Why Zimmerman is Guilty

reply to post 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.

What was Trayvon to do? He was on foot. Zimmerman had the gun and the car!

Maybe it was Trayvon who felt boxed in.

So you think a 17 year old should make the first move on a man with a gun?
Dumb move with a predictable outcome.

I legally carry a weapon.
If a black wearing a hoody, comes at me, at night, in my neighborhood, I will pull my weapon.

You also seem to ignor the injury to the back of GZ's head. Conveniently ignor.

Originally posted by St Udio
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

What do you mean "both were up to no good"? Zimmerman was doing his duties as a neighborhood watchman and Trayvon was walking home in the rain and trying to stay out of that rain. Zimmerman had the legal right to follow someone who he thought was suspicious. There is a gang in that area that wears black and especially black hoodies.

reply to post by samkent


And Trayvon had lost Zimmerman's tail. He then ambushed him and assaulted him.

Originally posted by Willtell

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.

Except he had a pretty good idea:

On Piers Morgan's show, last night, Rachel Jeantel claimed "cracka" was a term used to describe someone like a police officer or security guard.

Piers followed up on her claim asking if Martin thought Zimmerman was a police officer or security guard.

Jeantel affirmed that to be true stating "Yeah, he acting like the police"

Link.

And maybe Treyvon Martin shouldn't have thrown the first punch.

My bet is if he had not done that, he would still be alive today.

reply to post by loam


Um, no. Cracka doesn't mean police officer or security guard. It's a racist term used for white people.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I guess one has to spend at least a little time in the south besides at the beaches and tourist attractions to understand that "Cracka" is a term that replaced "Honkie", and honkie is still used by the older Bwudda's.

Cracker refers to whip cracking slave owners of old, Honkie is the white guy in a car cruising the hood for drugs or a hooker.

Some people lead such sheltered lives,....

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post 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.

What was Trayvon to do? He was on foot. Zimmerman had the gun and the car!

Maybe it was Trayvon who felt boxed in.

So you think a 17 year old should make the first move on a man with a gun?
Dumb move with a predictable outcome.

I legally carry a weapon.
If a black wearing a hoody, comes at me, at night, in my neighborhood, I will pull my weapon.

You also seem to ignor the injury to the back of GZ's head. Conveniently ignor.

Winning a street fight that someone else initiated by confronting you in the dark isn't a capital offense that carries a possible death penalty sentence. So, drop the "George Zipperhead had cuts and bruises" justification here, since that's all it is - a weak attempt to justify killing an unarmed kid that was just trying to get home from the store in his own dad's neighborhood.

Screw the FLA law and whatever they end up doing with that twisted little corner of the nation over this and other weak-kneed, crybaby conservatism changes they make to the place so that they won't wet the bed in fear at night. Zipperhead's a goner, and if he doesn't know it, then he's the only one who doesn't. If you pull your weapon on a black kid and kill him because he got pissed at you and turned on you for purposely stalking him and initiated a confrontation with him in his own neighborhood, then you'll be a goner too.

I hope that all you armchair cowboys take note of what happens to George and think twice about being playtime heroes with your shooters. No gun is going to save the rest of Zipperhead's life from being a complete nightmare, and the fool did it all to himself by being stupid at that moment and then for being too stupid to even realize how goddamn stupid he'd been at that moment. The guy's gotta have a double-digit IQ. What a moron. As for the rest of you, good luck when you decide to show the rest of us what you're made of. At least think twice about it before you eliminate your own future in a moment of stupidity.

reply to post by Willtell


This comment appeared on my fb feed this morning

"The fundamental danger of an aquittal is not more riots, it is more George Zimmermans."

It's a terrible precedent.

reply to post by MyHappyDogShiner


This girl shouldn't be using terms that she doesn't know.

Originally posted by christina-66
reply to post by Willtell

 

This comment appeared on my fb feed this morning

"The fundamental danger of an aquittal is not more riots, it is more George Zimmermans."

It's a terrible precedent.

What would be wrong with more George Zimmerman? Should we now relinquish our right of self defense?

I find it interesting how the leftist sort must purposely mis-define common words to make their points.

Stalking, for instance.

Neighborhood watch Watches, as in observes. A suspicious character such as someone who carries himself with a thug, gangsta demeanor creeping through backyards in a neighborhood is a candidate for observation. The word 'stalking' does not apply here.

The implication by using the word 'stalk' is that thug gangsta types creeping through your backyards are subject to immunity, and if attacked by such a person, you must submit and not defend yourself, else be regarded as a racist and a bigot.

Which is pure fascism, of course.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


A wise little old lady once told me - 'When people say crazy things, say nothing, just shake your head, raise your eyes to the sky and say aye ****ing aye.'

This case has demonstrated that Florida law, at least, is an ass.

If you can't see the dangerous precedent that has been set by the case I'm not going to waste my time or energy explaining it to you.

Originally posted by TheWrightWing
I find it interesting how the leftist sort must purposely mis-define common words to make their points.

Stalking, for instance.

Neighborhood watch Watches, as in observes. A suspicious character such as someone who carries himself with a thug, gangsta demeanor creeping through backyards in a neighborhood is a candidate for observation. The word 'stalking' does not apply here.

The implication by using the word 'stalk' is that thug gangsta types creeping through your backyards are subject to immunity, and if attacked by such a person, you must submit and not defend yourself, else be regarded as a racist and a bigot.

Which is pure fascism, of course.

Look up the word "fascism" there genius.

Man, talk about irony in a post.

This woman is a disaster.
Jeantel: "The Jury, They Old. That's Old School People. We In A New School, Our Generation
And the OPs reasoning seems to be along the same lines as this Rachel Jeantel IMHO.
:shk:

Originally posted by christina-66
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

A wise little old lady once told me - 'When people say crazy things, say nothing, just shake your head, raise your eyes to the sky and say aye ****ing aye.'

This case has demonstrated that Florida law, at least, is an ass.

If you can't see the dangerous precedent that has been set by the case I'm not going to waste my time or energy explaining it to you.

Well, I might see things your way if I was moved by appeals to emotion. I'm not, what matters to me is facts, evidence, and the applicable laws.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by christina-66
reply to post by Willtell

 

This comment appeared on my fb feed this morning

"The fundamental danger of an aquittal is not more riots, it is more George Zimmermans."

It's a terrible precedent.

What would be wrong with more George Zimmerman? Should we now relinquish our right of self defense?

Oh sure. We really need a swarm of ignorant, untrained, gun-toting Dirty Harry wannabes combing all our neighborhoods, so that our teenagers won't have to worry about ever having to deal with the struggles and strife of adult life.

Oh...wait....that's right. Those retarded pretend-cops should only be cruising the "bad" neighborhoods. Right? Not the "good" neighborhoods. You fundies slay me. I wonder what your Jesus thinks of you publicly defending a guy who killed an unarmed kid (who was just walking home) that he never even was required to confront, and was already told by the police dispatch that he shouldn't approach. Hell, if GZ had killed him as a result of a car accident, most of you folks would've been calling for his head.

"Turn the other cheek", my ass. It's all about the "us versus them" left/right sociopolitical ideology with you American Xtians. And don't imagine for a moment that the rest of the world's Christian community doesn't realize this and hold you people at arm's length as a result.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Laws can be changed because they are fundamentally flawed. This would appear to be required in Florida due to the precedent set by this case.

The stand your ground legislation, combined with the 5th amendment doesn't afford any dead victim the opportunity to present a contradictory version of events at any subsequent trial. The present set up is just institutional stupidity.

reply to post by NorEaster


Way to completely ignore what I actually said to make your mad-rush to be a poster boy for a straw man fallacy.

reply to post by Willtell


Let's do what the jury did and use the evidence and not the words of George Zimmerman.

1. George Zimmerman had injuries to the back of his head and a bloody nose.

2. The backside of George Zimmerman's clothes were wet and covered with grass.

3. The bullet that killed Martin went through the now famous "hoodie" at about four inches from Martins body which can only happen if the hoodie was hanging away from his body.

4. Witness testimony says that Zimmerman was on the ground being hit repeatedly while screaming for help.

5. Zimmerman did not only not leave the scene or run, but completely cooperated with the police allowing repeated questioning and filming of his statements to the police.

From this, the jury found that whatever the reasons of poor judgement that led up to the incident, judgements by both Zimmerman and Martin, Zimmerman was the one attacked and beaten, and who feared for his life. As it seemed unlikely that Martin would be beating Zimmerman and screaming for help at the same time, the screams for help were accredited to belonging to George Zimmerman.

They found it was self defense under the definition of the law. And that's it. Rioting in the streets only shows who the real racists are along with those who simply cannot accept the verdict of the jury because the "white" guy was not punished for being the "white" guy. Hundreds of black children are shot and killed each year in Chicago by other black people. Why is there no outcry? because the one's doing the shooting are black.

I agree with the verdict of the jury 100%.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Way to completely ignore what I actually said to make your mad-rush to be a poster boy for a straw man fallacy.

I quoted what you said strawboy.

2nd line.