The Zimmerman Trial

reply to post by inquisitive1977


You presented no facts whatsoever really. Just a plea to emotion. Being scared of someone following you does not give you the legal right to batter someone, no matter what the age. "Kids" his age and younger are convicted of crimes all the time, they are not immune to the law, as you are trying to say.

Not to mention you contradict yourself. You claim:

He grew up knowing violent people, his likely conclusion was that his life was in danger. That gave Travon the right to fight, and kill, Zimmerman in self defense if it came to that.

Then say

However we can never allow for our children to become expendable by saying if someone gets scared enough they can legally kill them.

reply to post by inquisitive1977

Travon did nothing then

Treyvon attacked and assaulted Zimmerman. Sorry but that is a fact in which case he had every right to defend himself. The law states we do not have to be on the verge of death to protect ourselves anyone who thinks different is plain crazy.

Trayvon had 0 right to jump on top off George and pound his head in no way is that considered self defense.

BTW this part

Travon WAS a child regardless of what you want to believe

Well I was the same age as him when I joined the Army so that child BS you are pushing falls short IMHO.

reply to post by Tlove250


You apparently don't understand how a real fight works. No sense in arguing with you if you don't get it.
Zimmerman didn't have time to retaliate and was likely too dazed to strike back with a flash light.

reply to post by inquisitive1977

I find it amazing that so many want to defend Zimmerman,

I am not a Zimmerman defender. If I were i would be part of the prosecution team because they are the ones who defended him the most. Point blank the prosecution did not prove the charges they filed against Zimmerman.

End of story.

Peace

lmao...sorry but there is no debunking facts.

So what was debunked, are you saying he was not a legal child?
Are you claiming Zimmerman didn't judge him based off of one glance and tell EVERYONE that he was guilty and get away with someone like everyone?
Are you claiming that Zimmerman actually had life threatening injuries to justify killing a child?
Are you claiming that it was proven that Travon was not scared for his life to justify him attacking Zimmerman? Of course I cannot prove that but no one can prove otherwise, so everyone believes the only person alive to talk.

I don't deny that Travon was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot. He never threatened Zimmerman's life and barely injured him. Nothing he did justifies killing him, it would have never happened if Zimmerman (the legal adult completely responsible for his actions) didn't escalate the situation being the aggresser himself.

An aggresser cannot start a situation then turn around and claim self defense when the victim tries to defend themselves.

There is no other legitimate conclusion regardless of how blind people want to be, I am done with this thread since it seems to be full of people incapable of rational thought.

Originally posted by Tlove250
An intermediary weapon is used to stop the threat, not necessarily to kill. The state is saying Z could have taken control of the teenager that was smaller than him. Not a big kid by an streatch of the imagination; tall and thin. Yes, it is not a maglight, but I promise you if you were hit with it by a grown man who weighed more than you you would feel it.

His hands and arms were not pinned. That is kind of crazy logic, since he used one to shoot instead of strike. *snip*

He was lucid enough to allegedly recognize T somehow see his gun, which was holstered to his rear, and literally underneath him if he were really on his back. Then he was lucid enough to draw the weapon from beneath him, aim, and pull the trigger. Z should not walk. He confessed to manslaughter.
*snip*

A citizen isn't required to use some "intermediary" weapon to defend themselves. That's not a valid discussion, period. His BODY was pinned, arms certainly at least some of the time. The fact is, he was witnessed pinned, and he did get loose enough to get to the gun before his assailant did. Logic means looking at facts, not suppositions. You are not required to wait until you are not lucid to defend your life with deadly force. That would rather defeat the point. What was that about logic? He said he shot an assailant, which is not a confession to any crime.

Originally posted by Tlove250
The force continuum is common sense. Guess what? Whatever name you call it you are also held to the same rules of engagement. If someone slaps you in the face, shoot them and see what happens to you. They brought in an expert who did bring it up but glossed over the actual rule because of his bias. If you all cannot see that then intelligent conversation cannot be had here, and this thread should have been shutdown long ago. The motto is deny ignorance, not embrace blind bias, so, peace people.

Apples and oranges. No one was slapped. George was sucker punched, knocking him down. he was pinned and pummeled. George acted within the laws of the state in defending his life. Those are the facts. Very few here are trying to ignore them. The only bias I see is from those still trying to claim this teenager was a victim.

Originally posted by inquisitive1977
*snip*
He tried and convicted Travon just by seeing him walking down the street, proven by his quote that was recorded on the 911 call. Although I'm not positive he actually knew Travon was black and I don't think that was a driving factor. It was likely how he dressed and carried himself, which is NOT justification for any violence.

He followed Travon, a legal child, likely scaring the crap out of Travon. Think of Travon's history, someone following him in a vehicle at a slow speed and watching him. He grew up knowing violent people, his likely conclusion was that his life was in danger. That gave Travon the right to fight, and kill, Zimmerman in self defense if it came to that.
*snip*

He did no such thing. He reported suspicious behavior, and exited his vehicle, in HIS neighborhood, to try and see which was "the guy" went, when it seemed that the dispatcher wanted that (even the dispatcher admits he could see someone thinking that from the4 conversation). The ONLY racist behavior or commentary was from Martin. A seventeen year old is NOT a child. teens that age can even serve in the military - I did. The "child" stuff was to bias people. martin's only conclusion was that he didn't like the "creepy *bleep* cracker" watching him, so he attacked. The STATE witness even said he was pretty much back to where he was staying. He didn't go in, and chose to assault someone instead. That's not legal. His racist assumptions do NOT give him a right to attack someone.

Originally posted by CharlesMartel
reply to post by caladonea

 

I'd rather one of my daughters date someone like George Zimmerman than someone like Travon Martin, especially when you consider the evidence that the judge did not let be presented from Travon's cell phone social media sites.

Speaking of the disallowed cell phone evidence, the judge disallowed it because the defense didn't prove that Travon was the only person with the passwords required to find the stuff. Of course, since the prosecution didn't provide the evidence until about a week before the trial started, the defense did not have much time to validate that only Travon used the phone. It took the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) (state police lab) over a year to crack into the phone, but that didn't convince the judge that it was secure. Apparently, from her ruling the judge's child cracked her phone password.

Circular logic or conspiracy?

Conspiracy. Deliberate bias against the defendant.

reply to post by inquisitive1977


I am sorry, but you cannot seriously say Zimmerman alone escalated the situation. I don't understand why Martin gets a freebie on his actions. Zimmerman got out of his car, and may have searched for Martin (may have just been looking for a house number). Martin ran which increased the neighborhood watchman's suspicions. Then Martin didn't go inside his home when he made it there, instead he confronted and likely sucker punched Zimmerman.

Why is Zimmerman walking around the neighborhood considered more of a provocation than Martin assaulting him.

Originally posted by inquisitive1977
reply to post by TKDRL

 

So no legitimate arguments there, i present facts and you basically whine.

Travon did nothing then, there was absolutely no reason to follow him and escalate the situation, Travon WAS a child regardless of what you want to believe. The laws are different as they apply to Travon, he can not be held responsible for his actions completely. Zimmerman should have known better and de-escalated or not even created the situation to start with. Zimmerman had no serious injuries and basically got as much as a bandaid and somehow claims his life was threatened by a CHILD.

Sorry but there is no legitimate defense, the prosecuter may have been completely inept but there is no way Zimmerman should get anything but manslaughter.

edit on 11-7-2013 by inquisitive1977 because: (no reason given)

Zimmerman followed Trayvon at the request of the Non Emergency dispatcher. He didn't specifically tell Zimmerman to follow him, but by asking him to keep an eye on Trayvon and to see what he does, you can see how Zimmerman would've gotten that impression. Are we to blame the dispatcher now?

There's also no hard proof that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon after the dispatcher told him not to.

At one point during Rachel's testimony, she stated that Trayvon was by his house... this being after he had initially ran away. If Rachel's testimony can be trusted, then why if Trayvon was already by his house, did he end up where he died? Did Zimmerman find him and drag him all the way back?

You cannot just beat up someone who you think is following you. If you feel you're in danger and you knock the instigator of that danger down, fine, whatever, but what possible reason would there be to then get on top of him, beat him relentlessly, continue to beat him even after a witness tells you to stop? The only person here who clearly had malice was Trayvon. You do not do something like that unless you want to kill someone. I'd consider beating someone who's down, with every blow of yours sending their head crashing against concrete, more evidence of malice than I would consider someone uttering, 'the f-ing punks, a**holes, they always get away' being malice or ill will.

After Trayvon knocked Zimmerman down, he should've just ran away... that's of course if he was actually afraid. With his history though, I think he just wanted to layeth the smacketh down on a neighborhood watchman.

reply to post by inquisitive1977

An aggressor cannot start a situation then turn around and claim self defense when the victim tries to defend themselves.

The moment Treyvon came back and confronted George then punched him he became the aggressor. BTW following someone does NOT make you an aggressor but hitting someone does.

And again the child BS appeal to emotion doesn’t cut it I joined the Army at 17.

He never threatened Zimmerman's life

No he was attempting to take his life that would be covered with the slamming his head into concrete.

Originally posted by inquisitive1977
reply to post by TKDRL

 

So no legitimate arguments there, i present facts and you basically whine.

Travon did nothing then, there was absolutely no reason to follow him and escalate the situation, Travon WAS a child regardless of what you want to believe. The laws are different as they apply to Travon, he can not be held responsible for his actions completely. Zimmerman should have known better and de-escalated or not even created the situation to start with. Zimmerman had no serious injuries and basically got as much as a bandaid and somehow claims his life was threatened by a CHILD.

Sorry but there is no legitimate defense, the prosecuter may have been completely inept but there is no way Zimmerman should get anything but manslaughter.

edit on 11-7-2013 by inquisitive1977 because: (no reason given)

Many facts have been presented, and you continue to ignore, them, and repeat "child" over and over, ad nauseum. At 17, one can be tried as an adult, depending on the situation. One can serve in the military, as you have been told by at least three people here that did do. One is not a CHILD at 17, period. My oldest son, at 17, had a voice deeper than that of many men, and was very fit. Many thought he was in his early 20's. NOT a child. Old enough to be legally responsible, too, which MANY cases prove. Plus, you do not have to have serious injuries to legally, and rightly, use deadly force to defend yourself. A person simply has to believe that such force is “necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to themselves.” Get it yet? You use the force BEFORE being seriously injured, or killed. Waiting till afterwards would be beyond pointless. Think. There is no legitimate evidence of a crime, and no defense is needed. He should be found innocent of all charges.

Originally posted by AlexG141989
Yeah, those screams really do sound like Zimmerman's voice. The dead giveaway imo is that really loud shrieking noise that rises above all the other yells.

Agreed! I have listened MANY times to his recorded voice, and the screams sound just like him. Plus, even Martin's father initially said it was NOT is son screaming for help.

Originally posted by riffraff
reply to post by inquisitive1977

 

Wow I wish you had time to read the thread too because your thoughts are baseless, irrelevant, and debunked about 200 pages ago. Maybe if people would read before chiming in this thread might actually get somewhere instead of saying the same thing over again 500 times

I would be happy if they simply reviewed the facts of the case, which show Mr. Zimmerman is innocent!

Originally posted by inquisitive1977
*snip*
I don't deny that Travon was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot. He never threatened Zimmerman's life and barely injured him. Nothing he did justifies killing him, it would have never happened if Zimmerman (the legal adult completely responsible for his actions) didn't escalate the situation being the aggresser himself.

An aggresser cannot start a situation then turn around and claim self defense when the victim tries to defend themselves.

There is no other legitimate conclusion regardless of how blind people want to be, I am done with this thread since it seems to be full of people incapable of rational thought.

edit on 11-7-2013 by inquisitive1977 because: (no reason given)

You don't deny that Martin was the aggressor, then turn around and claim that Zimmerman somehow was? You can't sucker punch a person, knock them down, pummel them, and then become the "victim" when they shoot you. The ONLY legitimate conclusion is that Mr. Zimmerman acted within the law, even showing restraint till he had no other option, in defending his life. Rational people see this.

Originally posted by inquisitive1977
lmao...sorry but there is no debunking facts.

So what was debunked, are you saying he was not a legal child?

Why does that matter? Zimmerman didn't know his age when Martin attacked him. 17 year olds kill adults all the time. Also if Martin had killed Zimmerman he would have been tried as an adult.

Are you claiming Zimmerman didn't judge him based off of one glance and tell EVERYONE that he was guilty and get away with someone like everyone?

I think Zimmerman's observations were very astute. Martin was almost certainly high on either thc or even more likely DXM (which effects your walking and Martin openly talked about using on facebook, and had a picture of it on his phone. Also the damage to Martin's liver and brain show the effects of that particular drug). It took an hour for Martin to make a .6 mile (15 - 20 min round trip) trip (and he ran 20 seconds of it!). So he was very likely up to something. Then he ran, but didn't go home, and later attacked Zimmerman both are pretty good indicators that Zimmerman's suspicions were dead on.

Are you claiming that Zimmerman actually had life threatening injuries to justify killing a child?

He was justified in shooting the TEEN (not a child don't be ridiculous). He wasn't aware of the seriousness of his injuries when he shot. His brain could have been hanging out for all he knew. He just felt fear and pain. Also the beating was ongoing so there is nothing to indicate it would have stopped before serious injury occurred. Do you think the injuries would not have been more numerous and serious if Zimmerman had said "i am so self righteous I refuse to shoot this young looking thug bouncing my head off the sidewalk." I guess you would have let Martin beat you to death because you would rather sacrifice yourself than injure or kill a teen.

Are you claiming that it was proven that Travon was not scared for his life to justify him attacking Zimmerman?

Yes. If Martin was afraid he would have gone in his home when he made it there. Instead he waited outside for several minutes and then confronted Zimmerman (which is not questioned and was testified to by both prosecution and defense) and attacked. He also didn't call the police. He also CONFRONTED the guy he was supposedly afraid of. Why not yell from a distance "what do you want?" Let's be real Martin wanted to sneak up and beat Zimmerman up.

Of course I cannot prove that but no one can prove otherwise, so everyone believes the only person alive to talk.

I don't deny that Travon was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot. He never threatened Zimmerman's life and barely injured him. Nothing he did justifies killing him, it would have never happened if Zimmerman (the legal adult completely responsible for his actions) didn't escalate the situation being the aggresser himself.

An aggresser cannot start a situation then turn around and claim self defense when the victim tries to defend themselves.

There is no other legitimate conclusion regardless of how blind people want to be, I am done with this thread since it seems to be full of people incapable of rational thought.

There is another conclusion.. the correct one. The one the jury and everyone with the evidence will come to. Zimmerman FEARED for his life. If you don't think being on top of someone in the dark and beating their head against the ground after sucker punching them is enough to make someone fear for their life then you are clueless. The second Martin laid a hand on Zimmerman he justified his death. This isn't highschool where you know everyone and pick fights. This is the real world and you don't lay your hand on another person. You don't have the right to assault someone for any reason except for protection of yourself or someone else. Martin escalated it when he laid his hand on Zimmerman. Case closed.

something none of the TM supporters have any answer for.

there is no way TM could have got back to the T on the sidewalk, with out passing the house he was staying in.

either way he went down towards the back entrance, he had to pass this house. if he was so scared for his life why didn't he go in lock the door, turn out the lights, and hide from the "creepy a@@ cracker"

if he turned and went up the walk, behind the houses, he passed it. if he would have went up and turned on the next street he would have went right past it. there was no way not to pass this house unless he doubled back and came back to where he first pasted GM when he took off running.

from where the fight took place, it is plain to see, let me rephrase that, it is not hard to see that he choose to walk right past his house and go right back to the spot he last saw GM.

that there by it's self is a stupid move on his part, now if he was so scared why did he go back there.

THIS IS WHERE I THINK RACHEL JEANTEL WAS HOLDING BACK. AND WAS BEING SO COMBATIVE.
you could see it in her eyes and in her body language, she was not telling the truth and trying not to spill the beans on TM. this girl was not dumb. under educated my a@@, she has street smarts and knows exactly how to play off authority figures.

i think TM told her he was going back and beat down that cracker, and she heard more than she is letting on to.

i also wonder if she is even the one he was talking to, there is talk that she is not dee dee. i wonder if she filled in for her. but that's neither here nor there she is the one the was on the stand and her word is all we have and it was not very credible.

Here's what I'm thinking...

I bet you that at least one, if not all of those jurors have had encounters with 'riff-raff'. I bet you that in those encounters, they WISHED someone would stand up and protect the community, especially 'cuz they do always get away'.

They were able to see Zimmerman's teacher praise him; no ill will in regards to race between them, and they also saw his enthusiasm with being on the side of the law.

This will tug at their hearts rather than the prosecution's poor attempt at emotional rhetoric today.

Couple this with the image of Trayvon being on top of Zimmerman-thanks to the 'dummy'- should allow them to see through the B.S. of the trial,

and they will acquit on ALL charges.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


Here is an interesting thing as well.

The lady who said she heard movement from right to left was most likely her hearing MARTIN coming back to jump George. There was 10 to 15 seconds between the calls enough time for him to run back to the T.

I hope the defense illustrates that.


Reasonable doubt.

It's obvious if I continue to talk on here my emotions will overpower me. I do believe everyone has a right to make their own decisions and I don't think believing Zimmerman is innocent makes you a bad person.

Personally, I haven't seen one argument I consider legitimate yet, regardless of what you can do at 17 you are a legal child. At 18 you cannot legally have a drink but that doesn't mean you aren't considered an adult. I also joined the military at age 17 but I cannot claim to be smart at age 17 either.

I am raising an interracial kid and if someone ever saw them in the street and started following them for no reason whatsoever other than they thought they looked suspicious. You better believe if I ever find someone stalking my kid with absolutely no reason they will be hospitalized in the least or dead at the most, unless they manage to kill me or convince me they did not intend any harm (which would be difficult after I see them stalking my child). I, just like most adults, would assume the worst when an actual much larger adult follows a child and believe they have only evil intent.

That fear alone, that I can imagine Travon had, justified him "sucker" punching Zimmerman who was larger. He would have no chance to win any fight without surprise.I don't think Zimmerman intentionally did something wrong but he DID do something wrong.

The sentence itself should not be massive because of all of the extenuating circumstances but this should not be acceptable.

This whole thing seems to be so blown out of proportion that it has become a powder keg, where so many people want to claim racism if you believe Zimmerman is innocent or it seems people claim others are compensating too much for past racism if you believe the opposite and it doesn't have to be either.

We always seem to be looking for reasons to hate, I don't want to be a part of encouraging that so I need to stay out of this thread since I do have strong feelings on this which ultimately don't matter, the only thing that matters is the jury. Not that I don't mind having real debates, I love it and try to take both sides into account. I may be a little biased here even if I believe it is for completely valid reasons though and need to stay away from this thread..

you know something else i just thought about.

how could TM dad find out that she was the last one he spoke to? if FDLE had the phone for a year?
GZ lawyer said this when he and the judge were arguing about the text and pictures.

what did they ask them for the phone? and if it was password protected did he not give them the password?
and if he didin't, why not, wouldn't he want to help the law solve the case?

you zimmerman supporters are spouting a ton of speculation. my speculation is that zimmermans entire account of what happened is fishy and not believable, his credibility is zero in my opinion after all his inconsistencies. we are supposed to believe his side after all his false statements? it's a damn shame we can't here trayvons version of events because he is dead. if zimmerman gets a not guilty verdict it will be because of lack of evidence similar to the oj and casey anthony case.

This is what I don't get...

Can't you say that according to Florida law TM was just "standing his ground" ?

Maybe he felt his life was threatened?

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
you zimmerman supporters are spouting a ton of speculation. my speculation is that zimmermans entire account of what happened is fishy and not believable, his credibility is zero in my opinion after all his inconsistencies. we are supposed to believe his side after all his false statements? it's a damn shame we can't here trayvons version of events because he is dead. if zimmerman gets a not guilty verdict it will be because of lack of evidence similar to the oj and casey anthony case.

Except here, the criminal is dead, and the innocent has a very good chance of acquital.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


on my cellphone bill, it shows everyone I've called by phone number.

maybe thats how he found it?