Trayvon Martin

callen

Blockhead wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

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.

vant0037

Blockhead wrote:

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.

Blockhead

JonnyPistachio wrote:

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

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

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".

Blockhead

callen wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

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.

Blockhead

vant0037 wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

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...

JonnyPistachio

Blockhead wrote:

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?

vant0037

Blockhead wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

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.

JimmyV

Zimmerman being Zimmerman...

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.

ComeToTX

Guy has problems. But at least he can keep defending himself. :roll:

BinauralJam

Incredible! :crazy:

JimmyV

To be fair, it is always possible that she created this scenario as part of a divorce strategy.

Jason P

Cool. The media gets to rush to judgement twice with this guy!

ajedigecko

Jason P wrote:

Cool. The media gets to rush to judgement twice with this guy!

That could have been my wife

JonnyPistachio

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.

gimmesometruth27

JonnyPistachio wrote:

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.

Cliffy6745

What an upstanding citizen this Zimmerman is.

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.

polaris_x

Cliffy6745 wrote:

What an upstanding citizen this Zimmerman is.

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:

Jason P

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???

callen

Cliffy6745 wrote:

What an upstanding citizen this Zimmerman is.

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.

Only if he's armed. Just another puss male with gun.