Zimmerman not guitly

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by ali#1

Who says he didn't start it and got a beating he deserved ?

You think it's acceptable to follow someone for no reason provoke them and then claim self defence when you lose a fight ?.

Maybe he did take the first swing at Martin, maybe he tackled him and Martin honestly feared for his life. There's no proof of this though. Only GZ was beaten, there's a witness who saw Martin on top of GZ...

What don't you understand about this? Why are you so willing to condemn someone because what could have happened. You think that the verdict was wrong and I just can't wrap my head around how you can't find any reasonable doubt.

It is acceptable to follow someone while calling the police if you think they are suspicious. Why the heck not? How do you know that Martin was provoked? Or do you figure that the actual act of following was provocation enought to attack??

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by ali#1

Which woman are you talking about the one he was delivering skittles to ?.

You act as is Zimmerman is some kind of law enforcement, he's not and has no right to follow anybody, in the neighbourhood watch manual that he knows about it says observe and report not follow and harass. He went against the police and his own rules and apparently a kid jumped out from behind an imaginary tree to hit him buy there are no witnesses. And he can't account for 2 minutes of his time.

He has no right to follow anybody? This is untrue, sorry. The police NEVER told him not to follow. He is under NO legal obligation to follow ANY neighborhood watch manual.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by ali#1

Does George Zimmerman have knowledge of trayvon or his past when he was following him ?.

If its not acceptable for the police to racially profile anybody why is it ok for anybody else?.

If young black guys were responsible for breaking into homes in my neighborhood, I would probably be a little suspicious if I saw someone who fit the description, walking through my back alley at night in the rain.. you might be too PC to feel suspicion, I don't know...

But that's just me, how do you know HE racially profiled him? If it was a white "thug" wearing a hoodie, walking slowly through an alley in the rain, at night, in a place experiencing high crime, do you honestly think that GZ wouldn't have looked twice?

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

Maybe he did take the first swing at Martin, maybe he tackled him and Martin honestly feared for his life. There's no proof of this though. Only GZ was beaten, there's a witness who saw Martin on top of GZ...

What don't you understand about this? Why are you so willing to condemn someone because what could have happened. You think that the verdict was wrong and I just can't wrap my head around how you can't find any reasonable doubt.

It is acceptable to follow someone while calling the police if you think they are suspicious. Why the heck not? How do you know that Martin was provoked? Or do you figure that the actual act of following was provocation enought to attack??

There are too many inconsistencies in his story.

He said the dispatcher said to follow when they said don't.
He said he jumped from behind a tree when there was no tree.
He said he didn't know of the law when he had done courses in it.
He said the gun was on his back then Said it was on his side.
He couldn't remember the name of a street that he lived on.

To me he's a guy that knew he did something wrong and gamed the system to make himself look better in every way, like I said earlier what's the higher probability everything happens to fall in your favour or your lying ?.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

If young black guys were responsible for breaking into homes in my neighborhood, I would probably be a little suspicious if I saw someone who fit the description, walking through my back alley at night in the rain.. you might be too PC to feel suspicion, I don't know...

But that's just me, how do you know HE racially profiled him? If it was a white "thug" wearing a hoodie, walking slowly through an alley in the rain, at night, in a place experiencing high crime, do you honestly think that GZ wouldn't have looked twice?

Sure I would keep on eye on them and maybe even phone the cops myself, that's a lot different than what Zimmerman did though isn't it ?.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by ali#1

Does George Zimmerman have knowledge of trayvon or his past when he was following him ?.

If its not acceptable for the police to racially profile anybody why is it ok for anybody else?.

If you were to see a guy walking around on a warm night with a hoodie on, before you can even see the color of his skin, you're going to think "thug".

Did Zimmerman say because Trayvon was black he was following him? What makes you so sure it was racial profiling and not punk with a hoodie on profiling?

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by ali#1

There are too many inconsistencies in his story.

He said the dispatcher said to follow when they said don't.
He said he jumped from behind a tree when there was no tree.
He said he didn't know of the law when he had done courses in it.
He said the gun was on his back then Said it was on his side.
He couldn't remember the name of a street that he lived on.

To me he's a guy that knew he did something wrong and gamed the system to make himself look better in every way, like I said earlier what's the higher probability everything happens to fall in your favour or your lying ?.

There is no doubt that it didn't go down 100% like GZ said. There just wasn't any proof to make the average person believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he murdered the kid or even started the physical confrontation.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

He has no right to follow anybody? This is untrue, sorry. The police NEVER told him not to follow. He is under NO legal obligation to follow ANY neighborhood watch manual.

Sure he could do whatever he wanted but that proved to be a turning point in this story didn't it ?

I never thought he was guilty of second degree I don't think his intent was to murder anybody, I think he was a wannabe cop who made some wrong choices and a kid ended up dead because of it, what charge that is I don't know obviously not manslaughter.

That being said I hope they leave him alone now it's too much and if they keep going after him it will just be a witch hunt, he will be punished anyways the family will likely bring him to civil court where they will probably win, looks like his wife may get in doo doo for perjury and he will never be able to live a normal life.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

There is no doubt that it didn't go down 100% like GZ said. There just wasn't any proof to make the average person believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he murdered the kid or even started the physical confrontation.

That's why he got off with it, the burden of proof is always on the accuser and without any witnesses it's difficult to prove anything.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by ali#1

Sure I would keep on eye on them and maybe even phone the cops myself, that's a lot different than what Zimmerman did though isn't it ?.

So you'd still racially profile someone.. Zimmerman may have also.. is that illegal? Immoral? Does it some how factor into the equation, only if you go beyond being suspicious? Are you allowed to racially profile someone and then call the cops? Follow them? Ask questions? If they are profiled for some other reason, like how they dress, does your list of allowable actions change?

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by ali#1

Sure he could do whatever he wanted but that proved to be a turning point in this story didn't it ?

I never thought he was guilty of second degree I don't think his intent was to murder anybody, I think he was a wannabe cop who made some wrong choices and a kid ended up dead because of it, what charge that is I don't know obviously not manslaughter.

That being said I hope they leave him alone now it's too much and if they keep going after him it will just be a witch hunt, he will be punished anyways the family will likely bring him to civil court where they will probably win, looks like his wife may get in doo doo for perjury and he will never be able to live a normal life.

Why not place ANY blame at Martins feet? His girlfriend told him to go home, after all, he was right by his dads girlfriends place. Was he really fearing for his life if he didn't go home? He laid a beat down on GZ after referring to him as a creepy ass cracker... what does that tell you? Sure the inital actions of GZ lead to the final outcome, but it didn't cause it. The physical attack caused it.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by ali#1

That's why he got off with it, the burden of proof is always on the accuser and without any witnesses it's difficult to prove anything.

Well there was a witness who saw Martin on top of GZ.

It makes it even more difficult to prove when there is no physical evidence. If Martin had any signs that he was attacked, or if GZ had cut knuckles, etc, it would have been easier to believe that he initiated the physical confrontation. But when there's NOTHING, well that really could mean that he didn't start it. It seems likely to me.

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

Even if GZ made a mistake by following, does that mean he forfeits his right to defend his life from reasonable perceived danger?

You say Martin did nothing wrong. That really seems like a stretch given what we know about the case. I don't doubt that you would have handled the situation differently than GZ, but would you have pounded on someone for following you?

If I was Martin, I doubt I would have had anything to do with Zimmerman. I would have continued home, and closed the door.

Had I been Zimmerman, I would have stayed in my vehicle, and waited until the police arrived.

This was a sad situation for both people. I do not condemn Zimmerman for his actions, as I can sympathize with the crime wave that was common in his community. But I would not have confronted anyone unless there was clear indication that there was a crime going on.

The results of the trial was the right decision based on the opinion of those who witnessed the trial.

The trial was the right decision for the situation.

In this situation, I have no real sympathy for Martin, as I suspect he eventually would have been caught in such a situation given his current behavior. He was not a good kid in just a bad area. But at the time of the incident, he was unarmed, and was not committing any crime.

I also don't have any real sympathy for Zimmerman, because he should have stayed in his vehicle, and waited for the police.

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

Sure the inital actions of GZ lead to the final outcome,

They did not lead, nor precipitate anything. How anyone could construe that an action of Zimmermans was reason for trying to bash his head in is beyond me.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

They did not lead, nor precipitate anything. How anyone could construe that an action of Zimmermans was reason for trying to bash his head in is beyond me.

Hard to bash a guys head in If he's sitting in his truck isn't it?.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

Why not place ANY blame at Martins feet? His girlfriend told him to go home, after all, he was right by his dads girlfriends place. Was he really fearing for his life if he didn't go home? He laid a beat down on GZ after referring to him as a creepy ass cracker... what does that tell you? Sure the inital actions of GZ lead to the final outcome, but it didn't cause it. The physical attack caused it.

He wasn't talking to his girlfriend at the time.

Sure he should have gone home but I'm not a black kid in Florida so I can't put myself in his shoes, I would guess it happens to black youth all the time and maybe that day he had enough of it. we all have bad days.

[FCLightning]

Only innocent kids in hoodies are allowed to walk on the street, all others must sit in vehicles. The world will now be safe.

[coppercarbide]

Originally Posted by ali#1

Does George Zimmerman have knowledge of trayvon or his past when he was following him ?

You're really stuck on this point and it's starting to make you looky silly.

Please please tell me why you think that point matters?

- TM was acting suspiciously
- GZ was looking out for people acting suspiciously
- GZ asked TM what he was doing
- TM beat GZ
- GZ suffered extreme injuries, and used his last self-defence


Now. Tell me how in the world GZ knowing TM's past changes anything about this case?? Stop bringing up this utterly silly argument please.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

Well there was a witness who saw Martin on top of GZ.

It makes it even more difficult to prove when there is no physical evidence. If Martin had any signs that he was attacked, or if GZ had cut knuckles, etc, it would have been easier to believe that he initiated the physical confrontation. But when there's NOTHING, well that really could mean that he didn't start it. It seems likely to me.

Maybe Zimmerman took a wild swing at Martin and he ducked it, being a bad fighter isn't a reason to kill someone.

[coppercarbide]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

Only innocent kids in hoodies are allowed to walk on the street, all others must sit in vehicles. The world will now be safe.

Well, let's just say there aren't a lot of innocent kids in hoodies walking through back alleys in the rain looking in people's windows.

[FCLightning]

Officer: Did you try to bash this guys brains out on the pavement?
Innocent Kid: Yes. Sorry officer, I am having a bad day.
Officer: All right then. Hope your day gets better.

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

They did not lead, nor precipitate anything. How anyone could construe that an action of Zimmermans was reason for trying to bash his head in is beyond me.

Zimmerman caused the confrontation. Had he stayed in his vehicle as suggested by 911, none of us would be discussing the situation.

Confront me late at night, and I can assure you there will be a problem. Had Zimmerman confronted a vet, I do not think he would have had a chance to pull his gun. And the trial would be for the person who killed Zimmerman, and the outcome would be the same, since ZImmerman was armed.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

They did not lead, nor precipitate anything. How anyone could construe that an action of Zimmermans was reason for trying to bash his head in is beyond me.

Sure it did. I am not saying that he did anything wrong though. IMO he was well within his right to follow a suspicous person in a neighborhood ravaged by crime. It was dangerous though. He made a bad decision, but I can't blame him for anything BECAUSE of that decision.

Walking through a bad neighborhood at night could be dangerous, but you have every right to do it. If you do it though, and get mugged, I'm gonna ask you what the heck you were thinking by walking through there.. But I wouldn't BLAME you for getting mugged..

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by coppercarbide

You're really stuck on this point and it's starting to make you looky silly.

Please please tell me why you think that point matters?

- TM was acting suspiciously
- GZ was looking out for people acting suspiciously
- GZ asked TM what he was doing
- TM beat GZ
- GZ suffered extreme injuries, and used his last self-defence


Now. Tell me how in the world GZ knowing TM's past changes anything about this case?? Stop bringing up this utterly silly argument please.

Maybe because its true ?

Tm was acting suspicious according to who?
Gz may have been on a witch hunt
Nobody knows if anybody said anything, although go admitted he didn't identify himself to tm.
Tm beat go according to him, maybe provoked it and lost.
Extreme injuries that doctors testified weren't extreme or life threatening.

I'm not bringing it up just refuting it.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by ali#1

Maybe Zimmerman took a wild swing at Martin and he ducked it, being a bad fighter isn't a reason to kill someone.

Maybe this and maybe that... don't bother with what you can prove, vilify someone because of what MAY have happened..

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

Zimmerman caused the confrontation. Had he stayed in his vehicle as suggested by 911, none of us would be discussing the situation.

Confront me late at night, and I can assure you there will be a problem. Had Zimmerman confronted a vet, I do not think he would have had a chance to pull his gun. And the trial would be for the person who killed Zimmerman, and the outcome would be the same, since ZImmerman was armed.

I think you are assuming that Zim attacked.. I doubt many people would sucker punch and then ground and pound someone for following them and asking questions... Or maybe it's just the way I think.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by coppercarbide

Well, let's just say there aren't a lot of innocent kids in hoodies walking through back alleys in the rain looking in people's windows.

Except Martin who was on the way home with skittles.

See how dangerous racial profiling is ?

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

I think you are assuming that Zim attacked.. I doubt many people would sucker punch and then ground and pound someone for following them and asking questions... Or maybe it's just the way I think.

Not sure, I suspect Zimmerman was truthful in his testimony, but had Martin killed Zimmerman, I suspect there would also have been a trial, and the trial outcome would have been the same since Zimmerman was armed.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by ali#1

Maybe because its true ?

Tm was acting suspicious according to who?
Gz may have been on a witch hunt
Nobody knows if anybody said anything, although go admitted he didn't identify himself to tm.
Tm beat go according to him, maybe provoked it and lost.
Extreme injuries that doctors testified weren't extreme or life threatening.

I'm not bringing it up just refuting it.

How do YOU determine who is suspicious?

May have been on a witch hunt.. ya, he most likely went out to kill a little black kid that night right??

You are really reaching..

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

Officer: Did you try to bash this guys brains out on the pavement?
Innocent Kid: Yes. Sorry officer, I am having a bad day.
Officer: All right then. Hope your day gets better.

Must have been that rubber cement.