Why Zimmerman is Guilty

Originally posted by bryono
he was found innocent of the charges he was brought up on, that doesnt make him "innocent" of doing wrong, it makes him innocent of that charge, manslaughter or assualt with a deadly weapon maybe, the issue is when you portray him as an innocent boy minding his own youre relying on the character of the boy, if he has been charged with or questioned in the past its hard to pass as innocent boy minding his own, he may not look so innocent when you bring up any school fights or suspensions, not saying he is a bad kid or deserved to be killed, do i think a neighborhood watch guy needs to patrol with a loaded gun, sure its his right hes licensed but under the same reasoning " i followed a suspicious teenager due to recent break ins" would assume you automatically portrayed him as a threat, a robber lookin to steal your property, fine no problem i get ya i might have passed the same off as i too live in a "white" neighborhood, however that allows him to view an armed man stalking him from a vehicle as a murderer, after all your following a boy with the intent that he may be a threat i too at the age of 17 wouldve have felt threatened, and yeah had you got out lookin fro trouble id have swung at you too, guess that makes me a menace too so shoot me. sorry i feel he got let off easy only due to you couldnt prove he cold blooded murdered how ever i feel manslaughter shouldve been pushed because yeah a fat mexican guy couldve pistol whipped the boy and been done instead he managed to pull it out of its holster, unlock the safety, loaded one into the chamber.... sorry a pistol whip wouldve saved a life and served the same purpose and been twice as fast, unless its ok to walk around with your safety off and one in the chamber then yes a quick draw and fire is fine i guess if you can live with killing someone to save your tv or bluray player.

First: If I thought I was being followed by "an armed man stalking me" and I was close to home, I would have continued there and called the police, not necessarily in that order. The fact that he didn't do either speaks volumes.

So you think it is justified to swing at someone cause you think he is following you? That's BS and exactly why there is so much violence in this country. It's ok for you to swing on someone but if someone defends themself that is a crime. Pure and unadulterated BS.

The round was already in the chamber...there was no need to chamber it.

So we shouldn't kill someone for violating our home and stealing our property...we should just roll over and take it? How about the MF shouldn't have been in my house to begin with? I take anyone in my house ripping me off as a direct threat to me and my family. Anyone who thinks it is ok to break into my house is an effed up individual who should not be a part of society but should be locked up like the animal they are.

Originally posted by Willtell

Originally posted by totallackey

Originally posted by Willtell
I started the thread but at this time will apologize to anyone that I wrote anything they deemed offensive.

In the trenches of verbal battle sometimes I go too far
Forgive me!
goodnight

Apologize my left foot...

There can be no apology for the utter lack of mental effort placed in your OP and follow up responses to any member who has taken the time to post here in this SKUNK WORK.

In order for there to be a battle of any sort, one must be armed with appropriate tools. In this case, you should be armed with facts, discernment, and critical thinking skills.

In the formulation of this OP and the follow up responses, I can find no evidence of tools.

This is not a personal attack. This is simply an analysis of the writing in this thread. Perhaps other writings of yours have demonstrated the presence of these tools.

My apology was not for the truth of my op. It is irrefutable. It’s just that people like you I have unfortunately called an idiot because of your myopic views.
That I will apologize for not the facts of the op.
Also, I didnt originally put this in the skunk works the people here on ATS moved it here.

edit on 17-7-2013 by Willtell because: (no reason given)

1) Your OP has no truth. It has conjecture. Faulty conjecture at that...
2) Stating the views of another are myopic, simply on the basis of written posts concerning ONE subject here on ONE message board again demonstrates the lack of tools in this instance.
3) Points 1 & 2 clearly demonstrate the appropriateness of action taken by site moderation in moving this thread to the circular file.

reply to post by Willtell


I don't think you know what the word irrefutable means.

ir·ref·u·ta·ble ( -r f y -t -b l, r -fy -). adj. Impossible to refute or disprove; incontrovertible: irrefutable arguments; irrefutable evidence of guilt.

If your evidence was irrefutable, GZ would be in jail right now.

reply to post by totallackey


You are really not familiar with the testimony at the trail. None of the witnesses could even identify anyone and their recollections go no great lengths to identifying the facts.

Yeah Zimmerman called the cops, just like he had countless times before in the last year. But then he did what he should not have done. Got out of his car with the intent of gathering more information on this individual.

Zimmerman has several accounts of the event, and in not one does he say he identified himself as a watch volunteer. So it would seem he did not.

So the reality is that a fight did ensue. Fights happen Martin was no boxer, ( As a side note, this is kind of interesting, in the old days professional boxers had to have their fists registered as lethal weapons. I guess they assumed everyone else was not.) Martin was no super human body and Zimmerman was no 90 pound weakling. At some point in a scuffle such as this was, a reasonable person might want to stop screaming like a baby and address the other person with an intent of ending this within reason.

Zimmerman says Martin was reaching for his gun, Zimmerman's that is so there is no confusion, and threatening to kill him with it. This coming from a man who says he had his head slammed into the sidewalk 30 times. His injuries in no way reflected that level of attack. This kind of exaggeration does not speak well for Zimmerman's ability to access accurately any intention Martin may have had toward his gun if indeed he had any at all. Zimmerman's gun that is. The only gun present at the scene.

I'm saying that should this have happened in the old west in the 1880's That with the few minor injuries that Zimmerman sustained in this fight. And having shot an unarmed man he would have been strung up at the nearest gallows with in the week. Trail and all.

10 things
Sorry if it has been posted before....but yeah...

reply to post by Willtell


the only thing more vile and saddening to my heart than your post, is the # of people who starred you for it.

But there is hope, at least posts on this thread that have a basis in reality (counter to yours...) have more support.

So, we're not completely crazy as a nation - but we're pretty damn close to 1/2

Originally posted by Willtell

Originally posted by goochball
I love when people make up their own version of the story and try to pass it off as fact. The word "hypothetically" should never be involved when determining whether or not someone is guilty.

So it is very likely that Zimmerman had the gun pulled on the kid and the kid panicked and went after Zimmerman.

Sorry, makes no sense. Who in their right mind would run at someone with fists flying, whilst having a gun pointed at them? That is possibly the worst idea ever.

Have you ever had a street fight?
Have you ever had a gun on you?
People panic when that happens.

Trayvon panicked and screamed and went for the gun

That’s more logical than this 17 year old kid attacking a man

Recall Zimmerman’s mental state on the phone:
“They always get away

Those juries just didn’t want to think a black boy was human

WOW! You really have to have serious disconnect to even hint at something like that being a possibility.

I mean, seriously...the media is a powerful tool, and your post is proof of that.

Originally posted by PrimePorkchop
reply to post by Willtell

 

the only thing more vile and saddening to my heart than your post, is the # of people who starred you for it.

But there is hope, at least posts on this thread that have a basis in reality (counter to yours...) have more support.

So, we're not completely crazy as a nation - but we're pretty damn close to 1/2

Having no facts, truth, morality or wisdom on your side all you can do is resort to pedestrian insults. Only God and my ethics saves you from me completely embarrassing you.

Can anyone tell me, was it ever asked and answered why he kept following Trayvon Martin after the dispatch operator asked him to stop following? Because for me I think that is something that should have been looked at
closely.

I admit I stopped following the case due to the arguments and bickering.

Just genuinely interested in the detail but not enough to trawl hundreds of pages of info that I cannot verify.



“Are you following him?” – referring to Martin. When Zimmerman said he was, the dispatcher said, “OK. We don’t need you to do that.”


Is what I'm referring too.

reply to post by Willtell


Wow, I just read the OP and had to tell my story that happened about a year ago now. I left work one night and was heading home. I live about 4 miles from my job site and while driving home there was a car in front of me that just so happened to make all the same turns that I was going to make to get home. I could see the kid (late teens/early 20's) looking in his rear view mirror at me and the whole time i'm thinking "I bet he thinks i'm following him". Sure enough we get about a block and a half from my home and he stops his car right in the middle of the road, gets out and starts walking towards my car screaming at me. He kept yelling why are you following me? Are you a cop? along with some other things. So in your scenario he has the right to kick my ass? WTF? I was just going home. I can't help it if he's paranoid and cant control himself, fears, or his thoughts.

Originally posted by Taggart
Can anyone tell me, was it ever asked and answered why he kept following Trayvon Martin after the dispatch operator asked him to stop following? Because for me I think that is something that should have been looked at
closely.

I admit I stopped following the case due to the arguments and bickering.

Just genuinely interested in the detail but not enough to trawl hundreds of pages of info that I cannot verify.



“Are you following him?” – referring to Martin. When Zimmerman said he was, the dispatcher said, “OK. We don’t need you to do that.”


Is what I'm referring too.

edit on 17-7-2013 by Taggart because: (no reason given)

I do not know who or where you heard that he kept following him after that point but according to his statements and the evidence he didn't.

reply to post by lowjack196


But in this case he quite obviously WAS following him so your experience isn't the same at all.

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Originally posted by Taggart
Can anyone tell me, was it ever asked and answered why he kept following Trayvon Martin after the dispatch operator asked him to stop following? Because for me I think that is something that should have been looked at
closely.

I admit I stopped following the case due to the arguments and bickering.

Just genuinely interested in the detail but not enough to trawl hundreds of pages of info that I cannot verify.



“Are you following him?” – referring to Martin. When Zimmerman said he was, the dispatcher said, “OK. We don’t need you to do that.”


Is what I'm referring too.

edit on 17-7-2013 by Taggart because: (no reason given)

I do not know who or where you heard that he kept following him after that point but according to his statements and the evidence he didn't.

So either at that point Trayvon attacked him or did zimmerman walk away and that was the end of the whole situation ?

Originally posted by okyouwin
reply to post by totallackey

 

You are really not familiar with the testimony at the trail. None of the witnesses could even identify anyone and their recollections go no great lengths to identifying the facts.

Horse hockey

Yeah Zimmerman called the cops, just like he had countless times before in the last year. But then he did what he should not have done. Got out of his car with the intent of gathering more information on this individual.

Neighborhood watch person going to watch what is happening in the neighborhood. Most Trayvon defenders have absolutely nothing to say about the fact a seventeen year old kid is out roaming the streets AFTER dark...

Zimmerman has several accounts of the event, and in not one does he say he identified himself as a watch volunteer. So it would seem he did not.

Even if he did not, that does not give Trayvon the right to jump on the guy and start pummeling his head against the concrete sidewalk.

So the reality is that a fight did ensue. Fights happen Martin was no boxer, ( As a side note, this is kind of interesting, in the old days professional boxers had to have their fists registered as lethal weapons. I guess they assumed everyone else was not.) Martin was no super human body and Zimmerman was no 90 pound weakling. At some point in a scuffle such as this was, a reasonable person might want to stop screaming like a baby and address the other person with an intent of ending this within reason.

So, this becomes incumbent on Zimmerman? Okay, since he was the adult...How do you expect him to reason with some dope head thug out roaming the streets, intent on completing the beat down he had started?

Zimmerman says Martin was reaching for his gun, Zimmerman's that is so there is no confusion, and threatening to kill him with it. This coming from a man who says he had his head slammed into the sidewalk 30 times. His injuries in no way reflected that level of attack. This kind of exaggeration does not speak well for Zimmerman's ability to access accurately any intention Martin may have had toward his gun if indeed he had any at all. Zimmerman's gun that is. The only gun present at the scene.

Thank God Trayvon did not get possession of the gun and further thanks that Zimmerman shot and killed this punk.

I'm saying that should this have happened in the old west in the 1880's That with the few minor injuries that Zimmerman sustained in this fight. And having shot an unarmed man he would have been strung up at the nearest gallows with in the week. Trail and all.

Why should Zimmerman be the only one hanged? Why don't you go to the Marquette Park neighborhood in Chicago and bust out your signs (along with your noose) decrying the ABSOLUTELY senseless shootings occurring in that neighborhood? Are you afraid of the people in those neighborhoods? Or does the actual level of BLACK ON BLACK violence not disturb you?

I betcha a dollar to a donut you would be one of the first people to call Bill Cosby an Uncle Tom...

There is the possibility that the OP came here, created an account, and then posted this thread to keep the public stirred up over the trial and not let the issue die down. It is probably being done at many web sites.

Wonder what group government dept would be behind that?

reply to post by Taggart


On the 911 call George was recorded and if you listen he states that he lost sight of Martin you can here him stop running.

The states star witness Janteal says while she was on the phone with Martin he said he lost Zimmerman some time passes I think it was shown to be 4 and a half minutes Janteal says martin spots him after it he said he had made it home. The states star witness backs up Georges statement that Treyvon confronted George.

Martin by the states witness account had made it home then returned.

The fight and confrontation happened within sight of his truck.

reply to post by Willtell


How about the answers to Page 15?

You could at least tell me to go to hell if you don't have it in you to answer the questions.

Originally posted by roadgravel
There is the possibility that the OP came here, created an account, and then posted this thread to keep the public stirred up over the trial and not let the issue die down. It is probably being done at many web sites.

Wonder what group government dept would be behind that?

edit on 7/17/2013 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)

DOJ/CRS

naacp

black panthers

Originally posted by Taggart
Can anyone tell me, was it ever asked and answered why he kept following Trayvon Martin after the dispatch operator asked him to stop following? Because for me I think that is something that should have been looked at
closely.

I admit I stopped following the case due to the arguments and bickering.

Just genuinely interested in the detail but not enough to trawl hundreds of pages of info that I cannot verify.



“Are you following him?” – referring to Martin. When Zimmerman said he was, the dispatcher said, “OK. We don’t need you to do that.”


Is what I'm referring too.

edit on 17-7-2013 by Taggart because: (no reason given)

The dispatcher asked which direction he went, and what was he doing. In effect, asking GZ to keep an eye on him, immediately after saying you don't need to follow with regards to GZ's remark about following him.

So, in a way, the dispatcher provided confusing directions. The dispatcher's testimony is on Youtube as well as the full unedited conversation, if I am not mistaken.

Originally posted by totallackey

Originally posted by okyouwin
It amazes me when reading what some people think are facts in this case. It appears some here believe that there are witnesses that saw the whole thing and are certain about what happened. That simply is not true. There are only two people who know what happened that night and one of them is dead.

Actually, there are a lot of witnesses, and we have a lot of information and we know some of what happened. Just like accounts of a big party. Everyone has a story to tell. Does not mean the party did not happen. Just different takes, from different angles, and perspectives.

Here are two facts. Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. Martin was unarmed.

Martin did not have a FIREarm. But it is obvious that Martin did not believe himself to be helpless. Look at the very premise the OP is wanting us to believe. The OP wants us to believe that Martin, IN FULL KNOWLEDGE of the presence of an armed Zimmerman, WANTED TO DO BATTLE.

Someone suggests that Zimmerman was doing his job. This is not true. I repeat this is not true. As a neighborhood watch volunteer he is to report any suspicious activity to the police.

He did.

That is all Zimmerman is not trained to pursue or question anyone relating to their presence in the neighborhood. This lack of training is woefully evident in the way he conducted himself that night. He should never have acted in anyway to contact or confront Martin.

There is no evidence Zimmerman initiated any contact with Martin. There is evidence Martin sought out Zimmerman once he spotted Zimmerman behind him. His phone conversation with Rachel indicated both he and Rachel thought Zimmerman might be a male rapist. There is evidence that Martin was going to go beat down what he thought was male rapist...

And should any contact be inadvertently made, Zimmerman should have sated his purpose and identified himself as a watch volunteer.

How do you know he did not identify himself as a neighborhood watch volunteer?

Zimmerman's actions were reckless and full of false bravado.

Nothing reckless at all or he would have been charged with some form of recklessness, the way the media has been clamoring for his hide...and certainly no false bravado demonstrated by plugging Martin with a 9mm bullet. ACTUAL AND REAL BRAVADO!!! That is what you are whining about right?

I ask anyone here to place themselves in Martin's position.

Why would I want to place myself in the position of an ignorant, hoodie wearin, wannabe thug kid?

And just to add a little spice to the scenario, let's say the person in the car was a black man. I'm just guessing in this case the woman juror who is doing all the talking on television now, the one who can't understand why Martin would be threatened, would be soiling her underwear.

Your point is that all of us, "creepy *snip* crackers," should be walkin around in fear of a black man behind the wheel of an automobile?

This whole event was a tragic situation, and I believe is an example of why there should be greater controls on just who should be allowed to carry a gun.

It is only tragic because you want to make it tragic. As I wrote earlier, personally, I will celebrate every time read of a thug, gangster, crip, wannabe, getting shot and killed. For the most part, it is they who are doing most of the killing of each other. Why is that not as tragic as this? Where is the outcry over those killings?

As far as controls, I will quote Todd (Keanu Reeves) in the movie Parenthood, "You know, Mrs. Buckman, you need a license to buy a dog, to drive a car - hell, you even need a license to catch a fish. But they'll let any butt-reaming asshole be a father." It is obvious the parents of Trayvon Martin were not the concerned parents until after the shooting.

And here's a tip folks if you ever find you want kill someone, make sure they are dead, then scratch the back of you head just enough to make it bleed and they maybe bonk yourself in the nose just enough to get a little blood flowing.

Sophistry and poppycock...

Zimmerman was a wussy who got himself into a situation he couldn't handle and took the cowards way out and shot an unarmed man. End of story.

Thank God the unarmed man he shot was actually a thug wannabe and would have likely ended up in jail for some crime he committed in pursuit of supporting his drug habit... Now, do you promise this is the end of your story?

I just went back and read the rest of your reply. This time I quoted it because I though everyone should have a chance to read what you wrote.

Brother you should be either more informed or ashamed of yourself.