The Public Responds To Zimmerman Verdict

Tyler Durden's picture

A jury of six women found neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman not guilty of all charges on Saturday in the shooting of Trayvon Martin. Here are some quotes from key figures involved in the case. From the AP:

"We're ecstatic with the results. George Zimmerman was never guilty of anything except protecting himself in self-defense."

      — Mark O'Mara, one of George Zimmerman's attorneys, said at a news conference after the verdict.

"Even though I am broken hearted my faith is unshattered. I WILL ALWAYS LOVE MY BABY TRAY"

      — Trayvon Martin's father, Tracy Martin, via Twitter

"The acquittal of George Zimmerman is a slap in the face to the American people but it is only the first round in the pursuit of justice. We intend to ask the Department of Justice to move forward as they did in the Rodney King case and we will closely monitor the civil case against Mr. Zimmerman. I will convene an emergency call with preachers tonight to discuss next steps and I intend to head to Florida in the next few days."

      — the Rev. Al Sharpton

"Message from Dad: "Our whole family is relieved". Today... I'm proud to be an American. God Bless America! Thank you for your prayers!

      — George Zimmerman's brother, Robert, said in Twitter

"I don't think this is a time for high-fiving."

     — Robert Zimmerman Jr., George's brother, on CNN after the verdict.

In photos from ABC:

And then there is this:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
All Out Of Bubblegum's picture

So in America, an armed adult male can legally approach and shoot an unarmed kid and it's ok.

Fuck this country.

american eyedol's picture

this is a perfect time to change the monetary system tomorrow it will be on page 17-d of newspapers on monday, and people won't understand for a year what the hell hit them

LetThemEatRand's picture

Can we riot against the Bernanke yet?'s picture

I'm disappointed that the Stand Your Ground Law, which is a good law, was effectively nullified:


BAXLEY: Well, simply because if you carefully read the statute, which most of the critics have not, and read the legislative analysis, there's nothing in this statute that authorizes you to pursue or confront other people. If anything, this law would have protected the victim in this case; it could have. -- Representitive Baxley, author of the Stand Your Ground Law,

LetThemEatRand's picture

Jury of your peers.  Constitution.  Get over it or have it gotten over on you.'s picture

I'm over it. But the truth is still the truth.

For what it's worth, I'll stand my ground if some fat assed Jewish Pervian chases me down the street and looks like he's going to draw down on me.

James_Cole's picture

Apparently this case is the biggest thing to happen in the US since what's her name.

Anyway, the jury seems to have gotten it correct from what I glean having not followed the thing. 

The main take away from this is it's an example of what happens when you combine stupid people with lethal weapons, I can believe Zimmerman had been scared for his life but that doesn't mean he actually was in any serious danger. He shouldn't of chased Martin but that's not necessarily criminal. 

Anyway, the riots probably have a lot more to do with the multi-tiered justice system than this particular case. Black people are treated much worse in the justice system than white people, basic FACT. This racially charged media circus only exaggerates all that. 

LetThemEatRand's picture

Justice is blind, and she's also dumb.  Made enough money to buy Miami but she pissed it away so fast.

iDealMeat's picture

Shame on you ZH..  This bullshit is zero sum. 


Stick with the financials please.


LetThemEatRand's picture

Guy's gotta make a living.  This thread is well read, comrade.  And you're here.  So there's that.

LetThemEatRand's picture

Nobody puts baby in a corner.  Ditto.

iDealMeat's picture

Really? You actually give a shit about this case?


MSM Distraction of the most glorious form.. 

EDIT: LTER, I'd love to word fight you. However, I've read you. Soo..  Can't pick a fight w/ you..

I guess that the bummer of F.C.  We all basically agree here.  So there is no contrarian.

Hence, ZH creates - Robot Trader, math man, MDB, Krugman, etc.. 

Same Shit.. Same blog.



LetThemEatRand's picture

Jury verdict.  Constitution.

iDealMeat's picture

Disclaimer: I up-voted my "Fuck You"..  comment..


Feels good. ;)

iDealMeat's picture

I up voted that too.. 


Pass the Popcorn..

12ToothAssassin's picture

And the racial division deepens thusly

MisterMousePotato's picture

@Crockett the moron ...

"... there's nothing in this statute that authorizes you to pursue or confront other people."

Similarly, there's nothing in this statute that authorizes [me] to have sex with my wife or to crack a bottle of champagne in celebration of some increasingly rare good news. By your brilliant legal analysis; therefore, I can do neither.

You are a very sad little man.'s picture

I was quoting the author of the Stand Your Ground Law. Apparently you think he is a moron. Why do you hate white Republicans?

Harlequin001's picture

'"We're ecstatic with the results. George Zimmerman was never guilty of anything except protecting himself in self-defense."'

Everybody should have the right to hunt somebody down with a gun and then plead self defence, yeah?

fact is that when the justice system fails you you have the right to revenge.'s picture


fact is that when the justice system fails you you have the right to revenge.


I'll have to disagree with that. Revenge is a dish best served cold but I can't abide cold blooded killing. That's one reason I oppose the death penalty. There's something horrific about supposedly reasonable people plotting the death of another human being once any actual emergency has passed.

All Risk No Reward's picture

This case is very straightforward.

If a person is having their head pounded into the pavement, they have the right to defend themselves with deadly force.


This isn't rocket science.  If some dude what bashing Sharpton's sell out head against trhe pavement and his body guard was armed, he'd expect him to shoot him if that was his only reasonable option to prevent his head from being smashed.


The only argument for murder must, therefore, come before Trayvon was going MMA on Zimmerman.

But there is no evidence Zimmerman committed a crime prior to being assaulted.

That isn't to say Zimmerman did or did not actually do something, but it is to say there is no evidence of it.

Getting out of his car and following someone is not a crime.

Trayvon should have known this and respected it...  if Trayvon felt threatend he should have told Zimmerman, "I don't know why your following me, but I feel threatened and you should stop following me."

Being followed by someone is no more reason to beat someone down than having a drunk guy call you a name.

This situation should be used to explain liberty to people and how to properly deal with similar situations, but you'll notice that the constructive is avoided.

The mega banks are bankrupting us through Debt Money Tyranny

Gazooks's picture

Really, why should anyone, particularly a young black man in Georgia, get nervous or upset by a stranger, fat, white stranger at that, following with a gun?



"I work for a government I dispise for ends I think criminal."


"In the long run, we're all dead." - JM Keynes




Harlequin001's picture

Ok let's try this one a different way. I have the right to self defence, so does everyone else. If I choose to go down to my local bar and start a fight I pretty much forego my right to self defence. I do not have, or should not have the right to pull a knife and kill someone should I start to lose and claim self defence simply because I started the fight and misjudged the opposition. The option for self defence went when I started the fight.

I do not have the right to start a bar fight and win. I do have the right to start a bar fight and suffer the consequence of loss though I know I can be prosecuted and sued if I win, but that's a different matter.

When you follow someone in a vehicle and then hunt them down with a gun, and more so when the poor bastard doesn't have one you forego the right to self defence, or should do.

This is murder or manslaughter and requires vengeance either personally or through the courts, pure and simple. Zimmerman should rightly live in fear for his life for as long as it lasts, which should not be very long at all.


338's picture



Finally someone gets it.


Start a fist fight or a verbal confrontation while carrying a concealed firearm, ( in my mind anyway) precludes you from using that option when someone starts beating your ass, MMA or any other style.


Your lack of fighting ability cannot be used as a defense when you have to pull a gun to stop something that your were so fucking stupid to start anyway.


It seems so simple to me, but somehow I guess it's white/black or left/right anymore in this country, and I blame it all on the media.


People have been breed into letting the TV, or more dangerously, the talk radio think for them, otherwise we'd have a decent fucking government.

HardAssets's picture

Your barfight analogy is wrong when applied to this case (given the information released to the public). Mr Martin sat on Mr Zimmerman and proceeded to beat his head into the pavement. Such actions can kill an individual and Zimmerman felt his life threatened at that poiint. This is far different from a situation where two guys are standing up trading blows in a fight and they may retreat from one another. Similiarly in the example you gave above, even if you started a fight that does not mean your opponent would have a free pass and be able to choke you to death because you started it. You would be able to use whatever manner available to defend yourself from dying or from serious bodily injury.

Of course, this analysis is based on the limited information given to the public by a media that has been extremely biased. Federal authorities have involved themselves in the case to the point of sponsoring protest groups and the US POS saying that Martin would have been like his son. This is outrageous. Their possible agenda may be anti-2nd Amendment & self defense and/or further destablility through increased tension among those from different racial groups. (Divide & conquer.)  In any case, the ladies on the jury - - having reviewed all the facts of the case in far greater depth than we have - - - found Mr Zimmerman not guilty. 

nmewn's picture


It was not the opinion of the jury that Zimmerman ever sought to have a confrontation with Trayvon. The judge made it plain what the jury should consider regarding justifiable homicide:

"In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."






Uncle Remus's picture

That quote is the Crux of the Biscuit. I've been through multiple training/continuing education courses for my various licenses that include carrying firearms, and "danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force" is absolutely the money quote.

Harlequin001's picture

It seems a pity that Mr Trayvon didn't have a gun, or that Zimmerman did, because when confronted by a gun totting Zimmerman, Trayvon being now dead would have had every right to shoot him.

Pity he didn't have a gun.

Pity Zimmerman did.

Fact is that '"danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force"' would be exactly the case the moment you realised that your opponent you picked a fight with was stronger and that you were going to lose, every time. It's still murder or manslaughter, whichever way you look at it.

Zimmerman picked a fight he lost, and killed the guy who was winning with a handgun. Let me be clear, if you attacked or confronted me with a handgun I wouldn't want you wounded or hurt, I would want you dead or unconscious because that's the only way I can know I will be safe. That is self defence. That's not the case if you are unarmed, in which case I would be compelled to stop when you are unconscious or you concede. When you are armed with a weapon the situation is absolute, which Zimmerman was. Unconscious or dead is how you need to be, and if I have no gun I will bang your head on the floor because its the easiest and fastest way to make you unconscious or dead. Since Zimmerman was the cause of these circumstances he should not have that as a defence and he should hang.

Hardassets, the 'Mr Martin sat on Mr Zimmerman and proceeded to beat his head into the pavement.' clearly didn't kill him, which makes his judgement wrong and the other guy very dead. An acquital is wrong in this case.

nmewn's picture

Trayvon was a minor...can't legally carry.

Harlequin001's picture

Not the point really, point is that Zimmerman was, and at any time could have pulled his gun and forced Trayvon to stand aside while got back in his car and left. He didn't.

There is no possible way I can see this as self defence.

nmewn's picture

He may not have had an opportunity to pull his gun while standing. An eyewitness has Trayvon on top beating the crap out of him.

We have to go with what we know, he's on the phone with the cops (recorded) saying he's lost sight of Trayvon.

Harlequin001's picture

No, but he would have had an opportunity whilst driving in his vehicle. At what point did he notify Treyvon that he was armed?

I'm still not seeing self defence here. You cannot pick a fight and complain when you lose. At no point was he (Zimmerman) not in control because he was armed, unless he chose to pick a fight knowing he had a fall back if he lost, and used it.

The white guy with the concealed weapon confronted an unarmed black minor and shot him. He should hang.

Uncle Remus's picture

Don't confuse a legally armed civilian with a cop. I don't know about FL, but I am not required to notify anyone I am armed and carrying concealed - if your a cop it's a given. In fact, it's frowned upon, some view it as just this side of brandishing.

So now Zimmerman is a "white guy", not the documented Heinz 57 of non-white that he is, but yet Obama gets to call himself "black".

Your blindness is political at best.

Harlequin001's picture

I am not blind, I am a father. It's as simple as that.

It is not acceptable to have my children shot by armed vigilantes of whatever creed or colour. Period.

Uncle Remus's picture

Wait - we're talking about DHS now?

THX 1178's picture















Uncle Remus's picture

My thought exactly.

Oh wait, he's right. On both counts.

nmewn's picture

"At what point did he notify Treyvon that he was armed?"

Not sure that ever came out at trial but I would imagine Trayvon realized it when he was shot. Zimmerman isn't a racist if thats what you're driving at.

Harlequin001's picture

Never said or implied that he was.

Miffed Microbiologist's picture

Tx Nmewn, the banter " what he should of done during the heat of the moment" is frankly making me ill. We have become a nation of armchair quarterbacks, divorced from the real world. Having sat on 4 juries, one was attempted murder with a gang of perpetrators, I listened to this for hours. The only way to come to resolution is to review facts as best as possible ( multiple witnesses giving similar testimony and physical evidence) weed out arguement and emotional appeal and try to keep personal prejudices at bay ( we ALL have them). One jury I was on drew lines and ended up practically yelling at one another for days. All I could do was just say after an emotional outburst was " please let's just review the facts and see how the law applies". It was horrible and I never wish to do it again.


overmedicatedundersexed's picture

harlequinyy, "he should have pulled his gun sooner"..pal you have never trained with weapons have you..the last resort is to pull a deadly- weapon that is the first rule they teach you. the second rule is if you pull your weapon you are committed to use it for many very good reasons. gun ignorance is no excuse harly for stupid statements.

Harlequin001's picture

er yes I have a lot of training with deadly weapons, and more than just hand guns and rifles.

and if you think the army and the police walk around hiding their weapons so as not to upset you then you're more stupid than you sound.

Let's dispense with the stupid statements shall we. Weapons when deployed correctly are a deterrent first, and offense second, unless you have a different motive.

and your second rule is bullshit. I don't know who taught you that, I suspect you've been watching too many movies.

Uncle Remus's picture

Jeebus, I should've worn my waders. I suspect you've been watching too much MSM.

Harlequin001's picture

ok we'll treat that comment with the contempt it deserves.

overmedicatedundersexed's picture

harly ex police, ex 101abn, you don't like the rules go see those who use them every day, ask how many cops have pulled a gun and how often , many go their whole life never having to do it. (those that serve in mostly white middle class cities rarely pull weapons) it's you who have seen too many movies.