Exclusive! First hand Witness: Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman Zimmerman Innocent Smoking Gun

reply to post by DavidWillts


I actually agree. I never wanted to hang him, but I did want him to go to court, and i've always recognized this is some kind of distraction.

Still though, the media made people think one way, now they are making them think another. I don't know because I wasn't there.

Originally posted by LErickson

No matter what you think about what happened, you tell me that if you were this kids parent that you would not be doing everything you could to make some sense of it? These people just lost their boy. No matter how legal or justified you might think it was for this kid to get shot to death, THESE PEOPLE are hurting real bad right now. Tell me how they should behave.

I have told many people this in my lifetime - usually as a leader to a subordinate leader who has let things in his unit spiral out of control and wants them back after the fact.

If you'd have tried half as hard to be involved in your unit (substitute kids life in this case) before the incident as your are trying right now to make sense of it all this never would have happened.

The time to parent is not after your child is dead. Perhaps if they were more involved they'd know he considered himself some kind of black foot soldier, dealt drugs, broke into houses, and was apathetic about his education. If they'd have intervened in there with some kind of parenting - perhaps this wouldn't have happened at all...

I think in this case it might still have happened given the circumstances but they would have a better case for the "good kid in the wrong place defense".

You let your kid conduct himself and style himself a "gansta" then seem all shocked and outraged when he dies like one isn't all that credible IMO. Sad but true...

Word to the wise parent be involved before things go bad.

reply to post by popsmayhem

Why>? zimmerman did nothing
wrong,

Last time I checked, killing another human being was wrong.

self defense is not wrong/murder

It has not been determined whether or not it was actually self defense. Even if it were, there are limits to the amount of force that can be used.

There is no freaking need to waste
our tax dollars wrecking this innocent
mans life.

This "innocent man" wrecked his own life the moment he started cruising the neighborhood in his SUV instead of taking Tae Kwon Do lessons at night. If he had a stronger sense of self confidence, he would not have been carrying that gun, and he would have been able to defend himself against an unruly 140 pound boy.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by popsmayhem

 

Why>? zimmerman did nothing
wrong,

Last time I checked, killing another human being was wrong.

self defense is not wrong/murder

It has not been determined whether or not it was actually self defense. Even if it were, there are limits to the amount of force that can be used.

There is no freaking need to waste
our tax dollars wrecking this innocent
mans life.

This "innocent man" wrecked his own life the moment he started cruising the neighborhood in his SUV instead of taking Tae Kwon Do lessons at night. If he had a stronger sense of self confidence, he would not have been carrying that gun, and he would have been able to defend himself against an unruly 140 pound boy.

and here's the keyword. DEFEND.
he was attacked, his head was being bashed, perhaps he couldn't do anything else. perhaps he just wanted to make him stop, thinking that he'll get reasonable after seeing a gun. he probably got more violent then, so he got killed.
you know what's the second keyword? BOY. if that would be a skinny 40yo junkie, noone would bother. but it was 'innocent' skinny young boy that deserved to live, so all the hell breaks loose and everyone that says he's not innocent, is a racist?
you act like a man, you die like a man. period.

he should stand trial regardless I think since there's a death involved in such a manner,
it wouldn't change the fact that he is INNOCENT, until proven guilty,
isn't that how/why our courts were established in the first place?

if he's proven guilty then the courts would do their job correctly,
rather then no trial, and no true verdict except his word vs the court of public emotional conclusions.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by popsmayhem

 

Why>? zimmerman did nothing
wrong,

Last time I checked, killing another human being was wrong.

self defense is not wrong/murder

It has not been determined whether or not it was actually self defense. Even if it were, there are limits to the amount of force that can be used.

A LYNCH MOB is something America should be over!!!
They ARE trying to incite a race war the president himself
is injecting himself in this matter without knowing the facts.
AT FIRST the MSM made zimmerman out to be a black man
hunter when new information and evidence comes out,
it shows treyvon attacked zimmerman..
This trial has zimmerman convicted by the vermon in the media.

If anyone needs a justice for zimmerman avatar let me
know.

Originally posted by yourmaker
he should stand trial regardless I think since there's a death involved in such a manner,
it wouldn't change the fact that he is INNOCENT, until proven guilty,
isn't that how/why our courts were established in the first place?

if he's proven guilty then the courts would do their job correctly,
rather then no trial, and no true verdict except his word vs the court of public emotional conclusions.

The purpose of the protection clauses in the Florida statute are there for the express purpose of saving people who defend themselves from the very trial you seek. You see in America a trial (even if you are found innocent) will break you, mentally, fiscally, and physically.

Therefore these stand your ground and castle doctrine laws were written so as to make the State pay for any legal fees should they take you to trial and you claim the affirmative defense under one of the clauses and they can't convict.

Therefore it is in the States best interest in these cases to ignore the media hype, conduct an investigation into the facts. Then if, and only if they have probable cause to believe that the shooter (Zimmerman) who claimed protection under the clause acted outside the law they can submit the case for a trial.

The State, rather than the accused (Zimmerman) would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any reasonable person in the same circumstances would not be justified in the use of deadly force. I.E. They have to prove that Zimmerman and any other reasonable person would not feel that his life was in danger under the same circumstances.

That is a heavy burden and rightly so for the State. If they gamble and lose they have to make remedy for all his legal fees - then likely they'll have a civil case as well and Zimmerman will be a rich man while the taxpayers will lose a lot more than the case.

The purpose of these laws is to prevent knee jerk reactions by elected district attorneys who would pander to their constituents by initiating a trial in hopes they can win thier case in the media.

It requires they have a heavy burden to prevent the frivolous charging of a person who claims he was defending himself. This protects decent citizens from mob mentality.

Now will people abuse the clause - sure they will; however, in the end the truth will come out. It always does. I'd rather a vigilante walk than an innocent man go down because of the clamoring of the people for blood - wouldn't you?

Chances are a criminal who abuses the statute will do so again - we can catch him a second time. However, you can't give an innocent man his time/life/reputation back.

Used to be if you shot someone in self defense even you'd be in the cell next to them (if they lived) until the facts were sorted out. That's sort of a presumption of guilt rather than innocence IMO. All the law does is require the State have some decent proof he acted outside the scope of the law and they can charge him all they want.

Zimmerman should sue the parents for the cost of the bullet when he is free and clear of all charges.

Originally posted by DavidWillts
Zimmerman should sue the parents for the cost of the bullet when he is free and clear of all charges.

not a fair comment man,

reply to post by DavidWillts


Are you fkin kidding me?

Originally posted by yourmaker
he should stand trial regardless I think since there's a death involved in such a manner,
it wouldn't change the fact that he is INNOCENT, until proven guilty,
isn't that how/why our courts were established in the first place?

if he's proven guilty then the courts would do their job correctly,
rather then no trial, and no true verdict except his word vs the court of public emotional conclusions.

OK lets play out the Trial, lets say he is acquitted, same mob would be after that man. Same people claiming his innocence would scream for appeal to a higher justice

whats the difference between no trial and letting him go between you and I and the rest of ATS

we are just playing sides on a hypothetical

reply to post by Golf66


You better stop talking all that logical truthy stuff there. People don't want to hear the facts or the truth! They just want blood and you are making to much goddamn sense for them to get their way!

Originally posted by rebellender

Originally posted by DavidWillts
Zimmerman should sue the parents for the cost of the bullet when he is free and clear of all charges.

not a fair comment man,

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by DavidWillts

 

Are you fkin kidding me?

If the parents are allowed to profit from their son's death they should at least cover the costs.

Originally posted by DerbyCityLights
reply to post by Golf66

 

You better stop talking all that logical truthy stuff there. People don't want to hear the facts or the truth! They just want blood and you are making to much goddamn sense for them to get their way!

I know right - the point of all these protections under "castle" and "stand your ground" clauses didn't come about in some random way. They are the well thought out result of a legislature that finally realized the law, especially when to comes to use of force in self defense had swung too far in favor of the criminals.

People were getting destroyed in the courts and losing everything they had just because they defended themselves. Even if they "won" they lost eventually. An acquittal only means an appeal, more clamoring for blood etc. By then the State - with infinite pockets of taxpayer money has broken you financially. Even if the mob loses on appeal they could then hit the civil circuit for their "justice".

If you had anything left you'd lose it then because the kid who broke into your house was a black honor student who while a drug addict "never hurt nobody." He wasn't violent he just wanted your stuff...he didn't have to die.... I hate that crap. Keep your "boy scout" out of my house and he won't end up dead - dig. The civil immunity in these clauses is the best part.

The point is to spare the person who has to defend themselves from a trial by making the burden of proof for the State very heavy and by making them pay for any legal defense if they fail to make their case. That way one need not fear destitution in the middle of the night if you have to make a snap decision. It takes the guess work out of the hard decision to use force.

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Well said

Thanks -

In reality, Zimmerman probably should have had a trial. If he was justified, as I agree new evidence suggests, then he would probably have been found innocent, BUT the media and "activists" have possibly ruined his chance at a fair trial.

I mean, this is Casey Anthony all over again. I just wanted him to get a fair trial, but with the mob mentality and the president being an idiot, I don't know if it's possible now.

reply to post by Golf66


I have supported, and still support, the Stand Your Ground law since I read the Jorge Saavedra case.
When it looked like Zimmerman had tried to detain the kid and the kid was standing his ground that was one thing, but if the kid was free to go and came back that is another all together.

Originally posted by popsmayhem



Why do you need this zimmerman guy to be so demonized kal?

He shot a kid to death for no reason. That is not exactly something you usually praise people for.

Hey, for no reason you followed some black kid you did not know, questioned him for no reason, and now he is dead. You are awesome!

Is that what you expect to hear?

He is getting more demonized then anyone here.

Than anyone? Who else is there? There is this demon and the dead kid. Who do you think should be demonized? The witnesses that do not back up your story? Other posters? The police? More than anyone here? Who the hell else is there?

Lied about, slandered, it is injustice.

But you keep lying and slandering. Is it justice when you do it?

Zimmerman is innocentt-

You keep defending this man who beats woman. Stand right behind him but whatever you do, do not scare him.

Originally posted by popsmayhem



Looks like if treyvon never was suspended from
school for weed, he would of never been in
the situation he was in.

Are you this full of crap or did you not pay attention? He was suspended for tardiness. The suspension you are talking about was a prior suspension. It had nothing to do with why he was where he was when he was shot in any way shape or form.

Now people want to
put out death threats on a innocent man,

Who would that be?

again this is america. People who are demonizing
zimmerman have a few screws loose in the head.
The truth and the full story is finally starting to leak out.
The truth will prevail.

What do you care?
You have already told the whole story here in this thread and you keep repeating this crap as fact. What truth could you be waiting for?

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Look around. There is a picture of an older teen, that is HIM, in good shape.

I have seen every picture in this thread and not one of them shows a kid in "good shape." I am curious if you men are afraid of him or attracted to him? I see no reason for either.

The kid played football, too.

Scrawny kids don't do that.

Really? What position did he play?

Take an honest look at the pictures.

Show me the muscles.