George Zimmerman found Not Guilty.

@ wegs,
Zimmerman was guilty until proven innocent, and is still guilty (in eyes of extremists (none here though) and living in fear. My argument is that it was possibly Trayvon was acting like described in call (linked in my last post). I do not think anyone should carry firearms because a normal fistfight can turn deadly as we see here.

Knowing that someone deals in illegal guns however does not score a lot of points with me. My anti-gun notion expressed above carries to people that traffic them and yes the world should be rid of them, but it is not a fate I would wish on someone.
 
On the evening of February 26, 2012, Zimmerman observed Martin as he returned to the Twin Lakes housing community after having walked to a nearby convenience store.[67] At the time, Zimmerman was driving through the neighborhood on a personal errand.[68]
At approximately 7:09 PM,[Note 5] Zimmerman called the Sanford police non-emergency number to report what he considered a suspicious person in the Twin Lakes community.[70] Zimmerman stated, "We've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy."[3] He described an unknown male "just walking around looking about" in the rain and said, "This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something."[71] Zimmerman reported that the person had his hand in his waistband and was walking around looking at homes.[72] On the recording, Zimmerman is heard saying, "these assholes, they always get away."[73][74]
About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running".[15] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[75] Noises on the tape at this point have been interpreted by some media outlets as the sound of a car door chime, possibly indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[76] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[15] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah", the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[77] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[15] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[15]
After Zimmerman ended his call with police, a violent encounter took place between Martin and Zimmerman, which ended when Zimmerman fatally shot Martin 70 yards (64 m) from the rear door of the townhouse where Martin was staying.

Basic timeline from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Sanford_Police_Department

Zimmerman was acting as a self appointed policeman.
A vigilante.
That foolish behaviour led to Martin's death.
He should have been tried for manslaughter.
 
@ Captain Kremmen,

If you are going to take the "He was not convicted in a court of law stance" about Trayvon then you will be correct.

The "he was not convicted in a court of law stance".
Is that similar to the "The sun is a star" stance,
and the "green is a mixture of blue and yellow" stance?
It's a fact.

Let's take another case.
Let's say it was not Trayvon Martin shot that night, it was Peter Martin. Unrelated.
Peter Martin, unlike the real life boy Trayvon,
has never been in trouble, always been helpful, and is his mother's darling.
One thing though, is that he is tired of people thinking that because he is black
that he should be followed round and treated like a criminal.
He snaps, and starts hitting Zimmerman.
Zimmerman falls to the ground, and afraid that this strong black boy may hurt or kill him
draws his gun and shoots.
Is he guilty of murder, manslaughter, or nothing at all?
 
kwhilborn said:
Maybe he was a typical black teenager just walking home, but if that were true it would seem we are doomed.
As far as Zimmerman was concerned, Martin was just a typical teenager walking down the street. That's all he knew, all he saw, by his own description.

Your odd emphasis on irrelevant aspects of Martin's supposed life or character, while revealing of your own nature (racial bigotry, etc), does not address the central question - why did Zimmerman act as he did?

So far, we have: Zimmerman was by nature a violent and thuggish sort of person who was apt to treat any vulnerable lone kid he noticed in that manner; Zimmerman was led by his preconceptions of race to regard Martin as a threat to the neighborhood because Martin was black; Zimmerman was in a bad mood by coincidence that night, and triggered to express his vigilante character by some prior set of influences.

As there is only some circumstantial evidence for the first and none for the third, while the second falls into a very common category of event that the local authorities and Zimmerman himself seem liable toward, most people tend to go with that second one. But maybe you have another point of view?
 
I hesitate to speculate, but I believe many don't care why GZ did what he did...they view WHAT he did as righteous, based on their own racist and bigoted worldview. Not pointing fingers again to anyone in this thread, but there is no other motivation for why people feel the need to bring up Treyvon Martin's prior history into a case that had nothing to do with it.
 
@ Captain Kremmen,

Did you even read what you bolded in last thread. It was raining out but this guy was wandering around and very well could have been looking for a home to burglarize.

just walking around looking about" in the rain and said, "This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something."[71] Zimmerman reported that the person had his hand in his waistband and was walking around looking at homes
.

does no sound like he was walking home. He even was walking towards Zimmerman at one point according to call.

Zimmerman was acting as a self appointed policeman.
GZ was neighborhood watch. That means he was appointed to watch the neighborhood. Not self-appointed as you describe. If you look at the released records from the defense you will see that GZ had stopped crimes in progress in the past in this role. I'm too lazy to find link.

Trayvon Martin has shown SEVERE criminal tendencies in his SMS messages including dealing in guns, beating up snitches, drugs, etc., I think it is fair to assume that he actually did some of these crimes and so is not as innocent as the "sun is a star" stance. That was a poor argument and you must know it.

Let's take another case.
Let's say it was not Trayvon Martin shot that night, it was Peter Martin. Unrelated.
Peter Martin, unlike the real life boy Trayvon,
has never been in trouble, always been helpful, and is his mother's darling.
One thing though, is that he is tired of people thinking that because he is black
that he should be followed round and treated like a criminal.
He snaps, and starts hitting Zimmerman.
Zimmerman falls to the ground, and afraid that this strong black boy may hurt or kill him
draws his gun and shoots.
Is he guilty of murder, manslaughter, or nothing at all?

In this case Peter Martin started the fight.

If you are comparing this to the Trayvon instance there was a lot more to it than falling to the ground. The fight transpired over a l5-10 minute period in that had them in various positions witnessed throughout the fight. Several neighbors called the police while the fight was in progress to complain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6Lr3DOqaSE

Now. If it had been Zimmerman in control and he was armed it is logical to assume that he could have drawn his weapon and held Trayvon at bay with it. Trayvon would not be screaming help, help help, as the neighbor says they hear. Now if it was Zimmerman on the bottom as witnessed and he was not in control then it would be more logical for him to be screaming Help.

While he was pinned to ground he said Trayvon noticed the gun and went for it, and that is what brought the gun into play. According to witnesses at least one of them was on the ground yelling for help a the time of shooting. The jury thinks it was GZ. Trayvon is 6'2" and had a reputation as a fighter (according to his sms texts).

So getting back to your scenario Captain Kremmen if your nice boy Peter tried to take his gun then the victim should act with life saving urgency.

This is stuff that happens if you fight with people who are armed. It is not the first instance of fights ending badly because one or both people were armed.

Obama is trying to ring in gun controls. It is the smart choice.

@ captain Kremmen,

You are assuming guilt. What happened to Innocent until proven guilty? A jury selected by both Prosecution and defense found GZ not guilty, and you still want to convict him. I am saying that given what we know about TM, there is room to believe he was not just going home, and was wandering around looking for trouble. It is GZ on trial here as so many point out, but yet everyone also has suggested GZ was a judge and jury on his own. The guy was neighborhood watch.
 
Suspicious Like ... er ... uh ... A Lot of People Who Are Just Talking On the Phone?

Captain Kremmen said:

Zimmerman was acting as a self appointed policeman.

I still don't get how a guy walking down the street, talking on a phone is suspicious. Just walking around and looking about? I wonder if Mr. Zimmerman ever bothered to profile the physical behavior of mobile phone users, because for heaven's sake, not everyone bulls along, head down, barking into their phone like a would-be Hollywood producer snapping his fingers to see who jumps and whose heads roll.
 
zimmerman very well be a type A controlling personality whose demeanor is like that and that if anyone is more casual in manner with no apparent fixed logical reason according to him, they look suspicious to him or more likely he doesn't understand it. this more than likely led to his profiling coupled with race and being male.
 
The fact is Trayvon Martin did buy and sell illegal handguns.

So? Are you saying it OK to murder people because of supposed evidence of selling handguns brought up AFTER killing them? I did not know gun selling is a capital offense so grand it does not require jury or even arrest but kill on sight on just suspicion of general thuggery!

We see this in his own words conducting gun transactions (see post # 521). You can try to make this kid sound like a perfect child all you like, but he dealt in firearms, drugs, fighting, and his own mother did not want him at home. I do not think he is the best poster child for a cause of promoting racial discrimination. If anything you are publicizing a child who is exactly the opposite of the way blacks want blacks portrayed (I wouldn't want people comparing Trayvon to me if I was Black).

No he is a pretty good poster child to me of the problem: a society that allows murder of people as long as they aren't found to have been squeeky clean posthumously, or worse a society that tries as hard as it can to validate said murders because the victims were not beautiful Aryan children.

Your "surveys" are funny. You can get a survey to show just about anything you want.

Once you start saying stuff like that about science you might as well start throwing out theories like evolution, gravity and heliocentricity.

You say blacks use marijuana less than blacks by an average of 5-10% in each year. How was this measured?

You can actually go and read about the surveys, in this case they were asked.

You yourself point out that the arrest rate for Marijuana possession is much higher among blacks, but when questioned blacks "SAY" they do not do drugs 5-10% more.

So your suggesting they are all lying, lets do the math: Blacks would have to be consuming nearly 4 times as much pot as whites per person, this would require over a 100% of the black population to be users! It is grossly improbable even physically impossible that blacks would lie so much on this question as to be several times less then what you think it is!

I have been to Jamaica. I know marijuana is not considered bad there. I actually think Marijuana seems better for our society than booze although I do not use either. My main beef with Trayvon is A) He bough and sold illegal handguns on the street and B) He wanted more blood from his victim who he'd previously beaten up. Even Clinton has done pot, and something killed off George bush Jr's brain cells.

Then you should have a problem with people being imprison for pot smoking. And again your "beef" with Trayvon does not allow murder without evidence, arrest, trial or conviction, it morally wrong to kill people for supposed sale of handguns, doubly so when that was not even the reason he was killed but merely brought up later to try to validate the murder. We can't just kill people because we think they are despicable or worse kill people and then try to dig up evidence after the fact to say they were despicable, it is morally reprehensible! You sir aren't merely racist, you are an evil person, people like you advocate totalitarianism, fascism and genocide, that is in fact what you are doing right now. You advocate that the we go around murdering people and validating it later, that kind of ethic truly let lose on society would likely destroy civilization!

Zimmerman did not walk up to Trayvon and point a gun, nor did he just shoot the guy. There was a prolonged fistfight that went on for a long enough time that several neighbors had dialed 911. Zimmerman did not use the gun to defend himself during any part of the fight. It was only at the end of this fight that the gun was involved and there were witnesses. Judge Dredd .... really?

Zimmerman chases down this boy (this is irrefutable fact), claims the boy found and attacked him (we have no evidence to validate or invalidate this) and when he was losing said fight killed the boy legally thanks to laws which allow one to pick fights, lose them and claim self defense and "stand your ground" after plugging a bullet in them. Zimmerman is also no poster child for self defense by the way as significant evidence of his anger management problems have been presented you. If you want to believe Trayvon did in fact chase down his stalker and start fighting him go ahead it does not change the fact that it is now proven legal to set up such situations and kill people.

What of other minority groups? Are they considered Black? If I counted Middle Eastern, India, Pakistan, etc minority groups as black also then really many cities are vastly outnumbering minority to white populations.

Pretty sure they aren't counted as black, but I don't know where you going with this either.

In my city for example if whites were arrested for 1/2 of the crimes it would be grossly unfair because whites make up less than 25% of the population if we go by a previously mentioned one drop rule it is less than that.

Lets look at this from the perspective of police officer, security guard, neighborhood watch persons, etc: they can't read DNA, they judge race on what they see: if a person is dark enough to them be a "thug" that all that matters. If a person is light enough to them they are "not suspicious". As the evidence I've present from police records and surveys shows these kinds of people are highly racially biases in their judgement, it does not matter who is majority or minority by population where, or what their genealogy is.

Your picture above says "Young black men make up 25%+ of all city stops by police" and then it says they are less than 2% of the population. Seriously?
You expect anybody here to believe that young black men make up less than 2% of New York Cities population? I am not even going to Google that because common sense tells me that those figures are ridiculous.

Then your an idiot, here the original study its self:
http://www.nyclu.org/files/publications/NYCLU_2011_Stop-and-Frisk_Report.pdf

Now I demand you prove black males between the ages of 14 and 24 are not even close to 1.9% of NYC population (Use Google, I dare you)! Clearly your worse then kind of person who thinks first and does not try to actually verify their thoughts with evidence: you actually think your thoughts are great than evidence! Now according to wiki there are 2 million blacks in NYC, roughly half are women, so that leaves only ~1 million as male, ranging from age 0 to who knows. The survey says 158,406 are between the age of 14 and 24 = 15.8% of the black male population, doesn't sound ridiculous at all. Now wiki also says the population of NYC was 8.175 million in 2010, 158k out of that is 1.93%

I am sure there are a few minorities out there who blame racism every time they are pulled over. Maybe the police are just doing their jobs. I am sure there are some minorities out there who blame racism every time they get turned down for a job. Racism is declining and we see mixed marriages on the rise in every city.

Statistically the police are racist, "do their jobs" is not mutually exclusive to this fact, especially if the whole judicial system is racist. Racism may not be the cause of every problem but it still occurs you can't deny this.

I think the black community needs a better martyr than Trayvon. He is the last guy on earth people should be looking at as an average black person.

Don't worry a new candidate comes up practically every week!
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9e0_1374815225

But I'm sure people like you will find some kind of flaw with "those" people. Next you will be saying not turning music down is criminal enough to warrant shot on sight!

It shocks me how many of you support his violent and criminal lifestyle.

First of all those are claims, second we don't care about his lifestyle on account he has no life anymore, rather we care that Zimmerman killed someone without evidence and by his provocation alone and was legally allowed to.
 
@ Tiassa,
Zimmerman was acting as a self appointed policeman.

This was Capt. kremmens point, and Zimmerman was part of the neighborhood watch. Not self-appointed, but certainly meant to watch people in the neighborhood.

how a guy walking down the street, talking on a phone is suspicious. Just walking around and looking about?

Your description does not match any given by witnesses. The ONLY description given of Trayvons actions were by GZ when he described them to police.

and there's a real suspicious guy."[3] He described an unknown male "just walking around looking about" in the rain and said, "This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something."[71] Zimmerman reported that the person had his hand in his waistband and was walking around looking at homes.

If a neighborhood watch official made a call to police every time a person (He did not confirm black until during call) wearing a hoodie walked by, then he would quickly lose his credibility with police and likely get fines for abusing 911 service. Does this make sense? Forget about it being GZ.

"Walking around looking about" almost sounds as if the person was walking around. If I was describing someone walking from point A to Point B I would not describe it as "walking around". I would say there is a suspicious guy in my neighborhood walking east or something descriptive.

Your notion that he was just a guy waking down the street is unsupported by facts. Maybe it is how you say, but GZ risked his credibility with police to phone in suspicious behavior.
 
kwhilborn said:
.

does no sound like he was walking home. He even was walking towards Zimmerman at one point according to call.
We know for a fact that Martin was walking toward his home, because he ended up much closer to his home than he was when Zimmerman first spotted him.

Zimmerman was following him toward his house. That is threatening behavior. Zimmerman seems unconcerned about that, never mentions how his behavior is or might be affecting Martin.

You still haven't addressed that question - why Zimmerman acted as he did.
 
There is racism in the US, no doubt. However, I followed this very closely (the incident occurred about 3 hours from where I live) and from what I could see the prosecution just didn't have much of a case. So while it is tragic and may even have been partially motivated by racism, the state simply didn't have adequate evidence to prove it. The case definitely has sparked controversy in this country - debates rage over racism, gun regulation (or lack thereof), stand your ground laws and the justice system in general.



You are an idiot... do you know what the prosecution used as evidence... that he had traces of cannabis in his system and that he had a track record of ''delinquent'' behaviour. You must be ignoring also that he was told by the police to not approach the boy... and he still did.


There was plenty motivation that this was a case riddled in racism. The fact it was thrown out of court in face of watery evidence is ridiculous and america should be ashamed.
 
@ Iceaura,

Zimmerman (only witness) claimed Trayvon was standing on his neighbors lawn in the rain when he fist saw him. He was not on a sidewalk or road or even walking. Just standing there in the rain looking out. Had he been walking he likely would be alive now. Watch a re-enactment. He was NOT taking the most direct route home.

If you were a part of your neighborhood watch and you saw a guy in a hoodie standing on your neighbors lawn in the rain how would you proceed?
Claiming he was just walking home is NOT a fact. It is just a fantasy from your heads. It could be the truth, but nobody will ever know.

Another thing some people say here is that this was a gated community and GZ was profiling TM as being someone who did not belong there. Half of that community was Non-white with 20% of that community being black. That means one out of every 5 people in that neighborhood were likely black.


@ Camebk,

Who cares about his drug use. The kid was dealing illegal guns (according to his sms text messages.)

The police NEVER TOLD HIM TO STOP FOLLOWING Trayvon. You are making stuff up. The police said "We don't need you to do that" when they discovered he had followed Trayvon.
 
@ Iceaura,

Zimmerman (only witness) claimed Trayvon was standing on his neighbors lawn in the rain when he fist saw him. He was not on a sidewalk or road or even walking. Just standing there in the rain looking out. Had he been walking he likely would be alive now. Watch a re-enactment. He was NOT taking the most direct route home.

If you were a part of your neighborhood watch and you saw a guy in a hoodie standing on your neighbors lawn in the rain how would you proceed?
Claiming he was just walking home is NOT a fact. It is just a fantasy from your heads. It could be the truth, but nobody will ever know.

Another thing some people say here is that this was a gated community and GZ was profiling TM as being someone who did not belong there. Half of that community was Non-white with 20% of that community being black. That means one out of every 5 people in that neighborhood were likely black.

He was in his neighbourhood walking home. No one disputed this... apart from you. And perhaps the prosecution.

The killer reported that ''someone was acting suspiciously'' and that he was strongly told ''not to approach him.''

Zimmerman approached him armed and shot him down.

That's the facts.
 
He had no right under law to approach him since he was not specifically given the all-clear to do so. The other boy was unarmed. He was also secluded, no one else saw the incident. The prosecution relied on some of the most ridiculous evidence I have ever heard a court taking seriously.
 
You are an idiot... do you know what the prosecution used as evidence... that he had traces of cannabis in his system and that he had a track record of ''delinquent'' behaviour. You must be ignoring also that he was told by the police to not approach the boy... and he still did.


There was plenty motivation that this was a case riddled in racism. The fact it was thrown out of court in face of watery evidence is ridiculous and america should be ashamed.

this actually highlights the problem with juries, there is this matter-of-fact belief that how well the court presents a case soley determines the verdict and that is not always true and even in this case. if you just take the court of public opinion as a macrocosm, even with the facts, you will see that they all have a different opinion on what is of weight in determining the verdict, legitimate or not, on this board, society and the decision of those six jurors. the prosecution was inept but so was that particular jury. that being said, ironicly, they upholding to a specific law as well as buying into stereotypes, bias and character asassination only brought the necessary publicity of this ludicrous law. if it wasn't going to happen now, it was eventually going to happen in the future at some time as this law was ripe to be exploited. as i said before, martin was the sacrifice, in this case to highlight this heinous and irresponsible law.
 
this actually highlights the problem with juries, there is this matter-of-fact belief that how well the court presents a case soley determines the verdict and that is not always true and even in this case. if you just take the court of public opinion as a macrocosm, even with the facts, you will see that they all have a different opinion on what is of weight in determining the verdict, legitimate or not, on this board, society and the decision of those six jurors. the prosecution was inept but so was that particular jury. that being said, ironicly, they upholding to a specific law as well as buying into stereotypes, bias and character asassination only brought the necessary publicity of this ludicrous law. if it wasn't going to happen now, it was eventually going to happen in the future at some time as this law was ripe to be exploited. as i said before, martin was the sacrifice, in this case to highlight this heinous and irresponsible law.

But you know what is the best bit... the only evidence that cannot be denied 100% is that zimmerman approached this boy and killed him when he was told specifically by the law not to do the former.

If he disobeyed the law in such a frivolous and incompetent manner ... and even flouting the law in it's judgement then he should be held accountable for the boys murder. This isn't about us having hard solid evidence supporting zimmerman, this is about his flawed and seriously fucked up judgement disobeying the law. He should be held accountable and that's the facts.
 
The evidence brought forward to support zimmerman, was just totally incredible, in it's greatest definition. I can't believe that the smallest traces of cannabis could even be used as evidence or that the boy had a history... of let's face it... ''simple bad behaviour'' which any of your children could have done. Zimmerman was completely unjustified approaching the boy, since not only he was told not to approach him but that he shot him down in cold blood. Zimmerman wasn't even examined for injuries until weeks later which he could have caused himself! The whole case is laughable, just not the incident. It's a complete crime.
 
@ Camebk,

Obviously you have no clue as to what was said. Where do you get the idea that Zimmerman found Trayvon walking home.

The fact is (according to Zimmerman) he first spotted Trayvon Standing on his neighbors lawn. THAT'S THE FACT DESPITE WHAT YOU MAKE UP.

ZIMMERMAN was never told "Not to approach him". He was told "We don't need you to" when he indicated he was following Zimmerman. THAT'S THE FACT DESPITE WHAT YOU MAKE UP.

ALSO ...

In at least three of your recent posts you say stuff like ...
The prosecution relied on some of the most ridiculous evidence I have ever heard a court taking seriously.
He was in his neighbourhood walking home. No one disputed this... apart from you. And perhaps the prosecution.
You are an idiot...[directed at Randwolf] do you know what the prosecution used as evidence... that he had traces of cannabis in his system and that he had a track record of ''delinquent'' behaviour

Some might think it is ironic that you call Randwolf an idiot and yet you say these things.

Try thinking why the prosecution would do those things.. Think really hard... Till your brain hurts even...

Can somebody tell camebk his error here?
 
Back
Top