Why Zimmerman is Guilty

I'm so sick of hearing about that trial. Maybe Zimmerman was wrong, maybe he wasn't. I wasn't there and neither were any of you. But the evidence, the law, and most importantly the jury seems to be on his side on this. Case closed.

Also, I find it disgusting that it barely makes the papers if 3 black guys jump and kill a white kid or 80 year old man, "oh he was on the wrong side of town and those guys probably had a bad upbringing" but if a "white guy" who is actually about as white as Obama is black, shoots an "innocent little black kid" who is actually a thug wannabe that tries to beat the crap out of him regardless if the guy was walking in the same direction as him, it's worldwide news and gets twisted into a racial issue that causes protests in the streets. Give me a break, murder is colorblind.

All those people who threatened to riot in the streets over a verdict they disagree with are NOT helping the root cause of this and frankly that sounds like a great way for the body count to increase rather than any "justice" be served. That's not how you handle issues in a civilized society. I can tell you though that no one rioted around here because where I live it's a safe assumption that most people do have guns and I can't imagine riots by people of any race would last as long as it would take for the cops to get there.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

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.

Lady you have distorted the facts almost as much as Zimmerman has.

Points:

The trial established that Zimmerman lied and exaggerated his “beating” Even his defense attorney conceded that. Even the juror on CNN admitted that she knew Zimmerman lied about that.
If Zimmerman had his head bashed like he described on concrete he would have been dead. He consequently took the superficial wounds he did have and highly exaggerated his so called beating form a 17 year old kid. Zimmerman’s wounds only required band aids.

I suggested in my op that if one conceded (hypothetically) that Trayvon did start the fight (something that I don’t concede because all we have is Zimmerman’s lies) but only to prove the point that people have dehumanized Trayvon and give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt. Why is that the case? Couldn’t Zimmerman’s story just be a self serving spiel to get away with murder?
Trayvon is not here to dispute the tale. Why do you believe Zimmerman’s self serving story?

In-fact I wrote that if Trayvon attacked him as Zimmerman said then it was out of desperation and fear because a strange man was stalking him. He did not attack him out of malice, greed or to commit a crime. He felt under siege, under attack over the whole scenario in which Zimmerman started.

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

You wrote:
"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? "

It is likely Lady. It was dark that night, and some of the witnesses believe Zimmerman was on top.

It seems logical, as the prosecution averred that Zimmerman because of his cop mentality and attitude that the 911 tape displayed “THEY ALWAYS GET AWAY”

Likely confronted the scared kid with a gun and that started the scuffle which only lasted seconds. The kid screamed and Zimmerman shot him. The kid screamed because of the gun.
Remember THERE WAS NO BLOOD ON TRAYVONS HANDS!

Why do you believe Zimmerman?
He was caught in myriad lies, such as telling Sean Hannity that he never heard of Stand Your Ground.
You refuse to humanize Trayvon. Ask yourself why?
You accept the propaganda that he was a black thug.
Ask yourself why you do this.
What’s wrong with you?
I am judging this incident on the facts.
As the prosecution said LOGIC.

Zimmerman lied and gave a self-serving story that is illogical.
A kid would attack a grown man with a gun
Of course only some kind of black beast and thug could do that.
Playing into the racist stereotypes that go back to slavery.
Check yourself out lady

Look into your own heart and see your own inner darkness that blinds you from a truth you DON’T WANT TO SEE!

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

Originally posted by boncho
During the phone call Zimmerman was afraid to give his address out loud because he didn't see where Martin went. Martin on his phone call, called Zimmerman a "creepy ass cracker" showing he had racial distain for Zimmerman.

Aye, because only hispanics stalk boys and if Zimmerman had been white he'd have called him a 'nice person' instead.

It's a racial comment in the same way that me suggesting you sometimes drink coffee is racist, But typical of the disinfo spread by both sides in this debate.

This is how far down the hole we have descended. I am sorry. I grew up in Detroit, in a not nice area to say the least, now it looks like a warzone. NEVER had I been called a cracker by any of my black neighbors or friends, only by those blacks who, without knowing me, wished ill on me. It IS a racially Derogatory term, worse than honkey or any of the other terms that were yelled at me from time to time. If I say it is racially Derogatory, it IS. That's how it works, doesn't matter the context of it by the other person, if I am offended by the term, it's not right.

Put it this way, if someone called me a cracker, I was assessing the situation and looking at my escape options from the encounter, if the odds were not in my favor. It's not a term that people should be using, just like the N-word or any other terms like it. People don't say those kind of words and have non hostile views of you, even if they have never personally met you.

I don't get how one set of racially insensitive words are OK to say but another set of insensitive words, said by another group are NOT OK to say. They are ALL NOT OK to say to the other Groups, whether they be Black, White, Arab, Jew, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, Pakistani, Aboriginal, Gay, Islamic, Hindu, Atheist, ect. It's not right. And you certainly shouldn't call your own group by those same Derogatory words either.

Pretty soon you will be telling me that Two + Two = Five.

“The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental , nor do they result from from ordinary hypocrisy: they are deliberate exercises in doublethink”
― George Orwell, 1984

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


They said they cried. SO what does that mean? It doesn’t mean they were right or not-biased.
They may have been or they may have not been, but I can express my opinion of what I think the truth is.

reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


Blame the victim. Zimmerman had a gun and a car. Trayvon had candy.
You say Trayvon could have gone home. Zimmerman could have minded his own business. All we have are the self-serving lies of Zimmerman.
Why do you believe him?

reply to post by Willtell


this has been well established

reply to post by lostbook


I believe that if there is a neighborhood watch there should be some identifiable uniform like a special vest or crossing guard belt. Send letters to all residents. That simple step could have averted this whole tragedy. Treyvon would have been able to identify who Zimmerman was and simply raised his hands and explained himself. Now that should be a law. Since he had a car get a plugin red flashing light to be used only in the confines of the gated community.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

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.

Again you distort.

You’re the one who is ignorant.

I wasn’t quoting the exact words.

The dispatcher did say

“WE DON’T NEED YOU TO DO THAT!

What does that mean?

T IS THOU HU ARENT OF THE IGNORANT!

Originally posted by Konduit

Originally posted by Willtell

Originally posted by thesaneone
reply to post by Willtell

 

Have you heard the jury found him NOT GUILTY.

Do you think juries are always right?

Did you think the Ojay verdict was right?

If OJ Simpson walked free from 2 counts of first degree murder simply because of "probable doubt" then there is absolutely no way Zimmerman would have been convicted. I would like to add that this system is far from perfect and the prosecution should have focused on lesser charges, something along the lines of pursuing with intent resulting in death etc. rather then second degree murder.

In my opinion the prosecution purposely threw the case to benefit a different agenda, just look at the spectacle the MSM has turned this into to figure out exactly which agenda that is. Don't be a sucker.

edit on 16-7-2013 by Konduit because: (no reason given)

Actually the last point may be true.

What you fail to see or understand is that if you watch many of the murder trails in this country often people are convicted of murder with far less evidence that what they had on Zimmerman.

IN-fact Zimmerman lied so much that any Jury therefore had the right to disqualify all of his statements that came into the trail

He had a bloody nose and 2 small gashes and therfore could kill a kid who only was carrying candy and headphones.

Think about that.

I haven't read all of the pages, but have seen all of the usual argument thrown around. Long story short, an armed adult shot an unarmed minor, there is no justification for this, it isn't right, it isn't even close to right.

Many of the people that have posted, while I may have disagreed with them politically, I still respected them. Several in this post have lost my respect. A grown ass man has no right to shoot an unarmed teenager, if you are that much of a wuss, then someone have mercy on your soul.

ETA: If Zimmerman had raped him, Zimmerman would be doing life.

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
I haven't read all of the pages, but have seen all of the usual argument thrown around. Long story short, an armed adult shot an unarmed minor, there is no justification for this, it isn't right, it isn't even close to right.

The problem is that these are emotional responses, they are not legal ones.
While it may seem that he was an “unarmed” minor, he used the sidewalk as a weapon, and had no legal justification to attack to begin with. Following someone is not legal justification to attack them (there must be an overt threat). Using the sidewalk legally is the same as hitting someone in the head with a brick (aggravated battery with the intent to do great bodily harm). Believe me, making up an improvised weapon at the scene of the attack, is just as much agg battery, as having carried one to the scene with you.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Willtell

 

The jury looked at the evidence presented. They did not act on presumptions, which is what your argument is made up of. There is no evidence that Z had pulled his gun before the ground fight occurred. As he described the incident, he felt TM's hand going for the gun in it's holster.
You say Z is a liar and so you assume his account is automatically not true, and yet he had injuries to the back of his head and also his face, which complied with his story that TM was on top of him punching him and shoving his head into the ground.
Should the jury ignore the evidence on a 'what if" presumption?
The way I understand it, based on evidence, the only reason he was arrested at all is because the family got a bunch of activists involved and the media had a heyday with it, and even the family attorney admitted on Greta Show last night that she is a "social engineer". What does all of that tell you about this case?
Here is part of the exchange between Greta and Jasmine, starting with Greta first

“(T)he prosecution picked that jury with the defense, the prosecution agreed to that jury with the defense, the jury heard all the evidence, the prosecution didn’t get shut down for presenting any evidence as far as I know, and the jury then decided the case, and everybody was happy with that jury, and then suddenly, after the jury renders its verdict, suddenly everyone’s dissatisfied, or at least not everyone, but some are dissatisfied with the jury as though they did a lousy job or heard a different trial or didn’t listen to the case,” Van Susteren pointed out.

She then asked: “What happened? You liked the jury in the beginning.”


Rand went on to give a highly charged answer, claiming that the Martin legal team never declared satisfaction with the jury, among other things. After being confronted on inconsistencies in her statements and more, Rand admitted something truly startling.

“I have a greater duty beyond being an attorney, and that’s to be a social engineer,” Rand declared. She went on to expound on the ideas of, essentially, civil protest.


Read more: communities.washingtontimes.com...
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

communities.washingtontimes.com...

So there it is, the family attorney felt a greater need to be a social engineer then to act responsibly as an attorney.

Any Jury has a right to dismiss ALL of a lying witnesses statements if they catch the witness in a lie.

Zimmerman lied like a rug in his statements.
Therefore the Jury had the right to dismiss his self serving tale of Trayvon attacking him.

Of course they have the right also to believe the liar.
But I think that is the point. That is why I believe they should have convicted him of at least manslaughter

The problem with what you say is that IT WAS A LIE that he was being pounded.
Even his own attorney and the juror on CNN admitted it was a lie.
So why should they believe a liar whose story is self serving.

Zimmerman’s wounds were minor. Even if he got them from this fight they didnt warrant him to shot the kid.

The Jury disregarded the details of his statements and just went with the overall distorted tale to justify acquitting him.

Originally posted by Willtell
Zimmerman lied like a rug in his statements.

Really, what did Zimmerman lie about?
As far as I know he never took the stand, never testified, and never gave any statement to the jury.
The police, especially Florida police who will arrest someone at the drop of a pin, didn't arrest him because his story fit the facts and there was no probable cause.

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
I haven't read all of the pages, but have seen all of the usual argument thrown around. Long story short, an armed adult shot an unarmed minor, there is no justification for this, it isn't right, it isn't even close to right.

The problem is that these are emotional responses, they are not legal ones.
While it may seem that he was an “unarmed” minor, he used the sidewalk as a weapon, and had no legal justification to attack to begin with. Following someone is not legal justification to attack them (there must be an overt threat). Using the sidewalk legally is the same as hitting someone in the head with a brick (aggravated battery with the intent to do great bodily harm). Believe me, making up an improvised weapon at the scene of the attack, is just as much agg battery, as having carried one to the scene with you.

I will give you that one, he used the sidewalk, sorry I honestly didn't consider them as a weapon. So if Martin had killed Zimmerman, via the sidewalk, this would still be considered self defense. Martin felt threatened. Based on your arguments, I am sure you have more legal training than I, so I will admit ignorance. I will continue to provide emotional responses, I am an old man at this point, but not in the past. I have had my run ins with the law, had my ass beat a time or two, and have beat a few. An unarmed individual is not a bonafied threat to an armed one.

I think the amount of stars and flags this OP has received is pretty solid evidence of a couple of things:

1) The shocking lack of critical thinking within the populace of the world today; and,
2) The pathetic attempts to make Trayvon Martin a martyr for the cause of continued thuggery within the US will continue.

Let there be NO MISTAKE about it...Trayvon Martin WAS A THUG. His father IS A THUG.

Must have been a lot of NEW members added to this site in the past few days, just to make a further attempt to sway public opinion toward influencing the DOJ to make some backhanded effort to further prosecute Zimmerman...

All the HACKS need to go get a breath of fresh air somewhere...

OR they need to start doing something about all the actual crime committed by THESE THUGS running around...When I see Obama and his former lackey Rahm start cleaning up the mess that is CHICAGO, then I might start listening to some of the claptrap being emitted from the mouths of these wannabe lawyers...Until then, I celebrate each and every time I hear a gangster, gangster wannabe, or other thug, gets shot and killed...

So, if you want to preach about injustice in the Zimmerman case (which there was NONE by the way), I suggest you take your message straight to all the hoodie-wearin minions left alive in your neighborhoods...tell em to get the hell off the streets and make something of themselves...they can start with one of them wonderful part-time jobs we all seem to get now...at least they will have a free Obamaphone...

The USA is quickly becoming a nation of know-nothings and mental midgets...this is evident in the highest office of the land...

reply to post by Willtell

He was not doing what he supposed to do

Actually if you check your third statement according to dispatch he was.

He got out of the truck against the command of the authorities

Errr... Really that wasn't in the trial. Please use factual information.

Tell me what was Trayvon doing?

I know right.. Why did the non emergency dispatch keep asking George that it was almost like they were wanting him to follow Martin.

Doesn’t he have a right to defend himself?

Absoloutly.....Oh wait who are you talking about? George or Martin? I would say whoever was being attacked had the right and the Jury agrees.

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

Define stalking.


You made a great case for George and based your opinion off of feelings.

It seems to me you either didn't watch the trial or you didn't absorb the information from it either way you are making a worse case than the prosecutors did in reality you made a great case for the defense.

The verdict is in NOT GUILTY. YET AGAIN.

Originally posted by Willtell
The dispatcher did say

“WE DON’T NEED YOU TO DO THAT!

What does that mean?

Legally it means exactly nothing...
The 911 operator is a civilian, just like you or me, with ZERO legal authority. They have no right to override the right of a citizen to act in a Constitutionally acceptable manner in exercising their legal right to locomotion on public, or publicly open private land.

reply to post by Willtell



Let's just assume, for one moment, that all your hypotheticals are correct.

It still fails for 2 reasons. Once Trayvon had George on the ground, stand your ground leaves the room and felony assault enters with a vengeance. At this point in time, ACCORDING TO LAW, if George feels his life is in imminent danger, or feels in imminent danger of sustaining serious harm, then he (George) is justified in using deadly force in self-defense.

No matter how you take it, it still boils down to self-defense.

Let's look at the FACTS: What we KNOW to be true due to testimony by witnesses.

1) Trayvon told his girl friend that he was going back to confront GZ. I do not recall the exact verbage...but obviously, and because of the 4.5 minutes which was established, that Trayvon made no attempt to reach safety. This supports one of Jeantel's statements.
2) We know due to cell phone records exactly when the confrontation occurred, as well as when the shot was fired
3) We do not know who threw the first punch
4) We know that TM was on top of GZ pummeling him (witness testimony as well as GZ was the only one with injuries from a fight)
5) The gun was fired from below, with TM above as stated by expert witness testimony.
6) Florida law states that one must only fear imminent death or serious injury to exercise self-defense, as GZ did.
7) We know that the MSM, black leaders and the Obama admin has done everything they possibly could to promote divisiveness and the racial aspect.
8) We know that the FBI investigated early on and concluded that race had no bearing in the event.

What the hell else do you need to understand this case?


GZ was not on trial for lying, he was not on trial for following TM (which was legal). He was on trial for murder 2 and / or manslaughter.

Due to reasonable doubt regarding self-defense at the worst, there is no way a jury should convict the man, given the absolute lack of evidence establishing murder 2 and manslaughter.

Any other verdict, as well as the pursuit of further charges are a TRAVESTY of justice.

reply to post by Willtell


You obviously don't know what the stand your ground law is.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Willtell

 

You are totally wrong in your premise. Trayvon went home and doubled back to confront Zimmerman. He wasn't "stalking" him. He was watching him, was told to stop following him by the dispatcher, did so, and while on phone to police, he then was arranging to meet up with police near a set of mailboxes, once he hung up Martin sneaked up on him.

During the phone call Zimmerman was afraid to give his address out loud because he didn't see where Martin went. Martin on his phone call, called Zimmerman a "creepy ass cracker" showing he had racial distain for Zimmerman.

The facts clearly show that Martin was an instigator, and was racist.

The neighbourhood had been suffering burglaries and home invasions nearly every week leading up to the event. One was a home invasion. One was done by one of the "kids" in the neighbourhood and it was discovered when a stolen lap top was found in his backpack.

Martin was lurking around looking at houses in the area, Zimmerman describes this on the phone. It is not "stalking" nor is it illegal to look at people walking through your neighbourhood, especially if there is a crime wave going on.

I find it entirely ironic. If a white guy walked down Compton central, or a ghetto in Detroit, how welcoming would the residents be?

Police actually warn white people not to go in certain neighbourhoods, and the media has the audacity to call it racially motivated. Evidence showed that only Martin was racially prejudice that night however.

Zimmerman thought he was a punk, thug, and probably with good reason as "No Limit N____A" portrayed and acted like one.

So no.

You are wrong.

End of story.

Facts found in a trial by law.

edit on 16-7-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-7-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

With all due respect if anyone has issues over race it may be yourself with your racial profiling.

You talk about White people going in black neighborhoods being threatened badly.

White people all the time go into black neighborhoods without being assaulted. You just believe in racial stereotypes that the worst bigot supports.


The only “facts” you speak of are Zimmerman’s story that is replete with distortions and lies.

Where was his blood on Trayvon’s hands if he pummeled him so much?

His wounds were minor, hardly any blood. Also none of his blood on the ground.

No the fact is that it is you who is looking at superficial possibilities to verify Zimmemrnas story that YOU WANT TO BELIEVE.