Being proven "not guilty" is not synonymous with "innocence." A jury of Zimmerman's peers found that there was insufficient evidence to convict, but it doesn't mean he was simultaneously innocent. A lot people seem to be having a hard time separating that.
I can see how those with a black and white view of the world, those who allow for no nuance or gray, would have a hard time not feeling completely vindicated by a verdict that acquitted a guy who probably championed the same gun values that they do.
But the reality is, a not-guilty verdict only meant he couldn't be convicted. It doesn't mean he was also innocent, and it certainly wasn't a stamp of approval for someone's beliefs on gun laws or self-defense laws.
The only question that was answered in the court room was whether or not the State had met it's burden of proof.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
For some reason your having an extremely hard time grasping what is and what isn't against the law. No, im not, Im just pointing out that some of these situations depend on ONE persons emotional state.
growling at someone - Is not illegal, and also not "life threatening"
Your neighbor tapping you on the shoulder - is not illegal, and also not "life threatening" (since in your scenario your trying to conclude the something as an innocent tap from an innocent person, may catch someone off guard and cause them to kill them out of perceived self defense.) Like you said earlier, what is the cut off then? someone must be bleeding? I honestly felt threatened the night my neighbor came up behind me. It was similar to the night treyvon was killed. Rainy and dark. The only difference is, the neighbor touched me but didnt draw blood?
Attacking/Assaulitng someone - IS illegal - Also it is life threatening if someone is on top of you (while your in a helpless position) hitting and slamming your head into the concrete. The concrete in this scenario can also be used as a weapon. (which is what treyvon did) Of course it is, but the many, many people that questoin Zimmerman, simply wonder if Treyvon saw a gun or felt threatened as well. Have you considered whether treyvon felt threatened?
My point on the rape analogy which you still can't seem to get. Well, as I suggested, there are many ways one can rip a blouse, but if the attacker has his pants down and is about to rape a person, its evident what is happening. But where your analogy goes wrong, is there is no room for the idiotic thing we sometimes hear about rape regarding if she was asking for it, her clothes were provacative. etc (those are the worst)... meaning, that your scenario of rape completely leaves out the idea of Zimmerman (a man with a gun), following a person who might have felt threatened. Those factors CANNOT be similar to a rape case, therefore its irrelevant, sorry.
If the rapist has you on the ground taking his pants off trying to pin you down to rape you and then rips your blouse. According to you a ripped blouse is not a sever enough injury or action to defend your self with a gun.
Just like you said that zimmerman with martin on top of punching him in the nose/slamming his head into the concrete yet only leaves scrapes and a broken nose.
According to you a punch in the face not a sever enough injury or action to defend your self with a gun.
So in both of these cases the injuries are minimal, and I assume since your consistent, that in both of these instances that using a gun to shoot/kill the person on top of you out of fear for your life (self defense) is both excessive and should be charged with manslaughter right?
Injuries can be different, motive says it all. There is another factor you're leaving out, along with the important "who accosted who" angle... motive. If you want to use rape as an analogy to the Zimmerman case, then the person being raped should be tailing the rapist with a loaded gun in a dark rainy backyard too. But honestly, I get what you're saying, and I just think the two are different because of motive. and again, I think what Zimmerman did was within the law. I just think he''s a piece of shit and manslaughter was definitely something to consider.
Your not going to believe this, but people that have CC, carry guns on them. Nothing illegal or "motive" about someone who legally register their gun and pays the permit to have a CC.
Your also not going to believe this. Some people, me included. Will following a suspicious person in their neighborhood, especially one that had an entire binder full of criminal activity (thefts/break-ins) submitted to the court to show the "motive" of why zimmerman would follow the suspicious person and CALL THE POLICE.
your making assumptions for the actions zimmerman took and trying to turn them into motives. The STATE tried to do the same thing if you actually watch/read the trial. and guess what there is/was no evidence in those assumptions.
Your also seem to be forgetting one important aspect. Zimmerman account of the story held up to all the evidence in court. (Which is why the state kept changing their charges) Zimmerman was near the T when he said "OK" to the dispatcher. 4 minutes later when the attack began, he was near the T. This timeline was proven thoroughly based on a variety of evidence.
Being proven "not guilty" is not synonymous with "innocence." A jury of Zimmerman's peers found that there was insufficient evidence to convict, but it doesn't mean he was simultaneously innocent. A lot people seem to be having a hard time separating that.
I can see how those with a black and white view of the world, those who allow for no nuance or gray, would have a hard time not feeling completely vindicated by a verdict that acquitted a guy who probably championed the same gun values that they do.
But the reality is, a not-guilty verdict only meant he couldn't be convicted. It doesn't mean he was also innocent, and it certainly wasn't a stamp of approval for someone's beliefs on gun laws or self-defense laws.
The only question that was answered in the court room was whether or not the State had met it's burden of proof.
Self defense. They couldn't prove that he didn't act in self defense. It is pretty black and white...
Being proven "not guilty" is not synonymous with "innocence." A jury of Zimmerman's peers found that there was insufficient evidence to convict, but it doesn't mean he was simultaneously innocent. A lot people seem to be having a hard time separating that.
I can see how those with a black and white view of the world, those who allow for no nuance or gray, would have a hard time not feeling completely vindicated by a verdict that acquitted a guy who probably championed the same gun values that they do.
But the reality is, a not-guilty verdict only meant he couldn't be convicted. It doesn't mean he was also innocent, and it certainly wasn't a stamp of approval for someone's beliefs on gun laws or self-defense laws.
The only question that was answered in the court room was whether or not the State had met it's burden of proof.
Self defense. They couldn't prove that he didn't act in self defense. It is pretty black and white...
Sure. Reread your statement though. "They couldn't prove that he didn't act in self defense." Just because the negative of something isn't proven, does not mean that the positive is.
In other words, just because the State couldn't prove he didn't act in self-defense does not mean that he DID act in self-defense. The State had the burden and they could not meet it, according to the Constitutionally-mandated jury of his peers. That jury was charged only with determining whether the State met it's burden. Period. They passed no judgment on whether he was actually innocent or whether he acted in self-defense, so why do you continue to?
You've waged a long argument in this thread on the premise that because the State didn't meet it's burden, Mr. Zimmerman therefore must either be innocent or have acted in self-defense or both. Legally, that's untrue because the jury was not tasked with finding innocence, they were tasked with measuring evidence to the standard of proof. Logically, that's not true because again, absence of proof for the negative does not necessitate a finding of the positive. In short, "not guilty" is not the equivalent of "innocent."
The only question that was answered in that courtroom was whether the State met it's burden. There are no other conclusions to be drawn about gun laws, self-defense laws or what really happened that night.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Your not going to believe this, but people that have CC, carry guns on them. Nothing illegal or "motive" about someone who legally register their gun and pays the permit to have a CC.
Your also not going to believe this. Some people, me included. Will following a suspicious person in their neighborhood, especially one that had an entire binder full of criminal activity (thefts/break-ins) submitted to the court to show the "motive" of why zimmerman would follow the suspicious person and CALL THE POLICE. Yes, you call the police, follow the directions from dispatch, and let the POLICE do their job at some point.
your making assumptions for the actions zimmerman took and trying to turn them into motives. The STATE tried to do the same thing if you actually watch/read the trial. and guess what there is/was no evidence in those assumptions. Well, the only two things we have are our assumptions, and/or believing a proven liar who acted sketchy.
Your also seem to be forgetting one important aspect. Zimmerman account of the story held up to all the evidence in court. THERE"S ZERO EVIDENCE WHETHER TREYVON FELT THREATENED or NOT CAUSE HE'S DEAD (Which is why the state kept changing their charges) Zimmerman was near the T when he said "OK" to the dispatcher. 4 minutes later when the attack began, he was near the T. This timeline was proven thoroughly based on a variety of evidence. Yes, and he went against all the directions of the professionals.
thats fine and dandy, but if you carry a gun, you should consider what might happen if you put yourself in that situation. I just hope people with CC learned something from this case (as well as hot-headed teenagers). Its simply not worth it to go too far. Zimmerman's decisions were obviously poor decisions and MArtin was doing nothing wrong,,,What Zimmerman did was simply unnecessary (obviously form the facts of the case, skittles, drink and NBA game was his plan apparently) following martin on foot (mayb in the car is OK)., and if you did the same things as Zimemrman did, getting out of the car and following a kid in the dark and rain, I'd label you or anyone else an idiot.
Plase answer me this -- If you were in the same situation, you're telling me you'd do the same things as Zimmerman??
Sure. Reread your statement though. "They couldn't prove that he didn't act in self defense." Just because the negative of something isn't proven, does not mean that the positive is.
In other words, just because the State couldn't prove he didn't act in self-defense does not mean that he DID act in self-defense. The State had the burden and they could not meet it, according to the Constitutionally-mandated jury of his peers. That jury was charged only with determining whether the State met it's burden. Period. They passed no judgment on whether he was actually innocent or whether he acted in self-defense, so why do you continue to?
You've waged a long argument in this thread on the premise that because the State didn't meet it's burden, Mr. Zimmerman therefore must either be innocent or have acted in self-defense or both. Legally, that's untrue because the jury was not tasked with finding innocence, they were tasked with measuring evidence to the standard of proof. Logically, that's not true because again, absence of proof for the negative does not necessitate a finding of the positive. In short, "not guilty" is not the equivalent of "innocent."
The only question that was answered in that courtroom was whether the State met it's burden. There are no other conclusions to be drawn about gun laws, self-defense laws or what really happened that night.
Whats your point with this. Everyone knows Zimmerman is guilty of killing someone, its whether it was in self defense or not.
What your saying could be said about any criminal case ever, since you have to prove guilt based on the evidence in the case.
So whats your point in posting this? I think everybody on this planet knows that your guilt/innocence in court will always come down to the evidence present or lack there of.
People can only go by what evidence is presented in court, unless your a fan of making assumptions.
Sure. Reread your statement though. "They couldn't prove that he didn't act in self defense." Just because the negative of something isn't proven, does not mean that the positive is.
In other words, just because the State couldn't prove he didn't act in self-defense does not mean that he DID act in self-defense. The State had the burden and they could not meet it, according to the Constitutionally-mandated jury of his peers. That jury was charged only with determining whether the State met it's burden. Period. They passed no judgment on whether he was actually innocent or whether he acted in self-defense, so why do you continue to?
You've waged a long argument in this thread on the premise that because the State didn't meet it's burden, Mr. Zimmerman therefore must either be innocent or have acted in self-defense or both. Legally, that's untrue because the jury was not tasked with finding innocence, they were tasked with measuring evidence to the standard of proof. Logically, that's not true because again, absence of proof for the negative does not necessitate a finding of the positive. In short, "not guilty" is not the equivalent of "innocent."
The only question that was answered in that courtroom was whether the State met it's burden. There are no other conclusions to be drawn about gun laws, self-defense laws or what really happened that night.
Whats your point with this. Everyone knows Zimmerman is guilty of killing someone, its whether it was in self defense or not.
What your saying could be said about any criminal case ever, since you have to prove guilt based on the evidence in the case.
So whats your point in posting this? I think everybody on this planet knows that your guilt/innocence in court will always come down to the evidence present or lack there of.
People can only go by what evidence is presented in court, unless your a fan of making assumptions.
I think its a point to consider in relation to what the jurors said after the case, but we all know you dont care about that... Personally, I think there was little evidence of anything aside form Zimmermans injuries and his claims that had to do with the provocation of the fight. It's a case where there are a lot of unanswered questions and even the jurors were upset and questioning their own decisions. I believe one juror said they were forced to not guilty, but felt an injustice. Its just interesting to the specifics of this case. Its easy to see why its not black and white to some people...as seen in the Casey Anthony case as well - the laws arent perfect.
Your not going to believe this, but people that have CC, carry guns on them. Nothing illegal or "motive" about someone who legally register their gun and pays the permit to have a CC.
Your also not going to believe this. Some people, me included. Will following a suspicious person in their neighborhood, especially one that had an entire binder full of criminal activity (thefts/break-ins) submitted to the court to show the "motive" of why zimmerman would follow the suspicious person and CALL THE POLICE. Yes, you call the police, follow the directions from dispatch, and let the POLICE do their job at some point. Nothing wrong or illegal with what Zimmerman did, dispatch have no authority and you should also know what dispatch specifically said, which was "Ok, we don't NEED you to do that". They weren't giving him a command or an order. You must have gotten your information from one of the media outlets that doctored the audio tapes.
your making assumptions for the actions zimmerman took and trying to turn them into motives. The STATE tried to do the same thing if you actually watch/read the trial. and guess what there is/was no evidence in those assumptions. Well, the only two things we have are our assumptions, and/or believing a proven liar who acted sketchy. Ill go with the evidence, and the word of someone who's story matched the evidence. I think that it is a much safer and smarter option than leaning towards assumptions.
Your also seem to be forgetting one important aspect. Zimmerman account of the story held up to all the evidence in court. THERE"S ZERO EVIDENCE WHETHER TREYVON FELT THREATENED or NOT CAUSE HE'S DEADIt does not matter if Treyvon felt threatened, that does not give you the right to attack someone who is doing nothing illegal or threatening. (Which is why the state kept changing their charges) Zimmerman was near the T when he said "OK" to the dispatcher. 4 minutes later when the attack began, he was near the T. This timeline was proven thoroughly based on a variety of evidence. Yes, and he went against all the directions of the professionals.
What professional directions did he go against. Please quote...
thats fine and dandy, but if you carry a gun, you should consider what might happen if you put yourself in that situation. I just hope people with CC learned something from this case (as well as hot-headed teenagers). Its simply not worth it to go too far. Zimmerman's decisions were obviously poor decisions and MArtin was doing nothing wrong,,,What Zimmerman did was simply unnecessary (obviously form the facts of the case, skittles, drink and NBA game was his plan apparently) following martin on foot (mayb in the car is OK)., and if you did the same things as Zimemrman did, getting out of the car and following a kid in the dark and rain, I'd label you or anyone else an idiot. Zimmerman may not have made the best decision, but still, its not a decision where you lose your right to self defense. I think the skittles and drink according to Treyvons own facebook messages was more for drug use. But please keep painting him as this innocent child.
Plase answer me this -- If you were in the same situation, you're telling me you'd do the same things as Zimmerman??
I don't know what I would do in the "same situation" but I will tell you that, I have asked teens before, what they were up to when I walked my dog on friday and saturday nights. We've had vandals in our neighborhood and its also a development neighborhood meaning there is only about 15 - 20 houses and several that are in the process of being built. Most roads are dead ends right now because "most" of the neighborhood is not developed, so if/when it has happened, i do my community service by looking out for both my neighbors and the builder because they also get alot of building materials stolen. I don't go out of my way to follow or pursue, but I will certainly ask questions to someone I've never seen before. I do that alot at our community pool. Its only for people of the neighborhood as part of our HOA fees, there have been many times where people will sneak in or jump the fence at night and go swimming, so I will ask If I feel something isn't right...
Blockhead, I heard the original tapes of the phone conversation , not the doctored ones. Those were the directions from the professionals, whose job it is to connect the citizens with police. They suggested Zimmerman wait near an identifiable place. he said the mailboxes will do. Then he went in the opposite directions to pursue Martin. I know he didnt do anything illegal according to his story. Im fully aware of that.
It very much does matter if Treyvon felt threatened. If he saw a person following him with a gun, a jury might think his rights to self defense included kicking Zimmerman's ass.
And for one who condones the shit out of others assumptions, I find it really wired that you'd assume the skittles were for this drug concoction.
There's a right an wrong way to ask questions and keep an eye on your community. Zimmerman also likely knew this since he was citizen watch guy... But I'm really glad to hear you wouldnt pursue as Zimmerman did. And I bet most CC wouldnt have done what Zimmerman did. At least, I hope.
Blockhead, I heard the original tapes of the phone conversation , not the doctored ones. Those were the directions from the professionals, whose job it is to connect the citizens with police. They suggested Zimmerman wait near an identifiable place. he said the mailboxes will do. Then he went in the opposite directions to pursue Martin. I know he didnt do anything illegal according to his story. Im fully aware of that.
It very much does matter if Treyvon felt threatened. If he saw a person following him with a gun, a jury might think his rights to self defense included kicking Zimmerman's ass.
And for one who condones the shit out of others assumptions, I find it really wired that you'd assume the skittles were for this drug concoction.
There's a right an wrong way to ask questions and keep an eye on your community. Zimmerman also likely knew this since he was citizen watch guy... But I'm really glad to hear you wouldnt pursue as Zimmerman did. And I bet most CC wouldnt have done what Zimmerman did. At least, I hope.
Let me add who cares what the skittles were being used for. Who cares if Trayvon was high as a kite. That is the least important thing about this case. And I totally agree in a thread FULL of assumptions that is the ultimate assumption.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Being proven "not guilty" is not synonymous with "innocence." A jury of Zimmerman's peers found that there was insufficient evidence to convict, but it doesn't mean he was simultaneously innocent. A lot people seem to be having a hard time separating that.
I can see how those with a black and white view of the world, those who allow for no nuance or gray, would have a hard time not feeling completely vindicated by a verdict that acquitted a guy who probably championed the same gun values that they do.
But the reality is, a not-guilty verdict only meant he couldn't be convicted. It doesn't mean he was also innocent, and it certainly wasn't a stamp of approval for someone's beliefs on gun laws or self-defense laws.
The only question that was answered in the court room was whether or not the State had met it's burden of proof.
Self defense. They couldn't prove that he didn't act in self defense. It is pretty black and white...
The court, the evidence, the laws...aren't really an issue in putting blame on a person being dead. If you strip it down to basics...there was a pus that had irrational fears...armed himself because he was a puss...and looked for baddies. He found one..called the cops..they said stay away and he didn't cause he had gun (beer) muscles...and because of his actions a person died. If he didnt' have a gun and if he listened to the dispatcher none of this would have happened. If I had some punk following me I'd be pissed as well and if some vigilanti wanna be cop follows and harrassmes me I'd be pissed as well. fk wanna be gun muscle humans.
Whats your point with this. Everyone knows Zimmerman is guilty of killing someone, its whether it was in self defense or not.
What your saying could be said about any criminal case ever, since you have to prove guilt based on the evidence in the case.
So whats your point in posting this? I think everybody on this planet knows that your guilt/innocence in court will always come down to the evidence present or lack there of.
People can only go by what evidence is presented in court, unless your a fan of making assumptions.
My point in all of this is several people persist in arguing Zimmerman's innocence based on the not guilty verdict. That tells me people are making illogical leaps about what happened in that courtroom. His innocence wasn't any more proven than his guilt was.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Blockhead, I heard the original tapes of the phone conversation , not the doctored ones. Those were the directions from the professionals, whose job it is to connect the citizens with police. They suggested Zimmerman wait near an identifiable place. he said the mailboxes will do. Then he went in the opposite directions to pursue Martin. I know he didnt do anything illegal according to his story. Im fully aware of that. Again, dispatch have no authority and are not LEO, so again, what he did is not illegal.
I am going to ask you this question one time - Why do you ASSUME Zimmerman is lying about his actions/story, IF thYe match all the evidence from the scene, You do realize they had a pathology expert take the stand, all injuries were consistent with his story. SO WHY DO YOU KEEP ASSUMING "HIS STORY"IS LYING WHEN IT WAS PROVEN TO MATCH THE EVIDENCE OF THE CASE?
It very much does matter if Treyvon felt threatened. If he saw a person following him with a gun, a jury might think his rights to self defense included kicking Zimmerman's ass. Its a known fact that Zimmerman was not following Treyvon with a gun due to his phone call to Rachel Jeantel. Its so much of a know fact that the state never even pursued this assumption. Why are you trying to make up so many different scenarios?
And for one who condones the shit out of others assumptions, I find it really wired that you'd assume the skittles were for this drug concoction. Why don't you look up Martins facebook messages in June of 2011. Specifically June 27th. Candy and Arizona watermelon are two of the ingredients for lean.
There's a right an wrong way to ask questions and keep an eye on your community. Zimmerman also likely knew this since he was citizen watch guy... But I'm really glad to hear you wouldnt pursue as Zimmerman did. And I bet most CC wouldnt have done what Zimmerman did. At least, I hope.
Pursue - Verb - Follow (someone of something) to catch or attack them...
Strong assumption your making there about Zimmerman - Proof pleas?
And we both know that following someone gives that person the right to attack/assault you. Right?
And we both know that following someone gives up your right to self defense. Right?
Blockhead, I heard the original tapes of the phone conversation , not the doctored ones. Those were the directions from the professionals, whose job it is to connect the citizens with police. They suggested Zimmerman wait near an identifiable place. he said the mailboxes will do. Then he went in the opposite directions to pursue Martin. I know he didnt do anything illegal according to his story. Im fully aware of that.
It very much does matter if Treyvon felt threatened. If he saw a person following him with a gun, a jury might think his rights to self defense included kicking Zimmerman's ass.
And for one who condones the shit out of others assumptions, I find it really wired that you'd assume the skittles were for this drug concoction.
There's a right an wrong way to ask questions and keep an eye on your community. Zimmerman also likely knew this since he was citizen watch guy... But I'm really glad to hear you wouldnt pursue as Zimmerman did. And I bet most CC wouldnt have done what Zimmerman did. At least, I hope.
Let me add who cares what the skittles were being used for. Who cares if Trayvon was high as a kite. That is the least important thing about this case. And I totally agree in a thread FULL of assumptions that is the ultimate assumption.
Your right it doesnt matter, but Trayvon being high that night does again prove that Zimmerman wasn't lying when he told the dispatcher that "he looks like hes on drugs".
Being proven "not guilty" is not synonymous with "innocence." A jury of Zimmerman's peers found that there was insufficient evidence to convict, but it doesn't mean he was simultaneously innocent. A lot people seem to be having a hard time separating that.
I can see how those with a black and white view of the world, those who allow for no nuance or gray, would have a hard time not feeling completely vindicated by a verdict that acquitted a guy who probably championed the same gun values that they do.
But the reality is, a not-guilty verdict only meant he couldn't be convicted. It doesn't mean he was also innocent, and it certainly wasn't a stamp of approval for someone's beliefs on gun laws or self-defense laws.
The only question that was answered in the court room was whether or not the State had met it's burden of proof.
Self defense. They couldn't prove that he didn't act in self defense. It is pretty black and white...
The court, the evidence, the laws...aren't really an issue in putting blame on a person being dead. If you strip it down to basics...there was a pus that had irrational fears...armed himself because he was a puss...and looked for baddies. He found one..called the cops..they said stay away and he didn't cause he had gun (beer) muscles...and because of his actions a person died. If he didnt' have a gun and if he listened to the dispatcher none of this would have happened. If I had some punk following me I'd be pissed as well and if some vigilanti wanna be cop follows and harrassmes me I'd be pissed as well. fk wanna be gun muscle humans.
Irrational fear???
The defense submitted a binder of all the criminal activity (burglaries/thefts) that was happening in that neighborhood.
Whats your point with this. Everyone knows Zimmerman is guilty of killing someone, its whether it was in self defense or not.
What your saying could be said about any criminal case ever, since you have to prove guilt based on the evidence in the case.
So whats your point in posting this? I think everybody on this planet knows that your guilt/innocence in court will always come down to the evidence present or lack there of.
People can only go by what evidence is presented in court, unless your a fan of making assumptions.
My point in all of this is several people persist in arguing Zimmerman's innocence based on the not guilty verdict. That tells me people are making illogical leaps about what happened in that courtroom. His innocence wasn't any more proven than his guilt was.
Considering how much his story was consistent with the evidence/pathologist...
Again, dispatch have no authority and are not LEO, so again, what he did is not illegal.
I am going to ask you this question one time - Why do you ASSUME Zimmerman is lying about his actions/story, IF thYe match all the evidence from the scene, You do realize they had a pathology expert take the stand, all injuries were consistent with his story. SO WHY DO YOU KEEP ASSUMING "HIS STORY"IS LYING WHEN IT WAS PROVEN TO MATCH THE EVIDENCE OF THE CASE? First of all, you said it yourself, there is no telling who actually started the fight. That is just Zimmermans word. Zero evidence. I assume Zimmerman is sketchy because he did lie about several other things.
Its a known fact that Zimmerman was not following Treyvon with a gun due to his phone call to Rachel Jeantel. Its so much of a know fact that the state never even pursued this assumption. Why are you trying to make up so many different scenarios?I just cant believe Zimmerman's story that easily, thats all. I'm just wondering since he's a liar and seemed to want to do this vigilate justice against the suggestions of the professionals, how else the situation could have happened. I also constantly remind myself that had Zimmermna not been so over zealous, Treyvon might still be alive. And its also possible that Treyvon saw the gun at some point and thought Zimmerman would use it, whether it was holstered or not. None of those questions will ever be answered, but I feel its better to ask these questions rather that believe the story of a proven liar and sketchy motives. Remember, he called dispatchers dozens of times, which amounted to nothing.
Why don't you look up Martins facebook messages in June of 2011. Specifically June 27th. Candy and Arizona watermelon are two of the ingredients for lean. assumptions, assumptions... I'm guessing you've never been high (thats a good thing probably), but Zimmerman saying Treyvon looked high is ridiculous.
Pursue - Verb - Follow (someone of something) to catch or attack them...
Strong assumption your making there about Zimmerman - Proof pleas? um, what? Zimmerman followed Treyvon. Yes, "Pursued" him. Why are you arguing stupid semantics now suddenly.. because thats all you can focus on?
And we both know that following someone gives that person the right to attack/assault you. Right?
And we both know that following someone gives up your right to self defense. Right?
Of course not, but you still wont answer whether or not there is a possibility that Treyvon felt like his own life was in danger. That is something none of us will ever know. I'll make up a million scenarios if I want. Treyon might not wanted to lead someone to his home. Then he might have seen a gun during a pushing match, who knows?
Whats your point with this. Everyone knows Zimmerman is guilty of killing someone, its whether it was in self defense or not.
What your saying could be said about any criminal case ever, since you have to prove guilt based on the evidence in the case.
So whats your point in posting this? I think everybody on this planet knows that your guilt/innocence in court will always come down to the evidence present or lack there of.
People can only go by what evidence is presented in court, unless your a fan of making assumptions.
My point in all of this is several people persist in arguing Zimmerman's innocence based on the not guilty verdict. That tells me people are making illogical leaps about what happened in that courtroom. His innocence wasn't any more proven than his guilt was.
Considering how much his story was consistent with the evidence/pathologist...
No, technically and legally, he was only found not guilty. Innocence was not found or at issue. Anything else is and will continue to be pure speculation, most of which appears to be biased by a purposeful misunderstanding of or agendaed view of the proceedings.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — George Zimmerman’s wife has called police to her father’s house, saying the former neighborhood watch volunteer who was acquitted of murder threatened her with a gun.
Lake Mary Police Chief Steve Bracknell says Shellie Zimmerman called police shortly after 2 p.m. Monday.
Bracknell says Zimmerman hasn’t been arrested and officers are at the house trying to determine what happened.
Shellie Zimmerman filed for divorce last week.
In the divorce petition, Shellie Zimmerman says she and her husband separated a month after Zimmerman was acquitted of any crime for fatally shooting Trayvon Martin last July.
Zimmerman allegedly punched his father in law in the face? Ironic that he was allowed to kill Zimmerman for that.
George, you'll figure this all out dude, there's time.. You're still young.
Zimmerman allegedly punched his father in law in the face? Ironic that he was allowed to kill Zimmerman for that.
George, you'll figure this all out dude, there's time.. You're still young.
i have a gut feeling zimmerman is going to have a bad ending. i don't know why, but i just have this feeling.
i don't know why i feel like that, but i am thinking if he doesn't chill out, he might get all Billy Badass on the wrong person, and he might not be able to skin that gun fast enough...
what a terrible life it must be to be living life while looking over your shoulder the whole time.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Well ... I feel bad for having defended this guy in the past.
We made it a race issue when it is now clear it was a dipshit issue ... and Zimmerman is without a doubt a dipshit of the highest caliber and has severe aggression issues.
How fucking dumb do you have to be to get yourself involved in multiple 911 calls after (literally) getting away with murder???
Comments
I can see how those with a black and white view of the world, those who allow for no nuance or gray, would have a hard time not feeling completely vindicated by a verdict that acquitted a guy who probably championed the same gun values that they do.
But the reality is, a not-guilty verdict only meant he couldn't be convicted. It doesn't mean he was also innocent, and it certainly wasn't a stamp of approval for someone's beliefs on gun laws or self-defense laws.
The only question that was answered in the court room was whether or not the State had met it's burden of proof.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Your not going to believe this, but people that have CC, carry guns on them. Nothing illegal or "motive" about someone who legally register their gun and pays the permit to have a CC.
Your also not going to believe this. Some people, me included. Will following a suspicious person in their neighborhood, especially one that had an entire binder full of criminal activity (thefts/break-ins) submitted to the court to show the "motive" of why zimmerman would follow the suspicious person and CALL THE POLICE.
your making assumptions for the actions zimmerman took and trying to turn them into motives. The STATE tried to do the same thing if you actually watch/read the trial. and guess what there is/was no evidence in those assumptions.
Your also seem to be forgetting one important aspect. Zimmerman account of the story held up to all the evidence in court. (Which is why the state kept changing their charges) Zimmerman was near the T when he said "OK" to the dispatcher. 4 minutes later when the attack began, he was near the T. This timeline was proven thoroughly based on a variety of evidence.
Sure. Reread your statement though. "They couldn't prove that he didn't act in self defense." Just because the negative of something isn't proven, does not mean that the positive is.
In other words, just because the State couldn't prove he didn't act in self-defense does not mean that he DID act in self-defense. The State had the burden and they could not meet it, according to the Constitutionally-mandated jury of his peers. That jury was charged only with determining whether the State met it's burden. Period. They passed no judgment on whether he was actually innocent or whether he acted in self-defense, so why do you continue to?
You've waged a long argument in this thread on the premise that because the State didn't meet it's burden, Mr. Zimmerman therefore must either be innocent or have acted in self-defense or both. Legally, that's untrue because the jury was not tasked with finding innocence, they were tasked with measuring evidence to the standard of proof. Logically, that's not true because again, absence of proof for the negative does not necessitate a finding of the positive. In short, "not guilty" is not the equivalent of "innocent."
The only question that was answered in that courtroom was whether the State met it's burden. There are no other conclusions to be drawn about gun laws, self-defense laws or what really happened that night.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
thats fine and dandy, but if you carry a gun, you should consider what might happen if you put yourself in that situation. I just hope people with CC learned something from this case (as well as hot-headed teenagers). Its simply not worth it to go too far. Zimmerman's decisions were obviously poor decisions and MArtin was doing nothing wrong,,,What Zimmerman did was simply unnecessary (obviously form the facts of the case, skittles, drink and NBA game was his plan apparently) following martin on foot (mayb in the car is OK)., and if you did the same things as Zimemrman did, getting out of the car and following a kid in the dark and rain, I'd label you or anyone else an idiot.
Plase answer me this -- If you were in the same situation, you're telling me you'd do the same things as Zimmerman??
What your saying could be said about any criminal case ever, since you have to prove guilt based on the evidence in the case.
So whats your point in posting this? I think everybody on this planet knows that your guilt/innocence in court will always come down to the evidence present or lack there of.
People can only go by what evidence is presented in court, unless your a fan of making assumptions.
I think its a point to consider in relation to what the jurors said after the case, but we all know you dont care about that... Personally, I think there was little evidence of anything aside form Zimmermans injuries and his claims that had to do with the provocation of the fight. It's a case where there are a lot of unanswered questions and even the jurors were upset and questioning their own decisions. I believe one juror said they were forced to not guilty, but felt an injustice. Its just interesting to the specifics of this case. Its easy to see why its not black and white to some people...as seen in the Casey Anthony case as well - the laws arent perfect.
It very much does matter if Treyvon felt threatened. If he saw a person following him with a gun, a jury might think his rights to self defense included kicking Zimmerman's ass.
And for one who condones the shit out of others assumptions, I find it really wired that you'd assume the skittles were for this drug concoction.
There's a right an wrong way to ask questions and keep an eye on your community. Zimmerman also likely knew this since he was citizen watch guy... But I'm really glad to hear you wouldnt pursue as Zimmerman did. And I bet most CC wouldnt have done what Zimmerman did. At least, I hope.
Let me add who cares what the skittles were being used for. Who cares if Trayvon was high as a kite. That is the least important thing about this case. And I totally agree in a thread FULL of assumptions that is the ultimate assumption.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
My point in all of this is several people persist in arguing Zimmerman's innocence based on the not guilty verdict. That tells me people are making illogical leaps about what happened in that courtroom. His innocence wasn't any more proven than his guilt was.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Strong assumption your making there about Zimmerman - Proof pleas?
And we both know that following someone gives that person the right to attack/assault you. Right?
And we both know that following someone gives up your right to self defense. Right?
The defense submitted a binder of all the criminal activity (burglaries/thefts) that was happening in that neighborhood.
Of course not, but you still wont answer whether or not there is a possibility that Treyvon felt like his own life was in danger. That is something none of us will ever know. I'll make up a million scenarios if I want. Treyon might not wanted to lead someone to his home. Then he might have seen a gun during a pushing match, who knows?
No, technically and legally, he was only found not guilty. Innocence was not found or at issue. Anything else is and will continue to be pure speculation, most of which appears to be biased by a purposeful misunderstanding of or agendaed view of the proceedings.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/2013/ ... story.html
ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — George Zimmerman’s wife has called police to her father’s house, saying the former neighborhood watch volunteer who was acquitted of murder threatened her with a gun.
Lake Mary Police Chief Steve Bracknell says Shellie Zimmerman called police shortly after 2 p.m. Monday.
Bracknell says Zimmerman hasn’t been arrested and officers are at the house trying to determine what happened.
Shellie Zimmerman filed for divorce last week.
In the divorce petition, Shellie Zimmerman says she and her husband separated a month after Zimmerman was acquitted of any crime for fatally shooting Trayvon Martin last July.
Zimmerman’s acquittal led to protests nationwide.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
That could have been my wife
George, you'll figure this all out dude, there's time.. You're still young.
i don't know why i feel like that, but i am thinking if he doesn't chill out, he might get all Billy Badass on the wrong person, and he might not be able to skin that gun fast enough...
what a terrible life it must be to be living life while looking over your shoulder the whole time.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I'd love for him to be in gen pop. Bet he's not so tough there. Women and 16 year olds seem to be as tough as he gets.
dude arrested again! ... :fp:
We made it a race issue when it is now clear it was a dipshit issue ... and Zimmerman is without a doubt a dipshit of the highest caliber and has severe aggression issues.
How fucking dumb do you have to be to get yourself involved in multiple 911 calls after (literally) getting away with murder???