ZIMMERMAN VERDICT IS IN - NOT GUILTY

Post Reply New Topic

That is the issue here he killed a ret*d thug and the liberal media doesn't like the idea of people being able to defend themselves that's why it went to trial because the liberal media and politicians wanted it to. Well guess what the rest of the world saw through the lies and got to the truth but still you refuse to see that people don't see criminals as victims martin was a criminal Zimmerman is a victim that's the truth.

Nonsense. Pretty much no legal expert thought the prosecution had a case for 2nd degree murder and the jury agreed. If you have information to the contrary, you probably should of shared it with prosecution otherwise it just sounds like you're allowing your emotions affect your judgement.

I'd give up on even arguing with Max000. If his valid argument is people can go around picking fights and when they loose shoot. Then that right there isn't even a valid argument at all. Not even the hardest thugs shoot because they lost a fight. I don't know of nor have I ever heard any murder case where the victim was shot because he won a fight. People who shoot either have intent to kill or they were afraid of being killed. NOT because they lost a fight. That argument alone doesn't make sense and I can't believe the liberal left even believe that argument. The fact that someone is like "Gee let me buy a gun pick a fight then shoot them when I loose?" does that logic sound right at all? Maybe if he had a mental disease but that was never proven in court.




Case and point that this guy is just talking to talk. No "gunnut" is proposing that everyone go out and buy a gun. The argument all along has been we should have the ability to have a gun under the gun guidelines and that no federal ban should be implemented. Either do your research or stop making up lies.

PS - Max000 it's very funny to see you talk. You point out in another thread that Hispanics have been in "Spanish Florida" since the Louisiana purchase. You do know that Spaniards are White right? Hispanics are Mestizo and have Spanish ties but are NOT Spaniards. Hispanics are comprised of Whites, Blacks, Asians, and Native Americans. Because of it's broad back ground Hispanic is NOT classified as a race but a culture on census forms. This is why I have to fill out the form as Caucasian - Hispanic.

Last edited by 0bey1sh1n0b1 on 17 Jul 2013, 10:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

Uh, we know from the exchange that happened between the phone call and the shooting that Martin became aware of the fact that Zimmerman was trying to pursue him.

Maybe he was trying to get away from Zimmerman?

Just maybe Martin wouldnt have went near point 3 if Zimmerman had followed police advice to give up the chase and go home?

But no he has to play the big man and take the law into his own hands. It seems like the Zimmerman defense is largely based around the idea that he must have been at point 3 because he was obviously 'up to no good'. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Legally, they may have had no choice because of the lack of witnesses to the start of the fight. But we arent jurors and this isnt a courtroom. We know that ZImmerman has had aggression issues in the past. The truth of the event, not the case, is still completely unresolved and likely will remain so.

There was enough negligence on Zimmerman's part, acting as an unidentified "watch captain", to justify a reported $1 million settlement to Martin's family from the HOA. If another suit goes forward directly against him, I think he'll lose that. Lower standards to establish.

I dont think thats the point being made here at all. I think the fear is that this creating the precedence that if you want to shoot someone, all you need to do is pick a fight and provoke them and then shoot them for the sake of shooting them, then later on play the self defence card. Not because 'you lost a fight'.

You don't understand what the stand your ground law is then. It does not give you the right to confront people with a weapon... it gives you the right to END a confrontation with a weapon if your life or that of another is in danger.

If Z's first act when T came back was to pull his gun out then he would not be covered under stand your ground law. He pulled it when he was on the ground with T pounding his face on the pavement...thus he is covered by the stand your ground law.



He's in the neighborhood watch. In any gated community people drive to either gate depending on where they need to go (avoids a stop light, I do it all the time in mine). T. went to buy skittles at a 7-11 store...and the closest store there is several blocks to the west of the gated community (its why T was passing by the clubhouse when Z saw him). Z. was also going or returning from a place of business (I forget which) when they crossed paths. Z did what he was supposed to do and called police to report a suspicious person.

The following part is absolutely normal ... its a gated community and yes, people DO follow and keep an eye out for people who seem out of place. When I walk my dog I have 'followed' people I've never seen walking through my neighborhood just to make sure if they are supposed to be there. Most of the time it happens to be someone visiting a homeowner (exactly like T. was) and sometimes it happens to be someone that is cutting through the community rather than walk around the block. If I was in a neighborhood watch I'd be twice as likely to follow them the whole way until they either leave the community or they knock on a door and they're allowed in.



A hoodie is the mark of thugs and wannabe gangster kids or young girls trying to look cute. At that hour of the day, inside the neighborhood, alone... take a guess which one Z. had to assume T. was.

Here's an image from the 7-11 store of that night:



Anyone that works or has been in a convenience store will tell you that when ANYONE walks in at that hour of the day wearing a hoodie it is nerve wrecking. Hoodies are commonly used to avoid cameras when robbing stores. Its also why its street cred to wear it as part of the 'thug' look.

No one should be turning around to confront anyone he thinks is following him, particularly alone at that hour and when his safe refuge (home) is within a quick running distance.

The whole thing is just a really tragic turn of events. Both Z and T made a monumentally bad decision at the same time. Z got out of his car to read the road sign and T. turned back to confront Z. Both are responsible for that. However it was T. who, as far as all evidence points to, was the one that got violent.



Because that takes a tremendous amount of pre-planning and the risk of it failing is too great. Think about it.. you have to have the witnesses, the evidence and the situation 'just right' to pull it off. Such things are extremely hard if not impossible to engineer. Then you have to prove/show your life was in danger and for that you need some very convincing solid evidence (which Z. had).

I still find that fact hard to believe. If you listen to the 911 call nothing in his tone suggest that he has any racial grudge. Hell if it was a white thug doing the same thing and reacted the same way we might have the same results minus the media coverage and race thing. He clearly mentions that there have been multiple robberies and that he is tired of these guys getting away before the cops get there. NBC wanted to do that stupid let's clip the 911 call to make him sound like a bigot which backfired on NBC. Hell I bet before after NBC aired their edited version they didn't know what the guy looked like. They probably heard he was a Caucasian Male and jumped the gun. Most Hispanics are identified as Caucasian on census forms and then as Hispanics under ethnic groups.

Under questioning, the cops told Zimmerman that they had the whole thing on video. Zimmerman's response was, "Thank God."

This has been confirmed.

That's exactly what you'd expect a guilty person to say when you have something that will prove they are lying about what happened, right?

Not to make it personal, but with people who reason the way you do, I agree.

The rule of law is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Nobody saw anything that proved that Zimmerman's story was a lie. The available evidence supported Zimmerman's claim (even if it was a lie). There was an eyewitness who saw Treyvon on top of Zimmerman and beating him.

No room for debate....that's more than enough to create "reasonable doubt" as to the GUILT of Zimmerman.

That's why the verdict is NOT GUILTY and not INNOCENT.

If you want a country where people can go to prison over how a juror feels and not what the state can PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt, please move elsewhere, but don't subject us to such tyranny.

I've explained what the meaning of this is.

There have been many people in criminal history (on both sides of the pond) that have been found not guilty of serious crimes because of the lack of strong, convincing evidence, or a poor prosecution where mistakes have been made, or where the defence has been extremely good (with some very, very good lawyers).

That's sort of the point. It can be pretty likely that someone has actually done what they've been accused of, but because of various factors they have been found not guilty. It doesn't necessarily mean they didn't do it, but legally the jury couldn't convict them.

Exactly. If no-one knows or saw what went on (or saw one tiny flash), and the small amount of evidence that does exist points Zimmerman's way, they're going to find him not guilty.

The jury and the court are nowhere near sure what actually happened, so they can't send someone to prison if they don't know for sure what took place (or can't piece it together through video/audio footage, eyewitnesses or other evidence).

Yeap. Sure Z was bored this day and thought: 'hey, how about provoking this guy? so he can break my nose and beat my head against the floor and then I can shoot him. Wow, that sounds like fun!! !'

Has anyone noticed that the individuals calling Z a murderer are also the gun haters?
This is just another angle for them.

From what I read, a civil trial doesn't seem likely. If Stand-Your-Ground is invoked, you are immune from civil charges and the party bringing the suit would have to pay Zimmerman for attorney fees, expenses, and compensation for any loss of income resulting from the proceedings.

Well, this is more comples than a hate/love issue (though some people just hate or love, this a different thing).

I can say, for example, that here in Europe where there's gun restrictions, you don't see ever a gun (except the ones ported by police). Deaths by gunfiring ar far lower. Taking that into account, I support completely gun control (personal opinion).

That said, one of the reasons that keep guns out the scene is that police pay a lot of attention to it. If you're criminal, you'd rather don't use guns unless absolutely necessary, otherwise you're very likely to get the police focused on you. VERY focused on you. That discourages using guns.

But this is possible because there has been gun control since the very beginninig, so there's few guns out there, so police can focus on you if you're using guns, so they can keep the gun 'level' low: it's a feedback stuff. However, controlling guns in a country where guns are already so widely spread as US, so police has not resources enough to go after every gunfire (as it happens in Europe)...