Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Please, just this once, be honest. Why was Martin "suspicious"?There was no prior motive established during the trial. Other than Zimmerman referring to him as suspicious, he did not act maliciously. If you haven't already seen, you can by looking at Martin's Facebook posts know that he liked getting into fights, even gave his girlfriend a blow by blow of a fight he got into. Zimmerman never "attacked" him either. There were over 250+ pieces of evidence and 60 witnesses called in that trial. The applicable law was put before the jury. They did it by the book, not by emotion.
The 911 call explains it, and it has nothing to do with race.
If Zimmerman called 911 solely because he had seen a Black man walking the streets and assumed he had committed or was going to commit a crime based upon his race alone, that would be racial profiling. Of course, if Zimmerman had called 911 and said, “There's a Black man walking around and we need to check him out,” the 911 dispatcher would have laughed at him. However, Zimmerman was concerned with a lot more than race. The evidence proves beyond the possibility of doubt that Zimmerman called 911 because (1) there had been a number of recent burglaries in his neighborhood; (2) a man he had never seen before was walking in the rain at night just looking around, staring at houses; and (3) the man appeared to be on drugs (Martin had in fact been smoking Marijuana). Zimmerman found that conduct to be suspicious and worth calling 911 to report it. The 911 dispatcher also thought the man should be checked out and dispatched the police to the area. I think that given the circumstances, Zimmerman did what any responsible neighborhood watchman would have done.
What Zimmerman did was a good example of behavioral profiling. He realized that generally someone who is just walking around at night in the rain in a strange neighborhood staring at houses and acting like he's on drugs is most likely up to no good. I don't know about you, but that's what I would think. (Note: Zimmerman was unaware that Martin was visiting his father's girlfriend who lived close to where Zimmerman saw him.)
There is no evidence which tends to suggest that the 911 call was based upon anything other than suspicious behavior, not race. There may be those who think that Martin's behavior was not suspicious, and I won't condemn them for that. However, I certainly wouldn't want them to be neighborhood watchmen where I live.
If you flee, that gives the person following a reason to chase - they think you are running because you are up to no good. Best thing to do is stand your ground - like Trayvon was doing.
like zimmerman was doing.... see how that works?
Zimmerman was threatening the boy by following him. Trayvon had the right to defend himself.
Sorry there Luddly, but following someone you suspect might be up to no good is not stalking, and there is no evidence that Zimmerman initiated any confrontation other than the testimony from a young lady who couldn't keep her story straight time after time. Sometimes you have to take off the blinders in order to actually see. When this case first broke, I thought Zimmerman was most likely guilty. After hearing all of the evidence, I am certain there was no, as in zero, evidence to prove Zimmerman stalked, confronted, and then willfully killed Martin, on top of which I actually believe the bulk of Zimmerman's version as to the course of events that led to Martin's death.
As for this nutty juror, she states there wasn't enough evidence to convict but goes on to say Zimmerman got away with murder. This is where we all need to put on our "critical thinking" caps. If there wasn't enough evidence to convict, then that means there is obviously reasonable doubt, and if there is reasonable doubt, it is very possible that Zimmerman is actually completely innocent. See how that works?
"It should be" should not be nor is a reason to put a man away for a minimum of 25 years.
Look, if someone was following me in the dead of night, and I was by myself, I would want to know who was following me. I would feel scared, understandably, being alone. The person should identify themselves, or the person being followed should have the right to use whatever force necessary to defend themselves.
Martin was by no means scared of Zimmerman. He attacked, he engaged. He started the fight, Noomi. The difference between him and you? You could easily subdue the person following you if push came to shove, given your training in the Martial Arts.
In what NAZI world do you live?In case you missed it. That is NOT a crime.What about the evidence of George following an unarmed teen boy and refusing to ID himself?
It should be. If you are asked to identify yourself by the person you are following, you should comply.
Please, just this once, be honest. Why was Martin "suspicious"?There was no prior motive established during the trial. Other than Zimmerman referring to him as suspicious, he did not act maliciously. If you haven't already seen, you can by looking at Martin's Facebook posts know that he liked getting into fights, even gave his girlfriend a blow by blow of a fight he got into. Zimmerman never "attacked" him either. There were over 250+ pieces of evidence and 60 witnesses called in that trial. The applicable law was put before the jury. They did it by the book, not by emotion.
The 911 call explains it, and it has nothing to do with race.
If Zimmerman called 911 solely because he had seen a Black man walking the streets and assumed he had committed or was going to commit a crime based upon his race alone, that would be racial profiling. Of course, if Zimmerman had called 911 and said, There's a Black man walking around and we need to check him out, the 911 dispatcher would have laughed at him. However, Zimmerman was concerned with a lot more than race. The evidence proves beyond the possibility of doubt that Zimmerman called 911 because (1) there had been a number of recent burglaries in his neighborhood; (2) a man he had never seen before was walking in the rain at night just looking around, staring at houses; and (3) the man appeared to be on drugs (Martin had in fact been smoking Marijuana). Zimmerman found that conduct to be suspicious and worth calling 911 to report it. The 911 dispatcher also thought the man should be checked out and dispatched the police to the area. I think that given the circumstances, Zimmerman did what any responsible neighborhood watchman would have done.
What Zimmerman did was a good example of behavioral profiling. He realized that generally someone who is just walking around at night in the rain in a strange neighborhood staring at houses and acting like he's on drugs is most likely up to no good. I don't know about you, but that's what I would think. (Note: Zimmerman was unaware that Martin was visiting his father's girlfriend who lived close to where Zimmerman saw him.)
There is no evidence which tends to suggest that the 911 call was based upon anything other than suspicious behavior, not race. There may be those who think that Martin's behavior was not suspicious, and I won't condemn them for that. However, I certainly wouldn't want them to be neighborhood watchmen where I live.
In case you missed it. That is NOT a crime.What about the evidence of George following an unarmed teen boy and refusing to ID himself?
It should be. If you are asked to identify yourself by the person you are following, you should comply.
He did NOT shoot an unarmed child until his life was threatened.In case you missed it. That is NOT a crime.What about the evidence of George following an unarmed teen boy and refusing to ID himself?
Not even if you are armed and know the law enought to shoot said unarmed child?
MURDER
Look, if someone was following me in the dead of night, and I was by myself, I would want to know who was following me. I would feel scared, understandably, being alone. The person should identify themselves, or the person being followed should have the right to use whatever force necessary to defend themselves.
Martin was by no means scared of Zimmerman. He attacked, he engaged. He started the fight, Noomi. The difference between him and you? You could easily subdue the person following you if push came to shove, given your training in the Martial Arts.
WHAT do you expect Zimmerman to say? He knew there were no eye witnesses and the only person who could dispute his story is the boy he executed.
She fears for her life.
Are you kidding? She'll write a book and make millions, then do the speaking tour.
Hell they'll probably end up making it a Broadway Musical.
In what NAZI world do you live?In case you missed it. That is NOT a crime.
It should be. If you are asked to identify yourself by the person you are following, you should comply.
Please, just this once, be honest. Why was Martin "suspicious"?
He was black.
He was walking around in the rain, in a hoodie, "looking into houses" not because he was black. Or did anyone not bother to listen to the non emergency call?
Has no bearing on the law.
I know, but it still should have been considered - it gives a reason as to motive, for Trayvon to have attacked.
The attack on him wasn't random - it was probably provoked by Zimmerman following the boy, and that should have been considered. Otherwise the jury didn't get all the facts.
There was no prior motive established during the trial. Other than Zimmerman referring to him as suspicious, he did not act maliciously. If you haven't already seen, you can by looking at Martin's Facebook posts and text messages know that he liked getting into fights, even gave his girlfriend a blow by blow of a fight he got into. Zimmerman never "attacked" him either. There were over 250+ pieces of evidence and 60 witnesses called in that trial. The applicable law was put before the jury. They did it by the book, not by emotion.
Has no bearing on the law.
I know, but it still should have been considered - it gives a reason as to motive, for Trayvon to have attacked.
The attack on him wasn't random - it was probably provoked by Zimmerman following the boy, and that should have been considered. Otherwise the jury didn't get all the facts.
There was no prior motive established during the trial. Other than Zimmerman referring to him as suspicious, he did not act maliciously. If you haven't already seen, you can by looking at Martin's Facebook posts and text messages know that he liked getting into fights, even gave his girlfriend a blow by blow of a fight he got into. Zimmerman never "attacked" him either. There were over 250+ pieces of evidence and 60 witnesses called in that trial. The applicable law was put before the jury. They did it by the book, not by emotion.
Martin was by no means scared of Zimmerman. He attacked, he engaged. He started the fight, Noomi. The difference between him and you? You could easily subdue the person following you if push came to shove, given your training in the Martial Arts.
WHAT do you expect Zimmerman to say? He knew there were no eye witnesses and the only person who could dispute his story is the boy he executed.
You idiot.
There were plenty of witnesses. John Good was the primary witness, he had the best view of the fight.
Really? No eyewitnesses? Are you stupid? Executed? Man you swallowed all of it didn't you?
I am at a literal loss for words as to how blatantly stupid this post is.
Don't just close this window without thinking about this -
What's the difference between black and white?
Why wouldn't the NRA urge black men to arm themselves against nutters like the neighborhood-cop-wannabe?
The NRA doesnt urge anyone to arm themselves in the wake of any tragedy.
Fail.
I know, but it still should have been considered - it gives a reason as to motive, for Trayvon to have attacked.
The attack on him wasn't random - it was probably provoked by Zimmerman following the boy, and that should have been considered. Otherwise the jury didn't get all the facts.
There was no prior motive established during the trial. Other than Zimmerman referring to him as suspicious, he did not act maliciously. If you haven't already seen, you can by looking at Martin's Facebook posts and text messages know that he liked getting into fights, even gave his girlfriend a blow by blow of a fight he got into. Zimmerman never "attacked" him either. There were over 250+ pieces of evidence and 60 witnesses called in that trial. The applicable law was put before the jury. They did it by the book, not by emotion.
I guess you've flip flopped from your earlier concessions that they only acquitted him due to lack of evidence.
