The Zimmerman Trial

if trayvon was at his house and he felt that zimmerman was creepy and following him and then zimmerman shows up at his house, well that has stand your ground and castle doctrine written all over it. too bad trayvon didnt have a gun and shoot zimmerman first, i wonder if you guys would defend trayvons actions then...

reply to post by GrantedBail


Ironically I am not like any of those Casey Anthony hater groupies.. YOU ARE. You are doing the same thing that the Casey Anthony haters did except you are doing it to Zimmerman. I actually was glad Casey Anthony was found innocent and if you look at any threads on the matter you will see me defending her. I think the jury came back with the right decision there and will here. You are actually doing the same exact thing the "Casey Anthony hater"s did then.

It's actually a hilarious comparison because you are doing the EXACT same thing and most people think it's a slam dunk that Zimmerman is guilty. The majority of people believe what the media has filled their heads with "innocent little child with candy hunted down by a killer" just like the Casey Anthony case. You have it so backwards and are in denial. Luckily it will turn out the same for Zimmerman as it did for Casey. Are you not aware that you are toeing the medias same line of nonsense and will be upset just like that were in the CA case?

reply to post by conspiracy nut


But see that's a fantasy theory. In reality Trayvon ran to his house in plenty of time, but rather than go inside he waited on Zimmerman to walk in front of the opening between two buildings down the path. Zimmerman didn't come to Trayvon's house. Trayvon made it to his house and then went to Zimmerman.

That's the reality of it. You just have it twisted.

oh really? i thought zimmerman said trayvon jumped out of the bushes?

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

Grow up and learn not to insult people who have a different opinion on a subject than you do.
And it wasn't just Martin saying 'nigga' on social media ... he called a complete stranger a cracker.
And there were numerous other postings showing hate.
No amount of pretend psycho-babble on your part changes the facts. Racist is racist. Hate is hate.

reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

Again ... epic fail on your part. Stop trying to play psychologist .. you don't do it well at all.
Just face the fact that Martin spewed a hateful racist remark. There is no excuse for it.

edit on 6/27/2013 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)

Where did you get your 'psychology degree'? Greendale? Because I've repeatedly said that Martin's remark is unfortunate. But - as your unwillingness to engage with a direct question unwittingly shows - it is not of the same order as a white person calling a black person "'n-word'".

It is also not of the same magnitude as shooting a black person because they have infringed the etiquette expected of their race in a given scenario. This is not necessarily what Zimmerman did - but it is possibly what he did.

Furthermore, there is an effort by people like you to mitigate Zimmerman's potential racism by pulling the three card trick that in fact Martin - and additionally black people generally - are somehow the actual racists here. Obviously you don't realise you're doing this, and you couch your language in all kinds of bogus equivalencies, but the fact remains that this is the project you're engaged in.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by GrantedBail

 

He was a concerned citizen trying to look out for his neighborhood. He is OK in my eyes.

Forget the D or R's people try to label others with.

He only got interested in his neighbourhood when a stray dog gave him a fright one day, which caused him to buy a gun and start trying to form a NW team. That'd be like me acquiring a lethal weapon because of that time somebody's loose pit bull attacked my own dog.

Thing is, these shermans wouldn't find that at all strange. A lot of them are complete basket cases.

Click here for more information.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


See there is the proof you don't understand racism.
Yeah a black person saying cracker obviously doesn't have the same effect as a white person saying the N word, BUT it comes from the exact same mindset. Basically you are suggesting that a black person can't be racist because they don't have an equally racist term.. do you understand that.

It must kill the black people that are racist that they don't have a truly offensive term to hurt white people (well maybe they do, maybe it's calling them racist for very little or no reason at all).

I hope you see the ignorance of your argument. Just because there isn't an existing expression of the same magnitude doesn't mean the same amount of prejudice and hate isn't in the person and meant in the use of the term. It is meant to describe a white person in the same era that the n word originated, it is meant as a racist remark, and it comes from racism.

As for Zimmerman's support, I am sure some white racists have latched onto it, but the fact is most of it is coming from the victims supporters. There most likely was zero racist intent with George Zimmerman, despite people's efforts (even trying to give connotation to the answering of the question of what race the suspicious person was to the dispatch - i guess black is no longer the acceptable answer?)

The guy called about a suspicious character, he tried to keep an eye on him so he could direct police to him, the suspicious character made it home, but rather than going in he waited on Zimmerman and confronted him, up to that point it's fact as stated by Martin's friend and the prosecutions star witness (and meshes with Zimmerman's original statement to police). It is likely that he attacked him from that point.

If the girl had admitted that much in the first place instead of lying there would be no trial.

Gogo, face facts, you don't know for sure whether George Zimmerman had been patrolling his neighbourhood since the moment it began going dark outside that night, so don't crack on like you know exactly what Zimmerman saw, or when he saw it. Unless you have some kind of proof that he left his house just to go to the store when he said he did? Shellie Zimmerman's word, perhaps?

reply to post by IvanAstikov


YOU need to face facts.
I don't have to know exactly everything. It's enough to know that there is no evidence to prove otherwise and the star witness for the prosecution lied about her original story and has now told a story that matches Zimmerman's.
Innocent until proven guilty remember.

What we have all said since the beginning. Zimmerman's story made the most sense, he called the police, they cleared him, and the case was closed until Martin's family got the girl he was talking to on the phone to lie about what happened. Now she has started telling a story much more akin to the truth. That change alone is enough. If she lied about any of it (which is really the majority of it) then she likely lied about the last thing she heard and then she wasn't even then to see it.

The case is done. It never should have gone to court.

reply to post by WonderBoi


Considering the "star witness" is now known to be a liar, and looks drugged, I'd say his chances look pretty good. The facts certainly support his claims.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by DZAG Wright

 

No one WATCHED the fight. Some people saw a few glimpses, but it was dark and no one saw the whole thing. The truth came out today for anyone that was interested and paying attention. For those that are looking for Zimmerman to lose you won't hear it no matter what, but if you are interested in the truth, it's there and it's very simple.

Martin ran home, instead of going in he hung around outside waiting to see if the "creepy ass cracker" walked by. When he walked by he approached him and started a fight. During the fight Zimmerman took out a gun and shot Trayvon in self defense as he was being beaten badly. It makes the most sense and it matches what Zimmerman said, and what the star witness describes. Simple case.

One man did see a part of it. He's the one that stated he saw Martin pinning Zimmerman to the ground and punching him. He's now claimed he "isn't sure" if there was punching or not, but he's still sure Martin was on top.

The earlier statements by this "star witness" were along the lines of Martin refusing to run away, and it really sounded like she thought he intended to start something.

I also can't help but note that this is not the girl we see net to Martin in a school pic, that one would guess was a girlfriend.

In any case, this one is lying, and sounded literally drugged, as though she'd been given some sort of psychotropic medication to keep her subdued in court. Wasn't there a point before this latest stuff where her behavior was, well, less calm? Heard that, but haven't found a video yet.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

Exactly. The only person that can speak to what Trayvon was thinking and doing admitted today that they talked for several minutes after he got home (after running from Zimmerman). Then he confronted Zimmerman. That is as good as fact in the court room.

If he was in fear he would have gone inside instead of standing around waiting and talking to Rachel. She likely knows he was intending to fight the guy. He didn't go in because he was laying in wait and I wish the defense would have made her explain why he didn't go inside because then you start getting to the truth.

That the incident didn't occur right by the place Martin was staying is proof, too, that he left there, and went to confront Zimmerman.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by JBA2848

 

Well.. that doesn't mean much considering we know Zimmerman got over him after he got out from under, and based on what the woman said it would be physically impossible for him to have been on top the whole time.

It just means when she walked out Zimmerman had already killed Trayvon and moved out from under the bottom position to secure his attacker.

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

And moved his arms which the photos show that Treyvons arms were under him when the cops came and took photos? Zimmermans story is falling apart before your eyes ad you need to face it.

Zimmerman already stated that he didn't know immediately that he had killed his attacker. Moving an arm, either thinking he's still alive, or to see how badly he's hit, depending on when it happened, isn't the story "falling apart"; it's actually supporting all he's stated.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

YOU need to face facts.
I don't have to know exactly everything.

It sounds more like you don't want to know certain details and prefer to rely on the bits that support your narrative.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
It's enough to know that there is no evidence to prove otherwise and the star witness for the prosecution lied about her original story and has now told a story that matches Zimmerman's.
Innocent until proven guilty remember.

As is evidenced by your words below, you don't even want that tested in a court of law, but, alas, here you are.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
What we have all said since the beginning. Zimmerman's story made the most sense, he called the police, they cleared him, and the case was closed until Martin's family got the girl he was talking to on the phone to lie about what happened. Now she has started telling a story much more akin to the truth. That change alone is enough. If she lied about any of it (which is really the majority of it) then she likely lied about the last thing she heard and then she wasn't even then to see it.

The case is done. It never should have gone to court.

edit on 28-6-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

The "truth" according to a man facing life in jail if he doesn't blame everything on the dead suspicious guy in the hoody. Instead of focusing on the testimony of a person who can barely make herself clear and who never wanted to be put into a situation where the world is watching everyhing she says and does, how about paying a little attention to the testimony of someone who was actually there, and saw Zimmerman walk right up to the place his car keys were found, shortly after he'd killed Trayvon and possibly frisked him for the weapon he hoped he'd have. Testimony which totally contradicts George's own self-serving testimony that he was still astride Trayvon's face down body when the witness with a torch came out.

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

I think that there was enough blood to transfer onto Zpunks jacket. If in fact he was on the bottom and had to, as you say, roll out from underneath him. But, no blood.

Get a grip! The wounds to the back of Zimmerman's head have been verified. Someone feeling a wound to the head is a totally normal and common thing. In fact, every single time I, or one of my kids, has suffered a blow or wound to the head, a hand comes up to feel the wound. You are simply fishing now.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

See there is the proof you don't understand racism.
Yeah a black person saying cracker obviously doesn't have the same effect as a white person saying the N word, BUT it comes from the exact same mindset. Basically you are suggesting that a black person can't be racist because they don't have an equally racist term.. do you understand that.

It must kill the black people that are racist that they don't have a truly offensive term to hurt white people (well maybe they do, maybe it's calling them racist for very little or no reason at all).

Okay, very slowly. Why do you think black people don't have access to such a term? Could it be because the offensiveness of the words is dependent on the freight of historical resonances behind the terms?

I hope you see the ignorance of your argument. Just because there isn't an existing expression of the same magnitude doesn't mean the same amount of prejudice and hate isn't in the person and meant in the use of the term. It is meant to describe a white person in the same era that the n word originated, it is meant as a racist remark, and it comes from racism.

But it carries none of the same weight. As you yourself admit.

As for Zimmerman's support, I am sure some white racists have latched onto it, but the fact is most of it is coming from the victims supporters. There most likely was zero racist intent with George Zimmerman, despite people's efforts (even trying to give connotation to the answering of the question of what race the suspicious person was to the dispatch - i guess black is no longer the acceptable answer?)

But this is the point - serious critique of the situation didn't suggest Zimmerman was potentially racist (or at least that his actions were guided by race) because of that. It existed because of other facets of his activities (some of it, I believe, mistaken).

You, and others, are attempting to show that Zimmerman's racism was imputed by his use of the word 'black' because the patent absurdity of such an allegation suggests that any criticism of him based on racial lines comes from an absurd premise. This is deceptive.

The guy called about a suspicious character, he tried to keep an eye on him so he could direct police to him, the suspicious character made it home, but rather than going in he waited on Zimmerman and confronted him, up to that point it's fact as stated by Martin's friend and the prosecutions star witness (and meshes with Zimmerman's original statement to police). It is likely that he attacked him from that point.

If the girl had admitted that much in the first place instead of lying there would be no trial.

edit on 28-6-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

I think your reading is hopelessly biased. You've shown this by your attempts to exonerate a man from an identifiably criminal past, while simultaneously insisting that a teenager's possession of dope and a screwdiver makes him the new Al Capone.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
One man did see a part of it. He's the one that stated he saw Martin pinning Zimmerman to the ground and punching him. He's now claimed he "isn't sure" if there was punching or not, but he's still sure Martin was on top.

He hasn't been called yet. (I can't remember his name). He's a defense witness, not a prosecution witness so he'll be called when the defense has their turn. Although I must say that all these 'prosecution witness' have done more for the defense than anything. It was very telling when the prosecution tried to discredit it's own witness yesterday with all that twitter nonsense. The prosecutions own witness said that Zimmerman was so badly beaten up that she didn't recognize him. The prosecution quickly tried to discredit their own witness and they failed.

I'm sure the prosecution wishes it had gone with manslaughter now.
Murder 2?? Nope!

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by dudeman351
reply to post by GrantedBail

 

There was no outrage until Sharpton and Jackson started their racial drivel. Then 0bozo going off if he had a son it would be traythug. Laughable at best. This has been stacked against Zimmerman getting a fair trial since day one. And when he is acquitted I say let the riots begin. It should be fun.

Yeah, you might get to kill some black people too. I imagine you'd enjoy that.

That is completely up to them. They stay away from me and mine they will be fine. If they threaten me or mine they will be dealt with. My whole street has a plan if the riots ensue.