Why Zimmerman is Guilty

All the right wingers applaud Zimmerman for killing a black kid in claims of "self defense" but say nothing about the injustice for the black woman convicted of shooting a gun in the air and sentenced to 20 yrs in the same state.



Yeah there is no racism is here

reply to post by neo96


This might help........

Crime Rates in Sanford

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by neo96

 

This might help........

Crime Rates in Sanford

Here is another one.

www.city-data.com...

So from 2008 to 2011 8,3,3,4 people were murdered.

So from 2008 to 2011 138,149,141,143 Assaults happened.

And from 2008 725,798,871,845 burgarlies happened.

And according to that other link a person has a 1 in 17 chance of becoming a victim

Where 4 murders, 143 assaults geez the media made it to sound like minorities were getting murdered all the time in Sanford.

Originally posted by Onslaught2996
All the right wingers applaud Zimmerman for killing a black kid in claims of "self defense" but say nothing about the injustice for the black woman convicted of shooting a gun in the air and sentenced to 20 yrs in the same state.



Yeah there is no racism is here

Rubbish mate... that's a blind generalisation on your part. I hope you've done something constructive about your outrage other than whine about it in a public forum. If not here are some links...
Petition signed... Free Marissa Alexander
Petition signed...PARDON Abused Mother Marissa Alexander
Facebook page of support

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?

It doesn't matter what we think, that's not his the legal system works. It only matters what the jury finds based on the evidence and the law/s. This was a circus from the start. The state's own witnesses corroborated the defendant's story.

Originally posted by Onslaught2996
All the right wingers applaud Zimmerman for killing a black kid in claims of "self defense" but say nothing about the injustice for the black woman convicted of shooting a gun in the air and sentenced to 20 yrs in the same state.



Yeah there is no racism is here

I've never heard anyone applaud Zimmerman for killing a black kid. What are you talking about?

Originally posted by Onslaught2996
All the right wingers applaud Zimmerman for killing a black kid in claims of "self defense" but say nothing about the injustice for the black woman convicted of shooting a gun in the air and sentenced to 20 yrs in the same state.



Yeah there is no racism is here

I've heard a little about that case and I do think the sentence was excessive. That said, firing a 'warning shot' is illegal virtually everywhere, because its assumed that if you have time to fire a warning shot, you weren't in sufficient danger at that moment in time to even use the firearm. Not only that, but it also brings reckless endangerment into the picture, since you are essentially firing a stray bullet on purpose.

reply to post by Willtell

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

So, someone pulls out a gun on you...you panic...and go after him ??

Sure....I know now...what "Beautiful mind" stands for...

reply to post by Jerk_Idiot

There is no cure for stupidity.

Wrong !

In this case, Death was the cure for stupidity.

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.

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.

BUT we only have Zimmerman (a known self-serving liar) as a witness to his own actions and Trayvon’s)
That is at lease manslaughter even by the barbaric law of the jungle they call stand your ground!

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.

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?

While Trayvon as an individual being stalked had more proof to himself that Zimmerman was the person with criminal intent (since he was creepily following Trayvon)

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.

Case Closed

Did you even watch the trial? or do you just have selective hearing? The lead detective said he found Zimmerman very credible. Detectives can smell a lie like a fart in a car. Or what about the witness that saw Zimmerman and Martin on the ground and Martin was on top pounding on Zimmerman.

Character goes a long way in this world and I highly doubt a man that volunteers as a community watchman with no criminal record is gonna go waving his gun around like a madman. To carry a weapon you need to have a legal permit and the gun must stay concealed at all times.

I find Zimmerman a lot more credible then Martin. For one I never trust a drug addict. Maybe Trayvons parents should have done a better job of raising him. He was suspended from school had drugs in his system and was a self proclaimed thug.

If Martin would have went home instead of starting a fight with the creepy ass cracka he might still be alive.

reply to post by Willtell


You didn't watch the trial, did you? Nope. DIdn't think so.

- Stand your ground wasn't used.
- The JURY did the right thing. They followed he law instead of emotional mob rule.
- Martin and Zimmerman BOTH could have walked away, but didn't. Martin is responsible, in part, for his own death.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by Willtell

 

You didn't watch the trial, did you? Nope. DIdn't think so.

- Stand your ground wasn't used.
- The JURY did the right thing. They followed he law instead of emotional mob rule.
- Martin and Zimmerman BOTH could have walked away, but didn't. Martin is responsible, in part, for his own death.

Well seems like the National Bar Association disagree with you, since they are outraged that Zimmerman is walking free

reply to post by Willtell


Hard evidence? you must have been in the court then presenting this or at least listening to all evidence? Zimmerman must have been found guilty because of said 'hard evidence'? No he wasn't because there was not any hard evidence. None, zero, zip. The evidence pointed to and indeed convinced a jury of his peers that he was innocent. Unless you bring ACTUAL hard evidence then its all just 'i think'

When it comes down to it, Zimmerman was a neighborhood watchman, they had recently had a slew of break ins by black youths. Zimmerman spotted him, did his job as neighborhood watchman. The operator even said that his instructions could have been heard as 'follow him' This is now common knowledge. Trayton instead of just asking why he was following him and explaining he was just returning home from the shop, attacked a man and viciously slammed his head into the concrete. At that point it was his own fault. Trayton wanted the 'thug life' we have plenty people over here in the UK like that. They will happily knife you without so much as a thought, most of them are around 16-20.

reply to post by Willtell


Noooooope, sorry wrong.

Here is why you are wrong. (Strap in for your shaming)

1.) Trayvon confronted George first = fact as told by Rachel Jeantel

2.) Trayvon had damage to his knuckles indicating he threw punches.

3.) Zimmerman had no damage to his knuckles indicating he threw no punches (and therefore likely didn't throw the first, or missed - which is absurd anyway for an armed man to start a fist fight.)

4.) Trayvon made it home, but rather than go inside to safety he waited on Zimmerman and confronted him.

5.) In order to use stand your ground you must fear for your life. If Zimmerman started the fight (which he didn't) it wouldn't matter because Trayvon wasn( in fear for his life because by the time anyone witnessed Trayvon was on top. So even if he didn't start the fight he wasn't fearing for his life when he was beating his opponent to death.

So as a review Trayvon would have no right to invoke stand your ground because he confronted Zimerman, an uncontested fact of the case, and even though he threw the first punch if we pretend he didn't, just before he was shot he was wining the fight meaning he had no reasonable fear for his life.

If you turn off your bias for one second the case becomes crystal clear. Also you speak of Zimmermans lies when in reality there weren't really any, just super slight inconsistencies. Now if you want to talk about the lies from Trayvons family and witnesses then we can talk about some lies. Like Rachel's or Trayvons parents saying it was him on the 911 call (everyone with the least bit of common sense knows it was Zimmerman, including the Jury. The first thing Zimmerman said to responders was "I was screaming fr help" despite having no idea it was recorded in a phone call. ) Oh then we have the skittles lie. Trayvo most likely was buying skittles and tea to make "a batch of lean" as he calls the drug on facebook and there was a picture of on his phone. If he was buying it for the kid waiting at home rather than himself, why did the kid never call wondering where his skittles were? Why didn't he tell the parents Trayvon didn't come home? Why did it take trayvon an hour to make the 15 min .6 mile walk? Perhaps he hadn't really intended on going home?

He was suspicious, he attacked Zimmerman, and Zimmerman defended himself.

Case closed.

P.S. Zimmerman didn't use stand your ground, so o reaso to get a good law down.

reply to post by muse7

Well seems like the National Bar Association disagree with you, since they are outraged that Zimmerman is walking free

They are?

Post a link. This is the first I have heard this. I would like to see it in black and white.

The National Bar Association is made up of Impartial, Unbiased, and Unprejudiced Personnel.

What the hell makes you think they are pi$$ed about this “Fair” ruling?

In short they are not interested in the ruling only in the process by which it was obtained.

Pull your head out.

Originally posted by Onslaught2996
All the right wingers applaud Zimmerman for killing a black kid in claims of "self defense" but say nothing about the injustice for the black woman convicted of shooting a gun in the air and sentenced to 20 yrs in the same state.



Yeah there is no racism is here

No, everyone here would agree that is incredibly unfair. I would however say one story got a little more publicity though, wouldn't you? Oh and I would also say that angry black people were the reason it gt more publicity, wouldn't you? Someone could even come to the conclusion that they were more interested in convicting a "white" guy than protesting that woman's insane sentence?

That said, I would like to ask you some questions about that womans crime. Did she own the gun legally? She should get a little time because that was an incredibly dangerous and foolish thing to do. It's illegal to fire in city imits AND when you fire in the air IT DOES COME DOWN and there have been lots of people killed and injured from that. Was it actualy necessary? Holding the gun on the person wasn't enough?

I think you made an ignorant comparison, defend it.

WOW.We as a country have went from a jury prudence system of justice, to an outright mob mentality. One person on ATS knows the truth......Well, the prosecutors could have used you. Wanting something bad enough does not get it for you. THE EVIDENCE said it was self defence. All those who say the verdict is wrong or the jury got it wrong...should be ashamed of them damn selves. ALL of this can stop, stop televising the trials.

reply to post by muse7


LOL oh yeah I bet they are.

Did you watch the trial? Zimmerman's innocence was so obvious it was disgusting. The jury foud him inocent, the state nevr had the slightest case. If you want to know why he should be free, read my above post.

Then get over it because you are wrong.

Originally posted by openyourmind1262
WOW.We as a country have went from a jury prudence system of justice, to an outright mob mentality. One person on ATS knows the truth......Well, the prosecutors could have used you. Wanting something bad enough does not get it for you. THE EVIDENCE said it was self defence. All those who say the verdict is wrong or the jury got it wrong...should be ashamed of them damn selves. ALL of this can stop, stop televising the trials.

My favorite part are these pathetic talking heads like Nancy Grace. They lie and presume guilt across the ation on t.v. and build up peoples faith in conviction and pollute jury pools, and then act shocked when the person turs out completely and obviously innocent.

Originally posted by Willtell
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.

That may well be true, but the flaw in your thinking is that you are treating it as a zero sum game. That's not the case. It doesn't have to be either/or. It could be both, and if its both, that makes Zimmerman's self-defense claim perfectly valid.