Why Zimmerman is Guilty

Originally posted by thesaneone
reply to post by Willtell

 

Have you heard the jury found him NOT GUILTY.

As someone who has served on a jury 4 times in the last decade let me say this...

Jurors for the most part are idiots who come into a trial not wanting to be there, and with alot of bias. Heck we had a hung jury which then got thrown out and the trial redone after a 2 1/2 week trial since one woman juror came back the last day and said she had 'feelings' the guys were innocent the night before, when the day before she had said they where guilty. Heck one drug case i was on we had one elderly guy who refused to look at the facts the guy being charged was simply an idiot in with the wrong people, and this old coot basically said, 'he looks the type, so hes guilty'... hell i didnt like the guy being charged but I saw no reason to judge him guilty...

I for one dread the day i could end up in front of a court with a jury given what ive seen of juries personally.

That also being said, yes he was found not guilty by the judgment of his peers. Doesnt mean they got it right, but that is the law of the land.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


Oh thanks very much for posting the map. I see that the TM house is way at the other end of the street and there is a gap between the yellow dash and the place where the fight commenced.

reply to post by BigfootNZ


The juror who has made a public statement said the jurors cried. I guess that defies your statement that they are just biased idiots who didn't want to be there. And also they had to deliberate as not all agreed on it.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by hounddoghowlie

 

Oh thanks very much for posting the map. I see that the TM house is way at the other end of the street and there is a gap between the yellow dash and the place where the fight commenced.

yes, if he was by his daddy's house he had to come back to the T.
why come back?

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by samkent
I'm sorry but the facts of anything have never mattered to the majority black community.

yeah that's right....because only the "white community" has the facts...the "black community" are stupid and ignorant, and do not have the higher intellectual skills as does the "white community", right?....

It's because, thanks to media race baiting, most blacks are letting emotion cloud their judgments.

Dominantly black neighborhoods in government housing projects and inner city "ghettos," so to speak, have little to no access to a decent education. Additionally, they lack the academically competitive social environment that builds the motivation and drive to try and obtain a decent education. So yes, a majority of them are ignorant, and it shows through in poor American subculture. Ignorance really has nothing to do with race and more to do with social class/quality of education available. Unfortunately, a majority of blacks in America are not very high on the social ladder (the why behind this is worthy of a thread of its own), and only have access to inner city "schools," if one would dare to call them such. Therefor, there is some merit to stating that many (OBVIOUSLY NOT ALL) blacks are ignorant, though by no means can they be solely blamed for their ignorance.

Why is it that the blacks who have come to the defense of Zimmerman's actions (and aren't fueling a political agenda or engaging in race baiting) appear to be aware of the facts of the case, and thus not ignorant? The black girl who was interning for his defense team said that she didn't find any racist qualities in Zimmerman after she got to know him. Furthermore, Zimmerman has (or perhaps had is the better term) black friends. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that this was racially motivated, or that Zimmerman is a racist.

Those who come to Trayvon's defense have nothing to base their argument on. They claim that Zimmerman shot Trayvon because of his race, they claim that Trayvon was executing his right to self defense by assaulting Zimmerman, then they claim that we don't even know if Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman, they claim that Zimmerman lied about everything, then they call people racist for disagreeing with them, they claim that "cracka" is not a racist term, they disbelieve all of the evidence, disregard the facts, etc. It's an illogical, emotional argument, and it gets fueled by the media constantly. Just today on the radio there were all of these black men and women calling in and saying how they felt they now had to tell their children to avoid associating with or getting into altercations with whites because they would get shot.

What does race matter when someone has you on the ground and is beating the crap out of you!?!?

How did this ridiculous thread get 87 flags????

Zimmerman is innocent, plain and simple.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Tardacus

 

Do you have a link to an online map you can post so I can see what you saw?

there are a lot of photos and maps of the crime scene on the net, here are 2 that I found:

on this map the purple line is martin, he was moving from left to right and began running somewhere near zimmermans vehicle. The purple dot is where zimmerman lost sight of martin.

the red line is the route zimmerman took, (moving from the left to the right) after leaving his vehicle to follow martin he lost sight of martin when martin was near the purple dot. At the red dot zimmerman looked down the sidewalk between the row of houses and didn`t see anyone so he continued walking to the right.
When he reached the street on the right he looked both directions up and down the street and again he didn`t see anyone.
It was at that point that he told the dispatcher that he was going to head back to his vehicle to meet the officer who was on his way there,and he ended the 911 call.Just to the left of his vehicle ( and out of sight on this map) is a row of mailboxes, those are the mailboxes he was referring to when he was talking with the dispatcher.

The yellow line is the route he took on his way back to his vehicle ( moving from right to left)
On his way back to his vehicle, near the intersection of the 2 sidewalks, is where he claims that martin confronted him and attacked him.






Here is a photo taken from the intersection of the 2 sidewalks and looking down the long sidewalk, martin was staying at the house on the left near the end of the sidewalk ( about where the purple dot is)



based on the 911 call timeline ( if i remember correctly) approximately 2 1/2 to 3 minutes had past from the time zimmerman lost sight of martin until martin attacked zimmerman.
martin had 2 1/2 to 3 minutes to travel from the spot where zimmerman lost sight of him to his house at the end of the sidewalk (as seen in the photo). i`m an old man but i`m pretty sure even i could run that far in much less than 3 minutes.

So the question remains, where was martin for those 3 minutes? was he at home and then came back up the sidewalk when zimmerman was at the street on the far right? was he hiding behind one of those white patio fences?

Originally posted by Willtell
It’s easy and simple.

Even if Trayvon started the fight (which I don’t concede because Zimmerman has been caught in lies) he is innocent because by the same “stand your ground law” he felt under attack by Zimmerman stalking him. Therefore he felt he had to defend himself by attacking his unknown stalker. Remember Zimmerman didn’t admit that he identified himself to Trayvon as a neighborhood watchman. So how was Trayvon to know who this guy stalking him was . . . he may have been a criminal or sex pervert or whatever.

You just proved that you have no idea of how the law actually works. You cannot commit a felony assault on another person because you think they might, based on nothing but your own prejudices, commit a crime against you. martin didn't "stand his ground"; he returned to an area he'd left, confronted (according to his own friend!) and attacked another person. ALL the evidence and witnesses support his account. You don't have to be a NW person, or ID yourself, to not be assaulted.

Originally posted by Willtell
So we know Trayvon had no idea who he was. If hypothetically Trayvon did attack Zimmerman it wasn’t out of ill intent it was out of fear and self defense. He died because of the illogical actions of Zimmerman not anything he did out of ill intent.

So, you can assault anyone that walks near you, simply because you don't know them? Really?

Originally posted by Willtell
So it is very likely that Zimmerman had the gun pulled on the kid and the kid panicked and went after Zimmerman. In that case Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd degree murder and manslaughter at least.

No, it isn't likely. Witnesses didn't see a gun out. There is no evidence of murder or manslaughter, ONLY of self defense. Innocent until proven guilty, unless you are white? Is that your standard?

Originally posted by Willtell
Ask yourself this question. Why do people give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt: thinking Trayvon was involved in criminal activity therefore he had the right to frighten and stalk Trayvon, but Trayvon out of fear of this creep stalking him didn’t have the right to self defense?
You see the double standard here?

Ask yourself. The double standard is bringing up Mr Zimmerman's past, and lying about it, while painting Martin as a 10-12 year old CHILD, all innocent, when he was adult-sized, nearly an adult, and far from innocent. Stalking isn't following and observing, either. There are plenty of online dictionaries. Look it up.

Originally posted by Willtell
In fact it was Trayvon who that night was brave and noble not Zimmerman who displayed himself a paranoid possible bigot profiling an innocent teenager, who at best lost a fight he started and resorted to killing an innocent kid.

No, assaulting someone because you call them a racist slur and don't like them looking at you isn't innocent; it's a criminal, felony act. Burglary is criminal, too, and illegal drug use. Starting a fight is illegal. We have one KNOWN bigot (according to his friend), and his victim, a man that mentored black kids, defended a black homeless man, and had black friends among his neighbors.

Originally posted by Willtell
Case Closed

The case is closed, but some people want to play the race card and reopen it. You don't want justice; you want to excuse criminal behavior based on color. That this many flagged the post is a very disappointing reflection on ATS.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

Democrats are also using the issue to reconsider Stand Your Ground laws and the President is also using it in his personal agenda of gun control measures. The family is trying to get money from the defendant and their attorney is using it for social engineering.

Yes, that is absolutely right. Never let a good crisis (especially designed crisis) go to waste!

reply to post by Tardacus


Great post. Very interesting and enlightening map. Sad thing is, Trayvon didn't have far to go home. If Zimmerman's following him was creeping him out, he could have gotten home safe and sound, told his folks, and perhaps, the story would have taken a completely different turn. Zimmerman had lost sight of him, he had a clear escape advantage.

Originally posted by Willtell
That’s not true.
He was not doing what he supposed to do
They told him on the phone to back off
He got out of the truck against the command of the authorities

Tell me what was Trayvon doing?

Doesn’t he have a right to defend himself?

How would you feel if your 17 year old daughter or son was stalked by a stranger

Again, you prove that you know NOTHING about the case. Mr. Zimmerman was never told o "back off". Try educating yourself. Go on YouTube, and hunt a video of the State witness, the dispatcher, that took the call. He stated flat out they CANNOT order people to do, or not do, anything. He also stated that, based on what was said, he could understand George thinking he wanted him to follow the guy. If my son (who was only 18 when this happened) was followed, he'd call the cops and/or me. What he would not do is double back, confront, and attack the person. There is ZERO evidence that Martin was attacked. There is plenty that Zimmerman was.

Why Zimmerman is NOT guilty = He was acquitted by a jury of his peers.

I find it interesting that the OP joined ATS two days ago, has no threads or posts related to anything besides the Zimmerman case, yet has a K score of 368 based on his/her ranting? This thread should really be moved to Rants.

Sorry, this post reeks of outside control. Lord knows every operative of every alphabet agency wants to convince people to disregard the facts presented at the trial and merely go by emotional tripe.

Maybe it would be in order for ATS to incorporate a system that allows members to view who flags/stars a post/thread.

I have never flagged nor starred one I am ashamed of doing so.

This is disgraceful.

I have not gone through most of this thread but I have gone through others, and noticing a pattern of ignorance. I hope to clarify this for some people who are making assumptions.

the first assumption is that people believe Stand your ground is the main reason he was acquitted, this is not so. Every case that seeks to claim immunity from Stand Your Ground goes through a separate pre-trial if you will in front of a judge. the judge for this motion denied that this case fell under the merits for stand your ground, which is why and how Zimmerman went to trial. If this was a justified stand your ground, this trial would not have gotten where it was.

the other is the blame game. The prosecutor is entirely responsible for this mans freedom. had he sought Manslaughter charges this would have been open and shut and Zimmerman would be in prison. However, and over zealous prosecutor looking to seek a good win on her resume decided to politicize this for her career. Murder requires proof of intent, premeditation.

The jury came to the correct verdict for the charges filed. I do not believe he is guilty of murder as written in law. He is however guilty of manslaughter. But those are not the charges that were filed.

Also, the administration has been planning for this since the day it happened in an effort to stir division between the people so that we cannot unite in a common cause against their corrupt fascist policies. Why else would they have been involved since day 1? A people divided will be distracted from the real enemy.

reply to post by samkent


Zimmerman was and is innocent, but adding your racism into the argument doesn't exactly help people come to that conclusion.

Originally posted by mymymy
How did this ridiculous thread get 87 flags????

Zimmerman is innocent, plain and simple.

Ummm.....or all them super suspicious golden stars.....has ATS been hacked?................

YouSir

Zimmerman walked ( at least very likely on manslaughter charges) because the prosecution had some " persuasion" from the Justice Department to throw the case. Look at it logically. Zimmerman walks and they can flame the dying embers of racism among poor african americans, the ones who are suffering most from current economic conditions. They can also use that as an excuse to target gun laws which the public supports but they oppose. They can also undermine the legal system, trials by jury can't be popular with them either.
If you want to protest the verdict, go to DC and camp out on the White House steps and The Justice Department, Obama and Holder. They wanted Zimmerman found not guilty.

Well OP does have one thing correct, this is simple and easy to determine that Zimmerman, according to the LAW, is not guilty.

First off the OP believes that the "Stand your ground" law was the crux of the case - it was not, it was "self defense" Though I can see the Obama administration pushing this view, just another attack on gun rights. But that is an entirely different thread.

So lets take a look at the situation: Zimmerman saw a person who he identified as a "thug", a person who aroused suspension in a gated community that was recently plagued with crime. So he followed Trayvon....yes he was told not to follow and yes Zimmerman did not identify himself as the neighborhood watch - stupid yes but not against the law.

Trayvon had four minutes in which he took upon himself to come back and confront that "creepy ass cracker." Zimmerman was out of his car to look at a street sign to help identify the area so cops would know where to look for the suspicious individual. When confronted Zimmerman said "I have no problem" while Trayvon said "You do know" and punched Zimmerman - dropping him to the ground.....then commenced the ground and pound and fearing for his life, Zimmerman shot Trayvon, killing him.

Zimmerman did nothing wrong other then being stupid in following Trayvon like that, which isn't illegal.

Now you can go on and on about how outraged you are, or attack Zimmerman as being a wannabe cop / fat at the end of the day he did nothing wrong. You can follow someone, you can ask them questions, it still does not give that person the right to attack you. You can go one about how he carried a gun, again, he had the permit to carry, nothing illegal.

Originally posted by Dutchowl
Zimmerman walked ( at least very likely on manslaughter charges) because the prosecution had some " persuasion" from the Justice Department to throw the case.

....or he was innocent, as the jurors said.

only one person alive knows what happens...

the jury found him not guilty...

they had their options...they used them...

the only thing i could possibly see him found guilty of is involuntary manslaughter because of recklessness

and if the DOJ tried to override this decision....lord...can you imagine the precedent it would set and the number of cases that would then be open to it...

This happens everyday....MSM is the only reason this White Hispanic got the attention he got...and then if our White African American president didnt speak up we would have never heard anything about it. this is MSM playing to the masses....what they do best..

Why dont they call Obama our first White African American president?

Originally posted by Willtell
It’s easy and simple.

Even if Trayvon started the fight (which I don’t concede because Zimmerman has been caught in lies) he is innocent because by the same “stand your ground law” he felt under attack by Zimmerman stalking him. Therefore he felt he had to defend himself by attacking his unknown stalker. Remember Zimmerman didn’t admit that he identified himself to Trayvon as a neighborhood watchman. So how was Trayvon to know who this guy stalking him was . . . he may have been a criminal or sex pervert or whatever.

So we know Trayvon had no idea who he was. If hypothetically Trayvon did attack Zimmerman it wasn’t out of ill intent it was out of fear and self defense. He died because of the illogical actions of Zimmerman not anything he did out of ill intent.

BUT we only have Zimmerman (a known self-serving liar) as a witness to his own actions and Trayvon’s)
That is at lease manslaughter even by the barbaric law of the jungle they call stand your ground!

So it is very likely that Zimmerman had the gun pulled on the kid and the kid panicked and went after Zimmerman. In that case Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd degree murder and manslaughter at least.

Ask yourself this question. Why do people give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt: thinking Trayvon was involved in criminal activity therefore he had the right to frighten and stalk Trayvon, but Trayvon out of fear of this creep stalking him didn’t have the right to self defense?
You see the double standard here?

While Trayvon as an individual being stalked had more proof to himself that Zimmerman was the person with criminal intent (since he was creepily following Trayvon)

In fact it was Trayvon who that night was brave and noble not Zimmerman who displayed himself a paranoid possible bigot profiling an innocent teenager, who at best lost a fight he started and resorted to killing an innocent kid.

Case Closed

Very well stated. This is exactly the point I've been trying to make to everyone in the other thread! I've stated numerous times that Martin was a victim on stalking and harassment and only reacted out of fear. Fear not only for himself, but fear that if he went home, his future brother in law could also become a victim of child molestation by this "creepy" man following him in the dark! I wouldn't have gone home knowing my parents weren't there... that's for sure. I'd try my best to keep this creepy stalker away from my brother that I went to grab some skittles for! Yet many on this site don't seem to understand as they are also itching to pull a trigger on someone for punching them in the face.