Why Zimmerman is Guilty

reply to post by bbracken677


Sort of it actually grants immunity to criminal charges and civil suit.

In the United States, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first.
en.wikipedia.org...

What I am pointing out is that with the Zimmerman trial SYG was not needed or used at all.

Because

When George fired he had his back to the ground with his attacker on top of him.(there was nowhere no way he could retreat ) Also he was actively being attacked with SYG you do not even need to be attacked. There was already an unlawful act of violence being committed upon him he didn't need to believe it would happen it was already happening.

Those are the basic reasons SYG law was not needed in the slightest for George Zimmermans defense.

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

How ridiculous ! Have you ever heard of anyone following someone to death ? It was proven in the trial that Martin came back and confronted Zimmerman. As far as Zimmerman being the one with criminal intent, I guess that's why he was on the phone with the police the whole time.

An innocent kid ? Do you mean the same kid that was bashing Zimmerman's head against the sidewalk ? Oh yea, that innocent kid. Man, your logic is screwed up.

Text I'm not stupid enough to stalk someone with a gun in my waist throughout a neighborhood, especially someone that has not committed a crime. If someone looks suspicious I call the police and let them take care of it. I don't play cop and robbers.

reply to post by muse7


Your choice of words are amusing. George did not stalk anyone and he was on his watch as prescribed by law. You are correct in that you should call the police and that is exactly what George did. He had already left his vehicle and was talking to the dispatcher while on foot. As soon as the dispatcher told him to cease his following Martin, George then was returning to his vehicle when Martin ambushed George. This was the contention presented to the jury. Sounds like you are bitter when you call others stupid.

Your thread title is misleading. Did you mean your thread title to say "WHY I BELIEVE GEORGE ZIMMERMAN IS GUILTY AND WHY I REFUSE TO ACCEPT ANYONE ELSE'S POINT OF VIEW ON THIS TOPIC"?

Did you not hear of the verdict?

The verdict of the jurors who sat in that courtroom throughout the entire trial is that George Zimmerman is NOT GUILTY. Sorry to break the bad news on page 25 of this long thread which, admittedly, I have not bothered to read.

You're engaging in lynch mob justice from the safety of your computer keyboard.

The fact is that the police, a special witch hunt prosecutor and a jury of 6 women all tried to judge him and he was found not guilty.

The moral of this story is don't attack people with guns.

Originally posted by Seede

Text I'm not stupid enough to stalk someone with a gun in my waist throughout a neighborhood, especially someone that has not committed a crime. If someone looks suspicious I call the police and let them take care of it. I don't play cop and robbers.

reply to post by muse7

 

Your choice of words are amusing. George did not stalk anyone and he was on his watch as prescribed by law. You are correct in that you should call the police and that is exactly what George did. He had already left his vehicle and was talking to the dispatcher while on foot. As soon as the dispatcher told him to cease his following Martin, George then was returning to his vehicle when Martin ambushed George. This was the contention presented to the jury. Sounds like you are bitter when you call others stupid.

george was not on his watch, he was supposedly on a trip to the grocery store, neighborhood watch are not supposed to be armed and are not supposed to follow. there wasn't much time for zimmerman to get all the way to where he did when the dipatcher said "we don't need you to do that" unless he was running and he did sound out of breath on the recording. as far as trayvon ambushing zimmerman there is no evidence of that especially when zimmerman said that trayvon "jumped out of the bushes" well it's all a mute point now zimmerman walked away not guilty and according to the florida judicial system rightfully so. the juror who was interviewed even said they wished they could have charged him with something but couldn't because the way the law is worded, an according to the evidence they had to work with (or lack thereof), they had to let him go. same thing happened w oj, caylee anthony.

reply to post by conspiracy nut

Eyewitness testimony doesn't count as evidence? Man I hope you never end up on a Jury.

Originally posted by circuitsports
The fact is that the police, a special witch hunt prosecutor and a jury of 6 women all tried to judge him and he was found not guilty.

The moral of this story is don't attack people with guns.

you shouldn't attack anyone anyway, but i have always said do not engage anyone in a fight, road rage, street fight, etc etc. justified or not, nowadays you never know who could be armed.

reply to post by Shadowcast


the only eye witnesses that saw it go down from beginning to end were zimmerman and trayvon. zimmermans account was full of holes and trayvon is dead.

reply to post by conspiracy nut

Agreed only two who saw it from start to finish are T and Z. However this guy saw T on top of Z as he describes: "reigning blows down on zimmerman", and heard Zimmerman's call for help.

www.businessinsider.com...

You don't consider that evidence of assault?

i did say according to the evidence available it was the right verdict. i also said no one knows what truly happened but trayvon and zimmerman.

I made it like 3 pages in . If the motto deny ignorance was applied to this thread 95% of the posts would be removed .

reply to post by mythots


Including the OP.

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
If I decide to drink and then decide to get in my car, I have made two decisions and committed two actions. If I hit/run over a person and kill them, would I not be charged with manslaughter?

It is illegal to drive drunk, you are making a decision to do something that is illegal...

It is not illegal to follow someone.
It is not illegal to suspect that someone is up to no good, and call the police.
It is not illegal to then follow that person to give a description, and location to the police when they arrive at the scene.
It is arguable whether or not he followed the 911 operators instructions, but even if he didn't that is also not illegal.

So in your example, you have committed a crime.
In this case a crime resulted from legal actions.

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
Zimmerman decided to open his car door. Zimmerman subsequently ignored a qualified law enforcement employee's direction and decided to follow TM. His two actions led to the eventual death of a human being.

911 operators are NOT qualified law enforcement personnel, they are civilians.
You are in no way obligated to follow the instructions of a 911 operator.
Its not illegal to ignore the instructions of a 911 operator, who is not at the scene, and may not have all the facts.

Even the neighborhood watch instruction manual says that you should seek to give a good description of the person, and their last known location. There is nothing that states that a neighborhood watch person must be in a car, it can be any citizen going about their daily routine in their neighborhood. They could be doing anything from taking a walk, to walking their dog, etc... All citizens have the fundamental right to do exactly what Zimmerman did, regardless of whether or not they are trained to be in the neighborhood watch.

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
I guess if I want to go "hunt humans" and be absolved of any formal charges, I just need to strap myself and head to a bad neighborhood where I will have a high probability of being involved in a violent altercation.

If you have a legal right to be there, and are attacked, you're within your rights to defend yourself...
Period...

No one has the "right" to attack you unless they witness you commit a felony, or you overtly threaten them...
Period...

You have as much right to go walk around in a bad neighborhood as anyone does. You being in a "bad" neighborhood does not give people in that neighborhood “carte blanche” to commit battery on you.

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
You see, Zimmerman chose to place himself voluntarily into a situation where he thought there would be a high probability of risk.

It makes no difference, he was not the one who attacked, Martin did.
Martin is solely responsible for his actions, and the resulting outcome.

BTW, my neighbor was mentioning that Martin had a history of getting into confrontations, to the point that his girlfriend had even sent him a text asking that he please stop getting in fights with people.

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
Why else would he have a gun on him?

Many people legally carry firearms in the state of Florida, it can be a dangerous place. Its loaded with transient population due to its temperate climate. There are many poor illegal migrants, some with highly questionable backgrounds, drawn here to work in the low income agricultural industry. Lawfully carrying a firearm is in no way a legal indication that someone is “looking for trouble”.

Originally posted by Fromabove

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Originally posted by Fromabove
People keep getting off track as to what the whole trial was about.

1. Was George Zimmerman defending himself from an attack that he feared could do him serious bodily harm or death?

2. Under the self defense statute of Florida (stand your ground) law, was George Zimmerman's use of deadly force justifiable?


The jury heard the case for and against. Nothing else nattered. And the answer to questions 1 and 2 was yes. Therefore, George Zimmerman could not be found guilty for murder nor manslaughter. And that was the decision.

edit on 17-7-2013 by Fromabove because: (no reason given)

Just so you know SYG is a totally separate issue/statute from self defense.

SYG is an extension of castle doctrine.

Self defense was the issue as it applied to the "SYG" law. Zimmerman had to believe he would be badly injured or threatened with death, and he only had to believe it, he didn't need to actually be suffering it. The use of force was self defense. It was that law that was applied to the case. In the purist form self defense is the direct response to actual conflict. This law however required only the Zimmerman had to "believe" he would be in danger of bodily injury or death.

No, you are flat out wrong. GZ and his defense team never claimed SYG or argued that law at his trial. They went for self-defense. SYG had nothing to do with it.

This is just Soooo Damn Funny.

The one time the Criminal Justice System actually works and we have Arm Chair Lawyers and Trayvon Cheerleaders coming out of the woodwork.

Trayvon was No Innocent Child that was Murdered. He was a Juvenile Delinquent that had intent to do bodily harm to another individual.

So now I have to ask those Cheerleaders and Arm Chair Lawyers. .. . .

Is it a "Race" Issue?
Are you mad because it was Not a black man killing another black man?
Are you related to Trayvon?
What motivates you to take the side of a Thug when the Evidence clearly Proves that there was no wrong doing on Zimmerman’s part?
Why do you completely disagree with the Facts that were presented to the jury?
Do you think the jurors we paid off?

And Finally .. ..

Why do you continue to Beat this dying horse knowing that your opinion is not going to change the verdict?

I would also like to add that I posed several good questions to the OP on Page 15 that he did not even bother to answer and then last night says that he apologizes if he offended anyone and doesn’t bother to come back and answer the questions.

Did he finally see the light? Did he discover the err in his argument? If that is the case then maybe the cheerleaders and arm chair henchmen should send him a U2U and find out what finally changed his mind.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
reply to post by Shadowcast

 

the only eye witnesses that saw it go down from beginning to end were zimmerman and trayvon. zimmermans account was full of holes and trayvon is dead.

No, the state of FL put the only eyewitness on the stand. It was a homeowner who witnessed the fight and testified that it was GZ screaming for help and TM was on top of GZ and pummeling him "ground and pound style like in MMA".

He was a witness for the state, not the defense.

Originally posted by NarcolepticBuddha

Originally posted by raifordko

Originally posted by NarcolepticBuddha

Originally posted by Willtell
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)

It seems to me that if you're following someone around with a weapon, you're not acting in self defense...you're hunting. It's not "stand your ground" if you start stalking someone.

Why is it hard to see it this way

edit on 17-7-2013 by NarcolepticBuddha because: (no reason given)

I carry a gun on me at all times, I have a concealed weapons permit. If I use it to defend myself does that mean I was hunting?

If you're in pursuit of someone, then that's not self-defense anymore.

JMHO

Legally speaking, you are wrong and that is that.

So..if you have a knife in your pocket, are you also hunting? What about brass knuckles? What about fingernail clippers? At what point is it ok to defend oneself? When you are almost dead, and then you have to respond at the appropriate level but not more?

So, as you are getting the crap beat out of you, you should pause for a moment and take stock of the situation and decide at what level you should respond. Perhaps the proper response is to jump in your car and do a drive-by?

Or you just pull the trigger on the "classy gentleman" who is attacking you. The individual who, apparently, thinks it's all well and good to beat you, specially since you are not supposed to defend yourself.

That is the crux of the matter, IMO. We have a class of people who do not believe there is a problem with violence, unless that violence is directed against them by someone of a different race. But it's all well and good if it is directed by them towards a person of another race.

There is a problem in America, and it isn't concealed carry laws...it's the violence that is CAUSING the spread of cc laws.

How many people of color in Chicago died violently during the last week? Apparently no one gives a crap about that....How many of those were under the age of 18? Again, apparently no one gives a crap.

Bunch of hypocrites if you ask me. Focus on one event at the total exclusion of all else that is just as relevant. Decry one tragedy and ignore a dozen.

Sheep being directed and controlled by the Feds and the MSM. Ignore the person behind the curtain, ignore the wide reaching problems facing the country of which our admin is responsible for...instead let's focus on a single event in Florida.

Don't ban guns, ban ignorance.

Sadly the simple fact is despit ehis obvious faults which I would say are a bigotted view of black young men and his obvious lies Zimmerman was tried and found guilty. Our system of justice can have flaws but it is the best we have until we have the mind reading machine (not the polygraph).

I am legally blind and have taken the bus and walked everywere my whole life. It would have been an injustice if George was convicted of murder, but I agree totally with a manslaughter verdict. Going back to being a full time pedestrian, when someone gets out of a car it is there fault. Once a guy thought that I was staring at him when he was in a car driving by, but I only have 45 percent of my vision left, and I tried to explain that to him. With him being a young punk and beginning to get out of his car, I began to attack him in order to get the upper hand, and not to mention I was scared. Moral of the story is, stay in the car or get delt with. Its the law! SF