George Zimmerman Verdict: NOT GUILTY

[I.S.L.A.M617]

And again, this is exactly why we have the adversarial system. The court of public opinion decides based off of emotion and misinformation rather than the actual evidence. Most of the Trayvon Martin supporters didn't watch the trial or review the evidence.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And again, this is exactly why we have the adversarial system. The court of public opinion decides based off of emotion and misinformation rather than the actual evidence.

This is hopelessly, irrationally optimistic.

 

[DallasApple]

Yes, it's a tragedy. It's going to ruin Zimmerman one way or another. It's unfortunate that it wasn't sooner.

You reap what you sew one way or another I suppose.

Except I'm dead sure he will make money off of this.I can see the "made for t.v movies" now and autobiographies.Plus as you can see he has a LOT of sympathizers...I'm sure he can set up a "donate to "not guilty" self defense Zimmerman fund" to help him stay in hiding.

besides the fact I think hes a LIAR and should have stopped saying "self defense" I think some of his "supporters" are the really scary ones.

I think I have more sympathy for Zimmerman than I do onlookers who calmly and coolly BLAME Tryvon. I wouldn't want them around my children I know that much.

 

[Poisonshady313]

That is Zimmerman's WORD .No witnesses to back that up.And are you saying that Trayvon an unarmed teenager walking around his own neighborhood being followed STALKED) by a some sort of a wanna be cop who was even TOLD NOT to follow him deserved to die ?Trayvon was being FOLLOWED by an armed stranger who then approached HIM.Why was Trayvon IF he threw a first punch not defending HIMSELF?

There is so much assumption and nonsense in that paragraph that a yes or no answer would be meaningless.

Let's break it down.

"And are you saying that Trayvon an unarmed teenager walking around his own neighborhood being followed STALKED)"

First of all, it wasn't his neighborhood. It was his father's girlfriend's house. He was visiting.

Second, he was followed... we know this by Zimmerman's own admission. But stalked? That word is a bit loaded with the assertion that Zimmerman had any sinister intent. There's no proof that he had such intent. He was reporting what he saw, like he was told to.

There was NO reason for him to be being followed other than Zimmerman "decided" he "looked supspicious" and he's NOT a cop and the fact of the matter Trayvon wasn't doing ANYTHING wrong.

That's why Zimmerman did what the cops told him to do, and never approached Martin.

He was not OBLIGATED to stop and answer some stalkers questions.Trayvon wasn't running from a cop.He was not "evading arrest" ..

Nobody asked him to stop, and where the hell is this "answer some stalkers questions" coming from? At what point do you believe Zimmerman ever asked Martin any questions? You are quite literally just making stuff up.

Based on this ..if some STRANGER with a permit to carry a gun decides IM up to no good based on NOTHING other than Im walking in my neighborhood in the rain looking around

Between the houses and on the lawn, rather than on the sidewalk, like he was casing the place to steal from it. Because there was a recent history of burglaries in the neighborhood. Zimmerman didn't know Martin had just come from a store. He didn't know Martin was on his way home... and the way Martin was acting, Zimmerman was suspicious. So he called the cops. No harm done, no crime committed. And another thing. What makes you think Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun at any point before Martin punched Zimmermann in the face?

..and if they catch up to me and I think THEY are going to harm me because WHY the hell ELSE is some stranger following and I hit them

At what point did Zimmerman catch up to Martin? How do you know? Or are you just guessing?

(IF thats the case) they can shoot me through the heart in "self defense" ? That is the most LAME ridicuous thing I have heard.

That's too bad. You're the one who came up with it. You're right. It is lame.

Try describing things that are actually provable with evidence, and maybe it won't be so lame.

That its MY fault that I was in FEAR of a stalker.

Again with the assumption that Zimmerman was a stalker. And if Martin was in fear, he sure didn't act like it. He had four minutes from the time he started running till the time he punched Zimmerman in the face. Zimmerman was in his car and around the corner at the time. Martin could have made it home in under a minute, and Zimmerman would have been standing out in the rain, scratching his head saying "where the hell did he go?"

And reacted and that same stalker then shoots me dead and says he was defending himself..UNBELIEVABLE and scary people feel that entitled to track someone down they "suspect" and shoot them .

When your head is being slammed into the pavement... and any one of those impacts could have caused serious bodily harm or death, and Zimmerman is fortunate that they didn't... yeah, he's entitled to shoot his attacker down.

 

[DallasApple]

Again with the assumption that Zimmerman was a stalker. And if Martin was in fear, he sure didn't act like it. He had four minutes from the time he started running till the time he punched Zimmerman in the face.

First all he thought he had lost him.He wasn't sprinting for 4 solid minutes.Besides WHAT was he RUNNING from??? A stranger following him? Or someone he was hoping to punch in the face?????????

2nd of all how smart would it be to lead a stranger stalking you straight to your front door?

Zimmerman was stalking him.Admittedly had already called him "up to no good " ..and *** hole getting away". Who seemed to think he was some gated community Spiderman packing led instead of webs..a "crime stopper" saving the innocent///except he KILLED an innocent..

 

[DallasApple]

And where would you draw the line since its all up to the 17 yo not to be an idiot.What if he had "run" to his front door but Zimmerman (the super hero) who already new he was "up to no good..on drugs and suspicious (recent home robberies in the hood) ..would it been understandable for him to have shot Trayvon in the back for entering his own home?

Because he was too much of an idiot to realize even if hes doing NOTHING wrong he needs to answer to strange men with guns who think he his?

 

[Sha'irullah]

Most Christians(on the right wing side) as of now are expressing their desire for Zimmerman to sue the Martin family for defamation of character.
The defamation of character is a result of the family saying Zimmerman murdered their son. They believe the family KNOWS that Zimmerman had the right to shoot their son.

Republican Christians are totally pitiful honestly.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Most Christians(on the right wing side) as of now are expressing their desire for Zimmerman to sue the Martin family for defamation of character.
The defamation of character is a result of the family saying Zimmerman murdered their son. They believe the family KNOWS that Zimmerman had the right to shoot their son.

Republican Christians are totally pitiful honestly.

That is kinda funny.

 

[Revoltingest]

Most Christians(on the right wing side) as of now are expressing their desire for Zimmerman to sue the Martin family for defamation of character.
The defamation of character is a result of the family saying Zimmerman murdered their son. They believe the family KNOWS that Zimmerman had the right to shoot their son.
Republican Christians are totally pitiful honestly.

Much noise & threats of suits on both sides.
One thing is certain...the lawyers will win.

 

[DallasApple]

It looks like this is faith blind either way.I see atheist and Jewish and other faiths professing opinion that Zimmerman is a victim just "defending himself".

Then you have the "complacent's " as you will ..like my husband and son .Who pretty much think Zimmerman is/ was at the very least an over zeolous haphazard gun toting wanna be sheriff to the neighborhood...but say ..Oh well happens all the time...Sigh...really sad.

 

[Poisonshady313]

First all he thought he had lost him. He wasn't sprinting for 4 solid minutes.

Both points are irrelevant. He was less than a minute away from his destination. If all he wanted to do was go home, he would have. At some point during those 4 minutes, he made up his mind that he was going to violently confront Zimmerman.

2nd of all how smart would it be to lead a stranger stalking you straight to your front door?

If the door had a lock, it wouldn't have mattered.

And I already described how Zimmerman wouldn't have been led to his door. His car was around the corner, and Martin ran down a footpath the car couldn't go. He would have gotten home and Zimmerman wouldn't have known where the hell that was.

Zimmerman was stalking him.

No. He was watching him from a distance. Got out of his car when Martin got out of his line of sight. You have no proof that Zimmerman meant Trayvon any harm.

Admittedly had already called him "up to no good " ..and *** hole getting away". Who seemed to think he was some gated community Spiderman packing led instead of webs..a "crime stopper" saving the innocent///except he KILLED an innocent..

He called the cops. He killed a guy who was slamming his head into the ground. Had Martin lived, they could have charged him with aggravated battery.

 

[Sha'irullah]

That is kinda funny.

It is funny indeed. I have never been in a Church for years and have totally left the Christian community all together. The minute I dive back in I see this sort of lunacy.

It is good to know there are sane people like yourself.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

It looks like this is faith blind either way.I see atheist and Jewish and other faiths professing opinion that Zimmerman is a victim just "defending himself".

Then you have the "complacent's " as you will ..like my husband and son .Who pretty much think Zimmerman is/ was at the very least an over zeolous haphazard gun toting wanna be sheriff to the neighborhood...but say ..Oh well happens all the time...Sigh...really sad.

God forbid people of different faiths/beliefs pay attention to the trial and the evidence, right?

 

[dust1n]

Just in case you didn't hear yesterday:

George Zimmerman verdict: DOJ to revive probe into Trayvon Martin civil rights violation as protesters take to streets - NY Daily News

A civil case will follow, as well. The home owner's association settled with Martin's parents in April.

 

[Falvlun]

Both points are irrelevant. He was less than a minute away from his destination. If all he wanted to do was go home, he would have. At some point during those 4 minutes, he made up his mind that he was going to violently confront Zimmerman.

This is seriously the dumbest possible defense of Zimmerman, and you guys keep trotting it out like it's gold.

As for the part I bolded, you do not know that Martin "chose" to violently confront Zimmerman.

And as for not "running home" immediately, Martin was under absolutely no legal or otherwise compunction to do so. Last I checked, in America, you are allowed to walk home at as leisurely pace as you please.

And lastly, you do not know why he didn't go home immediately. There could be many reasons. I find it the height of utter hypocrisy to claim that you know precisely a) why he chose not to go home immediately and b) that he was in fact able to do so.

You have absolutely no proof for your claims. And absolutely no justification for demanding that it was Trayvon's duty to go home as fast as he could possibly sprint.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is seriously the dumbest possible defense of Zimmerman, and you guys keep trotting it out like it's gold.
As for the part I bolded, you do not know that Martin "chose" to violently confront Zimmerman.
And as for not "running home" immediately, Martin was under absolutely no legal or otherwise compunction to do so. Last I checked, in America, you are allowed to walk home at as leisurely pace as you please.
And lastly, you do not know why he didn't go home immediately. There could be many reasons. I find it the height of utter hypocrisy to claim that you know precisely a) why he chose not to go home immediately and b) that he was in fact able to do so.
You have absolutely no proof for your claims. And absolutely no justification for demanding that it was Trayvon's duty to go home as fast as he could possibly sprint.

There are many things which aren't known, & we may speculate about them. Did Martin attack Zimmerman or vice versa? I say the former, & you say the latter. Neither of us is certain. But as we've already agreed, the evidence & the uncertainties point towards a legally correct verdict.

 

[Falvlun]

There are many things which aren't known, & we may speculate about them. Did Martin attack Zimmerman or vice versa? I say the former, & you say the latter. Neither of us is certain. But as we've already agreed, the evidence & the uncertainties point towards a legally correct verdict.

I wasn't talking about the verdict, but this particular pet reason for why Trayvon deserved to be shot.

Do you think that "Trayvon should have run home" is a good reason for why Zimmerman should be off the hook?

 

[Revoltingest]

I wasn't talking about the verdict, but this particular pet reason for why Trayvon deserved to be shot.

"Deserved to be shot" is the wrong way to see it.
It certainly would've been better if Zimmerman could've defended himself without deadly force. But as testimony indicated, he wasn't a capable fighter, & he was faring poorly under Martin's barrage. If everyone got what they deserved, Martin & Zimmerman would've punched their way to a stand-off, & then gone their separate ways.

Do you think that "Trayvon should have run home" is a good reason for why Zimmerman should be off the hook?

That Martin should've avoided the conflict is merely the better alternative. Zimmerman is off the hook because he was being violently attacked. We must be careful not to confuse circumstances, related factors & possible alternatives with the real reasons for the verdict.

 

[LuisDantas]

There are many things which aren't known, & we may speculate about them. Did Martin attack Zimmerman or vice versa? I say the former, & you say the latter. Neither of us is certain. But as we've already agreed, the evidence & the uncertainties point towards a legally correct verdict.

A worthless and destructive legally correct verdict, yes.

 

[LuisDantas]

"Deserved to be shot" is the wrong way to see it.
It certainly would've been better if Zimmerman could've defended himself without deadly force. But as testimony indicated, he wasn't a capable fighter, & he was faring poorly under Martin's barrage. If everyone got what they deserved, Martin & Zimmerman would've punched their way to a stand-off, & then gone their separate ways.

That Martin should've avoided the conflict is merely the better alternative. Zimmerman is off the hook because he was being violently attacked. We must be careful not to confuse circumstances, related factors & possible alternatives with the real reasons for the verdict.

How well established is it that Travyon sought the conflict instead of the other way around? Or that his only reasonable self-defense involved using lethal force?

Without a lot of certainty in both accounts, the most generous reading of the verdict is that it might conceivably turn out to be fair.

And even so, it is still destructive, due to its consequences outside of Zimmerman's personal convenience.