George Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

Well, I guess we've all learned today that you can shoot a 17 year old kid in cold blood and the American justice system lets you get away with it.
This is just so depressing I don't know what to say.

Ultratwinkie:

You have no idea about the facts of what these people care about or how much, though, do you? You don't know them. What you are really just doing is making unverifiable assumptions conveniently designed to enable you to ignore them when they say they care.

Oh so they couldn't catch Kony and gave up, but they can somehow get "justice for trayvon" AFTER the courts have all decided and its all over? With double jeopardy and the law making that impossible?

Yeah, real "caring" people. Didn't even care enough to watch the trial either from what I am gathering from a lot of posts.

So where is all the actual "world changing care" these people exude? Because as far as the eye can see its cheap slogans, and like-mining status updates. the entire issue reeks of overblown media hype meant for rating than any actual debate.

Your argument does not become more compelling by doubling down on claims that you know something when the issue is demonstrating how you know what you claim to.

Whether or not you like how someone expresses their complaints or how useful the expression of their complaints might be is tangential.

Agema:

cthulhuspawn82:
Race didn't play a role in George Zimmerman's profiling of Travon Martin, the police decision not to arrest him, and certainly not in the Jury's verdict. This race problem exists solely in people minds, they created it, and that's why its still an issue half a century after the civil rights act.

Any efforts we take to solve race relations will fail the same way any medicine/treatment a doctor prescribes will fail on a patient whose illness is psychosomatic. Such a patient needs a psychiatrist, not a doctor. The "justice for Trayvon" crowd would not have found solace in a guilty verdict. It would be less than a week before something else set them into another frenzy. Their problem is in their mind and they need to be reeducated.

Ultratwinkie:
This.

[snip]

Utter bollocks.

We'll never know for sure, but it is very likely indeed that Zimmerman's gut reaction to Martin as a probable ne'er-do-well was at least in part racial. The fact that race affects how people react towards each other is a key underpinning factor in how these sorts of messes occur. This is a legacy of centuries-old, ingrained prejudice.

Pretending it is the fault of people who are discontented that these attitudes still persist in society (even in a diminished form from yesteryear) who perpetuate racial friction is the worst sort of blindness. There is something particularly sick when it involves protecting the prejudiced and externalising blame - particularly to victims for being upset and speaking out about it.

What does it mean when you say that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin? It means that Martins race was the reason, or at least a reason, for Zimmerman to find him suspicious. But Zimmerman had called the police on "suspicious persons" multiple times. Many of them white. How do you explain that? If Zimmerman suspected Trayvon because he was black, it stands to reason that he wouldn't suspect him if he was white, but he had reported many white suspects in the past.

There was an American Television show made by some rapper; it was called black/white or something like that. They took a white and a black family, colored them to look like the other race, and had them live amongst members of the other race. The most telling episode was the one where the father of the black family and the father of the white family(in blackface) go shopping.

First they are walking down the sidewalk, coming up on a woman and her daughter going the other way. The woman moves her daughter aside so they can get past.

Black Man: "Did you see that?"
White Man: "See what?"
Black Man: "The way she pulled her daughter away from us, likes she is afraid of us."
White Man: "She just pulled her over so we could pass
Black Man: "No she thinks we're dangerous because we're black."

Then they go into a clothing store. While browsing the merchandise a sales attended asks them if they need any assistance. The white guy (still in blackface) says, "No thanks, we're fine." The clerk says "OK, I'm here if you need help."

Black Man: "Did you see how he was watching us, like we were going to steal something.
White Man: "He was just doing his job, asking if we needed help"
Black Man: "No man, he thought we were going to steal something because we're black."

Watching this really opened my eyes to how many black men think. They always say to white guys like me that we cant see racism because we don't experience it. Only they experience and can see racism, now I know why.

TheStatutoryApe:
If you feel that the Prosecution was unable to refute Zimmerman's claim of self defense, that's fine. If you feel that the evidence collected by the police including the police interview with Zimmerman, etc, was enough to meet the Defense's burden, that's fine too. But you are confusing the Prosecution's attempt to refute that claim with "the burden of proof" which actually lay with Zimmerman. It is an error which far too many people in this thread are making.

When people talk about the burden of proof they generally mean which side has the greater hurdle to overcome. From the final jury instructions

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.

In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved

The defense's burden of proof was a 5% or 1 in 20 chance that Zimmerman was telling the truth. Thus, as the party that wanted to convict Zimmerman and put him behind bars, the prosecution would have had to discredit any remotely credible defense put forth by the defense, and thus most would consider them to have the burden of proof.

J Tyran:

Well as thats an opinion piece by a man that fully admits he is no legal expert either I don't particularly feel the need to watch something you find valuable as confirmation bias.

Yes because only legal experts can find facts and use logic. Really? What exactly does one have to do to get you to look at the evidence and the law? Literally none of the evidence pointed to him(Zimmerman) being:
A.) A racist
B.) Stalking him
C.) Murdering him
D.) TM being an upstanding citizen "cherubic child" and lastly,
E.) That Zimmerman broke ANY Fla. law.

It sounds like you can't put aside your personal feelings(as is your right) and look objectively at the evidence, which by the way, is what trials are based on. If you can't do that then you have absolutely zero right to bash anything anyone says contrary to your opinion as what you are basing your judgement on is merely opinion/emotion which is inadmissible in court, instead of evidence and fact.

TheOneGuyInNebraska:
Well, I guess we've all learned today that you can shoot a 17 year old kid in cold blood and the American justice system lets you get away with it.*
This is just so depressing I don't know what to say.

* because they can't prove that you did so.

I believe that's kinda the way it is supposed to work. Y'know, the whole presumption of innocence thing?

TheOneGuyInNebraska:
Well, I guess we've all learned today that you can shoot a 17 year old kid in cold blood and the American justice system lets you get away with it.
This is just so depressing I don't know what to say.

Oh my goodness. I am so tired of people saying this! Are you kidding? Did you look at the evidence? What about innocent until proven guilty? What about due process? What about the ever important phrase "reasonable doubt"? What in the world are you basing such a claim on?

crazyarms33:

TheOneGuyInNebraska:
Well, I guess we've all learned today that you can shoot a 17 year old kid in cold blood and the American justice system lets you get away with it.
This is just so depressing I don't know what to say.

Oh my goodness. I am so tired of people saying this! Are you kidding? Did you look at the evidence? What about innocent until proven guilty? What about due process? What about the ever important phrase "reasonable doubt"? What in the world are you basing such a claim on?

That they don't need to do research to make a claim.

Man, reading this whole thread reminds me why I fucking despise R & P and why I normally never post here. I really am disgusted by some of these posts I've read here.

TheOneGuyInNebraska:
Well, I guess we've all learned today that you can shoot a 17 year old kid in cold blood and the American justice system lets you get away with it.
This is just so depressing I don't know what to say.

Except that the court found no evidence whatsoever of Zimmerman killing in cold blood. Getting your head bashed into concrete and shooting said attacker is not cold blood at all.

Gold:

game-lover:
I just spent a few minutes holding my mother as she cried tears of rage.

Myself? I'm... well, unhappy, for sure but also... dead inside.

Like a switch was clicked off in me.

Why do people have this reaction?

I also think Zimmermans actions were dodgy as fuck but I barely care that he was let off. To me it's just *oh well, I guess the case couldn't be proven*.

I mean I could understand this reaction if you were Martins family, but you're probably not.

I personally just think it cheapens it for the people involved.

OT: Personally I can't wait for all the cases of people just following other people, waiting for them to react in any way that could slightly be portrayed as hostile, provoking them into hitting you then shooting them. Apparently that's all it takes these days.

Also inb4 speculation. I was just saying what other people will be able to do it because after all, It's one persons word against the person they just killed. Guess who ain't talkin.

Well you just answered your own question. It sets a precedent. The idea that you can follow someone and instigate an altercation, kill them and not be found liable is pretty bad. Everyone loses. including you and your family if your ever in a similar situation.

ravenshrike:
When people talk about the burden of proof they generally mean which side has the greater hurdle to overcome. From the final jury instructions

-snip-

The defense's burden of proof was a 5% or 1 in 20 chance that Zimmerman was telling the truth. Thus, as the party that wanted to convict Zimmerman and put him behind bars, the prosecution would have had to discredit any remotely credible defense put forth by the defense, and thus most would consider them to have the burden of proof.

"The Burden" may be considered to have been "passed" if the Defense makes their case. But the Defense needs to make their case and meet a burden of proof which means there is no presumption of innocence.

edit: The above are the points I have been making. If you want to quibble over precise contextual usage of terms I'm not interested.

Or, if being followed, you don't turn around and start a fist fight. Which is what Zimmerman said happened. Or if you see something like the above going on, you go outside your house, and tell them to knock that shit out.

The whole idea that Zimmerman is guilty simply because he followed Trayvon is bullshit. The area had break-ins. He thought he saw something suspicious. So he followed the person. If more people were willing to go that extra mile, Trayvon might very well be alive. (Remember, multiple people heard the fight, but nobody came to help)

TheOneGuyInNebraska:
Man, reading this whole thread reminds me why I fucking despise R & P and why I normally never post here. I really am disgusted by some of these posts I've read here.

You didn't researched the case. You just jumped to conclusion. Like the part where the state withheld evidence of Zimmerman wounds to get him on trial from the get go. Or the part where the investigators knew that they had no case, and didn't charge him with anything till the lynch mob came before them. People were fired, demoted, hell one guy who gave testimony that the state held evidence from the Defense team about Trayvon. The state was rigging the case against Zimmerman behind the scenes. But as the guys said earlier, they never had a case to begin with. Zimmerman won his case within the first week, everything after was just the defense doing a victory lap.

Before you bitch about Fox News being bad, do realize that Fox News was one of the few stations of the MSM that manage to report the Zimmerman case truthfully, most of them ran a bias, and was out right lying.

Magenera:

You didn't researched the case. You just jumped to conclusion. Like the part where the state withheld evidence of Zimmerman wounds to get him on trial from the get go. Or the part where the investigators knew that they had no case, and didn't charge him with anything till the lynch mob came before them. People were fired, demoted, hell one guy who gave testimony that the state held evidence from the Defense team about Trayvon. The state was rigging the case against Zimmerman behind the scenes. But as the guys said earlier, they never had a case to begin with. Zimmerman won his case within the first week, everything after was just the defense doing a victory lap.

Hey now don't go confusing the issue with logic and facts! That's just proves you're a bigot! Duh. I hate how so many people refuse to do research into this case and just blindly believe what they were presented by the media. That to me is more sickening than the fact a person was killed. This is literally one of the stupidest controversies I have ever heard of.

mavkiel:
Or, if being followed, you don't turn around and start a fist fight. Which is what Zimmerman said happened. Or if you see something like the above going on, you go outside your house, and tell them to knock that shit out.

The whole idea that Zimmerman is guilty simply because he followed Trayvon is bullshit. The area had break-ins. He thought he saw something suspicious. So he followed the person. If more people were willing to go that extra mile, Trayvon might very well be alive. (Remember, multiple people heard the fight, but nobody came to help)

Where there any other evidence that corroborated that martin initiated physical force first other than Zimmerman's word? If not, thats just my point. Anyone can and will say that the dead person started the fight if there are no other eyewitnesses. Thats why i go back to who followed who, because thats the thing that we are sure about.

crazyarms33:

Magenera:

You didn't researched the case. You just jumped to conclusion. Like the part where the state withheld evidence of Zimmerman wounds to get him on trial from the get go. Or the part where the investigators knew that they had no case, and didn't charge him with anything till the lynch mob came before them. People were fired, demoted, hell one guy who gave testimony that the state held evidence from the Defense team about Trayvon. The state was rigging the case against Zimmerman behind the scenes. But as the guys said earlier, they never had a case to begin with. Zimmerman won his case within the first week, everything after was just the defense doing a victory lap.

Hey now don't go confusing the issue with logic and facts! That's just proves you're a bigot! Duh. I hate how so many people refuse to do research into this case and just blindly believe what they were presented by the media. That to me is more sickening than the fact a person was killed. This is literally one of the stupidest controversies I have ever heard of.

Okay, let me ask this way.

Does this outcome, or does it not, set a precedent that one can follow someone, instigate a fight, kill the other person, and be let off as long as one is left the only eyewitness of the event, since the other one's dead and can't speak for themselves and/or dispute the living one's story? Will this case, or will it not, be cited as defense in future incidents with similar circumstances?

Because I do wonder about that. Common law being what it is. In my country of course each case would be investigated separately, without precedent citations. But it's different over the Atlantic, and I wonder what this outcome means for the future legal proceedings.

Vegosiux:

crazyarms33:

Magenera:

You didn't researched the case. You just jumped to conclusion. Like the part where the state withheld evidence of Zimmerman wounds to get him on trial from the get go. Or the part where the investigators knew that they had no case, and didn't charge him with anything till the lynch mob came before them. People were fired, demoted, hell one guy who gave testimony that the state held evidence from the Defense team about Trayvon. The state was rigging the case against Zimmerman behind the scenes. But as the guys said earlier, they never had a case to begin with. Zimmerman won his case within the first week, everything after was just the defense doing a victory lap.

Hey now don't go confusing the issue with logic and facts! That's just proves you're a bigot! Duh. I hate how so many people refuse to do research into this case and just blindly believe what they were presented by the media. That to me is more sickening than the fact a person was killed. This is literally one of the stupidest controversies I have ever heard of.

Okay, let me ask this way.

But; Does this outcome, or does it not, set a precedent that one can follow someone, instigate a fight, kill the other person, and be let off as long as one is left the only eyewitness of the event, since the other one's dead? Will this case, or will it not, be cited as defense in future incidents with similar circumstances?

Because I do wonder about that. Common law being what it is, in my country of course each case would be investigated separately, without precedent citations. But it's different over the Atlantic, and I wonder what this outcome means for the future legal proceedings.

Probably nothing, because there was no evidence in this case that Zimmerman "instigate[d] a fight". Rent-a-cops(and neighborhood watch-ers) follow teenagers all of the time, without it leading to anything more than angry words at the most. This incident likely would have been an end of sorts to Trayvon Martin's life even had he not been shot, as he would likely be in prison right now on an aggravated assault charge, at the minimum.

Morthello:

Where there any other evidence that corroborated that martin initiated physical force first other than Zimmerman's word? If not, thats just my point. Anyone can and will say that the dead person started the fight if there are no other eyewitnesses. Thats why i go back to who followed who, because thats the thing that we are sure about.

Honestly it sounds like you are getting information from very suspect sources (NBC had to fire one of there producers for clearing showing an edited call between the cops and Zimmerman for the purpose of making him look bad after being told they were going to be sued). Simply put, I would recommend reading this post hear and watching the video

Magenera:

You didn't researched the case. You just jumped to conclusion. Like the part where the state withheld evidence of Zimmerman wounds to get him on trial from the get go. Or the part where the investigators knew that they had no case, and didn't charge him with anything till the lynch mob came before them. People were fired, demoted, hell one guy who gave testimony that the state held evidence from the Defense team about Trayvon. The state was rigging the case against Zimmerman behind the scenes. But as the guys said earlier, they never had a case to begin with. Zimmerman won his case within the first week, everything after was just the defense doing a victory lap.

Before you bitch about Fox News being bad, do realize that Fox News was one of the few stations of the MSM that manage to report the Zimmerman case truthfully, most of them ran a bias, and was out right lying.

Vegosiux:

Okay, let me ask this way.

But; Does this outcome, or does it not, set a precedent that one can follow someone, instigate a fight, kill the other person, and be let off as long as one is left the only eyewitness of the event, since the other one's dead? Will this case, or will it not, be cited as defense in future incidents with similar circumstances?

Because I do wonder about that. Common law being what it is, in my country of course each case would be investigated separately, without precedent citations. But it's different over the Atlantic, and I wonder what this outcome means for the future legal proceedings.

I think the premise is flawed. All of the available evidence points to a confrontation instigated by TM, not Zimmerman. Now unfortunately we do have to take a lot of this based on Z's testimony because TM was killed. However given that the additional evidence supports everything that the Defense argued and nothing the Prosecution argued, I am willingly(hesitantly) to give the testimony the benefit of the doubt. Another common misconception is that Z followed TM, some have used the term stalked, but based on what I have heard and read that wasn't the case. As the neighborhood had been plagued by crime of various sorts, thieves would switch street signs so that people wouldn't know where they were when they called the police given the thieves more time to escape so Z got out of his vehicle to better locate himself. At which point the confrontation occurred. We have no definitive way of knowing 100% who instigated the confrontation unfortunately, but we can only go on what the evidence shows and that includes the testimony.

Further I don't see that this will be a landmark case in the sense that banging someones head repeatedly on the concrete and saying "You're going to die tonight motherfucker" are both reasonable grounds for felony charges on the attacker. Given that Z was utterly defenseless(save for his weapon) and TM only had wounds from the gunshot, which was at such an angle that the only way it could have occurred was for TM to be straddling Z, and on his knuckles(from beating Z) I think this is a case of self defense. Further the altercation occurred 70 yards from where TM was staying. All he had to say was something along the lines of "Fuck off! I live right there, you ass." Or he could have been polite about it, whichever way.

I think this could be a problem down the road if these events occur frequently but the real reason this is as big a story as it is is irresponsible journalism. The MSM(aside from Fox) went out of their way to portray Z as a racist, including editing phone calls, while trying to make TM appear to be a choir boy. Neither were true. The police didn't even want to prosecute Z because of what the evidence pointed out. They only did after the "hate crime" and "racist" cards got played. In the court of public opinion the MSM convinced people that Z was obviously guilty without bothering to fact check their story, including glossing over how the State withheld evidence from the Defense team on different instances. The whole thing was a fiasco. Did that clarify it at all?

Morthello:

mavkiel:
Or, if being followed, you don't turn around and start a fist fight. Which is what Zimmerman said happened. Or if you see something like the above going on, you go outside your house, and tell them to knock that shit out.

The whole idea that Zimmerman is guilty simply because he followed Trayvon is bullshit. The area had break-ins. He thought he saw something suspicious. So he followed the person. If more people were willing to go that extra mile, Trayvon might very well be alive. (Remember, multiple people heard the fight, but nobody came to help)

Where there any other evidence that corroborated that martin initiated physical force first other than Zimmerman's word? If not, thats just my point. Anyone can and will say that the dead person started the fight if there are no other eyewitnesses. Thats why i go back to who followed who, because thats the thing that we are sure about.

The picture that the court perceived was that TM doubled back and encountered GZ. The court also found that given the phone recording, GZ did in fact stop when they asked him to. He stopped and waited for the cops and TM came back to him. At that point, it could not be proven who started the fight and assuming it was GZ is incorrect as you are neither a mind reader nor a psychic.

image

lastjustice:
Explain to me Why a person calls the cops before they blow someone away or allows another man to beat their face several times as a means of enabling murder.

Do me a solid and go back and actually read my posts then, never claimed he murdered him. My argument was that Zimmertool is a violent (a matter of public record) and paranoid fruitloop (a matter of public record) that recklessly and against advice created a situation that caused the death of a young man who at the time was doing nothing wrong and simply walking down a street. Recklessly killing someone is manslaughter and he shouldnt get away with it.

crazyarms33:
Yes because only legal experts can find facts and use logic. Really? What exactly does one have to do to get you to look at the evidence and the law? Literally none of the evidence pointed to him(Zimmerman) being:
A.) A racist
B.) Stalking him
C.) Murdering him
D.) TM being an upstanding citizen "cherubic child" and lastly,
E.) That Zimmerman broke ANY Fla. law.

A, I will not make the accusation of racism but Zimmerturd had been following and stalking young African Americans for months, this is where the accusation happened to come from.

B, The tapes clearly showed for no logical or tangible reason he followed Mr Martin for some time before running and chasing him through back streets.

C, Well I have never said he murdered Mr Martin, others have so your point stands.

D, Irrelevant, Zimmerturd did not know Mr Martin and his reputation so that had no basis on his decision to harass him. Made further irrelevant by the fact he was doing nothing wrong at the time. Zimmertoad was no upstanding citizen either, he has assaulted police officers in the past and a general nuisance clogging up vital emergency service call centers with his paranoid ramblings. (how this wasn't illegal in the first place I have no idea)

E, Maybe not but I think its pretty lame that there are no laws to protect members of the public from harassment, either from other people on the street or from paranoid and violent self appointed vigilantes.

Kennetic:
The picture that the court perceived was that TM doubled back and encountered GZ. The court also found that given the phone recording, GZ did in fact stop when they asked him to. He stopped and waited for the cops and TM came back to him. At that point, it could not be proven who started the fight and assuming it was GZ is incorrect as you are neither a mind reader nor a psychic.

image

Which by itself doesnt prove Mr Martin went looking for Zimmertoad, all it shows is he changed direction and there are valid reasons for someone doing so (like doubling back thinking he could better avoid him going that way). It makes me wonder why Mr Martin ran away in the first place if he wanted to assault him, why did he go back to the open and well lit street to commit the assault? Why not attack Zimmertool in the dark and secluded alley if that was his intent?

Magenera:

Before you bitch about Fox News being bad, do realize that Fox News was one of the few stations of the MSM that manage to report the Zimmerman case truthfully, most of them ran a bias, and was out right lying.

Truthfully?

Oh no. I don't think one could say that, even if the verdict did go "their" way. It merely means their bias was already in that direction. We don't know for sure that it went down according to Zimmerman's story. We only know that there isn't enough evidence to convict on.

Besides, wasn't it Fox which ran those pictures of some other dude named Trayvon, who wasn't actually the same Trayvon that was killed?

Morthello:

Where there any other evidence that corroborated that martin initiated physical force first other than Zimmerman's word? If not, thats just my point. Anyone can and will say that the dead person started the fight if there are no other eyewitnesses. Thats why i go back to who followed who, because thats the thing that we are sure about.

There is physical evidence that the fight occured only from one side. No harm on Martins body (outside of the bullet wounds) except on the knuckles, grass trails on his pants and the recorded wounds of Zimmerman.

Then there is the witness who saw a man in a hoodie on top of a white / hispanic guy beating the crap out of him while the white / hispanic yelled for help.

kiri2tsubasa:

Morthello:

Where there any other evidence that corroborated that martin initiated physical force first other than Zimmerman's word? If not, thats just my point. Anyone can and will say that the dead person started the fight if there are no other eyewitnesses. Thats why i go back to who followed who, because thats the thing that we are sure about.

Honestly it sounds like you are getting information from very suspect sources (NBC had to fire one of there producers for clearing showing an edited call between the cops and Zimmerman for the purpose of making him look bad after being told they were going to be sued). Simply put, I would recommend reading this post hear and watching the video

Magenera:

You didn't researched the case. You just jumped to conclusion. Like the part where the state withheld evidence of Zimmerman wounds to get him on trial from the get go. Or the part where the investigators knew that they had no case, and didn't charge him with anything till the lynch mob came before them. People were fired, demoted, hell one guy who gave testimony that the state held evidence from the Defense team about Trayvon. The state was rigging the case against Zimmerman behind the scenes. But as the guys said earlier, they never had a case to begin with. Zimmerman won his case within the first week, everything after was just the defense doing a victory lap.

Before you bitch about Fox News being bad, do realize that Fox News was one of the few stations of the MSM that manage to report the Zimmerman case truthfully, most of them ran a bias, and was out right lying.

Im confused by this response. I asked a question pertaining to the confrontation between martin and and zimmerman and how it can effect future cases. I stopped watching any telivised media years ago since you bought it up. Nothing in this post is relevant to what i asked.

J Tyran:

Kennetic:
The picture that the court perceived was that TM doubled back and encountered GZ. The court also found that given the phone recording, GZ did in fact stop when they asked him to. He stopped and waited for the cops and TM came back to him. At that point, it could not be proven who started the fight and assuming it was GZ is incorrect as you are neither a mind reader nor a psychic.

image

Which by itself doesnt prove Mr Martin went looking for Zimmertoad, all it shows is he changed direction and there are valid reasons for someone doing so (like doubling back thinking he could better avoid him going that way). It makes me wonder why Mr Martin ran away in the first place if he wanted to assault him, why did he go back to the open and well lit street to commit the assault? Why not attack Zimmertool in the dark and secluded alley if that was his intent?

It also doesn't prove that he didn't. From the evidence and testimonies that the court had, this scene is the most probable one. You assume that Zimmerman is a monster and that goes against everything that the court found.

TheKasp:

Morthello:

Where there any other evidence that corroborated that martin initiated physical force first other than Zimmerman's word? If not, thats just my point. Anyone can and will say that the dead person started the fight if there are no other eyewitnesses. Thats why i go back to who followed who, because thats the thing that we are sure about.

There is physical evidence that the fight occured only from one side. No harm on Martins body (outside of the bullet wounds) except on the knuckles, grass trails on his pants and the recorded wounds of Zimmerman.

Then there is the witness who saw a man in a hoodie on top of a white / hispanic guy beating the crap out of him while the white / hispanic yelled for help.

From one side? Do you mean theres evidence that martin started the fight? I understand that Martin was on top of him, but that just tells me who was winning the fight, not who started it.

Morthello:

TheKasp:

Morthello:

Where there any other evidence that corroborated that martin initiated physical force first other than Zimmerman's word? If not, thats just my point. Anyone can and will say that the dead person started the fight if there are no other eyewitnesses. Thats why i go back to who followed who, because thats the thing that we are sure about.

There is physical evidence that the fight occured only from one side. No harm on Martins body (outside of the bullet wounds) except on the knuckles, grass trails on his pants and the recorded wounds of Zimmerman.

Then there is the witness who saw a man in a hoodie on top of a white / hispanic guy beating the crap out of him while the white / hispanic yelled for help.

From one side? Do you mean theres evidence that martin started the fight? I understand that Martin was on top of him, but that just tells me who was winning the fight, not who started it.

It can be inferred from the fact that Zimmerman had injuries and Martin had none. There is also the fact Zimmerman had a firearm. If I was armed there is no way I would enter a fist fight with someone of my own accord, its foolish and a good way to loose your firearm. Is it possible Zimmerman is just that stupid? Yes, but its equally possible he is not.

I find it funny that the majority of the people here are atheist and they deny the existence of a deity because there's no evidence to support it, yet these same people claim that George Zimmerman is guilty and want his head on a stake, yet there's no evidence to support his guilt. Hypocrisy much?

Morthello:

From one side? Do you mean theres evidence that martin started the fight? I understand that Martin was on top of him, but that just tells me who was winning the fight, not who started it.

It tells us that only one party participated in the fight. It may have been that Zimmerman did something that made Martin initiate or even initiated by grabbing him, in the end though there is evidence that Zimmerman did not use any force (beyond shooting him) during the fight. I am willing, in regard of other evidence, to give the reason of the doubt to Zimmerman that he did not initiate the fight or even confront Martin to begin with (I forward you to post #266 as well as the recording of his call where you can hear that, after being told that a pursuit from his side is not needed, he did stop the chase).

In previous posts I linked articles that showed that Martin himself did go out of his way to fight and was not satisfied with just minor wounds.

Kennetic:
It also doesn't prove that he didn't. From the evidence and testimonies that the court had, this scene is the most probable one. You assume that Zimmerman is a monster and that goes against everything that the court found.

Exactly, there is no evidence of Mr Martins intent either way. I think its wrong to try and claim in absolute terms who did what, the only one with recorded evidential intent was Zimmertool that showed he was not willing to let the matter drop and that he was frustrated with Mr Martins escape. I don't assume Zimmertoad is a monster either. It is a matter of record that he is a violent and paranoid fruitloop though, that doesn't make him a monster though.

TheKasp:
In previous posts I linked articles that showed that Martin himself did go out of his way to fight and was not satisfied with just minor wounds.

Expert evidence says otherwise, a summery of the of court approved medicals examiners statement is "They were very insignificant". His injuries did not receive hospital treatment, which says all that needs to be said. Noone has proof how far Mr Martin was willing to take it, nor even any basis for reliable speculation.

People who can actually defend Zimmerman disgust me.

I really hope someone kills Zimmerman soon. Him walking away without any consequences sends a very clear message to every lunatic and racist in Florida that it's open season on whoever they don't like. All they have to do is start a fight, kill the person and use Zimmerman's defense to get away with it. That's dangerous.

Kennetic:
I find it funny that the majority of the people here are atheist and they deny the existence of a deity because there's no evidence to support it, yet these same people claim that George Zimmerman is guilty and want his head on a stake, yet there's no evidence to support his guilt. Hypocrisy much?

It is a perfect example of manipulative media and appealing to feelings. Add to this that Zimmerman had a gun and boom, you have all the people yelling for blood, every bit of rationality out of the window. Proof is not needed, he needs to be locked up or even murdered just because the very first piece of evidence (that was manipulated) suggested that he was motivated by racism. Every bit of evidence after that is not legit because "it is Zimmermans side of the story" and "Martin can't defend himself now that he is dead". Even though there is more than just Zimmermans word.

This is not a clear cut case where you can say that XYZ happened. I can't say with certainty that Martin confronted Zimmerman but I don't find it unlikely. But it still lacks evidence because from the end of the call up until the eyewitness of Martin beating Zimmerman we have nothing. And it cuts the other way: You can't proof the assertion that Zimmerman confronted Martin or even provoked him. If you are provoked by someone following you for a few yards to the extend of assaulting him then it still does not prove that Zimmerman did something wrong, it just shows that you are fucked up.

The last 'you's are hypothetical and not directed and the person I quoted.

Adam Jensen:
People who can actually defend Zimmerman disgust me.

I really hope someone kills Zimmerman soon. Him walking away without any consequences sends a very clear message to every lunatic and racist in Florida that it's open season on whoever they don't like. All they have to do is start a fight, kill the person and use Zimmerman's defense to get away with it. That's dangerous. That's why Zimmerman must die.

Wow.... Just wow. I hope you accept your public execution if you fuck a little up and the media decides to jump on your ass like bees on honey.

Provide evidence that Zimmerman did start a fight.

Provide evidence that Zimmerman is racist or that he was motivated by the race of Martin.

TheKasp:

Adam Jensen:
People who can actually defend Zimmerman disgust me.

I really hope someone kills Zimmerman soon. Him walking away without any consequences sends a very clear message to every lunatic and racist in Florida that it's open season on whoever they don't like. All they have to do is start a fight, kill the person and use Zimmerman's defense to get away with it. That's dangerous. That's why Zimmerman must die.

Wow.... Just wow. I hope you accept your public execution if you fuck a little up and the media decides to jump on your ass like bees on honey.

Provide evidence that Zimmerman did start a fight.

Provide evidence that Zimmerman is racist or that he was motivated by the race of Martin.

The sad part is that apparently understanding what reasonable doubt is = defending Zimmerman. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there has been very few "I know Zimmerman didn't do it" posts in relation to how many "There's not enough evidence". But I guess we shouldn't let those little details get in the way of our righteous indignation, yes?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked