Why Zimmerman is Guilty

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

The stand your ground law does not apply if one doubles back to confront another individual when multiple means of escape are available.

Originally posted by muse7
Well seems like the National Bar Association disagree with you, since they are outraged that Zimmerman is walking free

Got a link to prove that? If the National Bar Association was to be 'outraged' it should be with the prosecution who pushed a case with ZERO evidence.... a case that shouldn't even have come to trial.

reply to post by vor78


It's not true though, it wouldn't have applied to Trayvon as he initially confronted and was the likely aggressor based on evidence. Also Zimmerman had no way of knowing if Trayvon had a gun either and it's actually surprising he didn't considering his mother straw purchased a 40 cal for him and he discussed buying and selling them illegally through text messages. Just food for thought.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I agree, I'm just pointing out that it doesn't have to be either/or. Its possible it can be both.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


When they stop televising the trials NAsty GRace will go away.... So will all the public outrage.

reply to post by vor78


Lol.. I knew what you meant. I just felt like squashing the person you were replying to's hope because it's early and I have to work and Zimmerman was so obviously innocent. Ya know.

reply to post by Willtell


Sorry, we don't have all the facts, and the jury found him not guilty. He did take a life, and I don't believe his hands are as clean as some would say, but the justice system tried him, and found him not guilty.

Only two people knew what really took place, and one of them is dead. Those are the only facts we have.

You should change your title to why YOU THINK he is guilty.

Or better yet, just move the hell on, it's over, and no amount of butthurt will change it. And let's not pretend Trayvon was an innocent little kid, he was involved in home invasions and possibly drug trafficking.

George had every reason to be suspicious and call the police. Once he ignored them when he was told not to approach or follow Trayvon, that's when it turns into possibly manslaughter for me. For the very reasons you mentioned. Doesn't Trayvon have the right to stand his ground when being stalked by an armed unidentified man? I'd think so.

But.... the jury said it was a justified shooting, case closed, move on with your life and hope this story changes someones mind before they commit a crime or pull the trigger.

What you should take away from this story is how the media will latch onto, and distort, anything for their own means.

reply to post by NavyDoc

The stand your ground law does not apply if one doubles back to confront another individual when multiple means of escape are available.

But it does apply to someone following someone who was told by the police not to, because they were on the way to deal with the situation?

sorry, it's not so.... eh.... black and white.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

The stand your ground law does not apply if one doubles back to confront another individual when multiple means of escape are available.

But it does apply to someone following someone who was told by the police not to, because they were on the way to deal with the situation?

sorry, it's not so.... eh.... black and white.

He wasn't told that by police. Be was told that by an operator on a non-emergency line. It had already been pointed out that Zimmerman was under no legal obligation to follow that suggestion.

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.

It's a pretty interesting angle, to be honest. And, it points to exactly what is wrong with the law as written....it is too vague. The parameters of "feeling threatened" aren't defined, and this interpretation is WAY too broad for a law concerning life or death.

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?

Trayvon's own postings, etc. pretty much paint him as a thug or wanna be thug. So, the general consensus on his criminal status isn't THAT hard to understand. Likewise, if this WAS the case, then fleeing would have made more sense than a physical confrontation.

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.

I don't consider Trayvon "brave" for committing assault. Even if your hypothesis is correct, he committed wrong there (though the stand your ground COULD have merit for him too...but unless Zimmerman showed the gun, the threat doesn't seem to be there).... This "bigot" idea keeps popping up. Zimmerman is of a very mixed heritage INCLUDING African American on his mother's side. Profiling someone as a criminal is not always about race folks. Instead, it's really more about other factors such as: not recognizing the kid as living in the area, CLOTHES (like a hoodie in warm weather), and behavior....not race.

Morally, what Zimmerman did was wrong. Legally though, there is certainly too much doubt about the case to convict him of the charges the state were seeking. Had they gone for manslaughter out of the gate, it probably could have happened...but murder is a whole other ballgame.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Totally true. Also, the operator testified that his instructions could easily have been interpreted as 'follow him'. I don't understand why people are ignoring that and just repeating the operator told him not to follow.

I've wondered whether the prosecution pursued charges that they knew they couldn't prove, defaulting no punishment. Just a personal opinion.

One witness in an apartment opened his door and saw the fight. He then said he was going to call 911. Why didn't Mr. Martin break off the fight at this point knowing the police were coming?

Trayvon Martin was the aggressor, whether or not he felt threatened by Zimmerman means nothing, he initiated violence against another person, which is an invasion/infringement of the other's rights, which is unlawful.

A lot of people have some flaky opinions regarding what is right and what is wrong, so maybe one should consider what one would Do if it were themselves being attacked for following a trespasser around on their own property, or maybe getting beaten by someone who was trying break into your car in a parking ramp.

Zimmerman and Martin were in the commons, an area used by everyone, shared space. Zimmerman was patrolling his own neighborhood because of frequent burglaries, Martin did not belong there as it was a gated community.

Was Zimmerman supposed to ask him for an ID to make sure he wasn't shooting a minor after he was attacked?. Or did he react because he feared for his own well being?.

Martin was a wannabe gang banga, he got what he deserved and race wouldn't have been a factor because if he was whatever race because Zimmerman probably would have reacted the same way.

If I got knocked on my ass and was armed, I surely would have presented my defense weapon and used it. Zimmerman did not brandish his weapon, it was concealed beneath his jacket and Martin saw it and tried to take it from him after he was knocked to the ground and his jacket no longer concealed it.

I don't know where some people develop their opinions, must be lack of any real experience.

Why Zimmerman is Guilty

Wait....... what?
He was acquitted or did my boob tube lie to me again....... dang cheep china-mart T.V. dose nothing but lie.

reply to post by Willtell


Run Like Hell. My kids have been taught to get away from creepy strangers, not confront them.

reply to post by phishyblankwaters

But it does apply to someone following someone who was told by the police not to, because they were on the way to deal with the situation?

You had probably better get the Facts right. It wasn't the police, it was a 911 operator.

In addition, that he followed him has nothing to do with Trayvon coming back to confront him.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

The stand your ground law does not apply if one doubles back to confront another individual when multiple means of escape are available.

But it does apply to someone following someone who was told by the police not to, because they were on the way to deal with the situation?

sorry, it's not so.... eh.... black and white.

However, the evidence demonstrated that GZ was back on his way to the car when he was jumped. He disengaged and was walking away when ambushed. Thus the jury determined that he was not being the aggressor and was permitted self defense under the law. Had GZ followed TM and grabbed him, he would not have been able to claim self defense. However, the evidence indicated otherwise so the jury let him off.

OP... you are venturing into the minds & inner motivations of the two victims in this case.



evidence did not overwhelmingly point to Zimmerman 'Stalking' anyone


since both were likely up to no good, they were both guilty of creating the condition that led to a tragedy.. but the Law is not about presuming the inner thoughts & motivations of individuals to place blame or guilt upon one or the other party... it is all about the facts and evidence of just how each person came to be in the situation they found themselves in

Originally posted by Willtell


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.

You can't know this for sure. I could take it the other direction and say, "If hypothetically Trayvon did attack Zimmerman it wasn’t out of ill intent it was".... because Trayvon had committed a chrime and thought if he'd intimidate Zimmerman (which lead to a fight), the issue would have ended.. Too bad Zimmerman defended himself and shot the kid...


So it can go both ways if your being objectively hypothetical.