What's new

George Zimmerman found not guilty

. . .
Good old fashioned a$$ whooping is what I am talking about.

But isn't it ironic that intent is precisely what landed Trayvon in trouble. You do know that Zimmerman has his gun back, right? You better be packin' heat if you want to whup him.
 
.
But isn't it ironic that intent is precisely what landed Trayvon in trouble.
Zimmerman picked a fight with him. He tried to be a hero.

You do know that Zimmerman has his gun back, right? You better be packin' heat if you want to whup him.
:angel:
 
.
Zimmerman picked a fight with him. He tried to be a hero.

:angel:

Please don't take this the wrong way, but if you are packin' and you want to teach someone a lesson because you are so convinced that they are in the wrong, then isn't this exactly what Zimmerman did that you find so wrong? Are you potentially another Zimmerman in the making?
 
.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but if you are packin' and you want to teach someone a lesson because you are so convinced that they are in the wrong, then isn't this exactly what Zimmerman did that you find so wrong? Are you potentially another Zimmerman in the making?

I think what zimmerman did had more to do with racial profiling.I wouldn't do something like that. You made your point and convinced me.
 
.
The matter of fact, George Zimmerman didn't follow the police order to stay in the car and not follow the teenager. I think as a 17 yrs old teenager would over react to anyone stalking them, George Zimmerman didn't have the authority stop and question anyone without a crime occur or on suspicion only. No one know the motive behind Travon Martin aggression then fought George Zimmerman for no reason other than Travon Martin was fearful for his life. A dead person couldn't give his version of event leaded up to his dead. No eyes witness testify they saw everything happen from the moment George Zimmerman stepped out of the car and confronted Travon Martin to the time Travon Martin got shot and killed. I think George Zimmerman took it up himself to act as a cop without the authority to do so, he subsequent killed a innocent teen. He should be held liable for the action and should be convict of manslaughter.
The best you can argue here is that Zimmerman is guilty of bad judgement, which is what the jury concluded. But guilty of murder or even manslaughter are totally different charges.

Murder is premeditated, meaning you must have the intention of killing the person and that the killing is preceded by thoughtful planning. Manslaughter is a killing without premeditation but either malice is present or neglect are present. Neither charges were backed up by evidences presented, and it is practically impossible to prove when the evidences revealed that Zimmerman is in the inferior position in a fight and while that fight was going, he suffered more injuries than Martin.

Anything else outside the evidences belongs in the realm of meaningless rhetoric, of which I see plenty from those who are more interested in poking US in the eye than in justice.
 
. .
Oh please! Don't try to patronize me Canadian.If i don't get him Someone else will:sniper:

Zimmerman was acquitted by a jury of his peers, justice was served. This should be the end of hounding Zimmerman.

P.S He has a gun, and he is not afraid to use it.
 
.
You should not start your argument with false presumptions. The police did not order GZ to do anything, they only suggested that he did not need to chase TM. Suggestions/recommendations are very different from orders. GZ was not authorized to use force, but it is not illegal for him(he was not on duty that night) to follow another civilian for suspicious behaviors. In such cases, GZ should be called a good Samaritan, not some "creepy *** cracker". There were many legal options for TM to protect himself if he thought he was threatened(his lady friend witness said he was frightened when she told him on the phone that GZ could be a gay rapist), but TM chose to threaten GZ's life first with brutal physical attack without being physically threatened in the first place, which I am pretty sure was an illegal option.


The matter of fact, George Zimmerman didn't follow the police order to stay in the car and not follow the teenager. I think as a 17 yrs old teenager would over react to anyone stalking them, George Zimmerman didn't have the authority stop and question anyone without a crime occur or on suspicion only. No one know the motive behind Travon Martin aggression then fought George Zimmerman for no reason other than Travon Martin was fearful for his life. A dead person couldn't give his version of event leaded up to his dead. No eyes witness testify they saw everything happen from the moment George Zimmerman stepped out of the car and confronted Travon Martin to the time Travon Martin got shot and killed. I think George Zimmerman took it up himself to act as a cop without the authority to do so, he subsequent killed a innocent teen. He should be held liable for the action and should be convict of manslaughter.
 
.
The matter of fact, George Zimmerman didn't follow the police order to stay in the car and not follow the teenager. I think as a 17 yrs old teenager would over react to anyone stalking them, George Zimmerman didn't have the authority stop and question anyone without a crime occur or on suspicion only. No one know the motive behind Travon Martin aggression then fought George Zimmerman for no reason other than Travon Martin was fearful for his life. A dead person couldn't give his version of event leaded up to his dead. No eyes witness testify they saw everything happen from the moment George Zimmerman stepped out of the car and confronted Travon Martin to the time Travon Martin got shot and killed. I think George Zimmerman took it up himself to act as a cop without the authority to do so, he subsequent killed a innocent teen. He should be held liable for the action and should be convict of manslaughter.

The verdict was reached based on facts. The following are the facts.

1) Did Zimmernman initiated the fight ? No

2) Did he have a chance to walk away from the confrontation ? No, he was pinned down getting his head banged on the concrete sidewalk.

3) Did he try other options before using lethal force ? Yes, he screamed out for help to no avail.

4)Did Zimmerman feared for his life ? Yes

5) Does Zimmerman have the injuries to support his claim ? He clearly does. The guy was banged up pretty bad.

The case was about self defense. It was not about ignoring police dispatchers instructions to follow Trayvon. It was not about whether he was acting like police or not. It was not about if he had the authority to ask Trayvon who he was or what he was upto.

It was and is about self defense.

One more thing, when Jimmy Carter says Zimmerman jury made 'right decision', we can safely say justice was served.

Jimmy Carter: Zimmerman jury ‘right’
 
.
People here are judging this case by what they know and what they hear from the TV, none of them are 1st handed information.
Say what you want with the US law, but in a society under law, we operate to the fullest extend but not partially when you are a minority, it goes the same way backward too.

Let's look at this incident in 2 parts. From the POV of Zimmerman and from the POV of the Law. rather than looking at the race and color of each person involved in this.

POV of Zimmerman

He is a neighbourhood watch coordinator of a "Gated" community, he just get back from a trip to the convenience store, he drive by Trayvon Martin, acknowledging that TM is suspicious, he stopped his car, contacted the police.

Martin does not live in the gated community, there are no reason Zimmerman would have seen him before, despite several visit by Martin to his father finace.

So Zimmerman sit in his car during the whole duration to the non-emergency number, while at the end of the call, he got out of his car, dispatcher ask him not to follow him and Zimmerman response positively and ask the police to meet him in the nearest mail box.

At the end of the call on 7.15pm, and before the Police arrive is a period of 2 minutes at 7:17pm, where ended in Martin being shot and Zimmerman was arrested by the police.

The recounting of the 2 minutes based on facts and witness testimony are as follow (Discounting Zimmerman own admission)

Fact 1. Zimmerman shot Martin (By officer Timothy Smith )
Fact 2. 14 help (of unknown origin) yelled out at a 38 second span (Recorded 9-1-1 Called)
Witnessed Statement 3. Zimmerman was witnessed being beating by Martin prior to shooting (by Witness John)
Witnessed Statement 4. 2 witness heard no fighting or altercation prior to shooting (By Witness Mary Cutcher and Selma Mora Lamilla)
Witnessed Statement 5. There were scuffling and Zimmerman was on top, walk away with no blood or blood are not visible under dark on his face (By female unnamed Witness)
Fact 6. There were cuts and blood stream down the back of Zimmerman head after the shooting. (by Crime Scene Photo and Witness photo)
Witness Statement 7. He heard scuffling but did not witness the fighting, he was the first one on scene and talk to Zimmerman of what happen as well as taking the first photo of his status after the shot fire (By unnamed witness)
Witness Statement 8. A witness saw a black person on top "Throwing MMA Punches" on a lighter skin male. Help was auditable in the fight but unsure of who is saying. He reaffirm his statement of a darker skin fella on top of a lighter skin fella, punching him.(By unnamed witness)
Witness Statement 9. Martin was on the phone with her before the shooting, claiming someone(Zimmerman) is following him. martin said he lost the man but the man reappear, the witness then instruct Martin run to his father townhouse. She heard martin say "What are you following me for" Where the man, believe to be Zimmerman reply "What are you doing here" She heard altercation, then phone went dead. (By Witness Rachel Jeantel)

Those statement and facts presented are by other interviewed witness, not from Zimmerman account. And below is the Zimmerman recounting his action during that 2 minutes

He was on his way to the grocery store and he spotted Martin, which he think it's suspicious and a person he does not recognize. He then called the non-emergency hotline of the Sanford police instead of calling emergency 911 number. After he saw Martin running, he exited his vehicle and approach the man, while the dispatcher tell him not to do so, he acknowledged and stop purchasing and the phone call indicated that Zimmerman lost Visual sighting with Martin.

After the call, he return to his vehicle and trying to wait out for the police, at this point martin approached and confront him and punch was thrown, the fight evolved as Martin lay on top of him and hitting his head on the paveway.

Zimmerman claim Martin see his gun and the two struggle for it, in the progress a shot is fired by Zimmerman and hit Martin in his chest within 70 yards. Martin felt to the ground. He get up and police arrived at 7:17pm.

Now, if we do a crosscheck with the witness account and Zimmerman story we can have the following picture.

At 7.15 after the call to the dispatch ended, Zimmerman either return to his car or continue to follow Martin, from witness statement 9, we know that Martin is also aware of Zimmerman following him, we can be sure by Zimmerman account and eyes witness 9, that Martin initiated the confrontation with Zimmerman, a fight ensued and At this point, someone yelled help and Zimmerman was being beaten (By both numerous witness account and the crime scene photo), at this point, either both Zimmerman and Martin both went for the gun and the gun went off or Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest. Which is a fact and the final outcome.

There is a reasonable doubt that 2 witness on Statement 4 did not hear the fighting because it occur in the grassed area.

This is the construction on Zimmerman account based on a proportional witness and Zimmerman own statement on the story, and they are matched in between and either side backing up the other side of he story.

Now we move onto the aspect, the view of law.

In United States of America, a Second Degree murder is defined as :

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. At a stoplight the next day, Dan sees Victor riding in the passenger seat of a nearby car. Dan pulls out a gun and fires three shots into the car, missing Victor but killing the driver of the car.

Some jurisdictions make a distinction between different situations that constitute murder and prosecute the charges differently. These states usually break the crime of murder into first degree murder and second degree murder.

Second Degree Murder Overview - FindLaw

Where as Volunteer Manslaughter is defined as

Voluntary Manslaughter: Definition

Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion." The circumstances leading to the killing must be the kind that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed; otherwise, the killing may be charged as a first-degree or second-degree murder.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. In the heat of the moment, Dan picks up a golf club from next to the bed and strikes Victor in the head, killing him instantly.

On the spectrum of homicides, this offense lies somewhere in between the killing of another with malice aforethought (aka, murder) and the excusable, justified, or privileged taking of life that does not constitute a crime, such as some instances of self-defense.

Voluntary manslaughter is a separate concept from involuntary manslaughter and has several definitions depending on what state the crime occurs in. Involuntary manslaughter, on the other hand, occurs when someone dies as a result of the defendant's non-felonious illegal act or as a consequence of the defendant's irresponsibility or recklessness.

Voluntary Manslaughter Overview - FindLaw

With respect to Second Degree Murder
-an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion";

While Zimmerman and Martin encounter is described as "Chance" encounter, there are no way Zimmerman can "plan" the murder before hand. Neither do Zimmerman know anyone from martin side, thus can be concluded as not pre-planned.

With regard to intention, there are also no intention can be deducted if the encounter is a chanced encounter.

-a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life

With a pure confrontation, there are no indication that Zimmerman pull out a firearm first, shall it be there will be some form of indication on that in the account. While Zimmerman did shot Martin, the shot does not come instantly from the encounter. And almost all witness report seeing Zimmerman being beaten for a couple of second to a minute before the shooting, thus indicate that Zimmerman have exhausting all possible solution and account for all possibility of human factor but his own before shooting Martin dead. Thus satisfied the concern of human life.

With respect to Manslaughter

-Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion."The circumstances leading to the killing must be the kind that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed

While no intention to beginning with, Zimmerman also have no intention to kill Martin until the very last moment when he shot him. During the course of the event, Zimmerman is acting in the passive, right down to the final moment. The lack of intention of following martin by the end of the phone call to the dispatch suggested he was to avoid a direct confrontation, not intended to cause one.

And when Martin hit Zimmerman, it is not a emotional damage but an actual damage done to Zimmerman, this does not support the case of manslaughter. Hence does not fit the bill on Manslaughter.
 
.
George Zimmerman was racially motivated, he made an assumption a crime occurred, he knew Travon Martin was black walked in a gated white neighborhood, he gave a location of a crime that never happen, he ignore the dispatcher not to follow Travon Martin, he fully arm when he walk out of the car then proceed to confront and ask question, did George Zimmerman have proper training for the situation he in, there weren't any witness testified they saw everything, there only eyes witness that saw Travon Martin on top and beat up George Zimmerman when they heard the gun shots. No eyes witness testified Travon Martin was the aggressor and rushed to beat the crap out of George Zimmerman. This is a very weak case to acquit someone base on self defend. Both were in a fight and one end up dead because George Zimmerman had the gun with him.
 
.
George Zimmerman was racially motivated, he made an assumption a crime occurred.

Do you have any evidence supporting this statement?

If he did racially motivated, why do he call the police in the first place? Why not just shoot Martin in the chest in the begining??

The very notion of he calling the hot line NOT THE EMERGENCY LINE suggested otherwise.

he gave a location of a crime that never happen

then where is the spot that got his blood all over the sidewalk??

he ignore the dispatcher not to follow Travon Martin, he fully arm when he walk out of the car then proceed to confront and ask question, did George Zimmerman have proper training for the situation he in

As many people say, not following the dispatcher is NOT A CRIME.

How do you know Zimmerman do not have any training on situation that he was in? You know the man yourselves?

there only eyes witness that saw Travon Martin on top and beat up George Zimmerman when they heard the gun shots. No eyes witness testified Travon Martin was the aggressor and rushed to beat the crap out of George Zimmerman

First let's ignore witness 8 and statement and no one ever testified Martin Approach Zimmerman first, are there any evidence suggested otherwise?? I don't know where you live, in America, we gave the "Benefit of the doubt" to the defendent. Not the victim.

Beside witness 8 put Martin as the instigator of the incident, it was his own girl friend for christ sake.

This is a very weak case to acquit someone base on self defend. Both were in a fight and one end up dead because George Zimmerman had the gun with him.

You are wrong, this is a very weak case for the prosecution, there are no witness suggest Zimmerman kill the man in cold blood, all circumstancial evidence point to Martin beat the crap out of zimmerman, prosecution have to be stupid to start the trial by jury. The fact that Jury spen d less than 16 hours for deliberation telling people something.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom