Why Zimmerman is Guilty

reply to post by VictorVonDoom

The only thing that seems strange to me is that Zimmerman only fired once. I think I would have at least fired three times, but maybe that's just me.

Maybe Martin stopped/froze after the first shot.
That would tell me that GZ wasn't out to kill. He was just trying to stop the assault.

Originally posted by Willtell

Originally posted by wwiilliiaamm
The problem is with the law as written.....

self-defense in the jury instructions... did he feel afraid for his life when he pulled the trigger?..... not five minutes before not two minutes before. etc. when he pulled the trigger.

the instructions are was got him off.

He is a killer who because of the system is free. There are many examples of guilty going free. He is just one more.

Think again.
It was Trayvon (in his mind) not Zimmerman who was under attack.

Trayvon was the initial victim (in his own mind) just as they are saying Zimmerman (in his own mind) was under threat.

How do we decide who is right and wrong?
Easy
Zimmerman started it; he (delusionaly) thought Trayvon was doing crime: so he stalked him and frightened him-- SUBJECTIVE TRUTH

Trayvon thought Zimmerman was stalking him: He was stalking him: OBJECTIVE TRUTH

Trayvon wins. But racism is powerful

The black boy is some kind of Superhuman monster

WillTell,

Regardless of what you believe, following somebody in a public place is not illegal. Really, it's not. Attacking someone physically and then mounting them and continuing the attack is. All TM had to do was keep walking home to his dad's house, he didn't have to confront then get into a fight with GZ. The only evidence of wounds on TM are on his hands and knuckles, which was consistent with him striking someone. The only evidence of wounds on GZ are consistent with being punched in the face and having his head impacted against something (concrete).

I know you don't want to believe it, but the evidence tends to support that TM attacked GZ, with enough force to injure GZ and knock him down without any fight wounds on TM. Add to that the testimony of the only eyewitnesses to altercation and it seems pretty obvious that TM was beating up GZ.

Your version of events doesn't add up with the evidence, who in their right mind would attack a person holding a gun with only their fists?? That's stupid. Why would GZ shoot someone just for the hell of it after calling Police? When the Police tried to fool GZ by saying there was a video recording the whole fight, GZ sounded relieved, knowing that it would support his version.

Both people GZ and TM, made bad judgment calls, TM bad judgement resulted in his death by attacking GZ. He didn't have to confront and fight, he should have just made it home.

A jury of our peers has rendered a verdict. Sorry that you don't want justice, you want revenge for someone who attacked another person physically. There's a lesson in that someone, but a lot of people fail to recognize it.

Ahem.

Being followed does not give you the right to assault someone, and then to continue beating them for 40+ seconds.

I hope that clears things up.

There is self defense, and then there is this stinking load of bulls***. Trayvon was an idiot for physically attacking Zimmerman. I'm sure if Zimmerman didn't have a gun and had died in the altercation instead of Trayvon, people like the OP would be defending Trayvon's actions.

Here is the thing, Trayvon looked shady and he was in a neighborhood that had seen a recent rise in break-ins. Zimmerman, being neighborhood watch, had every reason to follow him. If Trayvon hadn't decided upon a violent approach, he would most likely be alive today. However, that idiot decided to assault an armed man. I'm sorry, assault isn't really the right word, because he didn't just beat Zimmerman until he was down and then leave, he sat there beating him for 2/3rds of a minute.

This is America, a lot of people are armed, especially those in security positions. You should know that before you try to beat someone to death with your fists.

Had there not been a physical altercation and Zimmerman had shot Trayvon, then it could be argued to be a race issue or a hate crime.

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

I would demand a refund from the school that taught you law. It not a crime to follow (creep) someone. Trayvon ended his rights as soon as his fist hit Zimmerman plan and simple. If he would have just gotten in Zimmerman's face and confronted him and been shot then it would have been on Zimmerman.

reply to post by Willtell


He is not guilty, the jury ruled and a person cannot be tried twice.

reply to post by speeddr2000


usnews.nbcnews.com...

Can't fight the facts.

Florida teenager Trayvon Martin died from a single gunshot wound to the chest fired from “intermediate range,” according to an autopsy report reviewed Wednesday by NBC News.

The official report, prepared by the medical examiner in Volusia County, Fla., also found that the 17-year-old Martin had one other fresh injury – a small abrasion, no more than a quarter-inch in size – on his left ring finger below the knuckle.

Separately, a medical report on Martin’s alleged killer, 28-year-old George Zimmerman, prepared by his personal physician the day after Martin’s shooting in Sanford, Fla., on Feb. 26, found that the Neighborhood Watch volunteer suffered a likely broken nose, swelling, two black eyes and cuts to the scalp. That report, first reported Tuesday by ABC News, also was reviewed by NBC News.

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.

reply to post by Willtell


And that is were I stopped reading.

#1 The “stand your ground law” has nothing to do with the Zimmerman case.
#2 Martin could not claim self-defense because he continued to assault Zimmerman.
#3 You can not defend by attacking.

In that one short paragraph you managed to contradict yourself, show ignorance of the case and law, and show that you wasted time finishing the thread, but this last part is just my opinion.

Why Zimmerman is Guilty

Why Zimmerman is not guilty:

1. The jury found him not guilty.
2. The moment we discard our jury system in favor of public opinion is the day that we drag OJ Simpson to hang next to Zimmerman. This is NOT my view of American justice.
3. I wasn't there at the event or on the jury that was privy to far more than even our beloved mainscream media. As such, I defer to those who were.

My dime,.

Originally posted by samkent
I'm sorry but the facts of anything have never mattered to the majority black community.

yeah that's right....because only the "white community" has the facts...the "black community" are stupid and ignorant, and do not have the higher intellectual skills as does the "white community", right?....

reply to post by jimmyx

I'm not trying to make this a racial topic because I don't believe GZ thought of things in racial terms.
But in MSM it's the black community that seems to be upset.

Why is the black community outraged about this one incedent?
But the daily B on B shootings are glossed over.
You see this in the news every day across the country.

Why arn't they rioting in their own communities over their own shootings?

If I were to walk alone in bad areas of my own town I'm sure I would be assulted in some mannor.
The response on TV from the people there would be along the lines of . .
"What he doin down here?"
"He ain't got no biness down here."

Why Zimmerman is Guilty

reply to post by Willtell


.........U mad bro?

reply to post by Jerk_Idiot



Yes, I'm aware. Trayvon stood his ground but the Jury didn't take that into account. This whole issue can be summed up with one word-fear. Zimmerman was in fear over the unknown in the situation he caused and he used his gun to overcome that fear. He knew the laws and his limitations there-of plus being a neighborhood watch puts law enforcement on his side. I try to look at things logically and objectively, and looking at this case that way a lot of things that set Zimmerman as a free man just don't add up.

Jeraldo had it right when he came down on the side of GZ (at least this time). When a young black man chooses to dress like a gangsta, and assumes that role, then you also assume the consequences of portraying that image when you wonder into neighborhoods where that image is feared.

The Jury had it right, the racists in this matter are the Blacks, and the State of Florida who brought this case. It now appears that the prosecutor may be disbarred, since she caused to be filed fraudulent representations with the court. Could not happen to a more wonderful woman. John

reply to post by Faust100f

It now appears that the prosecutor may be disbarred, since she caused to be filed fraudulent representations with the court.

Can you imagine the implications had she not filed?

What utter garbage. The prosecution didn't and couldn't prove their case. It is a land of laws. not ATS opinions.

If there had been a guilty verdict then every American would be in even deeper "Kim chee".

The fact is, no witnesses, no way to prove, or know, what happened. No proof , no case.

AS IT SHOULD BE.

I think Zimmerman has FAS. Those eyes...Look at his upper lip, too.

One of the side effects of FAS is poor judgement making skills. If he had listened to police and stayed in his car, he wouldn't have shot Treyvon END OF STORY.

So yes, it is his fault this kid got killed. He took the law into his own hands, and put himself into a situation that necessitated the use of force (in his mind).

It's really that simple folks. If he would have waited for police and followed instructions, this wouldn't have happened. It IS his fault the kid got shot. End of story.

Also -- this whole thing has nothing to do with race. Zimmerman is part minority himself!

reply to post by MystikMushroom

If he had listened to police and stayed in his car, he wouldn't have shot Treyvon END OF STORY.

IF IF IF
Every accident includes 'if's'.
If TM took a different route home.
If TM had walked away from GZ.
If TM had offered GZ some Skittles.

There is always 'if's'. But that doesn't mean GZ is at fault for TM's death.

GZ was under no obligation to follow the poilce's 'suggestions'.
GZ didn't break any laws by getting out of his car.
GZ didn't break any laws by asking TM why he was there.

TM did break laws by attacking GZ.

I can see how the prosecution blew this case and I support the jury in their decision.

What disturbed me are the members that are celebrating the death of a young man and glorifying Zimmerman as some kind of hero.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised as ATS, more and more becomes a conservative sounding board.

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.

Corrected this for you:
The reason Zimmerman was found not guilty is because the entire situation you just outlined is based on hypotheticals and what ifs.

See...he was "found" not guilty...not the same as "being" not guilty.

I think the Jury ruled correctly on the evidence they had to work with and the case the prosecution made with that evidence.

I also think that evidence heavily "suggests" that Zimmerman was not jumped as his variable and different accounts state...

I think he chased down Trayvon and caught him and Trayvon fought back.

I think Zimmerman lied. I do think he was scared and shot the boy. He hadn't expected the boy to fight back.

I think the evidence strongly "suggests" the above, from Zimmermans varying accounts of the final encounter to multiple witnesses describing a chase. I don't think the evidence "proves" the above "beyond any reasonable doubt" and thus Zimmerman walks.

Is Zimmerman guilty? Yes...reckless homicide...Can it be proven beyond "ANY reasonable doubt"? Apparently not. My bottom line? He's guilty, but the jury ruled correctly...psst...I think OJ killed his wife despite that ruling as well.

In order for most innocent folks to go free in a court of law, then some of the guilty will walk also. Nature of the legal system.