Was Zimmerman innocent or just not enough evidence to convict him?

1. 70

   vveaseyposted 11 years ago

   Was Zimmerman innocent or just not enough evidence to convict him?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 72

   lburmasterposted 11 years ago

   I believe anyone can be convicted. You just need enough evidence. As to his innocence, I don't believe so. Yet what I think doesn't matter. What happens in the courts does.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Express10posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Amen sister, you took the words out of my mouth.

      replyreport
3. 77

   MaestroECMcCloudposted 11 years ago

   I think the prosecution, who didn't want to prosecute this case in the first place, but then were forced to do so, gave it a half-hearted effort. I agree with the guy that said the prosecution was disgraceful. The only thing I have to say is Zimmerman may have escaped man's justice, but NO ONE escapes God's justice.

   replyreport
   1. 47

      Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Total bull. The evidence through his girlfriend who was on the phone with martin at the time makes clear that Martin perceived Z as a gay predator and did "whoop ass" on a man "creepy ass cracka who was thought to be gay:

      replyreport
   2. 67

      Brinafr3shposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Maestro, I agree God is the judge of all Judges; right is right and wrong is wrong, plain and simple.

      replyreport
   3. 39

      Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You are forgetting that a special prosecutor was brought in who was trying to make a name by successfully hanging Zimmerman failed completely.

      replyreport
   4. 59

      retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      This case was purely political from the beginning with the President and Attorney General of the United States injecting themselves into a local issue.This case cost everyone all over the US something because Obama wanted the RACIAL unrest.

      replyreport
   5. 76

      MSGolden51posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Amen!

      replyreport
   6. 61

      dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Careful Eric.  Sounds like you are saying men that molest boys are gay.  Example:  Jerry Sandusky  Is he a child molester or gay.  Rachel said he might be a rapist.  She didn't mention gay.

      replyreport
   7. 53

      celafoeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      he was innocent as any man can be.   He was doing his job  watching the neighborhood and was attacked by the criminal .  The he killed his attacker in self defense,  case closed . criminal properly disposed of.  award commendation

      replyreport
4. 0

   JThomp42posted 11 years ago

   Innocent until proven guilty? Not the case. It all depends on the attorney. If you have a good (expensive) attorney, you will probably walk. In this case, the defense just beat the DA's office badly as far as evidence. The state dropped the ball. If you are provided a public defender, do not make any plans for the future.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You are always innocent, in the legal sense, until proven guilty.  It is the state's burden to prove you guilty.  This is not a statement of actual guilt but a necessary condition for a free society.  The state simply had no case.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      JThomp42posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, this is the way it is supposed to be my friend. But unfortunately, this is no longer the way it is. Now, you are guilty until proven innocent.

      replyreport
   3. 59

      retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      In Zimmerman's case that was certainly true.  Look at the forces arrayed against him - the Media, the Attorney General of the United States, the President and Roseanne Barr

      replyreport
   4. 0

      JThomp42posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly!!!

      replyreport
   5. 47

      Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      This is a common notion. We operate under Common Law. But far more of the populace of the world follow Civil Law like France and Mexico and anything remotely communist. There like Louisianan and Puerto Rican it is guilty first and prove innocence.

      replyreport
   6. 58

      taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The Zimmerman case should never have gone to trial. There was never enough evidence to convict. However, the racist mongers fuel divisional attitudes by attacking like hounds in a hog hunt. These hounds represent the major societal problem.

      replyreport
5. 47

   Ericdierkerposted 11 years ago

   I do believe that men who walk around looking for trouble will find it. Both these guys were not angelic. They were out there in the milieu of the dangers of the world. One was a bad ass dude, and the other, a man who wished he was not picked on as a child.
   They chose confrontation and brutality and one died that day of it. So be it. I have lived a life when death was a companion because I was bad ass. These folks are not like you. Their engine and elevator stop at the floor that says trouble and they jump out looking for it.
   One guy looses. Tough beans. Trayvon should have played football instead of a life or death game.
   Whine whine whine parents when you did a horrible job. The blame for this tragedy lies on your head. Please do not raise another like this.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I think it is far simpler than ascribing unknown character traits to those involved.  It was the result of a string of poor decisions by both and a part of the human condition.  They may have been friendly if they had met under other circumstances.

      replyreport
   2. 47

      Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      My friend you strike a good note. However that thing that is out there called our human condition is far from simple! Perhaps you have answers that I do not yet know.

      replyreport
   3. 59

      retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I have only one answer regarding the human condition - we are, by our nature, flawed, imperfect, limited and fallen.  All men fall short of God's glory.

      replyreport
   4. 76

      MSGolden51posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hi, Everything you said was here say because you were not there, when was it wrong to walk, to the store and walk back home. I don't see nothing wrong with that I'm sure you walked home before from the store or some where else were you wrong.

      replyreport
   5. 78

      Charluposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Wow How judgmental can you be not knowing the heart of any of the victims.  Justifying homicides is outrageous! Judging the parents is just an example of the morals and beliefs you were brought up with, (none).  I thank the Lord your judgement is His

      replyreport
   6. 61

      dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I think a negative image of black men is shown all over mass media because it is NEWS.  It is also news when a whole class at an all boys' school in Chicago graduates and goes to college.  There should be wider coverage on the good things done by AAs

      replyreport
   7. 81

      Bruce Feierabendposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      diane you are absolutely right about the media coverage except honestly they don't care what race the negative news is. What school was that? We can make our own news.

      replyreport
   8. 61

      dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Bruce - notice article says 4th year in a row
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/2 … 81203.html

      replyreport
   9. 81

      Bruce Feierabendposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      A charter school! I thought they only reported bad things about them. I suspect the "magic" is the way they are viewed. No matter what has happened to them, there are people there who believe they can do well and expect it of them.

      replyreport
   10. 61

       dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Thank you Bruce!

       replyreport
6. 58

   taburkettposted 11 years ago

   Obviously Zimmerman is innocent. 
   Otherwise the system would have found him guilty.
   Society has declined in respect over the decades due to lack of correct parental action and training.
   We will not see anything change with regard to this type of activity until the respect returns to society.
   The MSM will not assist in this restoration as the detonating commentators thrive on disaster and vengeance. 
   The politicians will not assist in this restoration because they thrive on disarray and legal opinion to preserve their reign over the masses.
   The evil ones will not assist in this restoration because they live only for the violence that they spread.

   replyreport
   1. 37

      ChristinSposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Obviously Casey Anthony and OJ are innocent since our system never fails. The "evil" ones here are the ones that glorify zimmerman and his stupid choices while demonizing the other guy.

      replyreport
   2. 58

      taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Christin S - you are stating correct facts about Casey Anthony and OJ. We either follow the law as law abiding citizens or there is no law. While the Trayvon case is tragic, it was a result of the evil inflamed by race-card mongers. Sad but true.

      replyreport
   3. 47

      Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Christin you are talking "talking points from media crappola" Taburkett you are out in right field trying to stir hate. ?This case should have not been tried and it is not a fulcrum. It was not even tried under "stand your ground" or race.

      replyreport
   4. 64

      Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Most people aren’t even aware that George Zimmerman was on mind altering drugs which are controlled substances, the night he shot and killed the Martin teen. Medical records released from the night of the killing reveal that Zimmerman was under the i

      replyreport
   5. 76

      MSGolden51posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hi, taburkett You said the system would not have found him guilty, Well I say the jurors that found him not guilty, are just men who had an opinion about the case just as we did. So is that Justice, That could of been yours or mine or any body else.

      replyreport
   6. 0

      JThomp42posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      MSGolden51.... the entire jury were women. Did you even watch the trial?

      replyreport
   7. 58

      taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      MSGolden-my desire is to support the law as it is provided. Not proclaim other acts based on faulty emotion. It is horrible that the attacker was not smarter. I realize his ineptness came from the parents and not the legal system. The jury agreed.

      replyreport
   8. 59

      retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      All Glory to Jorge Zimmerman.Thank God George survived a life threatening encounter with an angry,troubled,violent punk.Good thing George was armed or he would be dead,buried,anonymous,ignored.Instead we are treated to Black on White hate crimes.

      replyreport
   9. 70

      vveaseyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      taburkett Fact that Zimmerman was found not guilty doesn't mean he was innocent. all it means is "if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty." Not that he wasn't guilty, you just can't prove he did it intentional

      replyreport
   10. 61

       dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       When people make comments, I like to check their profiles.  Based on retief2000's profile, it appears that he wants to race bait.  He hasn't written articles.  He participated in 4 forums that are on race and/or politics.  Intent is divisiveness.

       replyreport
   11. 68

       BigJulesMagsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Reasonable doubt of guilt and obvious innocence are very far apart in reality.  We don't know that it wasn't Zimmerman who caused the confrontation.  The line was dead, and no one saw the result.  Very hard to tell.  Obvious innocence?  No way.

       replyreport
7. 64

   mintinfoposted 11 years ago

   I believe that there was not enough evidence to cut through the prejudices and misconceptions ingrained in today’s society. I try to think logically but logic also has no place in a society that operates by ideology.
   
   Logic…….Zimmerman sees a hooded individual and decides to follow him to make sure he is not a thief or burglar. Martin sees him following and after several minutes decides to confront Zimmerman for following him. This is a point in the situation where any of us might find ourselves. Whatever we decide to do is well within our rights as an individual. We may say “hey I live here in the community and I don’t appreciate being followed” or we might take a more confrontational route which Zimmerman claims is what happened. This scenario was not clearly deciphered.
   
   The situation now changes to a one on one confrontation where we also have the right to defend ourselves to the point of using lethal force. I believe that the case was judged within this cocoon. What was given little weight was the fact that Zimmerman acted in provocation. Instead they try to assassinate Martin’s character by turning him into a troubled hoodlum.
   
   What I also don’t understand is how the (Stand Your Ground) laws work in someone’s favor if they were the instigator in the confrontation to begin with.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      This case was not tried under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law.  It was tried as a case of simple self defense.

      replyreport
   2. 47

      Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      True dat. And the prosecution was given huge latitudes and gratitude's to prove their case. They are shameful for bringing it to trial.

      replyreport
   3. 64

      mintinfoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The pros clearly failed to show who was the instigator within the scopes of why and how. They failed to build a strong enough case against Zim's character because his is built on ideals held by most. To dispute that one would have to resort to race

      replyreport
   4. 59

      retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      How would it have resorted to race.  The recording of the 911 call is exculpatory regarding Zimmerman's NBC doctored tape created racism.  The police believed, and after all of this folly, rightfully, that there was no evidence of a crime.

      replyreport
   5. 64

      mintinfoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I am saying that it has resorted to race. Black people feel victimized by a system that created the mindset that Zim acted within and that resulted in martins death. Exclusion, prejudice, and ultimately protectionism.

      replyreport
   6. 59

      incomestreamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I'm curious as to how you can label following someone to see if they are up to "No Good" as provocative. I would do the same thing in my neighborhood.

      replyreport
   7. 68

      EdSaterstadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Correction to your second paragraph. Zimmerman sees a hooded individual with a backpack cutting through back yards while he was on his neighborhood watch patrol. This was days after being told to be on the lookout for the person breaking into houses.

      replyreport
8. 64

   Ralph Deedsposted 11 years ago

   The innocent verdict should not be taken to indicate that Zimmerman's actions were proper. They clearly were not. The tragic incident does show a need to examine Florida's stand your ground law and lax concealed carry laws. Moreover, neighborhood "watchers" should not be allowed to carry concealed weapons. Also, it would be helpful if these volunteers were required to wear easily identifiable insignia or clothing so that people they encounter will take note and react appropriately rather than out of fear as Trayvon Martin apparently did.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      This was not tried under the "Stand Your Ground" law.  There is ample evidence that your concealed carry position is flawed, however, identifying someone as neighborhood watch sounds like a good idea.  It may have prevented this tragedy.

      replyreport
   2. 47

      Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Stand your Ground is bogus. Every human should stand their ground. Sometimes life sucks and we eat it big time. But the worst is when we fail to stand for something and fall for anything. But this case was not about that at all. Martin lost.

      replyreport
   3. 58

      taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      As usual, we attack a law that protects the innocent. In this case, as in all others an individual created the problem. Mr Martin as the attacker created the resulting situation. Why - No one but Mr Martin knows. Again, the individual is at fault.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Taburkett, Martin did not set out to get killed. He got caught up in a situation that perhaps he did not handle properly, but then neither did Zimmerman. There are no heroes here, just bad judgement by two people. One is dead. One lived. We all lost.

      replyreport
9. 0

   Larry Wallposted 11 years ago

   High profile cases often go in favor of the defendant. I have no numbers to back this up, but look at the current case, the OJ Simpson Case and other cases going back 20 years.
   
   I am no a lawyer, but I often think prosecutors make a mistake going for the maximum possible.  Secondly, high profile trials become very technical and complicated. I did not watch much of the trial, but saw enough questions that would cause confusion among jurors.
   
   I think Zimerman broke the law when the got out of the car and went on foot pursuit, after being told not to by police, if that is an accurate statement. The focus of the trail should had been why did he not follow the instructions from the PD.
   Smarter people than me will have to figure that out.

   replyreport
   1. 47

      Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Larry, life is cut and dried, from our arm chairs. But walk a beat. Put yourself there. Some radio or other thing cannot tell us how to act. I had a screwdriver at my throat once. I do not judge any more. Battle is not judgworthy.

      replyreport
   2. 59

      retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      We do not live in a police state, yet.  So getting out of your car because a police dispatcher says not to and not interfering with a police investigation is not illegal.

      replyreport
   3. 58

      taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The fact is - Zimmerman did nothing illegal. The trial should not have happened. However, the race card is always played so that criminals are protected from law-abiding citizens. This is societies worst enemy and keeps racism rolling and ranting.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Life is not cut and dry. I agree. As part of a para-police unit--i.e. Neighborhood watch Zimmerman should had obeyed instructions I do not think anyone has the right to stop and question me unless they are an officer of the law. Tragedy was avoidable

      replyreport
   5. 47

      Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Larry here is a fact of life. One does not carry a gun on a patrol without insurance. A neighborhood watch that allows it is wrongful. Gated community neighborhood watches are run by HOAs. They are insured. Insurance would prohibit the carry.

      replyreport
   6. 59

      retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I carry a firearm.  I carry it everywhere it is legal for me to carry it. Only once have I considered using it and if that situation had unwound differently, I would have shot a man to death.  A pretty terrible prospect.

      replyreport
   7. 47

      Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Many people carry. Many more in houses and cars. I  do not see the problem there. But carry it in a situation where you must deal with bad then that is huge responsibility, socially and morally and financially. No question Zimmerman shouldn't have.

      replyreport
   8. 59

      retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I couldn't disagree more.Alone, at night while watching for potential problems - the perfect time to carry.I am undeterred by the moral issues as I have already settled those. As for all others it is better to be alive than dead, pistols save lives.

      replyreport
   9. 47

      Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Buddy remember this is a discussion on the Zimmerman solution. In this case the gun just plain allowed for the killing of man. I do not think cops should shoot robbers. And neighborhood watch folk should not shoot trespassers and burglars. Gun why?

      replyreport
   10. 59

       retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Zimmerman's gun saved his life and it would have saved the life of any neighborhood watch member in a similar situation.Zimmerman was right for carrying it and right for using it.Buddy.I am unmoved at the notion of a dead thief.

       replyreport
   11. 47

       Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I hear you. I get your point. I grew up with that mindset in my home and town. And we had no crime, accepting fighting. Trayvon brought his fists to a gun fight. And now we know it was gay bashing on the deceased side.

       replyreport
   12. 67

       Lady Guinevereposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       N W doesot work for the Police it is to opp.. Z did his job by protecting the residents of his comm.  Citizen R allowed 2 carry guns.  M nt wlk home, he didn't live there. H lived with his mom someplace else and tld nt 2 b there. Z nt wrong.

       replyreport
   13. 0

       JThomp42posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Lady....... Martin was staying with his Father who did live in that community.

       replyreport
   14. 67

       Lady Guinevereposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Thn Y was he going 2 his father's GF's house.  His Mother Had Custody of Him and She told him nt 2 go there. That is what his mom said in the beg  b4 Big Netwrk got the story. R U going by the Ntwork or B4's story?

       replyreport
   15. 0

       JThomp42posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       The truth

       replyreport
   16. 67

       Lady Guinevereposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I doubt that since you are listening to the Lies that the Networks have devised for their ratings.  That is NOT the truth at all. Shows how much people are gullible when listening to someone whom they think has their best interest in.

       replyreport
   17. 0

       JThomp42posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       What do you think he was doing there Lady? With all of your "facts?"

       replyreport
   18. 67

       Lady Guinevereposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I dunno JT.  He was told not to go there by his mother who does NOT live in the neighborhood.  If he listened to his mother he prolly would still be alive.  He did NOT live with his Father and wasn't even going there to begin with.

       replyreport
   19. 61

       dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Hi Eric, what you are saying, if true, would make a difference.  George Zimmerman did not have a job.  He was on the way to Target.  NW means watch and report.  There was nothing at his thr
       oat.  Trayvon had skittles and iced tea.

       replyreport
   20. 58

       taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Eric-according to your statements everyone except Zimmerman should be able to carry.this sounds much like protection to the evil criminal.society must eliminate the evil-not protect it.

       replyreport
   21. 61

       dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       LadyG, Trayvon had been at his father's house for a week.  He and his mother lived in Miami.  It's interesting how information that is wrong gets around.

       replyreport
   22. 67

       Lady Guinevereposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Ws that b4 the bib ntwrk got it bcuz I remember in the beginning that she said right on the news that she told him not to be there.  Now it is diff and he ws going to his dad's BUT he was going 2 his dads Glfriend's. News adding to it it seems..

       replyreport
   23. 39

       Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       According to court testimony Martin was cutting through the complex as a short cut to 711 store. He wasn't living there or visiting there he was just passing through.
       Z lived in the complex and was the NW point person for the complex.

       replyreport
   24. 61

       dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       LadyG and Borsia, I can't convince you if you don't want to believe it.  The Skittles were for Chad, who testfied.  Chad was his future step brother.  I don't know what point you consider the very beginning but it is unrefuted.

       replyreport
   25. 67

       Lady Guinevereposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Testimonies from the other classmates in court and out of court solidify my suspicions that M was NOT an Angel in Disguise!  People want NW to protect and when they do They find anything to crusify them.

       replyreport
   26. 61

       dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       LadyG, none of his classmates testified.  Rachel is a childhood friend who lives in another neighborhood.  You don't kill people because you think they are bad.  You report them to the  police and let justice take place.

       replyreport
   27. 59

       retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       No, you kill people who are sitting on your chest beating your brains out.  By the way, a large full can of tea would make a good bludgeon or placed across the trachea and leaned into a pretty serviceable garotte.

       replyreport
   28. 59

       incomestreamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       And what law did Zimmerman break by getting out of his car even if he was told not to?

       replyreport
   29. 47

       Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Fact check: The father did live nearby with a gal unmarried. Not inside the gated community. Martin was trespassing. No doubt or argument about that. In Arizona if you trespass you can be killed without warning.  We even have signs that say it.

       replyreport
   30. 61

       dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Erick, the father's girlfriend lived there at Twin Lakes.  There was testimony about Trayvon arriving and possibly leaving.  Her son testified at the beginning of the trial.  He was home playing video games and waiting for Trayvon to bring him snacks

       replyreport
10. 67

    Brinafr3shposted 11 years ago

    Murder is murder; Zimmerman was stalking and bullying Trevon Martin and then he decided to kill the young man because of prejudice reasons. Trevon needed more help for self-defense, maybe we can help defend Travon after the fact of his death.

    replyreport
    1. 58

       taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       The government cannot legislate intelligence-compassion-stupidity. Self-defense begins and ends with each individual. When someone attacks someone else, tragic endings pursue. Personal feelings on the matter do not fact make. The FBI found nothing.

       replyreport
    2. 39

       Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       True; and this wasn't murder. Even after bringing in a "special prosecutor" Zimmerman was found innocent of any wrongdoing.
       When you are attacked you have a right to defend yourself. Martin should have just gone home and avoided confrontation.

       replyreport
    3. 51

       MarioBalloposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Your comment puts Martin as a sort of saint, let me tell you that this kid was nothing compared to an angel and most certainly not a saint. The press didn't release all the information and details, they missed some other stuff, important stuff.

       replyreport
    4. 59

       retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Zimmerman was not found innocent.  The legal condition of everyone ever charged in a court of law is innocence.  The burden is the prosecutions to prove guilt. Zimmerman was innocent and not found guilty.

       replyreport
11. 61

    NiaLeeposted 11 years ago

    replyreport
    1. 47

       Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Not anymore. It is clear now that Martin attacked Z. for being perceived as gay. No more race. All about gays.

       replyreport
    2. 67

       Brinafr3shposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Hi Ericdierker, huh. . . .being a Black person can get you into heaven, we're not sure if being gay will. The Trevon case was all about racism, sad but true.

       replyreport
    3. 39

       Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Where did this come from I didn't see it in the trial?

       replyreport
    4. 0

       JThomp42posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Eric... where are you getting this information?? I am lost?

       replyreport
12. 81

    Bruce Feierabendposted 11 years ago

    If there is not enough evidence to convict then according to our law a person is innocent (innocent until proven guilty). We do this so hopefully innocent persons don't get convicted by opinion, public pressure, political pressure, or because someone looks guilty. Is he truly innocent, God knows. Jesus said if you hate someone in your heart then you are a murderer. So how many of us are truly innocent.

    replyreport
    1. 47

       Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Name one innocent man, I am not.

       replyreport
    2. 81

       Bruce Feierabendposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       The answer to that would be Jesus. but my question was rhetorical.

       replyreport
13. 39

    Borsiaposted 11 years ago

    The testimony and physical evidence says he is innocent. As did the jury.
    There is no indication that he was "out looking for trouble" as those who want to see him guilty try to push. He was a member of the Neighborhood Watch in a community that had been suffering a rash of property crimes watching someone acting strangely. If you have never had your things stolen maybe you will understand better when you do.
    Detractors say he should have stayed in his vehicle, my question is why?
    Are you or I restricted to our vehicles in our own neighborhoods?
    When the dispatcher asked if he was following the suspicious stranger the dispatcher never told him to return to his vehicle he said that "the police don't need you to do that." but moments later Z was asked if he could still see M or knew which way he went. Doesn't that imply that he should try to find out?
    But the best evidence is the ballistics. The combination of holes, burns and stippling (traces of burnt and un-burnt powder) showed that Martin had to be on top of Z and reaching forward and down; as in head slamming Z. There is no other way for it all to line up.
    The law is very clear about one thing above all others. Nobody has a right or cause to physically assault another and Martin was clearly assaulting Zimmerman.
    Since Martin was on top of Z there was no way for him to flee and he fought back with what he had. A gun which he was legally carrying with a CCW permit.
    I seriously doubt that Z intended the shot to be fatal, it is highly unlikely that he could aim at all beyond simply pointing in the general direction.
    Perhaps a better question is why did Martin choose to attack Zimmerman rather than going home?
    He had plenty of time to either reach the exit well ahead of Z or at the very least have enough lead on Z that he couldn't have caught up. Certainly M at 17, 5'10" and in excellent condition could have stayed well out of Z's reach.
    My parents told me from an early age that if a stranger is following you keep going until you reach the safety of home or a public place and call the police.
    Martin had a cell phone in his hand, where was his 911 call?
    Martin never made a 911 call. Instead he choose an act of violence.
    That single choice is what lead to his death, yet nobody is talking about the elephant in the room.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I will not disagree with you. My problem, and as an old news reporter I encountered this before, is that neighborhood watch programs often do more harm than good, because of misunderstood directions, lack of training. Hire an off-duty cop to patrol.

       replyreport
    2. 39

       Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I believe statistics would argue the opposite. If everyone dos their part and posts signs, attend the occasional meeting etc NW can be very effective.
       Hiring any security costs money and they are only useful when there and usually very predictable.

       replyreport
    3. 0

       Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I disagree with you regarding statisticsm but I cannot prove it. I pay about $25 a year for my neighborhood watch program. That pays for an off duty officer to patrol in a marked car at night. I will take a trained officer over a volunteer anytime.

       replyreport
    4. 53

       celafoeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       sure an off duty cop killing him instead?  would he not still be  justifieably dead. he is rightfuly dead as all such attackers should be  case closed

       replyreport
14. 59

    Mary Shadowcrestposted 11 years ago

    I have no idea if he was innocent or not but I knew the out come of the trial from the beginning because there wasn't enough evidence for what they wanted to convict Zimmerman for. Still I believe Zimmerman approached Martin asking him questions demandingly. Martin then responded like many teenagers do with a tough guy act. Both sides then proceeded to get more hostile to one another and then a fight broke out. I think machismo is what caused this tragedy.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Guilt or innocence is not the issue today? Procedure is the issue. Was Zimmerman properly trained in surveillance, did he get clear instructions from the PD and follow them. Was there just cause to approach Martin? Did emotions and fear take control?

       replyreport
15. 76

    MSGolden51posted 11 years ago

    I believe there was enough evidence, and the juror's overlooked a lot of things that were vital to the trial, and I believe there was misunderstanding in this case and that they voted based on misunderstanding. This is my opinion. But you know what, I'm so glad that man never hides from God, because God knows everything and we don't really get away with anything.

    replyreport
    1. 58

       taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Emotion does not a fact make. The jury acted upon fact so they returned the correct verdict in this case. Emotion is what created the situation. And when emotion is the focus of an individual, bad things result, Jesus taught us about these acts.

       replyreport
16. 67

    CR Rookwoodposted 11 years ago

    Just because Z was acquitted doesn't mean what he did was reasonable or that his intentions were good. The jury had to acquit if they had a 'reasonable doubt' about whether Z was defending his life. The fact that he not only put himself in this situation, he actively pursued this situation, was not considered.
    
    It seems clear to me that a legal decision is not necessarily a just decision, and that laws are enforced unequally according to race. Whenever you get lots of people screaming "This isn't about race!" you can be sure it is all about race.

    replyreport
    1. 39

       Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       The trial was all about race there is no question about that. Had martin been Hispanic or white there wouldn't have been a trial.

       replyreport
    2. 67

       CR Rookwoodposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Of course that isn't what I meant.

       replyreport
    3. 59

       Cudsterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       only for the screamers

       replyreport
    4. 59

       retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       In fact, if Zimmerman had used Jorge and his mother's maiden name there would have been no news coverage and the race baiters couldn't be angry that a Jew killed a Black "child." Just another example of Al Sharpton attacking a Jew, that racist.

       replyreport
17. 67

    Lady Guinevereposted 11 years ago

    ...AND EVERYONE IS IGNORING WHAT TREYVON WAS LIKE AND MAKING "SWEET LITTLE LIES" UP ABOUT HIM.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       JThomp42posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Did you know him personally Lady? How do we know what is truth and what are lies? The jury's responsibility was to do this and that they did. Believe me, I've sat on a jury and it is a rigorous thing!

       replyreport
    2. 59

       retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       What was he like? He had been suspended, not arrested and prosecuted as you or I would be, for drug possession on campus and for possession of stolen goods.HE WAS NO ANGEL

       replyreport
    3. 67

       Lady Guinevereposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Thank You Retire2000.  Before the BIG Networks got this story it was also NOT a Race thing.  JT, Do YOU know him personally??

       replyreport
    4. 61

       dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I'm really amazed as I read this.

       replyreport
    5. 59

       retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       It was indeed a race thing from the very beginning as Al Sharpton, perceiving George Zimmerman to be a Jew, had flew to Florida for the attack. Zimmerman's race was always the issue.

       replyreport
18. 89

    suzettenaplesposted 11 years ago

    Neither Zimmerman or Martin is innocent in this situation.  I do believe Zimmerman had a right to defend himself.  I don't think the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt and I believe the jury made a fair and correct decision.  I understand how African - Americans feel about the verdict, but  I believe Martin attacked Zimmerman at some point.  Zimmerman should not have followed Martin to begin with.  Neither one is innocent .

    replyreport
19. 61

    dianetrotterposted 11 years ago

    I believe we will find out that B37 was a stealth juror who had quite a bit of influence over others.  She might have been perceived as more knowledgeable of the law because her lawyer was a husband.  I think the Hispanic(?s) juror felt out of place.

    replyreport
    1. 39

       Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       After watching the trial I didn't see them being able to convict on anything and stay within the law.

       replyreport
    2. 61

       dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I don't think it matters what was said in court.  The supervising sheriff is being investigated.  B37 was planning her book w/ her husband from the day she got on the jury.

       replyreport
    3. 59

       retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Belief is a powerful thing.  I believe that if someone was sitting on my chest beating on me with both fists and I thought there was no help coming I would have emptied my pistol in his chest, but that is just what I believe.

       replyreport
    4. 68

       BigJulesMagsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Jurors must be approved by the prosecution as well.  So unless they didn't want to win a career case, it was in their vested interest to choose a quality juror.  The selection process was fair.  You can't systematically stop influence either.

       replyreport
20. 0

    Klevi M Fushaposted 11 years ago

    I honestly do not believe Zimmerman is completely innocent, but he is definitely not guilty of 2nd degree murder either. Manslaughter? Maybe. On another note, the racist claims are absolutely ridiculous. This wasn't a hate crime by any means.

    replyreport
21. 78

    brblogposted 11 years ago

    The fact of the matter is that we will never really know what happened that night – only little bits and pieces and one side of the story (because the other side of the story is dead). Under these circumstances, it was a tough prosecution. Was Zimmerman the aggressor, was Martin the aggressor? Where they both to blame? It was a tragic outcome, one man is alive and one is dead and that is all we really know . . . and justice is fleeting.

    replyreport
    1. 68

       BigJulesMagsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Reasonable doubt in a criminal trial, preponderance of evidence in a civil.  People forget that.

       replyreport
22. 60

    movingoutposted 11 years ago

    Martin was profiled short and simple. For those saying Zimmerman was innocent, would you have the same opinion if your child was being followed for no reason? Stand your ground should apply, but for Martin! He was a scared kid put in this situation by an over zealous neighborhood watch individual, who would have served the situation better by seeing and reporting what he "thought" was a problem to the police and abandoning the pursuit! Zimmerman created the situation and escalated the situation which resulted in the senseless loss of a young life! Leave policing for the police! If you "think" there's a problem call the authorities! Short and simple!

    replyreport
    1. 47

       Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       So you believe the person who was on the phone with him at the time? So do I. But I come to a different conclusion.

       replyreport
    2. 60

       movingoutposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       It's a sad day in this country when protecting "STUFF" (yes stuff is what Zimmerman was protecting), is more important then life itself. Stolen "stuff" can be replaced, a life can't! Food for thought.

       replyreport
    3. 59

       retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       The only thing better than protecting stuff is protecting life.Those who would take your stuff don't care if they take your life.People exchange the free use of their life for stuff therefore destroying their stuff enslaves them.

       replyreport
    4. 53

       celafoeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       it resulted in the loss of the life of a young criminal   good riddance  we will have to spend money taking care of him in jail   good riddance

       replyreport
    5. 59

       incomestreamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       If my child attacked someone who was following him I would have a much bigger issue with that! If he acted in aggression before weighing the consequences I would be disappointed!

       replyreport
23. 79

    jcresslerposted 11 years ago

    The law is the law and it's so blind that it can be cruel. What's right, what's merciful, reality and honesty doesn't mater....it's all about evidence and proof and the jury. They said not guilty so he's not guilty.

    replyreport
24. 78

    Charluposted 11 years ago

    Ahhhhhhh  I so wish this state would go ahead and address the "Stand your ground law" Statute #716.013, which gives someone who believes they are in eminent peril and fear for their lives to STAND THEIR GROUND AND NOT RETREAT.
    
    No where (same statute in Texas and a few other states) does it state that you can, or should, pursue the  individual   who is causing such peril! The law leaves way to much to interpretation. In Texas Raul Rodriquez (a retired fireman) was found guilty of killing a man while at his wife and 3 yr old's birthday party.  He walked down the street with a gun, phone and camera calling police stating repeatedly that he was in fear of his life. Amazingly, he had taught his neighbors to do the same when they had a conflict with someone and basically wanted to get away with murder!
    
    Zimmerman was told by law enforcement not to follow or pursue Trayvon, along with Rodriquez when he walked down the street to tell them the noise was to loud. Zimmerman was in his car when he was instructed to do so and in Florida all to often not following instructions from a law enforcement officer is a crime in itself!  If either one of them would have LISTENED AND OBEYED THE LAW as it stands neither would have went to trial and two murder cases would not have cost us a small fortune!
    
    If that wasn't enough now were going Federal Really??? Trying to stop tourists OUTRAGEOUS Why do they think we don't pay any state taxes? Because tourists do it for us. DUH !!! Lets just punish the entire state.
    
    The law needs to be more specific in reference to NOT being able to follow or pursue someone who may cause you harm. This is especially true when you have been instructed NOT to by someone who has the experience and wisdom to know there would be a PROBLEM!
    
    Change the law and stop the MADNESS!!! They were both guilty according to the defense they portrayed. If the prosecution had focused exactly on those facts and not tried to get more tv time the case would have been simple, short, and saved us all this disaster.

    replyreport
    1. 47

       Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       How can you 5 paragraphs passionately about something that has nothing to do with the case or the question? I assume you realize. The statute never came into play at all in the case?

       replyreport
    2. 67

       CR Rookwoodposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       The law didn't come into play because they never wanted to try the case at all, let alone bring unwanted attention to SYG. SYG gave Z the confidence to pursue and provoke Martin.

       replyreport
    3. 59

       retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I would suggest that what gave Zimmerman the impetus to follow Martin was the unknown risk to his neighbor's property posed by an unknown person of unknown,possibly criminal intent.It is good that some people can read minds.SYG laws save Black lives.

       replyreport
    4. 78

       Charluposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       @Eric  My point is that HAD the prosecutors used the exact law without interpretation as applied with a "self defense" case Zimmerman would have probably been convicted.  Evidence such as his head injuries would not be justified/excuse self defense.

       replyreport
25. 70

    vveaseyposted 11 years ago

    Fact that Zimmerman was found not guilty doesn't mean he was innocent. all it means is "if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty." Not that he wasn't guilty, you just can't prove he did it intentionally" He may have killed intentionally killed Martin but it's hard to prove that.
    
    It's like all the wrongly convicted men who spent 10, 20 years etc in prison that the Innocence project got released after DNA testing proved they were innocent of the crimes they were convicted of.
    
    So just because a person is found guilty or innocent of a crime is no guarantee that that they were guilty or innocent unless there's proof positive they did or didn't commit the crime.
    
    Zimmerman being found innocent of all charges doesn't meet that standard.
    
    We only have his side of the story.
    
    I wonder what details Martin would have added to the story if had survived the gunshot wound.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I hope DOJ will include thorough investigation of the jury.  I read that there is a connection between B37's husband and O'Mara.

       replyreport
    2. 59

       retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       So the ironically named Justice Department isn't content with wire tapping journalists it now has to oppress free American citizens.  Welcome to the People's Republic of Obamastan.

       replyreport
26. 68

    BigJulesMagsposted 11 years ago

    There was, indeed a lack of evidence, which I wrote about extensively in my personal blog.  The prosecution could not prove that Zimmerman continues his pursuit of Martin after being told by dispatch to desist, and no witnesses saw who the aggressor was in the physical confrontation.
    
    Personally, I think Zimmerman was out of line for behaving as an officer of the law and probably should have been guilty of something.
    
    The jury did get the proper interpretation of the law, though.

    replyreport
    1. 78

       brblogposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Good Answer!

       replyreport
    2. 68

       BigJulesMagsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Much appreciated, sir.  I've taken a lot of flack on the hard left and the hard right for my position.  No one wants to accept that we don't really know for sure.  They might be able to win a civil battle, though.  Burden of proof changes hands.

       replyreport
    3. 59

       retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       How did he behave as an officer of the law?What evidence is there that he did anything wrong.Someone suspicious on my block would get followed to their front door and woe betide any effort to attack me, I wouldn't stand still for the beating.

       replyreport
    4. 68

       BigJulesMagsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Let's say I'm the "suspicious" one, for whatever reason.  If a man is following me around, I have no idea what his intentions are.  He might be neighborhood watch.  He might be out there to rob me.  We don't know who the instigator was.

       replyreport
27. 67

    CrescentSkiesposted 11 years ago

    Based on how the prosecution was acting you could tell that most of what they were saying didn't make sense to even them. I think what happened was partially zimmerman's fault for ignoring the order to not chase after the suspect but that little Martin wasn't the dignified angel his family made him out to be (in fact he was hopped up when zimmerman confronted him).

    replyreport
    1. 59

       retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       "the order to not chase after the suspect" this is one of the many lies that have been told often enough to become fact in people's minds - the 911 operator said "we don't need you to do that" - IT WAS NOT A POLICE ORDER - Zimmerman was in his rights

       replyreport
28. 57

    gamesrubbleposted 11 years ago

    I guess there is no good reason to suggest as to why he would like to kill , other then some claims as to he was racist, well it might be true but really hard to prove in a court of law ... so now that he court has pronounced him innocent,lets accept the judgement and move on ....

    replyreport
29. 68

    EdSaterstadposted 11 years ago

    I watched the entire trial, from start to finish.
    
    The only witness to actually see anything stated that Zimmerman was on the bottom and being attacked. A dozen people testified that it was Zimmerman's voice on the phone screaming for help. Only one person said it was Trayvon's voice, it was his father (who first told police that it was definitely not his sons voice).
    
    I see a lot of comments where he is thought to be guilty because of his actions before the attack. It is not acceptable to attack someone because they are following you. It is not acceptable to attack someone because they confronted you (if you believe that Zimmerman confronted him).
    
    I also see comments about him being ordered to stop following him. The person on the phone was an operator, not an officer of the law. They told him to not to follow him for liability reasons. This was not by any means a legal order. Even if it was a police officer, they can not legal order you to stop doing something that is not against the law. Following someone because you think they broke the law is not a crime.
    
    Can we say that Zimmerman put himself in the situation. Yes, he allowed himself to be in that situation because he wanted to live in a low crime area. There were reported break-ins, as neighborhood watch he was told to be on the lookout for the perp, he seen a person with that appeared to be concealing their identity, with a backpack on, going through people back yards. He called the police and followed the person so that he would not get away. Zimmerman put himself in a dangerous situation in order to try to make a positive change in his neighborhood. He made the same assumption about the person as any reasonable person would have made. Not based on his skin color, or his age. But instead based on his suspicious actions.
    
    Unfortunately it was a 17 year old teenage. If instead it was an older person with a criminal record that included violence, Zimmerman would have been called a hero instead of arrested and charged.

    replyreport
30. 61

    Bianca Tateposted 7 years ago

    Stand your ground law... What about Martin? Can he stand his ground? After all, he was the one being pursued AFTER being told NOT TO FOLLOW HIM. Trayvon was a child. A 16-year-old boy. He was RACIAL PROFILED.
    
    This NEVER happens to white children.
    
    Black Lives Matter.
    
    Rest in peace Trayvon Martin (16), Tamir Rice (12), Cameron Tillman (14), Laquan McDonald (17), Jordan Edwards (15)... and so many more.

    replyreport