Zimmerman Not guilty

by mouthy 480 Replies latest social current

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “Ask a relavent question.”

  EntirelyPossible,

  I did ask a relevant question. You said “There is evidence [Zimmerman] hit his head and had a broken nose, neither of which was life threatening.”

  Okay. So what does that mean when your head is being banged against pavement by a complete stranger who just broke your nose.

  Either what you said is relevant or it’s not. If it’s relevant then the question for you to answer is:

  - How many times would you let a complete stranger—who just broke your nose—bang your head against pavement before you acted to defend your life?

  So, HOW MANY?

  “How many times have I followed someone with a gun and then gotten into an altercation?”

  I have no idea. Only you would know.

  “How would you react to someone getting out of their car to follow you in the dark in the rain? What if you saw that person had a gun?”

  If at all possible I’d run away, and I’d keep running AWAY.

  But that’s not what Martin did. Right?

  Now, what your answer to the question asked above?

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  designs

  The cases of Mr. White and Mrs. Alexander show a different conclusion to what Zimmerman's attorney claimed.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  Guess where Martin was running. That’s right. Around the block and back to confront Zimmerman.

  As Simon rightly pointed out, you weren't there to see that. No one was. That's just speculation. What we DO know 100% for a fact is that if GZ had followed the first rule of carrying a weapon, none of this would have happened.

  So let me get this straight. If I follow someone, and he break my nose, that situation is "100%" my own making in your oppinion? Its no fault of the guy who broke my nose for doing no more than walking on a public street?

  GZ was doing more than walking on a public street. He was following someone he had just referred to as an asshole while carrying a gun. I specifically said the situation was created by GZ. It may well be true that TM jumped him and started beating him and TM bears responsibility for those specific actions. Having said that, GZ absolutely bears responsibility for creating the situation in the first place. Had he simply reported the suspicious activity and stayed in his car, TM would not be dead, TM's parents wouldn't have a dead son and GZs life would not be ruined.

  Unfortunately, GZ exercised his freedom in a dumb and irresponsible manner.

  Again, the leap is made to assume GZ was "chasing" TM. He followed to maintain visual contact so as to report to the police where the guy was. That is not chasing.

  He said TM was running. How do you keep up with someone you want to follow that is running?

  We can only go by the evidence and testimony, logical leaps or filling in gaps or connecting the dots is reasonable doubt and the defendant gets the assumption of innocence not guilt.

  He is guilty of not breaking any laws. Agreed. He is guilty, however, of acting foolishly and irresponsibly.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “As Simon rightly pointed out, you weren't there to see that. No one was. That's just speculation.”

  Speculation? If we believe Martin was running AWAY then how on earth does he end up back in Zimmerman’s lap nearer Zimmerman’s truck than in front his father’s house where he told his friend he was at?

  EntirelyPossible, you’re making stuff up as you go.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  Either what you said is relevant or it’s not. If it’s relevant then the question for you to answer is:

  It's a question designed to elicit a specific answer in a vacumn of context. It's not relavent without context. So, let's add some context!

  - How many times would you let a complete stranger—who just broke your nose—bang your head against pavement before you acted to defend your life?

  First, I would be following someone with a gun. How many times would I let a complete stranger with a gun follow me in the dark and in the rain? Zero.

  If at all possible I’d run away, and I’d keep running AWAY.

  But that’s not what Martin did. Right?

  Actually, GZ himself said he was running on the call to the police. That's exactly was TM was doing when GZ followed.

  Oh, and how do we know that GZ chased TM? He says TM was running, his car door is heard opening, he is later heard muttering profanities while out of breath, indicating that he was running.
• 

  Glander

  EntPoss - ".. he avoids it by not getting out of his car"

  It is rather strange how those dissapointed in the jury decision are casually tossing around their opinions based on hindsight. GZ should have had foresight into the future ? But he did not have a Back to the Future DeLorean.

  He was reacting to the real time reality that he was being physically attacked and was unable to see even five minutes into the future. He was preventing further harm, possibly death.
• 

  sammielee24

  Boy some of the ridiculous assumptions and statements being made on here are pathetic.

  Finklestein - did you actually watch the trial or read transcripts???

  Zimmerman wasn't training to be a cop. Prove it or maybe stop saying it if you can't.

  Zimmerman was carrying a firearm. Legally. Entitled to do so in the State of Florida. If you can prove otherwise do it or stop repeating nonsense.

  In his State and in his county, prove where it says Neighborhood Watch Coordinators must not carry a weapon? Or stop repeating nonsense.

  Watch where Martin was running to? I kind of think getting out of your car to see where he was is considered 'seeing where he was going'. If you can prove he did otherwise then tell us - because not only could the prosecution not do it - the jury couldn't find that bit of evidence of wrong doing either. Prove it or stop repeating it.

  This ridiculous and always repeated nonsense about Martin being just an innocent person who has done nothing wrong is just that - ridiculous.

  In any State and most countries, assaulting another person physically is considered a crime. Martin committed a crime the minute he slugged Zimmerman. That makes him guilty of a criminal act and in no way innocent.

  He kept beating Zimmerman. That means that despite people asking him to stop, he chose to ignore the law and continue his assault on Zimmerman. That is an illegal act.

  Nothing leading up to the incident proves that in any way, Martin was justified in trying to kill Zimmerman. Nothing. You can assume and suppose and apply motive to Zimmerman all you want - but if Martin had gone to his home, if he had simply stopped beating on Zimmerman when he was directed to, the most that would have happened would be a classic case of assault and battery and both would have had to go to court.

  By Martin committing a criminal act on another human being - he became a criminal. He was not innocent.

  This is about evidence. That's what the evidence showed.

  If you want to talk about supposition and morals and ethics - that's another story - but this had to be about evidence and really, too many people keep choosing to ignore the factual evidence of the case in favor or supposition - they think they know what everyone was thinking but they don't. The jury had to make a decision based on FACTS. sammieswife
• 

  Finkelstein

  The legal defense for Zimmerman did what they knew and could use to repel any 2nd degree murder charge, which was the

  Florida State self defense law. Without that law in place Zimmerman would have been charged with manslaughter at least.

  For if TM was indeed found and identified in the back of someones home trying to break in, the entire case would changed dramatically

  to its finally outcome.

  It has been mentioned though the TM's parents could take GZ to court in a civil case for unlawfully killing their son and most likely

  win a financial suit. Similar to the O J Simpson case some years ago.
• 

  bohm

  EP, you are living in bizarro world.

  Lets say it was Zimmerman who (LIKE YOU SAID) 100% created the situation by his actions.

  Lets say Martin, when hitting Zimmerman for the first time over the nose, had made a blood vessel in Zimmermans brain rapture so he had died right there, that sort of stuff do happend.

  Would Zimmerman still be 100% responsible for creating the situation?

  well i sure hope not.

  So what the frak is it supposed to mean he was 100% responsible for creating the situation? Surely it cannot refer to the situation leading up to him getting punched in the face; so what happened after after he was punched in the face that retro-causally made the entire situation his fault? him getting the head banged against the sidewalk? it cannot be that he was armed, or ignored your "rule", because that would equally apply to the situation where he had died from the raptured vein.
• 

  valkyrie

  If this had been two black guys, this trial wouldn't have happened.

  If this had been spun as a black guy and a mexican or a hispanic - the trial wouldn't have happened.

  The ONLY reason this trial happened as it WAS, is because of politics and power and money. Period. Why on earth do you think the media purposely used white and black from the very beginning...because if you had read that it was black and black or black and brown, you would have flipped the page and shrugged your shoulders. There isn't any money to be made from going on national television to talk about two teenager gangsters fighting it out until one gets shot. Happens all the time and nobody pays attention. No money to be made from those activists if its just a few of their own killing each other - it HAS to be white for goodness sake. That's how you get elected to positions, that's how you go to fundraisers, that's how you get paid and noticed - heavens to betsy - black activists and leaders who understand what is happening in their own community and want to address those issues are ususally ignored, banned, blacklisted - their voices don't get heard because it doesn't pay.

  Just follow the politcs and money and connect the dots. It's not that hard to do. sammieswife

  I say! The U.S.A. has come a long way, if people are decrying white-persecution and white-victimisation by the Establishment, big money and authorities (power)!