George Zimmerman 🔫
Forums › General Discussion › George Zimmerman 🔫-
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
Absolutely agree..It is not a crime to follow somebody on a public sidewalk. I agree GZ could have handled things better. That doesn't mean he should have been prosecuted.
The prosecution of GZ was brought to satisfy TM's family, the media, and other outside agitators, not based on an objective consideration of all the facts. Including GZ's right to self defense.
The jury got it right.
-
༺☠Ꮹཞ༏ཀཀ☠༻ wrote:
Lol hahahaTweek wrote:
Mwahaha! It's times like these that make me feel a tiny bit better.Nobody in this thread can ever get upset at me for my forum antics again.
-
💀༄ẙṳʗҡʘ༄💀 wrote:
I saw that.Zimmerman helped 4 out of car wreck.
-
₩ℍұ₮ع🍀ℬʘɪ🍀ℬℝɪ₳₦ wrote:
What paper do read?Apparently we have been reading different articles. There are a lot that depict Martin as being white. This shouldn't have been a racial case. It is the media that blew it way out of proportion. And they say hiding. He is still in Sanford. He just has police protection.
-
Race is an arbitrary construct of the superficial social spectrum.
-
I dont read the paper. I read forums.
-
⌖🔥ᎽoᎮ།λᎥϮ🔥⌖ wrote:
You lost me on no evidence to convict. Ermmm, he said he did it? That's evidence enough.☬ᏴᏒᏐᏃᏃ☬ wrote:
★MOИΞΥ★
A lot of things about this case doesn't add up. I could care less if the guy is racist or not. I personally don't believe he was a racist. I think he racially profiled a kid based on his own life experiences. That doesn't make me see him as a racist. He made a bad judgement call based on his own over zealous issues. This case should not have gone to trial as there wasn't any evidence to convict. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson use Race as a paycheck. They -
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
Funny because it seems the jury is saying now they did not get it right. You have the one really happy with herself for letting off a child murderer but now look at the new ones now coming out saying they were confused by their choices and their jury instruction leading someone who they thought was guilty still getting off.It is not a crime to follow somebody on a public sidewalk. I agree GZ could have handled things better. That doesn't mean he should have been prosecuted.
The prosecution of GZ was brought to satisfy TM's family, the media, and other outside agitators, not based on an objective consideration of all the facts. Including GZ's right to self defense.
The jury got it right.
I say we start arming young, black men all over the country. Afterall, you need a gun to protect against others with twitchy trigger fingers.
-
★Λddi★ wrote:
No it isn't enough. GZ said he shot TM in self defense. That means the investigators and prosecutors must also consider evidence that supports his claim he acted in self defense. In this case there is lot of evidence that seems to support GZ's self defense claim, e.g., broken nose, cuts on te back of his head from the sidewalk, GZ's statement that TM said GZ was go into die that night, an eyewitness who say TM on top of GZ raining down MMA style blows.You lost me on no evidence to convict. Ermmm, he said he did it? That's evidence enough.
-
First off, I could care less about your media rhetoric. The eyewitness wasn't even sure he saw that. He said he thought he might have.
There's also the burden of proof. Which they don't have per the DNA evidence. There's no way someone can punch you in the face 30 times, bang your head against the concrete 20 times and cover your mouth to stop you from screaming without getting a trace of DNA on your bare hands, sleeves or cuffs of sleeves. Where was the blood? because rain certainly cant wash that away. Also, the EMS report stated that he did not have a broken nose. The back of his head had superficial cuts that didn't even need stitches, only a band-aid. He had zero defensive wounds on his hands or arms even though he claimed to block him with his appendages....
-
In what world do you guys live in that a guy gets his head pounded into the concrete over and over without any damage, without getting knocked out and no need to go to the hospital? And have you ever seen someone that has been punched 30 times in the face? Get real. Not only that but he had no dirt/grime/grass stains on the back of his clothes per police pictures taken that night. Whereas Trayvon did where GZ was straddling his back. Also seen by eye witnesses. I'm sorry but the word of the guy that just killed a kid is not a defense. Scientific evidence is. The state and the prosecution and the jury failed justice and failed this kid.
-
⌖🔥ᎽoᎮ།λᎥϮ🔥⌖ wrote:
Ice, did you know it's against the law for neighbourhood watch to carry?The Odd One wrote:
⌖🔥ᎽoᎮ།λᎥϮ🔥⌖ wrote:
★ICΞPICKʘЯTΞGΛ★ wrote:
What Mug shot Ice? The kid doesn't have a juvenile record? Any person with a tad bit ✂As a neighborhood watch person, he has the right to follow and absolutely should have✂✂✂
Also, the picture they used was a picture from 3 months earlier. The three years earlier bs has been debunked.
Everything you are using for fact here is right wing misinformation.
A lesson for everyone is if you can't cite it back to real, official records then it should be thrown out -- as it is simply character assassination. Fact checking is key to a successful debate.
-
★ICΞPICKʘЯTΞGΛ★ wrote:
Bullshit it wasn't used. It was in the jury instruction. I've read it. The jury even said they used it. SYG is flordia's self defense law. They are interchangeable. Look at what the definition of self defense was before 2005 in Florida and now. The defense was he had no obligation to retreat. That's SYG, with real self-defense that doesn't include SYG language you do have obligation to retreat. - if that had truly been his defense he'd be sitting in prison right now.Boner Jams '03 wrote:
.💀༄ẙṳʗҡʘ༄💀 wrote:
Wrong. Stand your ground was never used in this case. Self defense was. Subtle differences, but different nonetheless. The media just likes to say "stand your ground law".Zimmerman was protected by the stand your ground law. Not by the color of his skin.
-
★Λddi★ wrote:
You have watched too many episodes of CSI, NCIS, ect.In what world do you guys live in that a guy gets his head pounded into the concrete over and over without any damage, without getting knocked out and no need to go to the hospital? And have you ever seen someone that has been punched 30 times in the face? Get real. Not only that but he had no dirt/grime/grass stains on the back of his clothes per police pictures taken that night. Whereas Trayvon did where GZ was straddling his back. Also seen by eye witnesses. I'm sorry but the word of the guy that just killed a kid is not a defense. Scientific evidence is. The state and the prosecution and the jury failed justice and failed this kid.
The standard for self defense is a reasonable belief your life is danger. It does not actually have to be in danger, you simply have to have a reasonable belief it is.
Sorry, but that's the law.
-
Sorry but that's the law for being accosted. Not for the person that perpetuated it. Thats like saying if someone kidnaps your daughter and tries to rape her, she turns the tables and tries to kill him, the he kills her in self-defense. SYG is a slippery slope and the statistics prove it. Nice though, I like that your comeback is I watch too much CSI. That tells me you have no idea how to respond to what I said. I'll go ahead and peg you as Faux Entertainment News watcher as my counter.
-
I guess you were an eye witness to the crime and you know who accosted who. You should have testified.
All we have to go on is the eyewitness statements and GZ's account. Unless the scene absolutely does not support GZ's account, but much of the scene does support his account.
As for my comment regarding your watching too much CSI, I conduct criminal investigations for a living. I know that cases are decided on a combination of factors, sometimes including forensic evidence, however forensic evidence rarley is the deciding factor in a case.
Shows like CIS and NCIS falsely lead the public to believe forensic evidence is the best evidence.
-
@addi.
This is from the responding officer's (Timothy Smith) report.
"Zimmerman complied with all my verbal commands and was secured in handcuffs. Located on the inside of Zimmerman's waistband, I removed a black Kel Tek 9mm PF9 semi auto handgun and holster. While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from from the nose and back of his head."That's not from faux news. That's not forensic evidence, but it is evidence that supports GZ's claim to being in his back while TM assaulted him.
-
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
No, I wasn't. Were you? I didn't think so. Hearsay doesn't cut it for me. Particularly in this situation.I guess you were an eye witness to the crime and you know who accosted who. You should have testified.
All we have to go on is the eyewitness statements and GZ's account. Unless the scene absolutely does not support GZ's account, but much of the scene does support his account.
As for my comment regarding your watching too much CSI, I conduct criminal investigations for a living. I know that cases are decided on a combination of factors, sometimes including forensic evidence, however forensic evidence rarley is the deciding factor in a case.
Shows like CIS and NCIS falsely lead the public to believe forensic evidence is the best evidence.
-
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote: ✂
That's also evidence that he slipped on wet grass and fell on his ass and hit his head. Likely the recoil from deschrging his gun is what smashed his nose, being that he was soooo familiar with his sidearm that he admitted he forgot he was wearing it that night. TM's hands definitely were NOT the instruments that inflicted GZ's injuries, as the mortician/medical examiner's testimony proved. "Raining down MMA style blows and smashing his head into the concrete" with no gloves on would have left TM's hands cut and bruised extensively. Didn't happen.
"✂While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from from the nose and back of his head."✂it is evidence that supports GZ's claim to being in his back while TM assaulted him.
-
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
We can go over the conflicting reports all day. Like how Zimmerman's story kept changing as well. Ive watched the videos, heard the tapes and read the reports Just like you have. My final opinion is simply different than yours. There are plenty of documented professionals out there that agree with me. Being in the profession hardly constitutes wether or not you are right.@addi.
This is from the responding officer's (Timothy Smith) report.
"Zimmerman complied with all my verbal commands and was secured in handcuffs. Located on the inside of Zimmerman's waistband, I removed a black Kel Tek 9mm PF9 ✂That's not from faux news. That's not forensic evidence, but it is evidence that supports GZ's claim to being in his back while TM assaulted him.
Btw, the faux news stab was just a look here I can paint you with a broad paint brush too. I don't watch CSI. Never have.
-
@fnord.
Travon Martin was not carrying any identification when he was killed.
How do you suggest the police notify the next of kin when the victim's identity is not known?
GZ was taken to the Sanford PD in custody and questioned for five hours before he was released.
Should the police arrest individuals when their initial findings do not support an arrest? If so on what charge?
Should criminal charges be filed against someone because the family of a victim, or the media, or other outside agitators want the charges brought, or because the evidence supports a conviction?
-
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
It seems that the fact that he lived in that neighborhood never entered their minds. Why do you suppose that was?@fnord.
Travon Martin was not carrying any identification when he was killed.
How do you suggest the police notify the next of kin when the victim's identity is not known?
The Sanford police just took GZ's word for it that TM was 'acting suspiciously' and he was attacked.
Why do you suppose that was?
I don't know about anyone else here, but I signed that petition within days of finding out the details of the case, before it became a national media shotstorm. Not because of some perceived white-on-black issue, but because I saw a black kid getting a raw deal from the authorities and thought it deserved more scrutiny. Did you know that two of the investigators wanted to charge GZ that night, and the lead investigator ignored their advice? -
My point is that it was evident that certain negative assumptions were made about TM that likely would not have been made about a white kid:
1) He must have been an outsider coming into the neighborhood. No need to knock on some doors at 8:00 PM and ask around to see if anyone was missing a family member.
2) TM must have been the initial aggressor. GZ must have acted in a professional manner and identified himself as something other than a stalker following TM back to his home where he was alone with his younger sibling.
3) TM must have, with no good reason, escalated the situation to a degree that GZ had to shoot him. After all he, like most blacks, have violent tendencies.
These are all racist assumptions on the part of the authorities that led many of us to suspect that justice was not being blindly administered. Their subsequent behavior has sadly not convinced us otherwise.
-
I will take these in order. They are good questions.
The first comes down to man power. Even though TM was killed less than 100 yards form his father's finances house, the police had no idea who he was. The number one priority is securing the site, then identifying potential witnesses and collecting statements. While collecting statements the police usually ask if the witness knows either of the people involved. If there is no ID on the victim and no one at the scene can identify the victim Unfortunatly the victim is usually transported to the mourge as a John/Jane Doe. Normally a more exhaustive canvas of the neighborhood will be conducted later but not during the initial hours.
So if GZ didn't know the victim and none of the other eyewitnesses knew him either it is unsurprising to me he was transported to the mourge as a John Doe. It's frustrating, but it happens more often than most people would think.
-
2) GZ did a lot of things right that night and a few things wrong.
GZ called the police and reported his observations and suspicions.
When the police arrived he told the responding officer he shot the victim and was still armed. Then he complied with the officer's commands and was handcuffed and disarmed.GZ voluntarily submitted to questioning without seeking consul. Not only on the night of the shooting, but for weeks afterwords.
People bent on murder rarely call the police before the act, and almost never cooperate with the investigation.
There was also the eyewitness, John Good, who said TM was on top of GZ, which is consistent with GZ's account.
-
3) Here again the police only have the statement of GZ and one eyewitnesses account. It's not that they assumed TM assaulted GZ, they can only analyze the evidence they have at the time, and much of that evidence suppors the fact that GZ was assaulted.
It took a few days before the police learned of TM's call to Rachel Jeantel and her account. There many problems with her account as well, ie, she was changed the words in her quotes of the initial words exchanged between TM and GZ. That's without even getting into the outright lies she made during the course of the investigation.
-
No investigator is perfect and no investigation is perfect.
Assaults leading to homicide or a self defense claim are messy. In almost every case the assailant and the victim are partially responsible for the events leading to the assault / homicide / claim of self defense.
All the evidence must be objectivly considered before filing charges and outside pressure is a corruption of the process.
The initial investigator wanted to file an affidavit of arrest for GZ based on manslaughter. The initial state attorney declined to prosecute because he felt the case would result in an acquittal based on self defense.
Turns out he was right.
-
I didn't say that GZ was bent on committing murder or anything like it. His own story is that TM approached him and asked "We got a problem, Homie?", or "Why are you following me?" depending on who you ask. GZ says he replied "no" and then just stood there and started digging around in his pockets for his cellphone. He never said he identified himself as neighborhood watch or flashed his piece and tin badge or established that he was anything other than some shady dude following a kid. Based on GZ's own statements to police, I think TM had every justification to perceive that GZ was a threat at this point and had every right to defend himself according to Florida's SYG law. If morons like GZ want to run around neighborhoods in plain clothes with guns chasing teenagers, they have to expect there to be consequences when they take an innocent life. This is not how you run a civilized society.
-
You have to admit, the prosecutors were weak. They let themselves get bulldozed at every turn. They did not prepare their witnesses and they did not stand up for the states case at critical junctures. As I'm sure you know, jury instructions are not binding in any way but the jury was convinced they were. Most people don't realize that that jury's duty is not just to determine the guilt or innocence of the person on trial, but to determine the fairness of the law as it is being applied. Jury nullification. It's becoming pretty apparent that the jury was totally misinformed as to their duty in this case. You'd think with all the national attention the case would have been handled better. You seem surprised that now that it's over people are still asking why.
-
There is no crime in following somebody in your neighbothood.
There is no crime in confronting someone in your neighborhood.
There is no obligation to identify oneself as a member of a neighborhood watch.
There is no obligation to tell someone you are lawfully carrying a concealed firearm. (Contrary to Addi's assertation, neighborhood watch members are discouraged from carrying firearms but not banned from doing so. Had GZ been unlawfully armed you can be certain he would have been charged with unlawful possession or carrying, that would have resulted in an easy conviction.)
The crime begins when the assault begins.
To say a 17 year old male would reasonably feel his life is in danger because a "creepy ass cracker" is following him and fishing around in his pockets is a leap I cannot make.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC