Police: George Zimmerman involved in shooting

a reply to: Snarl

The shooter's full knowledge of 'who he shot' isn't going to play in his favor.

It might, if the shooter uses the "stand your ground" defense that George used. George was waving a gun around don't forget and had threatened the shooter in the past.


heavy.com...

What irony...

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Staroth
If you pull out a gun and start waving it around as Zimmerman did, you will end up getting shot or kill someone.
Zimmerman will someday kill again, it's a matter of time. Watch and see.

OR he'll end up dead. If you were carrying and you saw George was coming and pissed off....wouldn't you be taking the safety off your weapon?

I'd dump an entire magazine into him before he could hit the ground. I kid you not.

I don't have a problem with the Trayvon outcome, but I know in my heart Zimmerman caused the situation to unfold the way it did. He 'got away with it once' and the social pressure he's been under since then is going to lead to another event.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Snarl

The shooter's full knowledge of 'who he shot' isn't going to play in his favor.

It might, if the shooter uses the "stand your ground" defense that George used. George was waving a gun around don't forget and had threatened the shooter in the past.

Was he waving a gun? Who saw that?

It's not that I don't believe it's a distinct possibility, but I'd like to know what can be proven.

IF he had a gun in his hand ... I'm wondering why he didn't return fire. George is one clever fat b-tard. He may have been provoking the shooter into doing something stupid. Shooting guns AT people is just about as stoopid as it gets.

You watch ... when the attorneys get involved there are going to be accusations that Zimmerman was driving his vehicle in a life-threatening manner.

a reply to: olaru12
Who is someone going to believe? Someone that appears to have an obsession(not the first run in with GZ) OR the person who was shot at. Thanks to the media circus surrounding the Treyvon Martin shooting that person(GZ) has now become a target.

originally posted by: amazing
Zimmerman is a bad guy. There is no way a normal person with good intentions get's in that much trouble from murder to road rage to domestic violence to destruction of property.

Really? Half the country wanted him to get the death penalty, Spike Lee published his address and told people to go make sure the courts didn't have an opportunity to let him off the hook.

Being that hated can really mess with a person, especially if he actually was justified against Trayvon. That can easily be a catalyst for a bunch of other bad events.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: amazing
Zimmerman is a bad guy. There is no way a normal person with good intentions get's in that much trouble from murder to road rage to domestic violence to destruction of property.

Really? Half the country wanted him to get the death penalty, Spike Lee published his address and told people to go make sure the courts didn't have an opportunity to let him off the hook.

Being that hated can really mess with a person, especially if he actually was justified against Trayvon. That can easily be a catalyst for a bunch of other bad events.

Maybe. but most of it's domestic stuff and road rage where he actually followed a guy. I'm still not buying that he's a good guy. I'm still of mind that Trayvon Martin should have run for his life and didn't realize how crazy this zimmerman guy was.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: yuppa

Wow. What about him kicking a wife beating bullies arse and then being hunted down in cowardly fashion for dishing out an ass whooping. He wasn't the Devil incarnate.

Never said he was a saint did i? HE was found not guilty and the evidence backed it up. BOTH MEN were not saints.
ALso being a wife beater is a bad thing in america(apparently not in the middle east since soem imams have said its perfectly fine to beat a wife) thats for sure.

originally posted by: amazing
Maybe. but most of it's domestic stuff and road rage where he actually followed a guy. I'm still not buying that he's a good guy. I'm still of mind that Trayvon Martin should have run for his life and didn't realize how crazy this zimmerman guy was.

Oh, I don't think he's a good guy either but on the other hand I also don't think he's horrible. He's one of those stand your ground proponents that fantasizes about getting to kill people and he has anger/violence issues. A lot of people have those issues and don't get killed for them though.

All in all he's pretty average I suppose.

Well, this thread is about what I expected. Most are ready to assume the victim is the perpetrator, yet again, and utterly ignore the evidence, or distinct lack of any in this case, that would show Zimmerman to be guilty of anything.

Let's stick with the facts, shall we?

1. Virtually every single headline I have seen about this case states that Zimmerman was "involved in" a shooting, when the fact is, he was shot at by someone else. In other words, he's the victim, barring any evidence to the contrary.

2. The guy that shot at Zimmerman claims that Zimmerman was threatening him before, but has zero evidence to support his claim. None. No plate number, not a single witness, nothing. All we have is his claim. So he sees someone he recognizes from the news, maybe didn't like the results of the trial, and decides to cause the man trouble. He sees him again today, and tries to kill him, since he coldn't cause him trouble before.

3. There is no evidence that Zimmerman even had a gun on him, or that he was waving one around. None. It's at least as likely, and in my opinion more likely, that this man is simply one of many against Zimmerman, and decided to make up stories, then take a shot at him when the stories were not believed.

4. If Zimmerman had been planning to shoot at this man, he'd have rolled down his window. If he even saw the man aiming a gun, and had one, considering how many threats he's received, he'd have shot back. He did nothing. This man, that so many of you are willing to call violent, did nothing at all.

5. Stop talking about allegations of abuse when both cases were dropped with no charges filed. Are we all so naive that we can't accept that false allegations can be made? I wouldn't be surprised if someone paid those women to lie, just to cause him more trouble, because he dared defend himself against an attack. No charges, no evidence, nothing but a couple of withdrawn allegations.

6. Anyone that watched the trial footage knows the outcome was just and right. ALL of the evidence supports his claim of self defense, and I watched long hours of the trial, testimony, etc. The stuff was readily available online. Probably still is. Frankly, I am sick to death of the attitude of people that are either anti-gun or anti-white claiming all sorts of things about a man that defended his life, and that only after repeated calls for help went unanswered.

All of the talk of the man causing trouble is based on lies and unproven allegations (withdrawn) and suppositions about his character, mainly based on those things and the attitude that anyone carrying a gun must be some sort of trigger-happy nut, just looking to shoot someone. If the person killed is black, well, hey, the shooter "must be a racist". Never mind the drug use of Zimmerman's attacker, or his criminal activities at school, or anything else; he was black and a teen, therefore automatically innocent, right? Add to this that Zimmerman was targeted by various racist groups, his address revealed, contracts put on his head, and so forth. Gee, they all gave up and went away after he was acquitted, right? Surely, no one is naive enough to believe that!! Just jump right on the "Hate Zimmerman" bandwagon, folks! Ignore the facts.

So much for denying ignorance.

originally posted by: yuppa
HE was found not guilty and the evidence backed it up.

What evidence backed up in Zimmermans favour?

The injuries he sustained is only an indication that he was involved in a fight, not an indication that Trayvon started the fight. So what else aside from this? Zimmermans testimony? What evidence, I'm curious.

a reply to: Snarl

Well if G. Zim was waving a gun around, I DO believe that shooting at him would be a kin to using the "Stand your ground" Law. I do believe that Zim has experience in that arena as well.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: amazing
Zimmerman is a bad guy. There is no way a normal person with good intentions get's in that much trouble from murder to road rage to domestic violence to destruction of property.

Really? Half the country wanted him to get the death penalty, Spike Lee published his address and told people to go make sure the courts didn't have an opportunity to let him off the hook.

Being that hated can really mess with a person, especially if he actually was justified against Trayvon. That can easily be a catalyst for a bunch of other bad events.

I love this excuse people make up for Zimm Man. Like everyone wants him dead and the trouble is coming to him..

Let me clear that up with this little tid bit... Georgie was never near as hated as much as Casey Anthony.. Most of the country was in a uproar when she got off and a majority believe she killed her little girl.... How many times has she been in the news for road rage, domestic violence, threats?? No run in with the law or no drama like that since that i know of...

Funny how she has somehow avoided all this drama with the law but GZ cant.... Poor ole George guy never does anything wrong people always picking on him...

originally posted by: Southern Guardian

originally posted by: yuppa
HE was found not guilty and the evidence backed it up.

What evidence backed up in Zimmermans favour?

The injuries he sustained is only an indication that he was involved in a fight, not an indication that Trayvon started the fight. So what else aside from this? Zimmermans testimony? What evidence, I'm curious.

Well apparently the jury found enough evidence to clear him of the shooting right? logic leads us to there must had been evidence that supported his claims.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Southern Guardian

originally posted by: yuppa
HE was found not guilty and the evidence backed it up.

What evidence backed up in Zimmermans favour?

The injuries he sustained is only an indication that he was involved in a fight, not an indication that Trayvon started the fight. So what else aside from this? Zimmermans testimony? What evidence, I'm curious.

Well apparently the jury found enough evidence to clear him of the shooting right? logic leads us to there must had been evidence that supported his claims.

Right....

Guess who else got off a murder rap. O J Simpson!!! What's that tell you? Logic leads us to believe the justice system is flawed.

But eventually GZ will meet his justice in the street. And it will be his own fault!

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Southern Guardian

originally posted by: yuppa
HE was found not guilty and the evidence backed it up.

What evidence backed up in Zimmermans favour?

The injuries he sustained is only an indication that he was involved in a fight, not an indication that Trayvon started the fight. So what else aside from this? Zimmermans testimony? What evidence, I'm curious.

Well apparently the jury found enough evidence to clear him of the shooting right? logic leads us to there must had been evidence that supported his claims.

That is a misrepresentation of how a jury deliberates. A jury doesn't "find evidence" or "review evidence" to find someone innocent. They just don't find ENOUGH evidence to call him guilty. Hence the verdict "Not Guilty". Not guilty doesn't mean innocent though.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: amazing
Zimmerman is a bad guy. There is no way a normal person with good intentions get's in that much trouble from murder to road rage to domestic violence to destruction of property.

Really? Half the country wanted him to get the death penalty, Spike Lee published his address and told people to go make sure the courts didn't have an opportunity to let him off the hook.

Being that hated can really mess with a person, especially if he actually was justified against Trayvon. That can easily be a catalyst for a bunch of other bad events.

oh, you mean like the "bad events" of beating his wife, and then later beating his girlfriend?....because being hated justified that too, I suppose.

a reply to: olaru12

Lol..a jury...oooooooooo, he absolutely must be a good guy
He is a woman beating POS who without his gun..well only can go after a woman.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Southern Guardian

originally posted by: yuppa
HE was found not guilty and the evidence backed it up.

What evidence backed up in Zimmermans favour?

The injuries he sustained is only an indication that he was involved in a fight, not an indication that Trayvon started the fight. So what else aside from this? Zimmermans testimony? What evidence, I'm curious.

Well apparently the jury found enough evidence to clear him of the shooting right? logic leads us to there must had been evidence that supported his claims.

That is a misrepresentation of how a jury deliberates. A jury doesn't "find evidence" or "review evidence" to find someone innocent. They just don't find ENOUGH evidence to call him guilty. Hence the verdict "Not Guilty". Not guilty doesn't mean innocent though.

OK. Were presumed innocent until guilty correct? So if he was not found guilty however they got there by law he is still innocent. Play it how you want but you cannot deny that fact. What you want is not germane to the Word of the law. A jury DOES review evidence presented to them as well. If they did not then why collect evidence to use in a trial? There would be no point right?

a reply to: yuppa

I'm just citing legal definitions. Not guilty != innocent according to any legal textbook you'd happen to pick up. I know it doesn't make sense to you or I, but that is lawyer speak for you.

A jury DOES review evidence presented to them as well. If they did not then why collect evidence to use in a trial? There would be no point right?

Did you misunderstand what I said or something? I SAID that a jury doesn't review evidence to determine innocence. THEN I said that they DO review evidence to determine guilt. That is the only way a jury reviews evidence. You either have enough evidence to call them guilty or you don't.

I've seen a photo of Z's alleged P.U. with a bullet hole in the passenger door's window. If G.Z. rolled up his window with electric controls on his driver's side door, and was holding onto the steering wheel with his right hand, then how in blazes, could he have been waving a gun, out the passenger door side of his vehicle? G.Z. was either trying to blow off an antagonist, or he simply didn't want to get involved.

Ol' G.Z. has a "Rep", and this Attenson dude seems to be pushing him. But this time he pushed way too far. Attenson didn't even have a cell phone on him, as he stopped to borrow one to call 911. No cell, but a loaded and ready firearm in his own rig???? G.Z. didn't have to listen to any B.S. from poor little Travon M., but Attenson will get an earful from G.Z. in his upcoming trial for attempted murder. its going to be "he said, she said", but that bullet hole is a "Killer". Attenson is headed to prison, for trying to bushwack G. Z. IMHO. BTW, firearms are used hundreds of thousands of times a year, in te U.S.A. to ward off criminals. Most of the time, no reports are ever made, since most of the time, there isn't any I.D.'s of the criminals.

But when Mr. Attenson saw G.Z. drive off wounded, he grasped the fact that he was busted, and is trying to do some ridiculous attempts at damage control. Think about this! Shoot G.Z. in his head, through the car window, after G.Z. had brandished something which looked like a gun. Watch the car wreck, and then get out and positively I.D. the firearm, being waved from inside the closed Zimmerman P.U. Wait for the cops and claim that G.Z. was pointing his gun straight at your head, but you somehow grabbed your own piece, and shot G.Z. through the P.U.'s rolled up window, first.

G.Z. has already claimed that a car came up behind him with its lights flashing in distress, or anger. See where this takes the police investigation, in the next week or so?? G. Z. still has lawyer West in his corner, so Attenson isn't going to steamroll anyone, anytime soon. Funny thing is that Attenson probably has a list of P.O.'d disability clients who may come after him for cutting them off. He may be every bit as squirrelly as G.Z. is known to be.