Why Zimmerman is Guilty

Originally posted by SpaDe_

Originally posted by Willtell

No, this stupid jury just didn’t want to give humanity to a black boy.

Can I ask what relevance his skin color has to do with this incident? Every thread where I see someone trying to make a case against Zimmerman they always have to point out that this "poor black kid", or "innocent black teenager", or some other way to point out that he was black. Who cares what race he was, it doesn't make it any more or any less tragic! Glad I figured out your reasoning and agenda here.

I don't think I mentioned his race, but this city has a long history of problems. Since the jury is from this city, it is hard to ignore. I am sure a quick google search will give you some of the nasty details.

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

You should have watched the trial. The operator said that they do not give commands to anyone due to the fact that the city might be liable.

Originally posted by lostbook
reply to post by Willtell

 

I see what you are saying but the jury had no choice because their hands were tied by the courts orders. The NRA and Walmart lobbied for and pushed for the "Stand your ground bill" in Florida. Walmart wanted it because they are the largest seller of bullets in the U.S.-if I'm not mistaken, and more bullets sold means more guns sold, which makes the NRA happy. All I'm hearing here on ATS is..." Zimmerman did the right thing" and "he's a hero who defended himself..." Zimmerman tempted fate because he wanted someone to give him an excuse to commit his evil act; unfortunately Trayvon gave him that "excuse." I'm sure that ZImmerman saw that Trayvon was unarmed; he knew he had brought a gun to a fist-fight.

I do agree that crime and violence is out of control and something needs to be done about it, and I think the jury made its decision to send a message to that end. However, this is wrong and it sends the wrong message to other would-be vigilantes like Zimmerman. This is so wrong in so many ways that I can't begin to point them all out.

Umm you are aware that Stand Your Ground law had nothing to do with this case right?

reply to post by Willtell


freerepublic.com

It is as good as any evidence that you have to support your 'what ifs' .

I think you would do a lot more good in this thread, and world, if you would argue your points without fanning the flames of racism.

What if it was a young man walking down the street, and another man following him to see if he was up to no good? The young man approached the other man, a fight broke out and the older man felt his life was in danger so he shot the young man.

What's your verdict then?

Originally posted by Willtell

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Willtell

 

The reason Zimmerman is not guilty is because the entire situation you just outlined is based on hypotheticals and what ifs. The law of the land states that the accused is innocent unless they can be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no hard evidence to support anything you just said. If there were the prosecution would have presented it at trial instead of relying on their emotion based case. As someone who could have cared less about this case I must say that based on the evidence presented a not guilty decision was the proper decision.

The hard evidence is the fact that he Zimmerman instilled great fear in a 17 year old boy.
So much fear THAT THE BOY ATTACKED HIM. STANDING HIS GROUND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How would your son or daughter react to a strange man stalking them on a rainy night?

Hopefully with brains rather then stupidity. Martin could have gone home, he could have called 911. Instead he attacked. There is no cure for stupidity.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Willtell

 

freerepublic.com

It is as good as any evidence that you have to support your 'what ifs' .

politicalblindspot.com...

here is more stuff on the other side of the coin.

Neither of this has anything to do with the case.
seems to me they're both losers.

Originally posted by SpaDe_


Can I ask what relevance his skin color has to do with this incident? Every thread where I see someone trying to make a case against Zimmerman they always have to point out that this "poor black kid", or "innocent black teenager", or some other way to point out that he was black. Who cares what race he was, it doesn't make it any more or any less tragic! Glad I figured out your reasoning and agenda here.

Because playing race like saying George Zimmerman is LESS Hispanic, and more White is what people want to do.

Its sad and sick. Its Race Baiting. Its Polarization.

Originally posted by wwiilliiaamm

Originally posted by SpaDe_

Originally posted by Willtell

No, this stupid jury just didn’t want to give humanity to a black boy.

Can I ask what relevance his skin color has to do with this incident? Every thread where I suee someone trying to make a case against Zimmerman they always have to point out that this "poor black kid", or "innocent black teenager", or some other way to point out that he was black. Who cares what race he was, it doesn't make it any more or any less tragic! Glad I figured out your reasoning and agenda here.

I don't think I mentioned his race, but this city has a long history of problems. Since the jury is from this city, it is hard to ignore. I am sure a quick google search will give you some of the nasty details.

A very interesting exchange here!
One member, by the name of ' willtell ' makes a statement using the term 'black boy'.
Another member makes note of it.
Then another member responds to the reply as if he was the one being addressed.
Just seems a bit weird.

Originally posted by wwiilliiaamm

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Willtell

 

freerepublic.com

It is as good as any evidence that you have to support your 'what ifs' .

politicalblindspot.com...

here is more stuff on the other side of the coin.

Neither of this has anything to do with the case.
seems to me they're both losers.

No kidding.
It is my point that the ' what ifs ' do not mean squat in a court of law.

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by wwiilliiaamm

Originally posted by SpaDe_

Originally posted by Willtell

No, this stupid jury just didn’t want to give humanity to a black boy.

Can I ask what relevance his skin color has to do with this incident? Every thread where I suee someone trying to make a case against Zimmerman they always have to point out that this "poor black kid", or "innocent black teenager", or some other way to point out that he was black. Who cares what race he was, it doesn't make it any more or any less tragic! Glad I figured out your reasoning and agenda here.

I don't think I mentioned his race, but this city has a long history of problems. Since the jury is from this city, it is hard to ignore. I am sure a quick google search will give you some of the nasty details.

A very interesting exchange here!
One member, by the name of ' willtell ' makes a statement using the term 'black boy'.
Another member makes note of it.
Then another member responds to the reply as if he was the one being addressed.
Just seems a bit weird.

I just thought I would clarify why it is an issue.
also, I don't know when to shut up ;-)

Originally posted by Willtell

Originally posted by ThePublicEnemyNo1
Another thing I wanted to add.

About two weeks ago my husband and my 14 year old son were held up and robbed at gunpoint in my husband's friend's driveway. For some reason, the robbers were looking for money. My son had 40 bucks on him and my husband had about 150 bucks on him. They laid my husband down at gunpoint and pointed a gun into the side of my son. My son told me he considered taking the gun away from one of the guys, but obviously he thought better of it and decided not to. He probably could have taken the gun...he was taught self defense by a real hero, my Dad, which included how to disarm someone.

I believe in guns, my son does as well, but my husband, he hates them. I was raised by an Vietnam Vet Army Green Beret...who first taught me how to shoot a gun at the age of five and how to fist fight (plus a host of other defenses I'd rather not mention). I don't know what would have happened if I would have been there with my family that day...but I do know one thing...one of those guys wouldn't have left the scene. In this situation a fist wouldn't have helped much.

I didn't tell this story to say that Martin or Zimmerman were right or wrong. I'm telling this story to ask that if it's you and you're legally armed..what the hell would you do?

This took place off of Crenshaw and Adams in Los Angeles...the area is not good by any standards. We live in the suburbs of Los Angeles, but are no strangers to criminal shenanigans...at least I'm not as I grew up in a neighborhood that was not "all good" and am very familiar with the criminal mindset. These idiots saw my husband and son driving a very nice car that was locked behind a gate...waited and ambushed them. It must have looked like an opportunity to them to rob the person driving the car.

They took what little change they had in their pockets and left. My husband got in the car and immediately followed them while on the phone with LAPD...told the police where he was and what happened and even described the car and crafty crooks that robbed them. They got caught within minutes

All I'm saying is that aside from whether some of us feel what Zimmerman did was right or wrong...what if it was you...what if you got clocked in the nose...what if you got jacked...what if?

What the hell would you do if you were armed?

Seriously think about that.

edit on 7/15/13 by ThePublicEnemyNo1 because: (no reason given)

I sympathize with you over this unfortunate incident and hope everyone is okay.
On this matter I am only trying to convince people of the illogical reasoning behind the stand your ground law as it applies to this case. Every case is unique and has its own story.

I am a firm believer in self defense but I think here people are forgetting that Trayvon likely felt as much threatened as Zimmerman who had the gun. Doesn’t Stand your ground apply to Trayvon.

What was Trayvon to do? He was on foot. Zimmerman had the gun and the car!

Maybe it was Trayvon who felt boxed in.

I think that there was as much evidence that Zimmerman started the fight by his actions and lies as Trayvon Martin.

May I ask what Stand Your Ground has to do with this? Why are you trying to make this about SYG? Is it you are ignorant about the case? Or are you pushing some kind of agenda? SYG was NEVER a part of the case. It was straight Self Defense.

Originally posted by Willtell

Originally posted by wwiilliiaamm
reply to post by Willtell

 

of course, he was scared, afraid etc.

that is irrelevant to the court case.

he shouldn't have been killed. no question about it. He was in his neighborhood. etc. sadly, it doesn't matter to the exact question... did Zimmerman feel afraid the moment he pulled the trigger. if the answer is yes, then he gets off.

that is all that is needed. sadly.

That’s just not true. A woman was just put in jail for 20 years in Florida for shooting a warming shot at an abusive husband.

No, this stupid jury just didn’t want to give humanity to a black boy.

No the case was completely different and debunked in another thread. Put it this way. Warning shots are illegal. If you are afraid for your life you do not fire warning shots. You are afraid for your life you shoot to kill. A warning shot by definition means you are not afraid for your life.

reply to post by wwiilliiaamm

30 posts in just shy of a year.
You actually seem reserved.

Originally posted by Willtell

Originally posted by ThePublicEnemyNo1
Instead of coming across as asinine, I should say that the verdict is in and George Zimmerman was found not guilty. No matter how people may feel about the verdict...it is what it is.

The emotions surrounding this case are completely understandable, but the jury has spoken. The only thing folks can do that disagree with the verdict is attempt to change the laws.

I would warn however, what if it's you...what if you are threatened? I'm not saying who was right or wrong in this case as I was not there. But, if you feel the need to defend yourself with any weapon one day, you could become the next George Zimmerman.

Think about it!

edit on 7/15/13 by ThePublicEnemyNo1 because: (no reason given)

Do you know how ridiculous you sound?
I think you need to start thinking!
Zimmerman had a gun Trayvon had a bag of candy
Who would you rather be?

... don't forget the can of iced tea.
how to get high on a bag of candy and iced tea. in which case who knows what the lads frame of mind was. The lad had a history for the propensity towards violence. This was detailed in court. On his phone they found text messages and images relating to street fighting, drug use, illegal gun ownership and problems at school/home.

As for the 'what ifs' you present... Well here are a few for you to ponder... What if... the lad wasn't suspended from school for possession? What if.. his mother had not kicked him out of the house and didn't tell him to go live with his father? Geez maybe he wouldn't have been in Sanford attacking someone/Zimmerman who was looking out for his neighbors.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by wwiilliiaamm

 

30 posts in just shy of a year.
You actually seem reserved.

Walk ins welcome
no need for reservations!!!!

reply to post by Willtell


Zimmerman isn't guilty. The only criminal here is Trayvon. He was a druggie and a thief. So get over it.

Sage goes in all fields.

Originally posted by Willtell
the kid panicked and went after Zimmerman

So Zimmerman was attacked by a crazy kid

In that case Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd degree murder and manslaughter at least.

But he was just defending himself against a crazy kid attacking him.... or aren't you allowed to defend yourself in Florida?

trayvon was no angel but neither was zimmerman.

politicalblindspot.org...

it's sad that this happened and now zimmerman will likely be walking around in body armor for the rest of his life, so he didn't exactly get away scot free. just like in the oj and caylee anthony case there simply was not enough evidence to convict. i agree with the verdict according to the evidence or lack thereof but just like oj and caylee i will forever look at zimmerman as the one who got away.

Anyone know if the crime rate went down in Zimmermans and Martins community since the shooting?

Anyone?