Why Zimmerman is Guilty

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
....something doesn't fit here.

He described Martin at different points in the interviews as appearing
"out of nowhere,"
"from the darkness,"
and as "jump[ing] out of the bushes

en.wikipedia.org...

Zimmerman told Hannity he walked toward Trayvon because he needed to find a street address for police, but he told Sanford police it was because he had forgotten the street's name, something detectives challenged him on.

Also, Zimmerman said on the night of the shooting that, while he was reporting the teen to police, Trayvon ran away. But he told Hannity "he was more … skipping, going away quickly. But he wasn't running out of fear."

articles.orlandosentinel.com... ge-zimmerman

Zimmerman lied about how the scuffle started...that seems painfully clear...but doesn't prove murder or remove "Any reasonable doubt" that he acted in self defense.

Again there is a difference between the courthouse and the truth.

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.

reply to post by Willtell


I actually believe that that trayvon was not followed, he stopped zimmerman on patrol then pulled him out of the car and got killed in a botched car jacking.

I am pretty sure tray was trying to jack zimmermans stuff.


I like making up stories too!

Originally posted by Willtell
reply to post by samkent

 

His head wasn’t beaten in the ground; those were minor wounds. He lied and said his head was bashed 20 times.

The stupid jury, out of racism, believed the light skinned guy over the black guy.

The witnesses for the state corroborated Zimmerman's account, were they racists too? And how is it a racist decision when the defendant and Trayvon were both minorities?

reply to post by Willtell


stop feeding the troll look at his join date

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by howmuch4another

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
Person A follows Person B.
Person A instigates contact with Person B.
Person A shoots Person B.

Person B is kil
who was phone?

all good except for the "Person A instigates CONTACT with person B."
You have that backwards.

Stepping out of your vehicle is instigating contact. This is why you don't get out of your vehicle when an officer approaches your car. You allow the officer to instigate contact.

It's a free world. You may as well say, Martin stepped out of his house so he instigated it. Wait, no, Zimmerman did first, so it was him!

Neighbourhood watch dummies.

A woman's house was broken into, 2 people robbing her were creeping up on the room she was hiding in when police finally showed and scared them off.

Some of the burglaries in the neighbourhood were by teens who lived there.



Your premise seems to suggest we are not free to walk our neighbourhoods and talk to, approach or look at people passing through them.

We are all supposed to stay inside in fear I guess. To protect the rights of thugs and self proclaimed "gangstas"

I see....

Originally posted by votan
reply to post by Willtell

 

stop feeding the troll look at his join date

Good point.


I is uz hoodwinked I uz..

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by MrFGB
reply to post by Willtell

 

No, Zimmerman is Innocent, because he wasn't proven to be guilty.

Yep, him and OJ both. Again, "being" innocent and being "found" innocent in a court of law are two different things...ditto for "guilty" BTW.

George Zimmerman shot an innocent boy.

He wasn't innocent, he had just committed felony assault on Zimmerman. The state's eyewitness corroborated this.

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by Tardacus

 

Sounds silly...but have you ever been chased by a stranger as a child or teenager? Well, not to go off topic...but you don't want to lead them to where you live. That's kinda scary. It's possible that Trayvon did briefly hide...but the TM deciding to ambush Zimmerman bit is the least credible bit of the story...and like I said...witnesses claim a chase ending in the fight...and Zimmermans story of the confrontation has changed multiple times. Not buying.

you don`t have to take the witnesses words for what happened just listen to the 911 tapes, on several of the tapes you can hear what is happening leading up to the shooting including the shot being fired, do you hear a chase in progress on those 911 tapes?

if you listen to all the accumulated 911 tapes from zimmerman, witnesses and the tape of his call to his girlfriend they cover almost the entire timeline of what was happening and when for the entire incident.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by MrFGB
reply to post by Willtell

 

No, Zimmerman is Innocent, because he wasn't proven to be guilty.

Yep, him and OJ both. Again, "being" innocent and being "found" innocent in a court of law are two different things...ditto for "guilty" BTW.

George Zimmerman shot an innocent boy.

He wasn't innocent, he had just committed felony assault on Zimmerman. The state's eyewitness corroborated this.

WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA!!!!

Save it for the trial man, this is America! Innocent until proven guilty, my friend. Right?

George Zimmerman shot an innocent boy.

Yeah... He was so afraid of Zimmerman "stalking" him that he confronted him.. Sorry but that makes no sense at all... If I am afraid of someone, I run away from him, not towards him. Especially when I am near my house where I can hide. Trayvon was a wannabe gangsta and he decided to assault someone who thankfully had a gun to protect himself, otherwise he might have been dead today.

Originally posted by Tardacus

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by MystikMushroom

 

I can arm myself, walk into the worst part of Chicago as a skinny white kid with decent clothes, get held up and shoot that person out of "self defense" even though I made a conscious choice to enter said neighborhood?

You can't claim self defense when you make a decision to knowingly put yourself in danger. That's not self defense, that's asking for trouble.

The law will not say you are get some automatic guilt because you were walking on a street there. If it is public, you have the right to be there. The criminals certainly wish that is how the laws worked.

it wasn`t a public street it was private property, no tax payer money was used to make those roads and sidewalks in that community, no tax payer money is used to maintain the roads and sidewalks in that community.neither martin not his father were legal residence of that community,neither of them paid any money to build or maintain the roads and sidewalks, the other legal residence paid for that.martin and his father were both just visitors on private property.

I was referring to the post which wasn't about the trial. If you reread it you will see that.

reply to post by Indigo5


Zimmerman reported that TM ran away. That is consistent with the testimony of Sheantel's conversation with TM. That he ran away and evaded Z, tried to go home around a back way, I'm assuming a back yard or back alleyway, or just around the corner. Z may have been still walking at that time. At this point it is Z's word against Sheantel who says Z found TM again after the evasion.

Even if Z did find TM again after TM evaded him, it is Sheantel's word that Z was behind TM but if TM turned around during the confrontation then we still don't know who initiated the first contact, do we? Sheantel hears a scuffle over the phone but thinks TM is near his house and is safe somehow. She says she expected TM's family to intervene at that point which means they have to be close enough to the house for the family to hear, but she says the Dad is not home. TM went through the back of somewhere then appeared again on Z's radar. That is the information we have.

reply to post 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?

No I dont see it.

Following someone on a public street is not a crime.

Assaulting someone just because he follows you for a while on a public street is a crime.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Zimmerman reported that TM ran away. That is consistent with the testimony of Sheantel's conversation with TM. That he ran away and evaded Z, tried to go home around a back way, I'm assuming a back yard or back alleyway, or just around the corner. Z may have been still walking at that time. At this point it is Z's word against Sheantel who says Z found TM again after the evasion.

Even if Z did find TM again after TM evaded him, it is Sheantel's word that Z was behind TM but if TM turned around during the confrontation then we still don't know who initiated the first contact, do we? Sheantel hears a scuffle over the phone but thinks TM is near his house and is safe somehow. She says she expected TM's family to intervene at that point which means they have to be close enough to the house for the family to hear, but she says the Dad is not home. TM went through the back of somewhere then appeared again on Z's radar. That is the information we have.

look at a map of that street and the immediate area of where this incident happened it will help to better understand what might have happened. after I looked at the map and followed the timeline of the 911 calls it gave me a much better picture of what probably happened.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


Save it for the trial? The trial is already done and he has been acquitted? Are you just now hearing about the case? The only possible "trial" to come is a civil case being considered by the parents. They are going to try to get money from a guy who doesn't have much to begin with.

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.

reply to post by Willtell

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.

Did you watch or read about the trial?

Tell me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it suggested that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman from behind while he was on the phone with 911 and heading back to his vehicle? Didn't this line up with what was recorded on the 911 call?

Didn't ballistics show that the bullet entered Trayvon's shirt while it was 3" - 4" inches away from his body, as if he was hovering over Zimmerman when he was shot?

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.

Didn't Trayvon make it all the way home before he decided to head back out to go looking for Zimmerman?

This last one I'm not sure about, but I read it a couple of times.

I'm on the fence.

The evidence suggests that Zimmerman followed Martin, failed to identify himself, but then once Martin had gotten within his own yard, he went back to confront Zimmerman as Zimmerman was walking back to his car. Zimmerman didn't help the situation by asking what he was doing there, but him being a nosy butthead does not excuse Martin punching him. It certainly does not excuse repeatedly beating the man and slamming his head against concrete.

That is where I get stuck. If Martin was really scared by Zimmerman, then why did he go back? Why did Zimmerman, seeing what was probably an angry-looking young man coming at him, not try to de-escalate the situation?

When we speak of "stand your ground" and "self-defense", what is socially common and what is legally allowed are two different things. Socially, I think that Martin had every right to go out and confront the man that was following him and even give him a little love tap for verbally escalating the situation. The thing is, though, that he then failed to stop and started beating the man's head against concrete. It was, first and foremost, Martin that took it to the level of deadly force, and if Zimmerman hadn't been armed, the young man would probably be in jail for murder or, at the very least, aggravated assault. Socially, I look at it as two men who got into a fight (Yes, men. When Martin chose to go out and confront his grown follower, he, socially, stepped into the shoes of a man. I might also add that, socially, if he was a child, then he should have stayed in a child's place and respected the authority of the men within his neighborhood, and when he chose to throw a punch, he chose to forgo the luxury of his youth.) Of these two men, one chose to escalate to the point of a severe beating, and then escalated it to the point of deadly force. The other screamed for help for quite some time before finally choosing to return the deadly force. Socially, it is unfortunate, but, ultimately, I look at it as a fight that got out of control and one man, fearing for his life, took another's.

Legally, I find it strange that people want to go on and on about what Zimmerman did wrong. He failed to identify himself, of course, and this would have been relevant if Martin had not gotten away and then came back. When he got away and then came back as Zimmerman was going back to his car, that took him from being the victim of following to the aggressor. Zimmerman failed to de-escalate the situation verbally, but, realistically, this is no way, form, or fashion excuses Martin's punching, and it certainly does not seem reasonable that Zimmerman would be expected to be physically attacked over a verbal altercation.

Either way, there were failures on both sides, I think, but, ultimately, it was Martin that chose to be an aggressor when he had gotten away, it was Martin that chose to take it to the physical level, and it was Martin that chose to take it to the level of deadly force.

Arguing that Zimmerman had a responsibility to de-escalate the situation because he knew he had a gun is ridiculous. There is no way that Zimmerman could have reasonably predicted that a simple case of following somebody and a verbal altercation would turn into a situation where he would have to use a firearm in fear for his life.

I was also struck by the fact that Martin was a football player. This means that the young man was likely quick, agile, well versed in taking down an enemy quickly, and every bit of his (admittedly svelte) weight was pure muscle. These are things that I keep in the back of my mind when I consider what happened. It was likely that by the time Zimmerman realized what was going on, he was on the ground with his head being slammed against concrete, and he instinctively just started screaming for help. This is just speculation on my part, but if we are allowing speculation into this debate, then I'll put my own against those who think that Zimmerman is guilty.

Originally posted by Willtell
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.

Stalking under almost every state law requires a REPEATED attempt to follow someone with the intent to harass, and must also involve some form of an overt threat.

The reason for this, is because you have a Constitutionally protected right to move freely on any publicly open land. If the law stated otherwise, you could attack ANYONE who you could CLAIM was following you, even if they had no such intent. You would have folks getting into fights over unrelated issues, then claiming the self defense over stalking. Paranoid people would be able to attack the person walking behind them in the mall, etc...

When you feel you are being followed by someone you have three legal courses of action open to you.
1) Verbally confront the person and tell them not to come any closer to you.
2) Call the police, knock on someones door, or otherwise seek help.
3) Flee.

That is the way the law is. Martin didn't have any legally justifiable reason to attack Zimmerman, because following does not constitute stalking, and alone is not enough to justify a self defense based on “assault” (a threatening act). It perfectly legal to follow someone on public property, that is how Private Investigators, paparazzi, and others get away with it.

Originally posted by Willtell
Remember Zimmerman didn’t admit that he identified himself to Trayvon as a neighborhood watchman.

There is no legal requirement to identify yourself, he was not acting in any state sanctioned official capacity, he was acting as a normal pedestrian.

Originally posted by Willtell
So how was Trayvon to know who this guy stalking him was . . . he may have been a criminal or sex pervert or whatever.

Until a person commits an overtly threatening act of some type, you have no idea what their intent legally is. Ask any law enforcement officer.

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.

Speculation is not evidence.

Originally posted by Willtell
Ask yourself this question. Why do people give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt:

In the United States EVERYONE is given the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Maybe you've heard the term “Innocent until PROVEN guilty”.