you think that after a fight broke out neither party is responsible for the actions that take place as long as it can be established who threw the first punch. That's stupid. While the person who actually initiated the fight is a key factor what took place afterwards can have major impact on the case and decided if Zimmerman is innocent or guilty.
For instance the yelling. Very subjective. But if Trayvon was yelling (pleading) for help moments before Zimmerman shot him it shows the case in a completely different light doesn't it? Whereas if Zimmerman was pleading for his life by yelling help it could show the true nature of Trayvon.
Even without Trayvon going for the gun, we still have offensive wounds on Martin's knuckles and one beatup Mexican.
I've heard only vaguely of the Law of Closeness, can you provide a link?Nope none of that has any legal relevance, if someone attacks me and I beat them up afterwards then I am still the victim of assault and thus have legal right to defend myself.
Who was screaming is an interesting question we will probably never have an answer to but it legally does not matter in terms of who is guilty of what.
Offensive injuries can obviously be the result of defending yourself and as I said it looks like Martin ended up on top and maybe hit him (or just hit his knuckles on the pavement when they were falling who knows?).
I hope Wikipedia is ok, otherwise I am sure I can find something else.
"The age of consent in Florida is 18, but close in age exemptions exist. By law, the exception permits a person 23 years of age or younger to engage in legal sexual activity with a minor aged 16 or 17."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_co … ca#Florida
Actually it does. Being assaulted gives you the legal right to defend yourself. Not commit murder. To be able to legally kill another to protect one self you have to be able to prove that your life was threatened. Having your head smashed against concrete is life threatening.
Knuckles hitting the pavement? Really, your going to pass that one off?"Knuckles hitting the pavement? Really, your going to pass that one off?"
The medical examiner specifically testified that the abrasions on the Trayvon's hand were so minor they could have resulted from his hand hitting the pavement when he fell. So, Josak doesn't have to "pass that one off" since an expert says it could have happened that way.So could have is sufficient to strip a man of his freedom. That is really what we are talking about. George Zimmerman is innocent - INNOCENT - until the jury says otherwise.
Yes, he is. He might even be found innocent by the jury. That won't change my opinion of his stupidity.
Juries do not find INNOCENCE only guilty. He is already innocent. Hard concept to be sure, for some.
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.Have you considered SpanStar that you just might be blinded by racism?
LOL, you're a textbook case of projection.
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.
;-)
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...Buzz off Wilderness the crystal ball's mine, mine I tell you!
You can have it. The darned thing is always lying anyway.
http://breakingbrown.com/2013/07/must-r … onviction/
Some facts... with sources.... from conservativesGuess it doesn't matter since he was found not guilty...
wow....As many of us expected. The State simply didn't make its case.
I'll agree that they didn't fully prove 2nd degree murder.
I'm just as sure that they proved manslaughter.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.
Kind of like OJ and the people he didn't slaughter.
Well, most of us believe OJ was guilty, as was Casey Anthony.
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.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.
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.My thing is I don't understand why it is not premeditated? Everything about that night was deliberate by Mister Zimmerman.
Omniscience and omnipresence must be a terrible burden.
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.If Zimmerman actually believed his life was in danger than he also acted morally. It is morally imperative to protect one's own life.
Premeditated what? He followed the kid, not against the law! The kid assaulted Zimmerman, that is against the law!
Premeditated what?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.Wasn't it Trayvon the knew MMA not Zimmerman?
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.
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!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.
I heard the 911 tapes and you are correct. He didn't know the kids race when asked by the operator, I mentioned profiling only because that is the story the prosecution and the people here said. It isn't a crime for a private person to profile anyway.
For an individual, profiling may actually be an evolutionary imperative.
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.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.
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...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."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."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.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?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 MiamiThe 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?
Legal right, obviously even though it borders on slander.
Ethical right - absolutely not. Unless you sat on that jury, listened to ALL the evidence and carefully weighed it with full knowledge that your decision would effect another person's freedom and were willing to give a verdict within the law you do not have the right to declare the verdict wrong.It is the big picture, not just the verdict. There are the contributory factors in this case that led to the tragedy beyond what appeared to be self defense by Zimmerman. I have a right to my opinion and can declare it wrong, and many can say the same as long as they express peacefully, I see no conflict. There are many things that I do not agree with the establishment about, I live with it, but that does not deprive me of an opinion and a right to express it.
What I said isn't it? You have a legal right to your opinion. You even have the right to question the verdict, but if and when you choose to declare the verdict wrong even though you weren't at the trial and didn't hear the evidence or have any concern about the effect your statement might have you have crossed both ethical and possibly legal lines.
As a private citizen, why can I not say whatever I like? How does my expression rise to level where it has legal ramifications, I have no involvement in the process and no control over the outcome,? Ethical or no how am I at risk for expressing my opinion, regardless of what the jury came up with? Is this not America?Well, there are a great deal of people doing what I do, lets see how anyone would dare say that speech is inflamatory and rising to the level of litigation...
Does your opinion, expressed in public forum, have potential to harm Zimmerman? Do you always make plain that your opinion is not based on facts but on an opinion that a stranger must be racist because a black boy is dead?
I am fully aware that a great many people have already expressed strong opinions that Zimmerman is guilty of murder in spite of the fact that a jury has declared him innocent. Rather sad, isn't it, that such people so seldom care about truth, just their own inner racism? One day perhaps we'll eliminate racism from the US but I fear that day is far in the future.
An overdramatization and utterly ridiculous. Expressing an opinion on an internet forum does not cross any legal line, any more than writing a letter to the editor, publishing an opinion column in the newspaper, or shouting your point of view over the radio waves like Rush Limbaugh does.
Really? So stating a made up "fact" (not opinion, but presented as factual) that has been proven to be false in a court of law is not slander/libel? You might want to check the definition of those terms.
Now, if the speaker carefully says it is opinion only (no one does) you can say nearly anything you want. Which is exactly what I said.
Legal or not, though, it doesn't make it ethical to spread lies about people. You don't want it done to you, you should not do it to others.
Does your opinion, expressed in public forum, have potential to harm Zimmerman?
Of course it doesn't
Do you always make plain that your opinion is not based on facts but on an opinion that a stranger must be racist because a black boy is dead?
(Wilderness, your facts are your truth and it is hardly seen by many of us as universal, on that you can rely).
(You willfully miss the whole point of this tragedy. Many of us share the opinion based on Zimmerman's behavior during this affair, so it is just you and Rush Limbaugh that says the facts reflect that he Zimmerman had no racial motivation at all related to this tragedy.)
(What makes your position any more credible? What does it matter to you anyway, Why are you concerned as to whether I whole heartedly agree with the verdict or not? You guys got the acquittal most of you wanted, since when are you concerned about my opinion? Zimmerman will have much to contend with after all this but I will not be the cause of his woes. I promise that it is not going to keep me up at night.)
(You know, I don't recall the white community just shutting up immediately after the OJ acquittal, should they have been concerned about OJs safety, huh? Where were you then?)
(Yes, the jury also said that OJ was innocent, what was Rush and the rightwing ditto heads doing to promote peace and harmony after the announcement, not much....)
I am fully aware that a great many people have already expressed strong opinions that Zimmerman is guilty of murder in spite of the fact that a jury has declared him innocent. Rather sad, isn't it, that such people so seldom care about truth, just their own inner racism? One day perhaps we'll eliminate racism from the US but I fear that day is far in the future.
(The truth as you state it is 'your truth', millions of others, I included say otherwise. However, the wheels of justice has turned and we all abide by the decisions of court, but as I said before, I don't have to agree with it and I will say as much. Don't get bent out of shape, time will do for you what it is that you ultimately want to see.)
(As for the racism thing, it will be a while, it is unfortunate, but I acknowledge that as the reality.)
What has gotten into you? Telling us what to think and say is pure rightwing fascism.
P.S. Pretty Panther, thanks for your support, I think that Wilderness is lost on this one, no one is attacking Zimmerman, so how can there by a charge of libel? The underlying grievances held by many in regards to this affair are not going to just disappear anytime soon. The verdict of the court is just an 'opinion'. Why is it that he is always in command of the facts while the rest of us are just expressing 'opinions'? He is no more qualified to speak on the 'facts' of the case than I am, since he was not privy to the proceedings.It's his "thing." Pretty much any time there is a high-profile story he comes to the defense of the alleged perpetrator and scolds those who express an opinion that they are guilty. I haven't seem him scold those who say Trayvon Martin is a "thug" who viciously attacked George, though.
"You and yours "
Who divides and who unites?
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.)
@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.
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?
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.
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.So, will Zimmerman next be going to trial for the rape his niece says he committed when she was 9?
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.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).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.
Two articles I found interesting.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … anger.html
And this.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/12/1 … eQ-NI03vnhSo 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=araKrLvPsT0The 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.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_t1I 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.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.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?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?
No it isn't or he would have been found guilty!
Its still not guilty.
More peaceful protesters...lol disgraceful. Really shows the true racists in America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa_vPKbKXB4Zimmerman 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=19735432Still doesn't change what happened with Trayvon....
Your right it doesn't Cody. First he defends himself against a thug and now he helps a family in need.
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?
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?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.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.
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.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."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.
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.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.
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.
It would be great if you could go ahead and not talk about this story anymore.
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.
Related Discussions
- 30
Why Did Some people See George Zimmerman As The Victim And Trayvon Martin As The
by VC L Veasey 10 years ago
Why Did Some people See George Zimmerman As The Victim And Trayvon Martin As The Aggressor?Why did they believe and not question his account of how their confrontation started?
- 37
George Zimmerman is "proudly" selling the gun he killed Trayvon Martin with - Th
by Ralph Schwartz 7 years ago
George Zimmerman is "proudly" selling the gun he killed Trayvon Martin with - Thoughts?George Zimmerman is auctioning the gun he used to kill Trayvon Martin.The post lists the weapon purportedly used to kill Martin at a starting bid of $5,000. "I am honored and humbled to announce...
- 11
Would George Zimmerman Have Followed Trayvon Martin In The Dark, If He Didn't Ha
by VC L Veasey 10 years ago
Would George Zimmerman Have Followed Trayvon Martin In The Dark, If He Didn't Have His Gun?
- 114
Robert Zimmerman Stirs the Issue of Racism
by SpanStar 11 years ago
Robert Zimmerman brother of George Zimmerman has stirred the issue of racism.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/2 … 79949.htmlClearly listening to Robert Zimmerman he appears to be a educated young man and one can understand a sibling being protective of a family member yet and still...
- 68
The Zimmerman Trial - An apology is offered
by Credence2 10 years ago
Being caught up in the debate, I slept on it and upon awakening realized that I, too, have allowed myself to caught in the hysteria. When I or anyone allows this to overwhelm it shortcircuits one's reasoning ability. 1. We are all guilty of prejudice and pre-conceived attitudes. We get them...
- 216
Why not Trayvon?
by mikelong 11 years ago
I continually find myself pondering the Martin-Zimmerman tragedy.I have been studying self-defense law for some time. I have read cases from across the nation spanning the last half century.Many hubbers have recently written articles about how Zimmerman's physical injuries prove his innocence, and...