This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Public Responds To Zimmerman Verdict
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:
CHICAGO POLICE RESPONDING TO DALEY PIZZA FOR A LARGE AND VIOLENT CROWD GATHERING AFTER GEORGE ZIMMERMAN VERDICT. #911BUFF
— 911 Operator (@911BUFF) July 14, 2013
MULTIPLE REPORTS OF COPS STORMING THE STREETS IN MIAMI RIGHT NOW AFTER GEORGE ZIMMERMAN VERDICT. #911BUFF
— 911 Operator (@911BUFF) July 14, 2013
NBC REPORTS ANTI WAR AND ANTI RACISM ACTIVIST GROUPS CALLS FOR EMERGENCY RALLY IN SAN FRANCISCO TONIGHT TO PROTEST GEORGE ZIMMERMAN VERDICT.
— 911 Operator (@911BUFF) July 14, 2013
»
- 46472 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
+1
For...
And I still can't get any one to say what they would do if Zimmerman chased them by vehicle, exited his vehicle, refused to say why he was doing so when asked and then reached for something in his pocket. That's what Zimmerman said he did whether the jury heard it or not. -- CrockettAlmanac.com
Really? No one? I would have defended myself. Same as the kid. Perhaps it's just me, but seems logical the kid saw him reaching for his weapon, understood his predicament, and fought for his life. Unsuccessfully. I would have done the same... with better results.
I would have swung on him too.
Me? I'd shoot him. But that's becuase I carry. Trayvon the nigga-in-training brought his fists to a gun fight. Epic fail. Lesson learned. Get over it.
So you'd have shot Zimmerman but you're glad that Martin didn't have the chance because he was black? Thanks for being so straightforward in your reply.
50,000 Kurds killed with poison gas.
Moron
"Zimmerman said he lost sight of Martin, got out of his car to call police and was walking back to his vehicle when the 17-year-old attacked him.
“He jumped out of the bushes and he said ‘What the f..k is your problem, homie?’” Zimmerman said on the tape.
“And I got my cell phone out to call 911 this time, and I said ‘I don’t have a problem.’ And he goes, ‘No, now you have a problem,’ and he punched me in the nose.”"
You can twist Zimmer's words anyway you want. He wasn't chasing him. He was following and observing. Trayvon ran, probably would have been safe if he just stayed hidden, but he confronted Zimmerman aggressively. Trayvon assaulted and battered George, George defended himself. Self-defense./story
Do you speak English? We have this word, "chase," which means that you follow someone and when they try to get away you increase your speed in order to continue the pursuit. You can't continue to observe someone who is running away if you don't chase them.
Boy you really must live in a universe with some complicated geometry, one where photons only travel a set distance before blinking out of existance.
And apparently, you can't comprehend the fact that he lost him because he wasn't chasing him.
You must be something truly alien to us. Please, share your wisdom with us, mighty alien overlord!
How do you follow someone who is running without chasing them?
Zimmerman
No you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left, uh, you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. (expletive) he's running.
Dispatcher
He's running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman
Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
Dispatcher
Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman
The back entrance…(expletive)(unclear)
Dispatcher
Are you following him?
Zimmerman
Yeah.
Now, is this the "cut and paste" edited by MSM version???
BTW:
Trayvonns weapon was his HATE.
If you "follow and observe" me to the point I feel it necessary to hide, where I might "probably" be safe from you... well, you and I have a problem.
I might well confront you and ask, what's your problem, after your pursuit by vehicle, then on foot. And depending on circusmstances, I might even add mother-fucker... After all, whom are you to be running around the streets of the neighborhood, armed, playing vigilante?
Mr. Zimmerman never had to exit his vehicle to call 911. He did so knowing that a confrontation might occur. A confrontation he engineered, by his own admission.
All I want to know, as a prosecutor, is if he got out of his vehicle with an intent to harm to the person whom he was chasing. By the fact that he was chasing the kid, we can assume he had some intent. What was it? Murder one, two, or manslaughter?
Don't ass.u.me anything. Getting out of one's car is not a crime.
But chasing someone down and shooting them is... errr, well maybe not. In any case, you focus on Zimmerman's story at the point it becomes convenient to do so... I merely consider his entire story.
If Zimmerman had been on his own property, I would not question his right to chase a trespasser. But it was not his property. At the very least, he acted wih reckless disregard for the consequences of his previous actions when he got out of his vehicle.
Let's repeat that point, Zimmerman did not have to get out of his vehicle to call 911.
By pursuing the kid in his vehicle, he created a situtation fraught with tension and then deliberately escalated it... No one but Zimmerman knows what he was thinking at that time, but he obviously intended to pursue the kid... Why did he get out of the vehicle? What was his intent? Murder? Capture? Fame?
But killing folks who have done nothing illegal is a crime.
Where did you hear these things? Zimmer said he chased Marting? Zimmerman said he "refused to answer while reaching for something on his jacket?" Sounds like you are outting your own shading to the actual words Zimmerman used.
+1
For...
The Constitution is often inconvenient and leads to results we don't always like. But it beats the living shit out of every other model I know. -- LetThemEatRand
GZ didn't chase anybody with his vehicle. Trayvon initiated the confrontation.
Zimmerman said he followed Martin by vehicle and when Martin sped up Zimmerman increased his speed as well. If you don't recognize such activity as being a chase I don't know what to tell you other than to pursue a remedial reading course (no pun intended).
>>The author of the Stand Your Ground Law has said that the law supported Martin and not Zimmerman.<<
Only if Trayvon had a reasonable reason to conclude that he was oin physical danger.
For example, if Zimmerman pulled his gun on Trayvon or if Zimmerman made a verbal threat or if Zimmerman wielded a knife and threatend him.
Where is the evidence of anything similar happening?
I'm not saying it didn't happen, but we can't imagine a verdict, we need evidence.
Being nosy and following people is not enough for a free beat down in my book. If someone does that to me I keep my distance and ask "can I help you with something?" or similar. I do not believe for a second I have the right to beat that person's head to pulp just because he's being nosy.
Zimmerman's "staling" of Trayvon was stupid. It looks like Trayvon's response to said "stalking" was stupid as well... but Trayvon's stupid combined with someone else's blood and that gave that "someone else" the right to defend himself.
That's exactly what Martin did. He tried to escape Zimmerman, tried to hide from Zimmerman and when Zimmerman approached him he asked "Do you have a problem?" Zimmerman said, "No" and reached for something in his jacket. That's the point at which any reasonable person would fight back just as Martin did.
If Zimmerman was "stalking" Martin, he was committing a felony in many jurisdictions. Thus the kid had an absolute right to defend himself as stalking laws assert the victim is in imminent danger from the stalker.
I'm lost here. Further confused by the fact people are referring to Zimmerman as "white", "white hispanic" and "cracker"???? WTF?
So if I get a tan does that make me black? Somebody give me a lobotomy now damnit!!
I'm confused by the Kanye West t-shirt in the last photo?!
It's part of the gun grabbers game. The authors of the Stand Your Ground Law said that Martin had a right to defend himself. But that has been ignored, the case was subverted with race baiting and Zimmerman is now the poster boy for self defense. This will make it much easier for the media to villainize the legitimate use of self defense. And the rubes are falling all over themselves to drink the kool-aid.
Maybe I don't know all the facts but this is what I believe is true...
Trayvon did have THC in his blood and was on his 3rd suspension from school.
Trayvon did call Zimmerman a "creepy-ass cracker" while on the phone with a friend.
Zimmerman did call the police before the confrontation with Trayvon.
Zimmerman did follow Trayvon after the police told him not to get out of his car.
Trayvon didn't go into his house and somehow had a confrontation with Zimmerman.
Less the lethal gun wound, Zimmerman did have far more injuries than Trayvon.
Trayvon was 5' 11" - 158lbs at time of shooting.
Zimmerman was 5' 8" 200lbs at time of shooting.
A dispatcher is not necessarily a policeman.
MULTIPLE REPORTS OF COPS STORMING THE STREETS IN MIAMI RIGHT NOW AFTER GEORGE ZIMMERMAN VERDICT. #911BUFF
11:35 PM - 13 Jul 2013
Why do I get the feeling the press is salivating over the prospect of riots.
I just posted this on the other verdict thread about 90 minutes ago.
We are sitting on the boat tonight in Biscayne Bay overlooking downtown Miami. There is a definitive police presence on Biscayne Blvd across from Bayside. It seems quieter than normal and an eerie calm permeates the area, yet an earlier thunderstorm drove many indoors.
I earlier spoke to a few people working at the marina about the case and asked if they felt a not guilty verdict would cause a problem in the city. Surprisingly the answers were a unanimous no. One of the dock tenders said that city cops are not like they were years ago during the Liberty City riots. He said, and I quote, "Police ain't like they used to be. They are military now and they don't play. Some bloods may try to cause a ruckus but most people don't want the army coming down the street. "
I thought, what an interesting perspective.
Keep us informed, as you are 2500 miles closer to my home town than I am. Also, please do let me know if I will need my 9 handy when I get back...
Who cares about Zimmerman or Trayvon? Not sure which of them is right but either way there is no way this should make front-page news.
Sad how the real issues are ignored and the made-for-tv cases are what gets newstime...
Exactly...
This on the other hand > http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/14/israel-accused-russian-missiles-syria
WTF
Would the US allow long range missiles close to its border at a hostile country if that were the case?
Israel must defend itself in any way it can. No one else will do it for the only true democracy in the Middle East.
All countries must defend themselves against Israel in any way they can. Israel has subverted democracy everywhere. Even in Switzerland. And especially in America.
the President cares. this is the reaction.
All the obamabots should really care also about scratch golf and burgers - 2 other extremely high priorities of our esteemed 'prez'.
"Who cares about Zimmerman or Trayvon? "
Criminal Eric Holder for one. He invested a lot of our dough creating phony protests and slapping the race card around.
Cynical assholes at the White House for two that would like to play everyone and get riots and mayhem going so they can use Homeland Security to increase their power and further the fascist agenda.
We knew they were playing us when the sleazy Obama made the "If I had a son..." statement. I mean what I heard was the Bama was having sex with Rahm Emanual, David Axelrod, Reggie Love. et cetera, et cetera. You can't have a son that way can you?
You're right, but in doing what they did, Obama and the media have caused most folks who believe in the right to self defense to support a guy who did not legitimately have that right according to the authors of the law. Obama has tricked a lot of folks into speaking out against the Stand Your Ground Law simply because a black kid used in legitimately (although ineffectively) according to the authors of the law. And so it looks like Obama, the media and the gun grabbers lost but that just makes their victory all the greater.
You are stuck on Stupid arguing about the "Stand Your Ground" law....IT does not apply.
Zimmerman was not standing. He was down and unable to retreat, therefore that law does not apply, period.
The only law that applies, says that if you have a "reasonable fear" that your about to get injured or killed you may use deadly force.
Thats it, that is all of it. This Stand your ground BS does not apply.
duplicate
AOK DoChen.
Still here on the water and all is quiet. A couple of police cruisers went flying up US1 sirens blaring. No incidents from our viewpoint.
I think the dock tender at Coconut Grove Marina was correct. Police militarization is quite intimidating to most people. Although I did hear on the radio that the Overtown exit from 195 has been closed.
Tomorrow I`ll see if El Comercio (Peru`s most respected paper) has anything on the story, probably not...
I would bet a lot of City of Miami, Miami Beach and Metro Dade County cops look a lot like George Zimmerman.
LOL, but true! Cop who gave me a ticket for rolling through a stop sign sure did!
What else do you expect? This is the same American Zionist-owned mass media that supports Al Qaeda.
"Why do I get the feeling the press is salivating over the prospect of riots."
Because I have a feeling this administration is dying to create a massive tear in the social fabric of the country in order to bring in martial law, thereby suspending the Constitution.
Can't i pop a cap in the Bernack on the grounds that i acted out of self defense against those stealing from me..?
It's all the rage..
Well if social unrest is executed surgically and they can eliminate vastly more of the unproductive than the productive then this could be the social disinfective for the new World Order. The elitist( the Bernank and Soros) may be executing this part of their plan to perfection.
Our Dear President ("If I had a son...") and the Place-Holder are letting circumstances that they set up run their course. According to plan.
- Ned
LLLLLLLLet's get ready to rummmble.....!
Brought to you by our friendly folks that gave you Benghazi and Agent Orange...
So, in this country a dimwitted idiot who goes by "All Out of Bubblegum" can try to reduce a complex issue down to just a few words that shows only his one bias and it's ok?
Well, fuck you, Ben Bernanke! (I can do it too, asshole.)
Do you think that the author of the Stand Your Ground Law is dimwitted as well?
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. -- Representative Baxley, author of the Stand Your Ground Law
Please feel free to downvote if you hate the Stand Your Ground Law. Explain why if you can.
I down-voted you because I think you're wrong, not because I hate the SYG law.
The SYG law was not nullified because of this ruling by the jury.
Do you believe that you understand the intent of the law better than the author of the law? As Rep. Baxley has said that he wrote it specifically to protect people like Martin who come under attack while out in public how can you say that the law has not been nullified?
This presumes Zim threatened Martin. Had he done so, SYG would apply. Perhaps not in an "MMA-style ground & pound to death", but would have certainly made the initial assault & battery justifiable. However, there's no evidence that Zim threatened Martin. Keeping tabs on someone you believe is suspicious, for whatever reason, is not threatening. Creepy perhaps, from Martin's point-of-view and considering the "Bonfire of the Vanities" tragic misunderstanding of both sides' motives this likely was, but not threatening. The evidence was that Martin initiated violence by way of that first punch, got the upper-hand and instead of fleeing from the "creepy-assed cracker" (hispanic, actually) decided to ground-and-pound him.
On the flip side, SYG doesn't apply to Zim either ... he was on his back with Martin on top of him so the option to flee simply didn't exist.
Here's the law:
2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[22]
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
According to Zimmerman's own description of events he chased Martin by vehicle, exited the vehicle, refused to say why he was chasing Martin when asked and then reached for something in his jacket. If someone did that to you it would be quite reasonable to assume that you were about to become the victim of a felony. That's all the law requires.
Even if it went down as you say, it does not mean GZ has forefieted his right to use deadly force when he felt his brains start leaking from his ears. Everything up until that moment in time is irrelevant.
That's the way Zimmerman said it happened. Do you think he's a liar?
And yes, Zimmerman did forfeit his right to self defense when he acted in such a provocative manner. Rep. Baxley, author of the Stand Your Ground Law said that he wrote the law specifically to protect people like Martin who have a reasonable expectation that they are about to become the victim of a felony.
Are you willing to answer the question that no one else will? What would you do if Zimmerman chased you by vehicle, exited the vehicle, refused to respond when you asked why he was chasing you and then reached for something in his jacket?
I did see some pictures of the back of the GZ head at the time. I did wonder if he went home and banged his own head on something before he took the snaps. Easy to do. No? I mean it beats going to prison.
Re. the verdict - Given only one survived and the evidence amounted to one man's version of events, how could the jury convict beyond a reasonable doubt??
Threre's a lesson in there somewhere.
Well, there's the "never believe the media" lesson but we knew that already.
The thing that almost surprises me is that conservatives often talk about upholding the law according to the intent of the law but in this case conservatives have ignored the fact that the white Republican authors of the law side with Martin and not Zimmerman. So that would be a lesson right there: don't expect the majority to maintain their convictions if they don't like the outcome of maintaining those convictions. I knew that already as well but I had hoped for more.
"According to Zimmerman's own description of events he chased Martin by vehicle, exited the vehicle, refused to say why he was chasing Martin when asked and then reached for something in his jacket. If someone did that to you it would be quite reasonable to assume that you were about to become the victim of a felony. That's all the law requires."
Except, that's not Zim's account of events. His account is he was following, not chasing (yes, there is a differnece). Further, according to his account the confrontation was a surprise followed by a sucker punch. Granted, we don't have Martin's version of the story since he is unfortunately dead. The issue is that you cannot enter into evidence that which you are "convinced" happened but for which there is no evidence.
Zimmerman said that he followed Martin, Martin turned and they made eye contact and then increased his speed. Zimmerman then increased his speed as well. That is chasing by definition.
Chase:
Verb
Pursue in order to catch or catch up with: "police chased the stolen car"; "the dog chased after the stick".
Noun
An act of pursuing someone or something.
As for Zimmerman being surprised by a sucker punch, Martin asked, "Do you have a problem," and Zimmerman said, "No." Zimmerman then reached into his jacket and Martin swung. Zimmerman had every opportunity to say that he was a self appointed watchman and that police were on the way. But he didn't. He acted suspiciously and reached for something. What would you have done if it had been you that he was chasing?
Wow, let it go already!
If this had happend in reverse and the person reaching into their pocket was a citizen and the other person was a cop:
1. The cop feels threatened and shoots, kills citizen.
2. Then we learn citizen was reaching for cell phone, car keys, adult diaper or some other innocuous shit.
Sorry, but someone reaching into their pocket doesn't amount to imminent threat of death or violence, reaching out with a closed fist and then beating a person does sound violent. If in this case TM was on top of GZ and beating his head, he must not have fealt very threatened by the item in GZ's pocket. If he had, he might have protected himeelf by ensuring there was no threat in said pocket. Alas, he wasnt afraid of what was in GZ's pocket, he was just attacking a stupid man. An armed man that then defended himself with the only thing he had left as he obviously couldn't outpunch TM.
End of story, dead kid that escalated an event through a direct act of violence.
Read the law. Even a cop must identify himself. Otherwise deadly force can be used in accordance with the Stand Your Ground Law:
WTF? You have a vested interest with Al or jesse? STFU already about it
I support the Stand Your Ground Law and the white Republican authors of that law who support Martin ans not Zimmerman. Why do you think that white Republicans are in league with Jesse Jackson?
>>According to Zimmerman's own description of events he chased Martin by vehicle, exited the vehicle, refused to say why he was chasing Martin when asked and then reached for something in his jacket. If someone did that to you it would be quite reasonable to assume that you were about to become the victim of a felony. That's all the law requires.<<
Please post a link to the source of your claim.
Also, Trayvon would have had to attack before Zimmerman pulled his hand out of his pocket. He can't wait and attack some time later as whatever he deemed was a threat prior wasn't used as a threat.
"Chased" isn't a good word for what happened, but I think you know that.
"Stalked" isn't a very good word, but it is closer.
"Followed" is probably the best word.
Edit... from the video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55l2Dj6AeFY
Zimmerman said he answered Trayvon when asked if he had a problem. However, as you stated, Zimmerman said he looked down and reached in his pocket for a cell phone.
I can see how a person could construe that as being reaching for a gun. If Trayvon had punched Zimmerman, knocked him down and ran away, I'd likely vote not guilty in Trayvon's assault case.
But that's not what he did and his actions are inconsistent with a guy who felt that Zimmerman was reaching for a gun.
When you thin someone has a gun and is trying to shoot you, you don't pound on their head and leave their hand loose to get said gun and shoot you. You get control of the gun first and foremost.
According to the evidence, Trayvon forced the face to face encounter and forced the physical altercation.
It sounds very plausible that Trayvon was out to teach someone a lesson for having the nerve to follow him. He had every right to be upset, but he didn't have the right physically attack the person he was mad at and continue attacking him.
This just seems the best place to fit a reply. I agree that follow is the best word. It took a few tries but I did see one definition of "chase" as "to follow rapidly." The problem I have with Crockett continuing to use the word chase is he seems to want it to imply Zimmerman had an intent to actually catch Martin instead of to keep observing him.
I'm interested in links too about the Baxton opinions. The best I can find is http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/21/trayvon-martins-alleged-attack... where Baxton is assuming Zimmerman confronted Martin. May have happened but I can't find anything with reasonable evidence suggesting it.
So far as reaching into his jacket, if Crockett is talking about the Hannity interview, Zimmerman said no such thing. http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/07/18/exclusive-george-zimmer.... The only way to interpret that as Zimmerman saying he reached into his Jacket pocket instead of pants pockets is to say that there were two of THE punch that broke Zimmerman's nose.
-1
For...
Keeping tabs on someone you believe is suspicious, for whatever reason, is not threatening. -- ThaBigPerm
From your point of view.
So some unknown person following you at night in his vehicle does not raise a few warning flags? You've led a sheltered existence... creepy doesn't begin to describe it.
dude...the jury has spoken. that makes this at a minimum the Law of Florida. it is my understanding that jury trials still exist in every state in the union as well "and the USA has something of history behind this whole jury thingy."
The SYG law was not a consideration in this case.
Only Nancy Grace.
Suggest ya'll go back to watching her.
The Stand Your Ground Law does not protect Zimmerman but Martin defended himself in accordance with that law. That's what the white Republican author of the law said. But why worry about facts.
The person who wrote the law spoke. SO FUCKING WHAT. The prosecutor, you know, the lawyer that "prosecutes" and uses the LAW did not use it in this case as a possible defense for your beloved Trayvon's actions. But he couldn't now, could he? Why? Because Trayvon punched Zim in the face and broke his nose first. And then proceeeded to ground and pound. AS THE EVIDENCED SHOWED. Or do you think Zim assaulted Trayvon first? What did the witnesses say?
But don't let facts stand in the way.
Martin is not my beloved. Why are you so emotional about a simple court case? Looks like the media really got you stirred up. And now they can paint legitimate self defense in a bad light. You've been played and you're asking for more.
By the way, if you ever do have to defend yourself are you sure that you want your assailant to be able to kill you legally just because you almost won the fight? The muggers and the pervs are gonna love you!
You were asked for evidence and presented nothing but diversion.
Duly noted.
I've present reams of evidence throughout this thread and you've pretended that it isn't there because it doesn't fit with your agenda.
None of those things are facts.
1. SYG is not relevant in this case. If you think otherwise, please explain.
2. There is no evidence that Martin was assaulted in any way.
3. The author of legislation is irrelevant to case law.
Side note, and not that you'd care, but any respect I had for you is completely gone. Your continued ignorance on everything concerning this case is approaching pathetic.
it only took the jury a few hours to acquit. end of story.
Just because Zimmerman was not protected under SYG doesn't mean that Martin wasn't protected. He was protected by it just as the authors of that law stated. Your argument is with white Republicans who support rule of law.
The law does not require one to wait to be assaulted before defending oneself.
Laws must be enforced according to the intent of the law or there is no law.
You should worry more about the lack of respect you show for yourself when you compromise your principles in order to follow the herd.
Next thing you'll tell me is that OJ was innocent too.
YES OJ WAS INNOCENT. get over it. this is how our system works. sometimes criminals walk. vigilante justice works two ways i might add. if people wanna riot guess what...the jury has spoken...PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES TOO. just because the guard might be a wussy doesn't mean i go prancing into a neighborhood that is not my own mouthin' off and throwing punches. this kid is trespassing...in the South that's grounds for being killed. DON'T TRESPASS. George Zimmerman was hired FOR JUST THAT REASON. i simply have no understanding of the incident other than "one guy had a gone and he survived." that's the ONLY fact in this case. everything else in my view revolves around the community, the folks that are in it, what they wanted, who they hired, etc. i didn't follow the case too close until the end but to me that's what the case about.
Could it be because Baxley was buying into the bullshit media concocted story? Evidently many folks around here did not watch any of the trial.
A great preponderance of the evidence supported Zimmerman's story. For Christ sake, the prosecution witnesses ended up supporting GZ story.
The problem around "forums" is that people just regurgitate the stories they hear without any critical analysis whatsoever.
When I read these threads on ZH I realize the folks here are no more aware about the world than the idiots in OWS.
the media is making trouble here without a doubt. i don't recall any of them saying "please remain calm" actually. the presentation had the feel of the exact opposite...designed to enrage racial sensibilities on all sides. obviously when no less than the President himself weighs in that does get my attention. in other words this is GZ vs TM....but GZ vs Potus. GZ just won. move along!
The SYG "law" is simply an extension of the Castle Doctrine. If GZ truely was the aggressor as you (and Baxley) believe he was, then the SYG defense is moot anyway. It does NOT apply to the aggressor. However, the right to prevent one's own death most certainly does apply - EVEN FOR THE AGGRESSOR!
Given that he claims to have received a thorough beating - and has evidence to support this claim - he can clearly argue that he believed his life was in danger. Further, because he was trapped beneath TM - which again, the evidence support this scenario - he could not escape the danger. Thus, GZ met this requirement.
Finally, GZ simply following and reporting the positon of TM is not illegal. It's not stalking, hunting, or chasing. The moment TM decided he was going to teach the creepy-ass cracker a lesson is when the first crime occurred - assault . Assault is considered a forceable felony in FL - and is one of the thresholds needed to justify the use of deadly force.
Therefor, the SYG defense is a moot issue. GZ could have been wearing a white robe and a pointy hat to match, carrying a burning cross, while showing off a grand master KKK badge - the moment TM had him trapped, GZ was justified. Get over it.
Let's continue to relate this case to the castle doctrine. Suppose that Zimmerman came to your home and acted in a way that made you believe he was going to attack you. You respond by punching Zimmerman and slamming him on the ground. Zimmerman becomes frightened and then shoots you right there in your own home. Should he get off in such circumstances?
Jesus H. Christ CrockO'Shit...
Give it a fucking break already.
Quit spaming to make your slim-to-nothing legal points.
Go on over to www.9/11Liars.com and commune with MORONS that agree with you.
Hi, Dave. How are you this evening?
Bored with your spamming bullshit!
You post up thread how many fucking times?
Quit with the thread-jacks already.
Divorce yourself from your ego.
You are not that important.
So you're ordering me off a forum you don't own and you think I'm an egotist?
Your hypotheticals aren't even analogous to this case. You're just seeing what you want to see. The relevant facts are that Martin jumped out of the bushes attacking Zimmerman bashing his head into the pavement threatening his life. Hell, he did even have to believe his life was in danger according to the law in this situation because the difference between life and death can be a fraction of a second. The law does not expect someone to make such a distinction in a split second. (while someone is on top of you bashing your head) But if someone is taunting or thumping you in the face, that does not meet the laws expectation of eminent danger. We all agree that Zimmerman was a dumb ass but that does not mean he should've allowed Martin to bash his head in.
Why do you believe that Zimmerman's description of events are "hypotheticals?"
Why do you believe that when Martin, who used the right to self defense legitimately according to the authors of the Stand Your Ground Law, was winning the fight his assailant had a right to kill him?
Yes, you can justifiably get shot by another person in your own home if the other person thinks their life is in danger. Ownership of the home does not make you immune from smashing in somebody else's face and banging their head on the floor.
"Tell you the truth I never think about who I'm gonna shoot first... all I remember is who gets it last." -- Will Munney, The Unforgiven.
So when someone accosts you in your home or on the street you will not fight back because you might get an upper hand in the struggle giving the intruder the right to kill you?
This is a perfect example of what I'm saying. You've been tricked into thinking that self defense is bad!
I'd close the door and lock it. Maybe call the police.
End of discussion.
That is, unless you have EVIDENCE that Zimmerman physically attacked Trayvon first.
On the face of it, it looks like Trayvon had a beat down and a story to tell his buddies about beating down some punk who had the nerve to follow him walking home.
That conclusion is not unreasonable given the evidence.
The law does not require one to be under assault before defending oneself. Your argument is with the law.
Crockett,
" -------to pursue or confront other people."
This doesn't sound like something a fearful person would do.
But, what more can be expected in the 'good ol' US of A?
And, Iraq was the same verdict by the same idiots---they will go for any piece of shit that is thrown out---
What a country---what a damned shame!
The country is only as good as the people who inhabit it. God help those who think for themselves.
At times individuals rights overlap each other. Finding Zimmerman not guilty (not found innocent), does not infer that Martin was guilty. Both can be in fear for their respective lives and have the legal right to defend themselves with whatever means they have available. The law does not require one to run away from a threat, even if it is the smart thing to do in some cases.
Most people I know that carry concealed tell me the same thing; they find themselves crossing the street, avoiding sketchy parts of town, And otherwise doing everything possible to avoid a confrontation or bad situation. Because they know any fight they find themselves will have a gun present, and when the fight is over winner or looser the life they were living up to that point has ended.
If Zimmerman is not guilty of breaking any law then it can be expected that he or others will behave in the same way on other occasions. It's a bad call.
Crock, posting from an alternate universe, where Zimm and Co used a stand your ground defense instead of the more basic and well understood self defense laws.
There is no "standing your ground" when someone is on top of you beating the snot out of you. Deadly force is absolutely fine in that case. This never would have gone to trial without massive political interference. PERIOD.
Zimmerman had no ability to use SYG as stated by the author. Martin had a right to defend himself under that law as stated by the author. You can pretend otherwise but that doesn't make it so.
Bubble you are perhaps oversimplifying the facts?
He went Full Retard........never go full retard.
Who you callin' you people? Oh wait.....
If Zimmerman chased you in a car, got out of his car, refused to say why he was chasing you when you asked and then reached for something in his jacket what would you do? I shoot him then and there.
Zimmerman did no such thing. I know it's a novel idea, but try sticking to reality.
That's exactly what Zimmerman told the police:
So once again, if Zimmerman chased you in a car, exited the vehicle, refused to say why he was chasing you when you asked and then reached for something in his jacket what would you do?
they were in a gated community fill with rich white people and they told their man it was okay to have a loaded gun. i know if it were me i'd ask for permission.
Martin's father's fiance lived in that gated community. I have no idea what color she is but she invited black folks into her home. And Zimmerman was a self appointed watchmen. He was not charged with that duty by the inhabitants. Facts are important!
Actually, he was not self appointed. He was sanctioned by the community association. Facts are important and you are a little light.
I looked around and I see that you're correct. Although I also see that the homeowners association instructed their volunteers not to intervene in any given situation and that some residents complained about Zimmerman's over-zealousness before this incident. Also note that the Neighborhood Watch program prohibits volunteers from working while armed.
i didn't know the fiance lived there. like i said i didn't follow this thing until the end and only had an interest to begin with because the President was interested and took sides...which very much surprised me. the only fact i am aware of in the case is one guy had a gun and the other did not. the one who had the gun lived, got arrested...had his day in court...was found not guilty. follow the rest of GZ's life if you want to know how this all turns out. the law is an issue for any jury...but the USA has a long history of finding people who kill other people not guilty because of our jury system. sorry but it's one of our few freedoms left these days...and the idea that what they think is somehow pre-ordained ("you probably believe OJ is innocent") is a profound falsehood that any lawyer would tell is a big time no, no. now obviously when the jury only takes an a few hours then obviously you have no leg to stand on buddy. you need to get your ass to Florida and start tuning into the Zeitgeist. they ain't puttin' up with no bullshit apparently and are fully armed and ready for said bullshit should it appear. "Go Ahead" indeed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mevxenJ6Mtc
Most folks don't know the facts and don't care to know the facts. I appreciate your honesty and will do my best to be honest with you. As for Obama's comment, that was just part of the set up. The government and media have now successfully made Zimmerman the poster boy for self defense which can only help the gun grabber's cause.
But according to the law it was irrelevant. What happened between the verbal confrontation you reference and Martin on top of Zimmerman punching is irrelevant according to the law because at that point, Zimmerman's life is threatened and he had every right to defend himself. And Zimmerman's story was backed up by forensics. You're arguing Zimmerman was a dumb ass that put him self in that position so he should have let Martin bash his head in. The law does not work that way. The reason the law is parsed in this way is quite simple: you could argue that had this community not been built in the first place, Martin and Zimmerman would not have even met and so on and so on. All of this was straight forward from the start which is why they were not going to charge him with a crime. This trial was an abuse of power and very, very reckless.
So if you defended yourself against possible felonious assault in accordance with the law and you are winning the battle it's OK for your assailant to kill you? You're a criminal's wet dream.
Well I would expect them to try...
I can explain things to you, but I can't understand them for you.
OK, explain why the author of the Stand Your Ground Law said that Zimmerman gets no protection from the law but that Martin had a right to defend himself under that statute.
the Jury has spoken. there's your law. and believe me THIS CANNOT BE APPEALED. go ahead...take it to the Justice Department. i recommend staying out of Florida for the next thousand years if you do.
I'm simply discussing a court case. Why do folks find that to be so objectionable?
"I can explain things to you, but I cant understand them for you". Best answer so far to Crockett's pointless ramblings and theories. Huzzah to you, The Wedge.
where do you get this shit. Trayvon ran off, came back, set himself up for an ambush, and attacked Z.
That's a good trick. How did Martin dupe Zimmerman into following him in the first place? In any case, it's a cunning plan, fanciful though it may be.
By casing homes for robbery in the rain and generally acting in the most suspicious manner possible?
Do you not have theives in your dimension, alien friend?
Also of note is that the neighborhood in question was in the middle of a crime wave, which stopped immediately after TM got shot. Could be coincidence, but I think not.
Sanford police stated that there's no evidence Martin did anything illegal that night. So where is your evidence to the contrary?
GZ didn't chase him in the car, he was out of the car and observing TM from a distance. GZ then lost sight of TM in the dark because Trayvon was stalking GZ at that point. TM had cirlcled back around a house to initiate the confrontation and assault GZ with a sucker punch breaking his nose. Some baby boy.
Of course he did. Zimmerman said he followed Martin in his vehicle and increased his speed when Martin sped up his pace. That is chasing by definition. Zimmerman said he lost sight of Martin while still in the vehicle and said that he exited the car to see what the address was. That seems odd because Zimmerman claimed that Martin was suspicious because he didn't recognize him from being from the area. But if Zimmerman didn't even know what street or block he was on why would he expect to recognize anyone anyway?
There is no evidence that Martin circled around. That was a guess on Zimmerman's part. Zimmerman lost sight of Martin and can't say what he was doing. And as Martin was unfamiliar with the neighborhood and it was night it would be very difficult for him to circle anywhere amongst the houses and bushes and fences. It doesn't ring true. It's just a tall tale to magically turn the guy who admitted to doing the chasing into the one being chased.
He was asked if he had a problem and he said no. He wasn't asked why he was following him, so why would he answer a question that wasn't presented?
OK, admitting you don't have evidence by avoiding direct questions about said evidence and then building a straw man up without any straw...
is the last straw.
You have to deal with your irrationality on your own.
The desperation of those who pretend to support rule of law but who will give it up to follow the herd is amazing.
Then you would be guilty of murder, alien friend.
bubble
Yup. He's dead.
Tough shit for you pussy.
Yep, it sure is great when the intent of a law is overturned by a circus in the courts.
Why I Wrote 'Stand Your Ground' Law
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.
CONAN: It could have.
http://m.npr.org/news/front/149404276?page=1
And as usual the downvoters can't explain why they hate the Stand Your Ground Law.
i do agree "there is no i'm going to hunt you down and kill you law." but one look at America shows we do this all the time actually. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV-ME8rfXFI sometimes apparently we put inspirational music to the activity as well.
To put it bluntly, laws can't protect anyone, and no one should expect them to. They're just words on paper, subject to, as we see in real time, interpretations by lawyers, judges, and jurors (and presstitutes).
I didn't junk you, but I do fundamentally disagree with any rule-of-law premise as ... unnatural and impossible. You just saw how and why. I don't hate the law, I hate the message it sends but can never enforce, because it's just words on paper.
Reading comprehension: foreign term to BubbleDipShit.
1. Go fuck yourself.
2. Go fuck yourself.
3. Swallow your head, throw up, set it on fire. Die.
Thanks for playing!
Wasn't the "kid" a 6 foot, 5 inch thug who went by the Facebook handle "Onebadnigga" or something to that effect?
On his phone there was a text from him saying he was a "gangsta". His brother, who was 5 years older (yes, 5 years older) asked him if Trayvon would teach him how to fight.
Trayvon was a bad-ass & Zimmerman was a pussy by all accounts.
Which individual had evidence of being beaten?
Who do you think initiated that confrontation? That's the main issue.
It's a sad situation all the way around, but bad things happen in life where there are no clear answers for the why & how. It is what it is. People always want to find someone to blame.
This story has nothing to do with the actual case. It has everything to do with the MSM & even more troubling is the role the Federal government played in all this. The Feds know that as the economy goes down the shitters, as it will with 100% certainty, the social fabric will fray. As this takes place there will be increasing social unrest, and they are trying to maximize their control over the populace as this happens. Convicting Zimmerman would have sent the message that everyone (gun owners) that they better think twice before they they take justice into their own hands when their self or property are trespassed upon. EVERYTHING the Feds do is related to maintaining control.
Kind of like why we invite Saudi nationals into the country teach them to fly into buildings then shuttle them back home first class while every other plane is grounded and then proceed to attack every other country in the region but not Saudi Arabia. We would be better off just kicking their asses and taking their oil and declaring their middle age religion a plauge on mankind.
"Pound and ground" Britches!. Obammy's second 100%, crow eating loss involving himself in a routine local law enforcement issue. Must now invite Zim to White House garden for beer and press coverage. Who is this POUS with forged birth certificate, stolen social security and draft cards? Who voted for him? That's the answer to where this Country is heading. Come on down, Al Sharpton, MSM race baiter and shake down artist. Bring Tawna Bradley with you.
It was "No Limit Nigga"
6' 3" and history of burglary, tats, gold teeth, smoking pot (and whatever else), violence and fighting, and trying to obtain a gun. SOB already had one foot in the grave or the big house.
In America, teenage hooligans can't go around bashing citizens' heads in without the risk of getting shot. Even NO_LIMIT_NIGGAs get limited.
And what would you have done if Zimmerman had chased you by vehicle, exited his vehicle, refused to say why he was chasing you when asked and then reached for something in his jacket? That's what Zimmerman did according to the 911 tapes and his interview with police.
I would have said I've got Skittles, an ice tea, and I'm going home to my father's house like a civilized juvenile should. I would not have attacked Zimmerman as a visitor in a gated community and gotten myself killed.
But Zimmerman didn't ask what Martin was doing so why would Martin suddenly start offering such information? It was Martin who spoke to Zimmerman which is a strange thing to do if you're trying to sneak up on someone. But when Martin asked Zimmerman, "Do you have a problem," Zimmerman could have said that he was a self appointed watchman and the cops were on the way, but he didn't. He refused to answer and reached for something in his jacket. Criminals will be happy to know that you will just stand there and take what's coming when they chase you and corner you in the darkness.
It was Martin who spoke to Zimmerman which is a strange thing to do if you're trying to sneak up on someone. But when Martin asked Zimmerman, "Do you have a problem,"
It is also a strange thing to do if you are trying to avoid a confrontation..
How are you not going to ask a guy what he's doing after he chases you by vehicle and then exits his vehicle and approaches you? You can't seriously tell me that if you were chased and cornered you wouldn't ask what was going on. And doing so hardly calls for a death sentence.
You are making up the cornered story aren't you? Just outta whole cloth.
I have a concealed carry permit. Perhaps we would had a classic ol west shoot out. We can had endless ammo, we could dive and roll Behind bushes and stairs.
It would have been classic. And I would have won.
We are talking about fantasy. Why not make a fun one.
Will MSM ever have a discussion on parental responsibility in these types of situations? I mean, most kids are at home watching TV or studying or Tweeting.
Notice: This is the fuck bernank channel. Please go to Chicago with a pic of Obamas son on your back and grieve properly.