Zimmerman Not Guilty

[layoutshooter]

The race baiters can't make money when the suspects are black.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

It also makes it hard to drive their "wedges" too, which is all it is about for them. I REALLY get sick and tired of racists, like Jackson, Obama, Sharpton etc complaining about racists. They should look in a mirror.

 

[paullud]

It also makes it hard to drive their "wedges" too, which is all it is about for them. I REALLY get sick and tired of racists, like Jackson, Obama, Sharpton etc complaining about racists. They should look in a mirror.

Job security.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[Brisco]

Very Interesting article written well over a year ago:

Articles: What the Media Choose Not to Know about Trayvon

I had heard about this "SIZZURP" / "LEAN" drug(Candy **SKITTLES** + a Drink **ICED TEA** + Some sort of Codeine all mixed together) on some side "MTV" show while flipping thru channels one night............

Never really put it together / linked it to this case 'til recently...............

PLUS..........with all this NSA keeping Cell Phone Calls RECORDED in a Vault in Arizona.........I'm pretty sure the Phone Call Trayvon Martin was on with that Human Anomaly Rachel Jeantel is in those vaults somewhere.........

I for one would LOVE to hear what EXACTLY went on while they were on the Phone Together........I can almost GUARENTEE you that RJ HEARD EXACTLY what transpired that night.........KNOWS that Trayvon totally screwed up by acting like a Thug............and was on the phone with him when Trayvon ATTACKED George Zimmerman.............and heard Trayvon take his last breath. That is why she was such a WORTHLESS Witness for the Prosecution........she was trying to REMEMBER her SCRIPTED Lines given to her by not Only the Prosecution........but also that Crump Atty for the Martin Family.

The Last paragraph of Sentences in the article above DID come to Fruition.........

Media obfuscation may still work in the court of public opinion -- it got Obama elected in 2008 -- but it will not work in a court of law. The truth will out. When it does, the major media will lose a good chunk of whatever credibility they have left, and our nation may lose a good chunk of its urban real estate.

And now we're ALL still having to Suffer the Wraith of the MSM over it with the continuous 24/7 coverage of all this CRAP.......................

 

[paullud]

But MSNBC, Sharpton, and Jackson all told me he was just a little boy. The next thing you know people will be saying that Trayvon was such a problem that his own mother got sick of dealing with him and sent him away, oh wait.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[Brisco]

But MSNBC, Sharpton, and Jackson all told me he was just a little boy. The next thing you know people will be saying that Trayvon was such a problem that his own mother got sick of dealing with him and sent him away, oh wait.

Another article related to who the "Real" Trayvon Martin was............

Trayvon Martin ? How the Media Narrative Was Spun To Cover Up The Greatest Danger To Black Teen Boys ? The Absence Of Two Parents? | The Last Refuge

Interesting to learn today that Trayvon was actually living with his Uncle, and NOT his Mom when he got sent to Sanford.......................

 

[davekc]

Here is the strange reality. Obama as senator, voted to expand the "Stand your ground" law in IL.
What they won't tell you is, that more blacks use and take advantage of the SYG laws verses whites. Imagine that?

 

[layoutshooter]

Here is the strange reality. Obama as senator, voted to expand the "Stand your ground" law in IL.
What they won't tell you is, that more blacks use and take advantage of the SYG laws verses whites. Imagine that?

More blacks HAVE to take advantage of it. There is NO bigger threat out there to black people than other black people. I sorta pity those who are stuck in those cesspools called cities. They are hell holes. I only SORTA pity them because they COULD leave.

 

[cheri1122]

"Painted into a corner"? Not even close.

This proves just how unwilling you are to even consider the possibility that Zimmerman was defending himself or to objectively look at the case. There is no question that RJ is very untrustworthy, lied to police, lied during testimony, lied to friends, lied to Martin's parents, and tried to change her testimony to add negative things. You accept her version despite her being a liar and major inconsistencies but dismiss Zimmerman's account for the same reasons. What do you even mean that Zimmerman's story sounds artificial? The story is simple, specific, and not missing any big details.

I don't see RJ as untrustworthy, though Z's supporters certainly do. I see her as a teenager who did not want to be sitting in a courtroom [and the reaction of so many is very illuminating] explaining her part in Martin's death. What she felt [besides totally unequal to the legal atmosphere] was guilt. If you've never been close to someone who died unexpectedly, you probably won't understand that - but I wasn't much older than RJ when my older brother committed suicide, and I know how it feels to wonder if something you said [or didn't say] had a part in their death. And if she was lying to make Martin look better, she'd have left out the "creepy *** cracker" remark, but she didn't.
I can understand a teenager in her position lying for the reasons she gave, but Z is not a teenager and is held to higher standards, both by law and common sense.



I don't accept Zimmerman's story as being facts and have said so but there is evidence to back his story up, even though for some unknown reason you claim there isn't.

What the evidence doesn't show is who started the struggle, because no one saw the crucial beginning. Crucial because if it was Martin, it's self defense, but if Z started it, it was not. The only 'evidence' is Z's statements, and I think he lied. Again. I think it's much more plausible that Z decided to keep M from getting away [like "they always do"] this time, because he knew the cops would be there any minute, and he never expected the reaction he got. And he couldn't tell the truth, because then it wasn't self defense, and he knew it.



Again it is not illegal and irrelevant.

State of mind and perception of danger are 100% relevant to self defense, and that includes M's perceptions. The kid didn't know why Z was following him, and even when he asked [as stated in both Z's & RJ's versions], the "Neighborhood Watch" guy didn't tell him. M had every right to feel threatened, and equal right to stand his ground - he was doing nothing wrong.



Well we can also take into account Martin's racism and anger at being followed, oh and the lie detector test.

Racism? If you're referring to the 'creepy *** cracker' comment, [which is the only one I'm aware of], it's certainly justified under the circs. Z was being a creepy *** cracker - an honest person would have either stayed in the car after calling the police, or answered M's question about why he was following a teenager in the dark.
Lie detector test: irrelevant, untrustworthy, not accepted in any court of law.



Really?!! You think it was one fight. This again shows your complete lack of looking beyond what MSNBC told you to think.

Shows your habit of making assumptions: I do not read MSNBC, ever. What I looked at is a lot of sources, but what I accept as fact is in the legal docs.

There were multiple fights including one were Martin fought with someone who "snitched" on him and that he was going to go after the snitch again.

You got that from where? M's cellphone? If you accept what teenagers text and post as evidence, you've obvy never raised one. They hold some ideas and beliefs that will change as they mature - that's why they are called 'minors'.



Who isn't aware of self-defense laws? Who needs to go to college to hear of self-defense laws for the first time? It is irrelevant.

Who knows precisely what elemants are required to satisfy the threshold of self defense, namely a fear of imminent death or serious injury. That knowledge is what made Z say that M's hands were covering his nose & mouth, because that is a clear cut situation of self defense - at least until he realized [or someone pointed it out to him] that his face was bloody, and if there was no blood on M's hands [there wasn't, and he knew it] then he was sunk. After the interview with Hannity, he dropped that claim completely.



So you are going to just ignore things that don't fit into your idea of what happened?

The only things that don't fit are the words from Z's lips, and I'm not ignoring them, I'm saying he's a liar, and he lied.



I just explained the possibility of why he answered the way he did which means he did not answer correctly or lied. Why are you acting like you just came up with some earth shattering evidence that I have been denying? Maybe he was worried that admitting he was arrested before might prejudice the police, either way it is not critical to the case.

Well, duh - of course he was worried. So he did what any liar would do: he lied about it.



I'm not sure why you would think that possession of drug paraphernalia on school property and the highly suspicious jewelry issue wouldn't warrant an arrest and investigation. The issues of the jewelry and drugs were covered up which would certainly explain why they didn't go further.

I don't know what the law requires about "residue" of marijuana in a baggie - apparently it wasn't enough to warrant an arrest. The "highly suspicious" jewelry issue might be to you, but there was zero evidence that the jewelry was stolen or missing, which means any arrest over it could be trouble if it turned out to be legit. Which it could - stranger things have happened.

Police buried Trayvon?s criminal history

Part 2 ? The Trayvon Martin Cover Up: ?Hurley Blows A Gasket? | The Last Refuge



You mean exactly like eye witness and defendant testimony but when you get all 3 pointing in the same direction it suddenly seems very likely that Zimmerman is being truthful.

None of the eyewitnesses saw how the fight started, and what they did see [or hear] they couldn't agree on: it was dark & rainy, and none of them had a clear view. Therefore, I relied on none of their statements at all.



Simply by reaching down during the struggle, it wouldn't be all that difficult and very far from impossible. The video would certainly be very important to demonstrate how and why they reached that conclusion. The only video I saw that showed what you said was the ridiculous dummy demonstration by HLN.

No idea if they made a vid, it was a discussion I read. I didn't see the one on HLN, because I dislike that site intensely, and that goes double for Nancy Grace. It just seems quite reasonable to me that with the weight of someone sitting on you, and their legs holding you tight from armpit to midthigh [because their hands were busy lifting & bashing your head into the grass] you would not be able to get your hand past their leg to reach your weapon - and they're dam sure not going to loosen their grip to let you.



Are you trying to convince me, yourself, or others that choose to ignore all the other evidence that everything hinges on Zimmerman's story? The position of Martin's body is irrelevant to the case and as I stated there is a very good reason for the arms to have moved and that is Martin was still alive. You can't have a perfectly valid reason for the arms to have moved and then just claim Zimmerman is a liar because it fits your story.

but it wasn't just M's arms that moved: he fell onto his back, and Z says he then straddled him & spread his arms to keep him down, and then he got up, and the cops arrived. I know M lived for a minute or two after, but one thing I also know: when you're struggling to breathe in your last minutes of life, the survival instinct takes over. There is no way in hell the survival instinct would cause you to turn your face down into the ground. Also, the cops did not observe any movement once they arrived, which [if memory serves] was just 3 minutes after the shot was heard on tape.

What impossible or unlikely claims of Zimmerman that matter am I saying are irrelevant?

for one, that his wife lied in court on her own behalf. If you read the transcripts of the jail calls, it's quite clear that Z is not consulting with her about what to do with the money raised by his website plea, he is telling her [in a code so childish it wouldn't fool a 3rd grader] how much to move to which account, and when. She obeyed his orders, and he let her take the fall in court - didn't open his mouth at all to say it was his responsibility, which is [again!] exactly how a cowardly liar acts.



You're kidding, right? There is an e-mail to the SPD in the link you provided stating he was upset about the case not to mention the recording of him speaking at a public meeting.

Not kidding. What I referred to is his father's claim [in both interviews and the book he wrote just after the verdict, which I haven't read, but you can Google it if you'd like, the title is something about "The Malicious Prosecution of My Son George", I believe] that Z printed flyers demanding justice and passed them out, a claim that no one has found any evidence to verify [and you know the defense searched for it]. Ditto with Mr Zimmerman's claims that his son "mentored black kids" - no proof whatsoever to parade during the trial. No fellow NW people, either, and as the case was built on the state's claim that Z was a racist, proof that he wasn't [and all the above would help] should have been high on the defense's list. They didn't present it [except for the z family & a couple neighbors who saw what Z wanted them to see] because they couldn't find it. Because it doesn't exist. He told his family about the flyers, and the black kids, but there's no evidence that either was anything other than his wanting to appear to be better than he knew he was.



Sorry, I should have prefaced my statement by saying he looked worse to those that watched more than the fake media stories.

The fake media stories that portrayed M as a thug? I didn't believe Fox because the evidence doesn't support that. He wasn't a saint or an angel, but he was doing nothing other than walking home from the store when Z decided he looked suspicious & went after him. Because, you know, they always get away.



The statement is just laughable and the fact that you have the information shows just how far from reality and facts you are. Little Trayvon loved math so much that he missed 50+ days of school and the school year wasn't even half over, just ridiculous.

So, missing school is evidence of a criminal nature? I don't think so.



The text messages are very clear and require no spin and certainly aren't out of context since the conversation is all there.

Um, you're talking about a teenager, nuff said.



His wife got herself arrested by her own actions and not what Zimmerman did but hey why not blame him for the actions of another person one more time, at least it is only perjury this time.

"Only perjury"?! Do you think she will get hired anywhere as a nurse with a conviction for felony perjury on her record? I know she won't, and her education is down the drain, because she trusted her husband to keep her from harm, and he let her [if not told her] to do it.

I am taking the evidence and his statements together that lean heavily towards him being honest and not just relying on his word. The "Puuhhleeezze" is out of place and really doesn't make sense. Instead of trying to be dramatic and pretending you just made some huge point you may want to wait to use it until you actually do.

The evidence proves absolutely nothing about what matters most: who escalated the confrontation from verbal to physical. Z's statements [every different version] serve his own interests, but that may not be the truth. And he's demonstrated a willingness to lie many times before his freedom was on the line.



He wasn't a criminal only because the police were protecting him and he wasn't able to face charges for his most recent crime of felony assault. You have a very clear lack of understanding of the mindset of people like Martin, the last thing they want to feel is scared or weak.

Right. So when he ran, Z was just imagining that, huh? Even though RJ testified that she told M to run, and he did.
You don't know squat about his mindset, you just want him to be a thug, because that makes it ok for Z to have shot him.


Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[Pilgrim]

So many lame excuses to dodge the facts that portray Martin as a juvenile delinquent. Bottom line is a jury was presented the most complete accumulation of the facts possible, and found Zimmerman NOT GUILTY... END OF STORY, but still the liberal & black racists are squealing because they didn't get the verdict they wanted. Black on black crime continues to be accepted as an inconvenient truth, and black on white crime is virtually ignored and almost NEVER prosecuted as a hate crime. In this instance, justice has been served; learn to live with it.

 

[cheri1122]

So many lame excuses to dodge the facts that portray Martin as a juvenile delinquent.

I don't agree - I think the facts show the same old tactic of blaming the victim, because he "asked for it" [like rape victims]. Even if it were the truth, it matters not: the fact is Martin was doing nothing but walking home when he was shot. The rest is Zimmerman's version. People are angry because it was Zimmerman's mistakes and bad judgement that caused the death, and he should be held responsible for it.

Bottom line is a jury was presented the most complete accumulation of the facts possible, and found Zimmerman NOT GUILTY...

Bottom line is that the jury had no choice, given that the state didn't prove Zimmerman was lying. I'm fine with that, but don't pretend he was exonerated, because he wasn't.

END OF STORY, but still the liberal & black racists are squealing because they didn't get the verdict they wanted.

"Squealing"? Have you mistaken them for your relatives?



Black on black crime continues to be accepted as an inconvenient truth, and black on white crime is virtually ignored and almost NEVER prosecuted as a hate crime. In this instance, justice has been served; learn to live with it.

The law has been served - justice was not.
I can live with the verdict, because it's better the guilty go free than the innocent do not, but living with it includes discussing it - if that doesn't suit you, then butt out.

 

[Pilgrim]

Bottom line is that the jury had no choice, given that the state didn't prove Zimmerman was lying. I'm fine with that, but don't pretend he was exonerated, because he wasn't.

Say what??? He was found NOT GUILTY! Just because there is a minor segment of the population that doesn't agree with the verdict means nothing. Facts are stubborn things.

"Squealing"? Have you mistaken them for your relatives?

There we go...the personal attack that proves you have lost the debate and have to resort to meaningless cheap shots.

The law has been served - justice was not.
I can live with the verdict, because it's better the guilty go free than the innocent do not, but living with it includes discussing it - if that doesn't suit you, then butt out.

What nonsense - he was found NOT GUILTY by the jury. How much discussion can there be, considering this aforementioned jury that had all the facts presented to them found in his favor. We only know what we get from the mainstream media, which has obviously been biased from the start. Even with that information, their reporting was proven to be inaccurate and facts were blurry at best. If that verdict doesn't suit you, then butt out unless you've got some critical information that wasn't presented in court. The country was told they had to live with the OJ verdict - they'll have to live with this one too.

 

[Turtle]

Zimmerman was found NOT GUILTY, rather than INNOCENT, and there's a difference.

OJ, for example, was found NOT GUILTY, yet he was anything but innocent. The prosecution simply failed to prove he did it. The Zimmerman case is no different, where the prosecution failed to prove he did it. The "bottom line" that the jury was presented the most complete accumulation of the facts possible is a misnomer, because they weren't. There were no facts that proved either self-defense nor illegal killing. All of the facts presented required assumption and conjecture for a conclusion of what happened, and no conclusion of illegal killing based on assumption and conjecture could possibly be a conclusion that left no room for reasonable doubt. In lieu of irrefutable evidence of illegal killing, the jury could only conclude NOT GUILTY, even more so than self-defense.

Also, most of the "evidence" that Martin was a juvenile delinquent was not presented in court, just as most of the "evidence" that Zimmerman has a historical tendency to view blacks as suspicious moreso than that non-whites.

And because of the interviews with juror B37 and with alternate juror E54 (a man), we know that 3 of the jurors began the deliberations firmly wanting to convict him of either murder or manslaughter, while the other three began deliberations firmly in the not guilty camp. We also know that the three who were firmly for guilty took that position because they thought he did it, despite the prosecution failing to provide evidence that he did. Near the end of deliberations the jury was leaning towards the lesser charge of manslaughter (and is why they questioned the judge on clarification of that issue), because they felt Zimmerman at the very least has a moral responsibility for the shooting by leaving his truck to follow and keep an eye on Martin, and if he hadn't done that the shooting wouldn't have taken place.

In the end, there was no evidence of self-defense, nor was there any evidence of an illegal killing, and in the absence of evidence of guilt, the only verdict that could be reached was that of not guilty. But that's not the same as innocent and pure as the driven snow, as some people want to make Zimmerman to be.

As E54 noted, the jury felt Zimmerman was probably guilty of manslaughter, but the prosecution blew the case in closing arguments, which was all about appealing to the heart with “no details, no evidence” offered to help the jury fit the facts presented to the law. “Justice” demanded that Zimmerman be prosecuted and convicted, except that there was no evidence to get the jury to reach a guilty conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. They were supposed to do it for moral and “social” reasons, not legal ones. And it didn’t work. The jury needed hard evidence, despite what they believed actually occurred, and they didn't get it.

 

[AMonger]

What nonsense - he was found NOT GUILTY by the jury. How much discussion can there be, considering this aforementioned jury that had all the facts presented to them found in his favor.

This is an extension of the left's strategy in regard to elections: count & recount the votes as many times as it takes to win, and once you've won, declare it over. If the votes go the other way, the other side cheated.

 

[Pilgrim]

Zimmerman was found NOT GUILTY, rather than INNOCENT, and there's a difference.

He was innocent to begin with. Last time I checked, a defendant in the US legal system is PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. The verdict confirmed his innocence.

 

[Turtle]

He was innocent to begin with. Last time I checked, a defendant in the US legal system is PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. The verdict confirmed his innocence.

That's quite true. And I never said any different. My statement you quoted was made explicitly in the context of the subsequent paragraphs, which you did not quote.

My statement is not in the same context as you presented, that "facts are stubborn things" and the "jury that had all the facts presented to them found in his favor," to imply the facts proved his innocence. The facts did not do that at all. The facts simply didn't prove his guilt, and there's a difference.

If I let the air out of your tires, but I don't get caught or confess to doing it, and no one can prove I did it, does that mean I didn't do it? It certainly means I am innocent of the charges, but not necessarily innocent of the deed. I'm sure even you can see the difference there.

 

[Pilgrim]

You can split hairs all you want, but in the final analysis the facts don't have to prove his innocence. To use your metaphor there was no argument that Zimmerman didn't let the air out of Martin's tires, but that it was justified. This was a case of stupid meeting stupid; Zimmerman shouldn't have been cruising the neighborhood packing heat, but he was and had a permit. Martin could have avoided the whole thing by just breaking into a jog when he saw the "creepy cracker" following him and leaving the little fat "white Hispanic" in the dust. Should'a, would'a, could'a...