And the Zimmerman verdict is...

Post Reply New Topic

What I find disturbing about this tragic case is that Mr. Zimmerman was apparently patrolling the neighborhood as a volunteer watchman. For some reason he was armed, which is not recommended forf a watch patrol member. When he saw Trayvon Martin, he called in and was clearly instructed by the 911 operator to stay in his vehicle and not confront the young black male in the hooded sweatshirt. So far, so good - this is normal watch patrol behavior. Since Trayvon Martin was apparently not doing anything more than walking home with an Arizona Ice Tea in one hand and chatting up a girl on his cell phone, then this was a no big deal case. it does not matter one bit that he had a reputation for mischief, or that there had been incidents in the neighborhood prior to that night. George Zimmerman was instructed to stay in his car...

He got out of his car

With a gun in his pocket

He followed Trayvon Martin (who reported to the girl on the phone that he was being followed)

There was a confrontation where Trayvon Martin asked why he was being followed...and no one really knows who threw the first punch or push, after the fact, it appeared that Zimmerman was being pounded on - there were no witnesses...we do know that Zimmerman shot him ...dead.

2 questions -

Why did George Zimmerman, in his role as a volunteer watch patrolman, not follow the clear police instructions?
Why is there no consequence for his getting out of his car, and as an armed man, stalk Trayvon Martin in direct defiance to his responsibility as a volunteer watchman - and then interact witht him? An act which ultimately resulted in Martin's death.

This is what people are angry about... the fact that the State of Florida was not competent to prosecute on that basis only. By bringing a murder 2 charge,which could not be proven, and allowing the race card to be whooped up on both sides of the case, the State created a situation where the jury could not convict him of anything. The way the case was argued, even manslaughter failed to overcome at least one juror's reasonable doubt. Unless I'm mistaken, you must have unanimity to convict in a criminal felony trial of this magnitude.

I have some experience with neighborhood patrols ...rule one is that you are NOT a COP! You are always supposed to follow the police instructions and you NEVER CONFRONT someone who is behaving suspiciously (even if he is not 'doing' anything more than seeming to be 'out of place' according to your way of thinking...you call, you observe, and you WAIT for the cops to show up...if the person does something, you call back and report that .... short of remotely showing your presence (form your vehicle) if you see soneone doing something illegal...you NEVER put yourself face to face with a suspect. Because he or she might be armed - and patrol volunteers are NOT supposed to be packing anything stronger than a cell phone with a camera. Watch patrol volunteers are supposed only be active wimesses - the eyes and ears of Law Enforcement...

The way I see this is that Zimmerman was out of bounds in his behavior by contravening the 911 operator and a kid died...and the State of Florida has said it's OK...

As I understand it, Zimmerman was not on neighborhood watch patrol the night of the shooting. He was on his way somewhere else, saw Martin "acting suspiciously" and called the police. Since he was not on patrol for the watch, he had his gun with him as was his right.

The police did not clearly instruct Zimmerman to stay in his car. They asked him where Martin went, he got out of the car to look, they asked him if he was following Martin, he said "yes," they said "OK, we don't need you to do that," Z said "OK," and says he was headed back to his car when M attacked him. All of this, except Z heading back to his car, is corroborated by the recording of Z's call. There is nothing in this that is a clear, unequivocal instruction to stay in his car. If anything, the police question about where M went prompted Z to exit his car.

From Rachel Jeantel's testimony, it sure sounded like M doubled back from being at or nearly at his father's house, to confront Z, challenging him with the words, "why are you following me?" There was no evidence presented at trial that Z chased M down and initiated the confrontation.

Uh oh, you're going against the narrative.
You must be a conservative hate monger.

I assume you are quite comfortable that an adult armed vigilante (Zimmerman is not a cop) confronted an unarmed teenager (a child) precipitating a confrontation with no witnesses ending with the child getting shot dead. Unless you've had a frontal lobotomy it should be fairly obvious to you that Zimmerman is very very lucky to have escaped jail time.

No doubt if Trey was a blonde haired teenager and his father was a gun carrying republican tea party member then Zimmerman would have been called a mentally deranged hispanic and a danger to society (which he quite obviously is) and be languishing in jail.

trayvon was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot the ballistics prove it trayvons only injury's are the gunshot meaning Zimmerman did not fight back till the gun shot. these are the facts trayvon assaulted Zimmerman and could have easily caused life long brain damage by pounding his head into the concrete. it was self defense the trial proved this.

I for one am perfectly comfortable living somewhere that doesn't throw people in jail based on emotional reactions and hyperbole rather than factual evidence; you seem to prefer that it be the other way around...

http://youtu.be/bF-Ax5E8EJc

this sums everything up pretty well

It would seem so, wouldn't it? It is amazing how many people are led by their emotions, not letting little things called "facts" get in the way of their oh-so-certain opinions. In a different time and place, they would have been the ones leading the lynch mobs, cheering Madame Guillotine, accusing witches, or shouting, "crucify him!"

Yup.

I think some people's opinions are redolent of racism, because they seem to impute racist guilt in a case of death where there is no indication that race had anything to do with it. They want to believe that Zimmerman is a white racist murderer and will not hear any of the facts that may stand in the way or destroy that viewpoint.

If there was enough evidence to convict Zimmerman (and the prosecution could make that case), then the jury would have found him guilty.
There wasn't, and they couldn't. So he has been acquitted.

It's the politics of the lynch mob, as you say. It's the kind of mindset that leads to insane miscarriages of justice.

Evidence? It takes evidence to convict, not feelings.
And if anyone had called me a "child" at 17 I would have shot them.


I would have felt no different if Zimmerman were black and Martin white.

Last edited by Raptor on 16 Jul 2013, 1:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

When this case got picked up by the media, they thought they had a perfect example of a rich racist white guy gunning down an innocent black kid unprovoked. Oh the ratings they'd get!

"George Zimmerman." Sounds white, German-American, heck, maybe even Jewish!

"Gated community." Hey, everybody knows that gated communities only exist so rich, racist white people can keep those bothersome minorities out, right? That must be a land of mansions that Zimmerman lives in and his neighbors must all be rich racist whites, too!

The rest flowed from there. By the time they discovered that Z is Hispanic, not rich, (and not Jewish); and the much-touted "gated community" is mixed-race and mixed-income, they were too heavily invested in The Narrative to back out. So we got deceptively edited recordings, chronic misrepresentations of the evidence, invention of the term "white Hispanic" and calling 17-year-old Trayvon a "child" instead of a "young man," amid much else.

Did Zimmerman make bad decisions? Yes, particularly exiting his car to walk around in the dark looking to see where Martin went. Doesn't mean he "provoked" Martin in any way that justifies being beaten bloody.

Yes, and these same people would screech about "due process" in a much more obvious and clear cut case of a defensive shooting. I've seen it before and it only tells me they react not out of interest of law but only depending on which side of the bread their butter is on. You can almost tell exactly how these people are going to react and what the're going to say before they do.

OddButWhy...Okay...so you answered my questions. Thank you.

Since I do not have a television, I did not follow the court proceedings and my information was from reading news reports. I am assuming you have superior information, but it sounds as though you are saying that it was established that Trayvon Martin ran down George Zimmerman...I thought there were no witnesses at that point.

If Mr. Zimmerman got out of his car in 'response' to a 911 operator's question, then he was a fool. Even though he was not on official watch (which explains his being armed), volunteer training consistently emphasizes not putting yourself on the street or ever trying to get closer to a suspicious person (whether Trayvon Martin was a suspicious character or not goes to the mindset and intelligence of George Zimmerman).

When he got out of the car to 'help' answer the operator's question, he was not following the normal protocols of Neighborhood Watch...which he should have been since he was supposedly acting under police direction. It's like this: when he called 911, he should have donned his metaphorical volunteer's hat and behaved 'as though he were on official patrol'.. That means no gun and you don't get out of the car when asked a question...you say, you can't see, or you drive closer. You describe what is happening, you do not get involved. .I cannot see how one can say that he did everything 'right'...the kid died, and he shot him - after he put himself in a place where all his training should have told him - you never go.

Anyway, that's my take...I just hope that now he is a free person, he no longer has the right to carry a gun and that he is no longer associated with any type of watch program. He has proven himself to be too unstable in his judgement to be a member of Neighborhood Watch.

In any event, the entire thing remains a grotesque tragedy that has served to split and infuriate communities across the country. With the protests and disturbances continuing since the verdict...and with more marches planned...I am seriously concerned that the general dissatisfaction, frustration and anger that people have on every front will only escalate.

We are all being victimized by the growing levels of demagoguery in the Angersphere; and in that realm, applying the cool balm of logic and reason is like putting a band aid on a fully metastasized brain tumor.

17-year-old boys aren't children. They're mere months away from being considered adults. Whilst they are minors in law, no-one sane would treat them in the same way as they would a 6-year-old boy, for instance.

It's deliberate manipulation of language. The statement might be technically true but it's deliberately misleading.

I agree it was not the best judgement to follow Martin. However, having a carry permit for the pistol he can carry it wherever the law permits.


He was found not guilty by the jury and is not on probation. There is nothing that is going to revoke his handgun carry permit and nothing that would legally bar him from being in a neighborhood watch. The liberal media has it's collective tail in knots because Zimmerman's gun is going to be returned to him but, again, he was found not guilty and has the right to go free and have his property returned to him.


I'm not seeing as much unrest and infuriation as the media was hoping for. They must be crushed that the nation isn't engulfed in riots for them to joyfully report on.

Yeah, I guess he gets his gun back...but any Neighborhood Watch program that has him in its membership ought to have its head examined...if anything at all happened, they would be prime targets of a lawsuit. He's what I'd call 'a loose cannon'.