The Zimmerman Trial

reply to post by IvanAstikov


For one they would need an actual case. It helps by having police charge someone with a crime instead of cutting them free because nothing conflicts with Zimmerman's story.

They would have needed Rachel Jeantel to be competent and say that she heard martin attacked rather than confronting, and then she called the police instead of thinking he just got into another fight. They would probably need at least one eyewitness to tell a different story than Zimmerman's. They would need SOME KIND of evidence that Zimmerman was hate filled or something. Really I don't even know because there was no case. This shouldn't have gone to trial.

Basically it would need to be an alternate reality.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


You make a great point here. Any owner of firearms is taught that you continuing firing until the threat is neutralized. In this case, it is evident that one shot was fired. If the intent were there; or the ill will or evilness, more shots would have been fired and fired long before Zimmerman was on the ground.

While tragic that Martin met this end, Zimmerman's actions fall squarely within the defined meanings of self-defense. What if he pulled a knife and stabbed the young man in the chest? What if he sprayed peanut oil in his face and unknowingly caused an allergic reaction? What if....a fun game....

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Restraint would have been pistol-whipping him. A bullet to the heart is not restraint, by any stretch of the imagination. He'd supposedly just won his struggle for the gun and all he had to do was hold Trayvon at arm's length and tell him to ease off or die. He could have poked Trayvon in the face with the barrel or hammer-fisted the butt on his head. He didn't have to shoot him.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

Restraint would have been pistol-whipping him. A bullet to the heart is not restraint, by any stretch of the imagination. He'd supposedly just won his struggle for the gun and all he had to do was hold Trayvon at arm's length and tell him to ease off or die. He could have poked Trayvon in the face with the barrel or hammer-fisted the butt on his head. He didn't have to shoot him.

A Hollywood presumption. Life is not scripted and happens at a moments notice. I am not condoning Mr. Zimmerman's actions as they were his, in that moment, but to say he had other options, after the fact, is irrelevant. Would of, Could of, Should of are luxuries of viewing it after the fact.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

Restraint would have been pistol-whipping him. A bullet to the heart is not restraint, by any stretch of the imagination. He'd supposedly just won his struggle for the gun and all he had to do was hold Trayvon at arm's length and tell him to ease off or die. He could have poked Trayvon in the face with the barrel or hammer-fisted the butt on his head. He didn't have to shoot him.

How about you just accept the fact that if you or any other tough guy decides it's ok to assault some one it can very well lead to your death. See no more need for all of the violence once people take into account that in using violence one may come to a violent end. It is not ok to assault people.

Violence should only be used against violence perpetrated against another. live by that mantra and suddenly there is no violence.....

reply to post by LeaderOfProgress


What makes you think I don't live by the mantra of "don't hit me and I wont hit you back"? Who really thinks they are the mentally tough guy - the one who thinks he can always fend off murderous armed thugs with their trusty firearm, or the one who just says they'll give anyone a fight if they get the chance, but they'll never rely on a gun?

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress

 

What makes you think I don't live by the mantra of "don't hit me and I wont hit you back"? Who really thinks they are the mentally tough guy - the one who thinks he can always fend off murderous armed thugs with their trusty firearm, or the one who just says they'll give anyone a fight if they get the chance, but they'll never rely on a gun?

Most firearm owners like Zimmerman tend to avoid confrontation and see confrontation as a last resort. Mind this little fact as well, people who conceal carry are not allowed to be involved in any assaults, nor are they likely to run the risk of losing their ability to legally own a firearm by being in an assault. Firearm owners are rarely aggressive type people, they are however very defensive people. These are facts not ideas or hearsay or agenda spun media facts.

From what i can tell Zimmerman fit this profile very well. A tough guy came after a defended guy and got bested, not by brawn but by brain. You see a smart person would know that they cannot win a fist fight and would use such intelligence to create a way to defend themselves against tough guys. It just happens to be that the best defense against tough guys happens to be quite leathal.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by firemonkey
One thing for sure, Zimmerman was out of his truck looking for Trayvon...period.

Which is not a crime nor a preclude to a crime. I can follow you around all day and night.

Also; you cannot say "for sure"; otherwise it is speculation. You don't know those facts, no one knows.

You could follow me around all day and all night, but at some point, probably before it even gets to Nighttime, I'm gonna ask if "You have a Problem"...You reach inside your jacket, i'm sticking one one your chin.

reply to post by LeaderOfProgress


What is getting out of your vehicle and heading towards an unlit area where a suspected criminal just went, if not confrontational? If you aren't confronting the individual directly yet, you are only making it far more likely that a conflict could occur.

legalinsurrection.com...

Racial politics supported by State power
come down on George Zimmerman
Posted by William A. Jacobson Wednesday, July 10, 2013 at 9:57pm

(snip)

I’ve said it before, this was a case which never should have been brought, and
it wasn’t. Not until a carefully orchestrated professionally managed publicity
campaign based on false racial accusations, resulting in a Special Prosecutor.

You know the rest, or at least you thought you did until today.

We knew that Obama pumped up the racial angle when he commented that if
he had a son, he would look like Trayvon

(snip)

We also knew that Eric Holder had the DOJ investigate the case, and that the
FBI found no evidence that Zimmerman was racist or motivated by racism.

What we didn’t know until today was that the DOJ supported some of the anti-Zimmerman rallies, as disclosed by Judicial Watch

www.judicialwatch.org... rtin-protests/

(snip)

Update: Other astute observations:

Lee Stranahan:

“Welcome to Trayvongate, where the President of the United States used both
the bully pulpit, the Department of Justice and sly media manipulation to gin up
charges of racism in the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin shooting. Now
that the trial is almost finished and the only act of racism mentioned so far
came from the victim–Martin called Zimmerman ‘a creepy azz cracker’
according to testimony–the cynical and repeated use of the race card by the
White house is even more abhorrent.”

(snip) language edited by me

This case never was about race. It’s infuriating and disheartening how the
narrative was manipulated, and how the State was a party to it.

Can anyone in this country now ever not live in fear of being railroaded if it fits an agenda? Can anyone in this country ever expect that they, or a loved one, can ever be assured of the Constitutional right to a fair trial by a jury of unbiased peers?

What ever has happened to our country when everything from the auto industry, to coal and oil, healthcare, and now our judicial system are so undermined you have lost faith and trust in what used to be the firmest, most basic elements?

These truths shall be held self-evident. Unless it suits someone in power to do otherwise, then you are just screwed and tattooed.

That anyone can think Zimmerman has been railroaded here, and the hatred apparent towards Trayvon, his family, and anyone who defends him, is the saddest thing about this case, after the needless death of a young man who was still talking on the phone when he allegedly began his murderous assault.

Some people will never accept that the only reason George wasn't arrested sooner than he was, is because the police tasked with gathering the evidence were either incompetent, or wilfully obstructive in gathering the available information.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


Yet more proven facts you willfully and unjustly ignore.

Did you even read the article? It states very clearly, Eric Holder investigated himself, and found no basis for racism.

You aren't even from this country, I would wager you have not read the documents, either.

Stop trolling, when you have no basis, and a lot of proof staring you in the face.

It is tiresome, and growing old by the moment.

Even if you don't respond directly to me, it is evident you are responding to, and trolling my posts. Please, I made it clear I didn't wish to speak to you anymore. However, I will not allow baseless claims to go unconfronted.

The documents and proof are provided in the post above, and other proof has been posted throughout the thread. People can read it for themselves. They need no coaching, let them make up their own minds.

Isn't there any penalty for constant repetition of the T-word in this place? Why are some people unable to disagree with someone without labelling them as a disruptive kind of person? If people like me and a few others weren't in this thread arguing in favour for the dead teenager, this whole thread would just be Zimmerman defenders apportioning blame everywhere but to the defendant.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


Yeah and compare that to the thread before the facts came out. Like 100 people were talking like Trayvon was a murdered angel, a martyr. Now that all the facts are out, there is like three. What does that tell you? It tells me that there are a few people that refuse to look at facts, and are lead around by pure emotion and speculation.

You expect people to "man up and fight", do this, do that, instead of use his gun for what he carried it for. Self defense. Attack an armed person, and you will likely be shot. It's that simple. Keep your hands to yourself and act like a civilized person, or you might be put down like an animal.

reply to post by TKDRL


1. I wasn't even around for the first thread, so don't lump me in with whatever has been said in there. I'm here in this thread, arguing with the information available when I joined, and disclosed since, not when the media was generating viewing figures based on speculation and misinformation. I've never been led by media sources since the press in my own country reported 11 dead in a jail riot, when in fact one had died of a heart attack long after the riot had ended. I have tried to seperate my loathing for news media agencies throughout this case, and I wish others could do the same and stop feeding on the chum they throw.

2. What I expect is, if you can fight back, do so. Taking out a gun and firing it at an attacker isn't fighting back, it's putting an end to a fight, or it should be if you are competent with your gun. It amazes me how someone who is so ready to resort to a fatal solution to a fight, can have such abhorrence for those who are capable of using their fists and other methods to stop a violent attack. I don't expect an elderly woman who is attacked by a 16st hulking rapist to rely on her fists if she has a better weapon, but you don't get a pass if your own actions are what get you into a fight, and then you reach for a concealed gun.

For those who don't want to watch 6 hours of closing arguments today ...
I'll tell you ahead of time what they are going to say ... condensed ...


PROSECUTION - Zimmerman is big fat poopy-head liar. He is a murderer. We don't have any real solid evidence to show you, but trust us. He's a liar and a murderer.

DEFENSE - Every witness except two agree that Zimmerman is not a murderer and the two that disagree were caught in lies. (Rachel "Dee Dee" Jeantel and Tracy "Juice" Martin) There is no evidence against Zimmerman. He is innocent.

THE JURY - Should start deliberations late today. I'd expect a verdict by Friday night or sometime Saturday. If this trial had any real evidence to go over, it would be longer. But there really isn't anything.

NOTE ABOUT THE WEATHER - There is a tropical system coming in to Florida this weekend. I think that will help keep the teenage hooligans off the streets when the 'not guilty' verdict comes in. They won't want to go looting in the heavy rain.

Originally posted by firemonkey
We don't know who started the fight, .

Whoever started the fight is the perp. Just following someone isn't illegal.
Lead Investigator Serino stated very clearly that Zimmerman did nothing illegal before the shooting.

Originally posted by firemonkey
There is zero doubt Zimmerman killed Trayvon...that isn't even part of the argument...everyone agrees on this. It is now the job of the defense to try to argue that the killing was in self-defense,

You've got it backwards. It's the job of the state to prove that it wasn't in self defense.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

NOTE ABOUT THE WEATHER - There is a tropical system coming in to Florida this weekend. I think that will help keep the teenage hooligans off the streets when the 'not guilty' verdict comes in. They won't want to go looting in the heavy rain.

George Zimmerman seems to think that was their favourite time to be out. My advice is, if you are black, white, inbetween, or polka-dotted, don't go wearing a hoody if it is pouring down, or you may risk the wrath of a Zimmerfan with one in the chamber.

Originally posted by AlexG141989
I heard on CNN that Zimmerman's father was sequestered and therefore unable to be inside the courtroom for the trial because he was going to testify. If that's the case then why were Tracy and Sybrina able to be in the room the whole time?

This was answered by the talking heads on TV. They were allowed there because their son was a 'minor'. Since Martin was under 18 when he died, the law is that the parents are allowed in the court room.

reply to post by IvanAstikov

2. What I expect is, if you can fight back, do so. Taking out a gun and firing it at an attacker isn't fighting back, it's putting an end to a fight, or it should be if you are competent with your gun. It amazes me how someone who is so ready to resort to a fatal solution to a fight, can have such abhorrence for those who are capable of using their fists and other methods to stop a violent attack. I don't expect an elderly woman who is attacked by a 16st hulking rapist to rely on her fists if she has a better weapon, but you don't get a pass if your own actions are what get you into a fight, and then you reach for a concealed gun.

No duh it's putting an end to a fight....... I do not wish to fight, too many variables to go wrong and me end up crippled or dead. Yeah, I can fight, doesn't mean I won't shoot an attacker. I have done it before, sucked to be that guy, and will do it again if I have to. I value my body and life too much to risk it with stupid fighting. Personally, I am more of an open carry guy, if a would be attacker sees I got my AR slung on my shoulder strap, either they are really stupid, or they don't bother in the first place. People don't come into my town to commit crimes, gee I wonder why? Because everyone and their mother always has guns. The kids go out to the woods, they have guns No kidnappings here.