Zimmerman not guilty!

[Lacquer Head]

No one else made it, I really never cared about the trial, but I AM having fun tearing apart the accusations being thrown around. LET'S GET STARTED, SHALL WE!?

First of all, let's start with the racism accusations. Reverend Al Sharpton seems to be the first person to have brought these up. He basically said that a white man shot a black kid. Zimmerman was NOT white, he's rather mixed, mainly Hispanic/Caucasian, but his Great Grandfather was black. I say mainly because it seems to be the official decision or whatever. Anyway, he's not white.

SECONDLY, more accusations came from people claiming he said "****ing coons" whilst in a call with the 911 dispatcher. The official transcript says the particular statement is entirely unintelligible, some people hear "****ing punks" along with other things, but the people looking to make it a race war hear "****ing coons". I...can't make it out either way. Reminds me of those ghost hunter shows that record the sound of wind and hear ghosts saying a word

Now, onto what I can discern from the evidence provided! George Zimmerman called the cops because he saw someone he though suspicious walking through his neighborhood, whether or not because the kid was black is neither here nor there, anyway, he calls 911 and follows the kid, though he SHOULDN'T have, not because of any law, but it's just stupid to follow someone suspicious, if they ARE dangerous, you're a ****. Oh, and Zimmerman was part of the neighborhood watch team. Anyway, he's following the kid and then Treyvon runs and disappears, Zimmerman gets off the phone and this is when it all goes down.

There's another 911 call from a person that's uninvolved that heard a ruckus outside and called the cops. Whilst on the phone, a voice can be heard begging another person to stop before a gun shot. It seems that we live in 1950 and no one could decide which person it was on the tape. When the police arrived, they found Treyvon Martin dead from being shot and George Zimmerman claimed it was self-defense.

The police felt no need to press any charges and let Zimmerman go. Then the press goes apeshit with accusations and all kinds of other things and boom, Zimmerman is charged with murder. The autopsy results showed that Treyvon had no injuries other than from the gunshot, which gunpowder residue suggests was only inches away at the time and abrasions to a finger on his left hand.

Here's an image of Zimmerman after the altercation:



All Treyvon had on his person was a can of Arizona Ice Tea and some skittles, but the tea was found inside of a bush. I'm not trying to theorize, but after disappearing, why was he hiding in the bush?

Now, to me, it seems pretty straight forward. I mean, he COULD have faked all this, but there isn't one shred of evidence to suggest that he did. The burden of proof is on the state, not the defendant. Florida law states that a person can protect themselves with deadly force, if need be. From what I understand, just feeling threatened allows you to use deadly force. Seems kinda...****y to me, but George Zimmerman was well within his rights. He was stupid to follow the kid, especially after being told not to do so, but he broke no law. Being stupid does NOT mean you forfeit your rights to protect yourself. It was a tragedy, both parties were scared and made mistakes, but Treyvon was the one that initiated the confrontation. Just because someone is following you, doesn't mean you can jump them.

THE DEFENSE RESTS!

Really though, I HATE high profile cases, it's sickening that the media blows the most convenient stories into the mainstream, ignoring most other tragedies, but I figured I'd TRY to find and shed some light on the truth.

Source of the autopsy: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/12068703...autopsy-report

The rest can be found within 5 seconds of googling their names.

[HeroZero]

I still get irked by people labeling him a 'child-killer' makes it sound like he killed a twelve year old. I think the prosecution went for too strong of a charge and instead got nothing. I feel manslaughter would have been more appropriate charge but at this point it's moot.

[loaf]

"Still rockin' my khakis with a cuff and a crease." - Dr. Dre

[Odin1199]

So Treyvon jumped him and punched him to the ground, he pulled out a gun, but why didn't he warn him first and started shooting right away? This is where it gets mooty. Treyvon could've continued to attack and Zimmerman had no choice but to put him down. It all happens in a flash and next thing you know you've killed somebody. I guess the way the corpse fell would be a clue if Treyvon was still attacking or not, when Zimmerman pulled out his gun. In any case, this racism uproar is wrong. Zimmerman could've really been innocent, but the black community just see it all one way. It's just ignorant.

[Alpha]

How can it be considered self defence to consciously pursue someone?

How can an unarmed person, moving away from you, who is physically smaller than you, be considered threatening?

By ignoring instructions to wait for people who are actually entitled to execute the will of the law, Zimmerman instigated the altercation.

Why did he shoot to kill?

I cannot fathom why this is not manslaughter at the very least.

[Rhaps]

So Treyvon jumped him and punched him to the ground, he pulled out a gun, but why didn't he warn him first and started shooting right away? This is where it gets mooty. Treyvon could've continued to attack and Zimmerman had no choice but to put him down. It all happens in a flash and next thing you know you've killed somebody. I guess the way the corpse fell would be a clue if Treyvon was still attacking or not, when Zimmerman pulled out his gun. In any case, this racism uproar is wrong. Zimmerman could've really been innocent, but the black community just see it all one way. It's just ignorant.

Why weren't Martin's hands marred/ Martin's person slightly bloody if he was assailing Zimmerman? Zimmerman's blood (from Martin) was on him, so it can't have been raining that hard. That, and the fact that Zimmerman pursued an unarmed person against authorization are what don't sit well with me. My dad lost his dad to a man who shot him for no other reason than being drunk/ challenged after the gunman punched his wife. He walked out of court because he was a cop and used the evidence that he was physically threatened by my grandfather. The case is similar in that aspect, and I feel that both cases ended wrongly. Ignorant or not, murder is murder, and there should've been more consequence. Zimmerman kept his ****ing gun, for christ sakes.

[Lacquer Head]

How can it be considered self defence to consciously pursue someone?

How can an unarmed person, moving away from you, who is physically smaller than you, be considered threatening?

By ignoring instructions to wait for people who are actually entitled to execute the will of the law, Zimmerman instigated the altercation.

Why did he shoot to kill?

I cannot fathom why this is not manslaughter at the very least.

Why weren't Martin's hands marred/ Martin's person slightly bloody if he was assailing Zimmerman? Zimmerman's blood (from Martin) was on him, so it can't have been raining that hard. That, and the fact that Zimmerman pursued an unarmed person against authorization are what don't sit well with me. My dad lost his dad to a man who shot him for no other reason than being drunk/ challenged after the gunman punched his wife. He walked out of court because he was a cop and used the evidence that he was physically threatened by my grandfather. The case is similar in that aspect, and I feel that both cases ended wrongly. Ignorant or not, murder is murder, and there should've been more consequence. Zimmerman kept his ****ing gun, for christ sakes.

1. There's no law that states you can't follow someone. Apparently he matched a neighbor's description of a recent robber, so the neighbor claims, and I would do the same. There has been a problem with break ins around here as well, and if I see someone suspicious walking down the road, I'm going to see where the **** they go. They 911 dispatcher asked him not to continue pursuing, and he didn't. As the phone records show, Treyvon ran and disappeared. A few minutes later, the incident occurred.

2. Treyvon ran home, then came back. His text records support this...in which he calls Zimmerman a creepy cracker.

3. Martin had a bruise on his left hand, other than that, no injuries of any kind...besides the bullet wound. Look at Zimmerman. If you really don't feel that constitutes self-defense...

4. Florida law states that you just have to FEEL threatened to defend yourself, so Zimmerman was WELL within his rights to shoot with the attacker.

5. If someone is on top of you, punching your face in, it's kinda hard to think "well, I'd better try not to kill him, best to just get him off". You're lucky to just get the gun out and use it, let alone think about where you're aiming. And yes, the coroner reports confirm that the gun was only inches away when he shot.

The evidence just plain backs up Zimmerman's claims. There's no RATIONAL reason to believe otherwise. Let's not forget, the burden of proof isn't on the defendant. Hell, the police never planned to press charged til the media got all up in arms. There isn't one shred of evidence to back up the prosecution, it's pretty damn open and shut. It's a tragedy and both sides acted ignorantly, but when it comes down to it, Treyvon is the one that attacked (based on evidence and Zimmerman's testimony, you can say he COULD be lying, but there's just too much evidence to the contrary) which makes him the criminal.

[Rowan]

Alpha, it became self defense when the teen started bashing him.

Although I have no fkn idea how he got off on shooting an unarmed person. That is a rare case which should require extraordinary circumstance. In this particular case, I could have seen it go either way.

[Alpha]

I wrote up a big reply, but I don't even want to do this. I'm too angry. I cannot believe this case.

Edit:

Florida law states that you just have to FEEL threatened to defend yourself, so Zimmerman was WELL within his rights to shoot with the attacker.

Although I will ask you to link to where this is written in law. If I go walk about in Florida, I can legitimately kill anyone that makes me feel threatened?

[Fluffy]

Florida law states that you just have to FEEL threatened to defend yourself, so Zimmerman was WELL within his rights to shoot with the attacker.

So what you're saying is that if Martin felt threatened, he had the right to defend himself and possibly kill Zimmerman?

[Rowan]

So what you're saying is that if Martin felt threatened, he had the right to defend himself and possibly kill Zimmerman?

Since they are the only 2 people involved in the situation, therfor noone elses opinion means shit because noone has a clue of what actually happened. Everything is guessing based on assumption.

[Fluffy]

Since they are the only 2 people involved in the situation, therfor noone elses opinion means shit because noone has a clue of what actually happened. Everything is guessing based on assumption.

And that is what this verdict is based on. Opinions of people, and guessing based on assumption.

[Rowan]

And that is what this verdict is based on. Opinions of people, and guessing based on assumption.

but when people claim to know what sentence should have been passed, makes you seem a little arrogant.

[Fluffy]

but when people claim to know what sentence should have been passed, makes you seem a little arrogant.

Although none of us had to sit through 100% of the evidence presented, the fact is that a jury is made up of people just like those posting here. With how much of this trial was publicized, I'd say their opinion of what sentence should have passed is generally acceptable.

I've been on a jury for murder/manslaughter trials before. Based on the evidence I've seen of this trial, there's no way I would have gone with this verdict.

[HeroZero]

How can it be considered self defence to consciously pursue someone?

what does following someone have to do with self defense?

How can an unarmed person, moving away from you, who is physically smaller than you, be considered threatening?

They weren't threatening till they attacked.

By ignoring instructions to wait for people who are actually entitled to execute the will of the law, Zimmerman instigated the altercation.

The police always tell people to sit tight and not do anything, regardless of the situation. A child could be drowning in a river and they would tell you to wait till help arrived.

Why did he shoot to kill?

When shooting from point blank during a scuffle, he was lucky to hit the person at all. It was dumb luck that he hit both the lung and heart which is pretty much instantly fatal.

I cannot fathom why this is not manslaughter at the very least.

It should have been manslaughter (imo), but the prosecution went for a murder conviction (I think because of media pressure) and they got nothing instead.

I was shocked that they didn't use the stand your ground law (or whatever its actually called in Florida) as part of the defense in this case. Which may be indicative of how lacking the prosecution was on any kind of evidence to get a conviction.

[Sasquatch]

I am amazed at how little people know -- and how much they assume and project -- about this case and the situation.

So Treyvon jumped him and punched him to the ground, he pulled out a gun, but why didn't he warn him first and started shooting right away? This is where it gets mooty. Treyvon could've continued to attack and Zimmerman had no choice but to put him down. It all happens in a flash and next thing you know you've killed somebody. I guess the way the corpse fell would be a clue if Treyvon was still attacking or not, when Zimmerman pulled out his gun.

It wasn't a standoff or a movie boxing scene with two people facing off against each other, one pulls a gun, says a line or two, then shoots the other. It was one person on top of another. Zimmerman, on bottom, feared for his life -- he had no obligation, nor reason, to inform Martin of his possession of a firearm or intent to use it ... especially when Martin was already aware of it and was trying to take it. Zimmerman pulled it out, pointed it at Martin's chest less than a foot away, and pulled the trigger once.

How can it be considered self defence to consciously pursue someone?

It's not the pursuit (which was not illegal) that was self-defense, it was the shooting -- from being on the ground while his skull was bashed against the pavement.

How can an unarmed person, moving away from you, who is physically smaller than you, be considered threatening?

Martin circled back to Zimmerman and attacked him, so Martin was not moving away -- at the time of the altercation, Zimmerman was moving away, and Martin pursued and assaulted him. (By the way, Martin was 25 pounds lighter -- which may or may not have been apparent in the baggy clothing -- and three to four inches taller than Zimmerman.)

By ignoring instructions to wait for people who are actually entitled to execute the will of the law, Zimmerman instigated the altercation.

Not only does a dispatcher (the one who took Zimmerman's call) have absolutely no authority to tell anybody what to do, not only did she not give him any instruction but simply told Zimmerman that something wasn't needed, but also, Zimmerman DID do it. Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle when he was assaulted.

Why did he shoot to kill?

Because some punk was on top of him, punching him, bashing his head against the pavement, and reaching for his firearm, all of which constituted a threat to Zimmerman's life.

I cannot fathom why this is not manslaughter at the very least.

Because it was completely justifiable.

Why weren't Martin's hands marred/ Martin's person slightly bloody if he was assailing Zimmerman? Zimmerman's blood (from Martin) was on him, so it can't have been raining that hard.

Have you ever punched somebody? It takes quite a bit to get blood on your own hands -- usually noses and lips don't start just immediately gushing with blood.

That, and the fact that Zimmerman pursued an unarmed person against authorization are what don't sit well with me.

Zimmerman followed somebody -- whom he didn't know whether was armed or not -- and didn't need a damn bit of authorization, but followed the dispatcher's advice anyway and stopped following to return to his vehicle.

Ignorant or not, murder is murder, and there should've been more consequence. Zimmerman kept his ****ing gun, for christ sakes.

Murder is murder, and self-defense is self-defense, and justifiable homicide is justifiable homicide. This case is not murder. And of course Zimmerman was returned his property -- not only is it his, he's also going to need it now more than ever, with the constant threats he's been receiving for the last year and a half.

4. Florida law states that you just have to FEEL threatened to defend yourself, so Zimmerman was WELL within his rights to shoot with the attacker.

That's an extremely simplistic way to describe a Stand Your Ground law. Florida law doesn't state "that you just have to feel threatened". You would have to prove a reasonable understanding of a threat to your life. For example, if some drunk in a bar wants to take a few swings, you can't just shoot him -- even if he's threatening you, and you feel that it is a legitimate threat that you might get punched. But if some thug assaults you from behind, then pins you to the ground, beating your head into the pavement, trying to get your firearm out of a holster on your person ... that's definitely a legitimate threat that he intends life-threatening injury, and deadly force is an appropriate response.

Hell, Wisconsin doesn't even have a Castle Law or Stand Your Ground Law, and I had absolutely no legal trouble from a situation I was in a few years ago, in which two drunk morons called me to leave threats of bodily harm and death on my voicemail, then drove to my apartment and tried kicking in the door. I pulled a firearm and waited, and from what the DA and the police told me (coinciding with what I already knew to be true), if they had gotten through the door, I would have been within my rights to shoot them.

Although I will ask you to link to where this is written in law. If I go walk about in Florida, I can legitimately kill anyone that makes me feel threatened?

If you can convince a court that the person constituted a legitimate threat to your life.

So what you're saying is that if Martin felt threatened, he had the right to defend himself and possibly kill Zimmerman?

Zimmerman felt threatened because he had a thug on top of him, beating him. Martin could have felt threatened because ... there was a person walking behind them? I don't think that constitutes a legitimate threat.

Based on the evidence I've seen of this trial, there's no way I would have gone with this verdict.

How much have you seen? Obviously not enough. It's pretty obvious that media pressure was the only reason for an arrest in this case in the first place. The police already knew that it was a simple open-and-shut self-defense case.

It should have been manslaughter (imo), but the prosecution went for a murder conviction (I think because of media pressure) and they got nothing instead.

The judge allowed a lesser charge of manslaughter -- basically, when she saw that there was no way Zimmerman would be convicted. The jury acquitted him of that, as well.

I was shocked that they didn't use the stand your ground law (or whatever its actually called in Florida) as part of the defense in this case. Which may be indicative of how lacking the prosecution was on any kind of evidence to get a conviction.

They wouldn't even have needed to. Once the altercation began, Zimmerman didn't have a chance to escape the area.

[Odin1199]

If someone is on top of you, punching your face in, it's kinda hard to think "well, I'd better try not to kill him, best to just get him off". You're lucky to just get the gun out and use it, let alone think about where you're aiming. And yes, the coroner reports confirm that the gun was only inches away when he shot.

Didn't know he was on top of him. In that case Zimmerman had the right to defend himself by any means necessary. Also yeah, he could follow him, since he was the night watch. Why do people have a problem with that? He didn't attack first, he got attacked and had to kill him. End of discussion. The way media blows this out of proportion is sickening.

[Fluffy]

Zimmerman felt threatened because he had a thug on top of him, beating him. Martin could have felt threatened because ... there was a person walking behind them? I don't think that constitutes a legitimate threat.

Threatened because there's a man driving at night, he stops, makes a call and is staring at you. And then when you start running, he gets out of his car and starts running after you.

"A person walking behind them." is not at all what happened.

[Lacquer Head]

Threatened because there's a man driving at night, he stops, makes a call and is staring at you. And then when you start running, he gets out of his car and starts running after you.

"A person walking behind them." is not at all what happened.

...that never happened and no one ever claimed it did. It's on the 911 call, you hear Martin escape and Zimmerman agree not to pursue him

[Fluffy]

...that never happened and no one ever claimed it did. It's on the 911 call, you hear Martin escape and Zimmerman agree not to pursue him

After running after him. So yes, he did. He may have stopped partway, but he ran after him.


Just going to add something, and then I'm probably out.

The worst part of this is that Trayvon Martin is dead, and, whether legally wrong or not, it is ultimately Zimmerman's fault.

Also, the prosecution really should have done a better job, but unfortuantely, what could have been their best evidence is dead.

The scary thing about this verdict, whether it's the correct one or not, is that anyone can start trouble with someone else, be losing a fight terribly, and get away with killing them as long as there isn't enough evidence to show what really happened.

[Pete]

I don't know where this whole "running after" him thing came from. It didn't happen, neither did Zimmerman "stalk" Trayvon. Stalking is defined as a continuous pursuit over an established period of time, say weeks or months, not a general surveillance that Zimmerman was doing as part of his neighborhood watch.

What I don't understand, is if Trayvon really felt so threatened to the point where he felt the need to ambush Zimmerman, why didn't he just go and ask him why he was "following" him? Oh wait, because he wasn't the sweet little angel that the media portrayed him as. He was, for all intents and purposes, an angry thug.

Normal people don't just try to go Rambo on someone if they feel like they're being followed. Hell, I've walked home from train stations late at night and had people take the same path as me, for several blocks. Was I a little leery? Sure, but I wasn't going to just turn around, mount them and start bashing their heads into the ground. And if I did feel truly certain that I was being followed, for whatever reason, I would try to alter my path or maybe double back to see if that person was doing the same, THEN I might ask them what they were doing.

And for the record, a 911 operator has no legal authority. It would be the same thing as dialing zero and asking for their instruction. Now, if you had an actual sworn officer telling you what to do, then that's another story.

[Lacquer Head]

After running after him. So yes, he did. He may have stopped partway, but he ran after him.

Source?

The worst part of this is that Trayvon Martin is dead, and, whether legally wrong or not, it is ultimately Zimmerman's fault.

Actually, it's his own fault

Also, the prosecution really should have done a better job, but unfortuantely, what could have been their best evidence is dead.

Only* evidence. Even if he HAD survived, it would have been his word vs. the word of Zimmerman AND proof to corroborate his claims. It's not ABSOLUTE proof, but it's plenty.

The scary thing about this verdict, whether it's the correct one or not, is that anyone can start trouble with someone else, be losing a fight terribly, and get away with killing them as long as there isn't enough evidence to show what really happened.

No, the great thing about this case is that sticking to the truth and use of proper evidence triumphs over baseless accusation.

[Fluffy]

Source?

It's in the very call you cite. The reason he's asked if he's pursuing is because he's audibly giving chase.

Actually, it's his own fault

Had Zimmerman stayed in his car, this would have never happened. But he wanted to be a hero, because "they always get away". It was a stupid decision that ultimately led to Martin's death.

No, the great thing about this case is that sticking to the truth and use of proper evidence triumphs over baseless accusation.

There is no truth here other than the one we are told is supposed to be the truth. Anyone who would believe this to be "the truth" so easily is a fool. It very well may be, but nobody truly knows except Zimmerman and a dead kid.

[HeroZero]

The judge allowed a lesser charge of manslaughter -- basically, when she saw that there was no way Zimmerman would be convicted. The jury acquitted him of that, as well.

That I was not aware of, definitely fine with final verdict then.

[Lacquer Head]

It's in the very call you cite. The reason he's asked if he's pursuing is because he's audibly giving chase.

No, he's audibly following, but not running.

Had Zimmerman stayed in his car, this would have never happened. But he wanted to be a hero, because "they always get away". It was a stupid decision that ultimately led to Martin's death.

Aww, too bad he didn't stay in his car, he should have known he would be attacked.

There is no truth here other than the one we are told is supposed to be the truth. Anyone who would believe this to be "the truth" so easily is a fool. It very well may be, but nobody truly knows except Zimmerman and a dead kid.

Innocent until proven guilty. I'm not saying it's the absolute truth, but it's by far the most likely and logical scenario and there's no reason to believe otherwise. If something in Zimmerman's testimony didn't match up or make sense, then yes, there would be reasonable suspicion, but otherwise, it's a typical self-defense case.

[Fluffy]

Allow me to propose a scenario for you then. Foreword: this has nothing to do with why I believe he should have been convicted of manslaughter, nor am I saying this is what happened. It's simply a hypothetical scenario.

I'm walking home at 7 PM when a man drives up in a truck and stops. He's staring at me intently while talking on the phone. At this point I'm worried and decide to start running and hide. He starts after me, stops, stops his call shortly afterwards, and then continues his pursuit. He finds me and tries to restrain me. I try to get hiim off of me but can't and decide to punch him in the face. He still won't let go, I knock him over, get on top of him and continue to punch him. The whole time he doesn't fight back; instead, he's trying to get his gun. He manages to get it and shoots me, and I'm dead.

All of the evidence is the same as in this case, and the man is ultimately acquitted of all charges.

Is this justice? I don't see how it's not scary that someone can get away with that kind of scenario.

[Lacquer Head]

Allow me to propose a scenario for you then. Foreword: this has nothing to do with why I believe he should have been convicted of manslaughter, nor am I saying this is what happened. It's simply a hypothetical scenario.

I'm walking home at 7 PM when a man drives up in a truck and stops. He's staring at me intently while talking on the phone. At this point I'm worried and decide to start running and hide. He starts after me, stops, stops his call shortly afterwards, and then continues his pursuit. He finds me and tries to restrain me. I try to get hiim off of me but can't and decide to punch him in the face. He still won't let go, I knock him over, get on top of him and continue to punch him. The whole time he doesn't fight back; instead, he's trying to get his gun. He manages to get it and shoots me, and I'm dead.

All of the evidence is the same as in this case, and the man is ultimately acquitted of all charges.

Is this justice? I don't see how it's not scary that someone can get away with that kind of scenario.

Why (and how) would a guy chase you, allow himself to get pinned down, suppress the instinct to defend himself, fight back, keep his calm and commit a murder? That's just stupid. You also chose to omit the part where he's following you, you run home, he stops pursuing, then you return 2 minutes later. What possible motive is there, anyway? Even serial killers protect themselves.

[Fluffy]

Why (and how) would a guy chase you, allow himself to get pinned down, suppress the instinct to defend himself, fight back, keep his calm and commit a murder? That's just stupid. You also chose to omit the part where he's following you, you run home, he stops pursuing, then you return 2 minutes later. What possible motive is there, anyway? Even serial killers protect themselves.

You must have missed the part where he was too busy reaching for his gun to fight back.

[Lacquer Head]

You must have missed the part where he was too busy reaching for his gun to fight back.

I think he was too busy being punched in the face and having his head slammed against the sidewalk

[Fluffy]

I think he was too busy being punched in the face and having his head slammed against the sidewalk

What you think doesn't matter. What I just mentioned is what happened in the hypothetical scenario.