The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[Quantum Windbag]

Interesting that four jurors have distanced themselves from her comments. You would think they'd support her point of view, but they don't, so that makes me wonder a little...

Why do you think they would support her? I listened to her for 30 seconds and knew she was the lone holdout for a guilty verdict when they asked the judge for clarification on the manslaughter charge. She admitted the only reason she didn't find Zimmerman guilty is that she was forced to actually follow the law. Like you, she would have been happy to ignore the law and send him to prison for life just because he killed a black teenager. You should be defending her, yet you want to throw her under the bus in an attempt to get the verdict overturned.

Newsflash, even if the government proved that Zimmerman bribed the jury to get the not guilty verdict they cannot charge him with murder again. You really should stop listening to the idiots that think she lied in favor of Zimmerman.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm curious, what's your take on this person?

It's amazing a juror like this was picked.

Her comments were shocking.

She sounded just like you, why is that shocking?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm curious, what's your take on this person?

Confirmation that our justice system is working as intended and Blackstone's admonishment remains in effect:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

In essence, both Zimmerman and the State of Florida were on trial, and the jury found the State guilty of failing to make its case.

Why is it that, even when you are making a good point, you say something stupid?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In this case, as with so many, the truth cannot be known – as its sole proprietor is the defendant.

Consequently justice is the only appropriate outcome of such a trial, and the verdict of not guilty indeed served justice, as we wisely place the greatest burden upon the state when one’s liberty or life are in jeopardy.

True and well 'said'; however (you knew that was coming, huh?) IMO GZ is not innocent. He is not a victim. When one chooses to carry deadly weapon they have already decided to be judge, jury and executioner. In law they may be exonerated; morally they remain culpable unless their actions meet the standard outlined for a just war.

First, war must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for self-gain (for example, "in the nation's interest" is not just) or as an exercise of power. (Proper Authority is first: represents the common good: which is peace for the sake of man's true end—God.)

Second, just war must be waged by a properly instituted authority such as the state. (Just Cause: for the sake of restoring some good that has been denied. i.e., lost territory, lost goods, punishment for an evil perpetrated by a government, army, or even citizen population.)

Third, peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence.[13] (Right Intention: an authority must fight for the just reasons it has expressly claimed for declaring war in the first place. Soldiers must also fight for this intention.)

Agreed.

Not innocent and not guilty.

Zimmerman clearly created an unsafe situation and his pursuit of Martin was unwarranted and reckless; hence Florida law that prohibits wrongful death civil suits in situations concerning SYG/castle doctrine/self-defense.

It doesn't prohibit anything, asswipe.

 

[Clementine]

Does this have anything to do with Rachel Jeantel's interview Monday night on Piers Morgan?

That was really something. She was more open and honest about the phone conversation the night Trayvon died.

Rachel Jeantel's quote from Monday night on CNN:

"They don't understand, they understand, 'Oh, he would just bash, or was kill.' When somebody bash somebody, like, blood people, trust me, in the area I live, that's not bashing. That's just called 'whoop ass.' You just got your ass whooped. That's what it is."

Rachel also admitted some other things that give insight as to why Trayvon chose to go after Zimmerman rather than run away. The two talked about Zimmerman being a rapist (and therefore gay) and Trayvon apparently decided he needed a whoop ass. Rachel said Trayvon ain't that way (gay). She seems to be saying that it was all Zimmerman's fault simply because he thought Trayvon was going to do more than just beat him up. I have no idea how you can tell what a person's intentions are, but it's clear that Trayvon was wanting to fight and not scared.

In earlier text messages, Trayvon told Rachel that he got into a fight and was happy because he made the other guy bleed. He was anxious to fight him again because he didn't bleed enough to satisfy Trayvon.

Then, as if she realized she said too much, she made this remark:

"Oh, my! Jeez! Oh, my. I'm destroying the whole thing."

Maybe she did destroy the chance for the DOJ to go after Zimmerman. She admitted that Trayvon was going to give Zimmerman a whoop ass after they talked about him being a rapist. Sounds like Trayvon may have believed Zimmerman was interested in him.

If there is truth to what Rachel said, then maybe beating Zimmerman up was actually a hate crime against gays. That seems to be the reason he went after him.

Stupid things happened that night. If Zimmerman had stayed in his truck, then Martin wouldn't have acted like an idiot punk who was looking for a fight.

I wonder if it would have helped if Zimmerman and other neighborhood watch people would wear a hat or jacket that identifies them as watchers.

 

[The Gadfly]

Follow up: What do you think of Stephanie and CrusaderFrank?

Two morons desperate for attention, IMO.

As for B-37 I agree with Lakhota, she had an agenda going in, and that agenda had nothing to do with trying to determine the truth.

In this case, as with so many, the truth cannot be known – as its sole proprietor is the defendant.

Consequently justice is the only appropriate outcome of such a trial, and the verdict of not guilty indeed served justice, as we wisely place the greatest burden upon the state when one’s liberty or life are in jeopardy.

True and well 'said'; however (you knew that was coming, huh?) IMO GZ is not innocent. He is not a victim. When one chooses to carry deadly weapon they have already decided to be judge, jury and executioner. In law they may be exonerated; morally they remain culpable unless their actions meet the standard outlined for a just war.

First, war must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for self-gain (for example, "in the nation's interest" is not just) or as an exercise of power. (Proper Authority is first: represents the common good: which is peace for the sake of man's true end—God.)

Second, just war must be waged by a properly instituted authority such as the state. (Just Cause: for the sake of restoring some good that has been denied. i.e., lost territory, lost goods, punishment for an evil perpetrated by a government, army, or even citizen population.)

Third, peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence.[13] (Right Intention: an authority must fight for the just reasons it has expressly claimed for declaring war in the first place. Soldiers must also fight for this intention.)

Wry, I give you credit for one thing here; although you could have done it more clearly, you've pointed out the main difficulty everyone has had with this case. There is not a single issue here,; there are two; they are separate and distinct, and must be adjudged by two very different standards.

The first is criminal culpability. That one is a matter of law, and insofar as the facts can be known, the jury got that one right. According to the laws of the state of FL, Zimmerman acted lawfully, (or at any rate there is insufficient probative evidence to show that he did not), and by law, he had to be acquitted of the charges brought. The way that statute is written (and it is different from the common law self-defense provisions that apply in many other jurisdictions), it does not matter, that Zimmerman's judgement could have been better; nor whether what he did was morally justified on any level. The only question is, were his actions, as far as they can be known, lawful? They were, and one does not have to agree with them, to understand that.

The second, and perhaps more pertinent question is moral culpability. That is entirely different; very different standards apply, and I am less sympathetic with Zimmerman on that question. When one chooses to carry a (legally defined) deadly weapon, or is simply possessed by training and/or physical ability with the means to react with deadly force, there is an extra moral responsibility to exercise restraint in acting in any way which might initiate an unnecessary confrontation. (Again, by law in some jurisdictions, that responsibility may extend into the legal realm, but under the relevant FL statute, it does not). Zimmerman's actions do NOT meet THAT standard. He reasonably could, without endangering himself or anyone else, have broken off any pursuit of Martin when he lost sight of him, if indeed, he had elected to pursue him at all. He failed to do so, and is morally (though NOT legally) culpable to some extent, for that failure. However, Martin was not entirely without fault in his own actions. He could have, had he kept going in the direction he was headed, have reached the safety of the apartment where he was staying well before Zimmerman could have caught up to him. For whatever reason, he chose not to do that, and he too, has some share of moral responsibility for what ensued. (It is worth noting, parenthetically, that in many jurisdictions, Martin could not have legally claimed self-defense either; he would have had a "duty to flee or retreat", if he could reasonably have done so, and all we know, suggests that he could have). Now, it may not feel fair, to many, that a an older man was absolved of legal consequence for his moral failing, while a seventeen-year-old paid for his with his life. It's hard to accept, from an emotional standpoint, and so it's easy to fault the legal system, or blame racism, or do anything, but accept that life is not always fair, and justice and morality are not always the same. (We often confuse them, because of our desire for a fair society, and our sympathy for underdogs, but they remain fundamentally different)

All that said, what I've said from the beginning of this still stands. We cannot ask the judicial process to mete out punishments for what we believe are MORAL (but not legal) offenses; that process necessarily has a narrower purview. Nor can we mete out any such punishment ourselves, individually or collectively; to form a lynch mob, or contribute to one, is if anything, a greater moral failing than the one we seek to sanction. As a society, we've agreed not to do that, even when we want to. That's some progress, and I hope we maintain it.

And so, we cannot punish George Zimmerman; he is, like it or not, beyond our legitimate reach. To some, he's a victim, or a hero; to others, he's a villain. Perhaps he's none of those, just someone who did not live up to a big responsibility, and now has to live with the memory of what he did. Whether that's enough, I'll personally leave for a Higher (and Far Wiser) Court to decide.

 

[Interpol]

Actually, the first crime was when Zimmerman left his vehicle and followed Trayvon up into the backyards of the complex.

Following someone isn't a crime. Even if the guy you're following is black.

he's nothing more than a wanna be cop who fucked up and killed an innocent teen.

An innocent teen who was beating on him.

You're right.................following someone isn't a crime here in the U.S.

However....................if you follow me in a vehicle and then decide to follow me for around 100 yards, I'm gonna think that you're going to do harm to me and I WILL confront you.

Would I be considered bad if you said racist crap to me while following me and I decided to kick your ass?

Quick question..................how many of YOU people would allow someone to follow you in a vehicle, jump out and start following you down the street, without asking what the fuck they were following you for?

I live in a pretty decent place, but if you follow me down the block after tracking me in a vehicle, I'm gonna ask you why you're there. If you can't provide a decent response, my response may be to attack.

Trayvon was murdered and Zimmerman needs to go to jail. Sorry, but the 911 operator told him "we don't need you to do that" when he said he was going to follow him.

Zimmerman should have stayed in his vehicle, going out of it lost him the "stand your ground" defense.

Oh brother. Another internet tough guy!

You attack someone you go to jail moron!!

The 911 operator isn't a cop and has no authority. Besides GZ said "ok" when advised not to follow and you have zero evidence that he continued to follow TM as a matter of fact at that point in time GZ had already lost sight of TM so he couldn't follow him even if he wanted to you stupid ass!

How the fuck do you know? Were you there?

How do you know he lost sight of him? How do you know he listened to the dispatcher?

There's actually no proof he listened to them because the shooting happened quite a ways from where his vehicle was, even though the GZ true believers think it happened right next to the car.

Everything GZ was saying points to him definitely not letting TM out of his sight. "These fucking punks always get away", he said. He wasn't going to let the kid out of his sight because he wanted the credit for apprehending him.

 

[Oldstyle]

Good question.

My opinion? It's because he had delusions of grandeur and wanted to play supercop for a night.

If Zimmerman had simply stayed in his vehicle, he would have been "standing his ground", and if he'd shot Trayvon for trying to get in, he would have been justified in what he'd done.

However.................getting out of the vehicle and following Trayvon for a bit of distance is where he went wrong, and in my opinion, started the whole fight.

Like I've said before..................if you're following me late at night and I notice it, you can bet your ass I'm going to stop and ask why you're following me. If you can't provide a good enough answer, I just may pop you in the nose to get you to quit.

Pop someone in the nose, or slam their head into the sidewalk? My Gawd... You idiots never learn do you....I would suggest that smacking someone in the nose is exactly why Trayvon Martin isn't with us today. Your supposed to learn from these things, not proclaim you would do the exact same thing Trayvon did... Repeating the same thing expecting a different result is kind of nutty.

From what I'd seen of his wounds, if he'd had his head slammed into concrete repeatedly, there would have been a lot more damage. From the looks of it, he got smacked in the nose and fell backwards, hitting his head on the sidewalk.

But..................even the defense said that Zimmerman was an out of shape pussy.

If that was your defense of Trayvon's actions, Sailor...all I can say is it's even a worse case than the Prosecution put on.

You say it looks like he got hit in the nose and fell, hitting his head on the sidewalk? Well, THAT right there is assault and battery. Then you've got an eye witness (Goode) who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him. THAT is an attack that was continued AFTER someone was knocked down and incapacitated. Then you want to add that Zimmerman was "an out of shape pussy"? So not only was Martin sucker punching someone...he was sucker punching an out of shape pussy and then continuing on to give him a sound beating? If you were the lawyer for the Prosecution...you might as well rest your case now because you just lost it.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Pop someone in the nose, or slam their head into the sidewalk? My Gawd... You idiots never learn do you....I would suggest that smacking someone in the nose is exactly why Trayvon Martin isn't with us today. Your supposed to learn from these things, not proclaim you would do the exact same thing Trayvon did... Repeating the same thing expecting a different result is kind of nutty.

From what I'd seen of his wounds, if he'd had his head slammed into concrete repeatedly, there would have been a lot more damage. From the looks of it, he got smacked in the nose and fell backwards, hitting his head on the sidewalk.

But..................even the defense said that Zimmerman was an out of shape pussy.

If that was your defense of Trayvon's actions, Sailor...all I can say is it's even a worse case than the Prosecution put on.

You say it looks like he got hit in the nose and fell, hitting his head on the sidewalk? Well, THAT right there is assault and battery. Then you've got an eye witness (Goode) who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him. THAT is an attack that was continued AFTER someone was knocked down and incapacitated. Then you want to add that Zimmerman was "an out of shape pussy"? So not only was Martin sucker punching someone...he was sucker punching an out of shape pussy and then continuing on to give him a sound beating? If you were the lawyer for the Prosecution...you might as well rest your case now because you just lost it.

If Zimmerman had stayed in his car and waited for the cops, there would have been no fight nor would a teenager have been murdered.

Like I said.................if you follow me at night and I catch you, I'm gonna turn around and ask what the fuck you're doing. If you start saying bigoted bullshit to me, I'm probably gonna knock you on your ass.

Zimmerman initiated the confrontation by following Trayvon, even after the 911 operator told him "we don't need you to do that".

Why would I be confrontational towards someone following me? Because I'd spend a lot of time overseas and have been followed before. And yeah..............in Italy I did have a confrontation.

 

[Oldstyle]

You're right.................following someone isn't a crime here in the U.S.

However....................if you follow me in a vehicle and then decide to follow me for around 100 yards, I'm gonna think that you're going to do harm to me and I WILL confront you.

Would I be considered bad if you said racist crap to me while following me and I decided to kick your ass?

Quick question..................how many of YOU people would allow someone to follow you in a vehicle, jump out and start following you down the street, without asking what the fuck they were following you for?

I live in a pretty decent place, but if you follow me down the block after tracking me in a vehicle, I'm gonna ask you why you're there. If you can't provide a decent response, my response may be to attack.

Trayvon was murdered and Zimmerman needs to go to jail. Sorry, but the 911 operator told him "we don't need you to do that" when he said he was going to follow him.

Zimmerman should have stayed in his vehicle, going out of it lost him the "stand your ground" defense.

Oh brother. Another internet tough guy!

You attack someone you go to jail moron!!

The 911 operator isn't a cop and has no authority. Besides GZ said "ok" when advised not to follow and you have zero evidence that he continued to follow TM as a matter of fact at that point in time GZ had already lost sight of TM so he couldn't follow him even if he wanted to you stupid ass!

How the fuck do you know? Were you there?

How do you know he lost sight of him? How do you know he listened to the dispatcher?

There's actually no proof he listened to them because the shooting happened quite a ways from where his vehicle was, even though the GZ true believers think it happened right next to the car.

Everything GZ was saying points to him definitely not letting TM out of his sight. "These fucking punks always get away", he said. He wasn't going to let the kid out of his sight because he wanted the credit for apprehending him.

Wow, you really didn't follow the trial, did you? Your ignorance of what was testified to is quite frankly STAGGERING! Both Zimmerman and Martin provided testimony that they'd lost sight of each other when Martin ran away. Martin is either outside of the condo where he is staying or close by according to what he told Rachel Jenteal. Zimmerman is over a hundred yards away...both men in the pitch dark. There is the four minute's that go by before the fight starts when Zimmerman has no clue where Martin is. He's told the Police that he's lost him and is walking back to meet them by his SUV when Martin approaches him out of the dark and confronts him with the "You got a problem?" challenge.

I don't know of ANYONE that thinks the shooting happened near Zimmerman's SUV! Where you came up with that notion I'd love to hear.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Does this have anything to do with Rachel Jeantel's interview Monday night on Piers Morgan?

That was really something. She was more open and honest about the phone conversation the night Trayvon died.

Rachel Jeantel's quote from Monday night on CNN:

"They don't understand, they understand, 'Oh, he would just bash, or was kill.' When somebody bash somebody, like, blood people, trust me, in the area I live, that's not bashing. That's just called 'whoop ass.' You just got your ass whooped. That's what it is."

Rachel also admitted some other things that give insight as to why Trayvon chose to go after Zimmerman rather than run away. The two talked about Zimmerman being a rapist (and therefore gay) and Trayvon apparently decided he needed a whoop ass. Rachel said Trayvon ain't that way (gay). She seems to be saying that it was all Zimmerman's fault simply because he thought Trayvon was going to do more than just beat him up. I have no idea how you can tell what a person's intentions are, but it's clear that Trayvon was wanting to fight and not scared.

In earlier text messages, Trayvon told Rachel that he got into a fight and was happy because he made the other guy bleed. He was anxious to fight him again because he didn't bleed enough to satisfy Trayvon.

Then, as if she realized she said too much, she made this remark:

"Oh, my! Jeez! Oh, my. I'm destroying the whole thing."

Maybe she did destroy the chance for the DOJ to go after Zimmerman. She admitted that Trayvon was going to give Zimmerman a whoop ass after they talked about him being a rapist. Sounds like Trayvon may have believed Zimmerman was interested in him.

If there is truth to what Rachel said, then maybe beating Zimmerman up was actually a hate crime against gays. That seems to be the reason he went after him.

Stupid things happened that night. If Zimmerman had stayed in his truck, then Martin wouldn't have acted like an idiot punk who was looking for a fight.

I wonder if it would have helped if Zimmerman and other neighborhood watch people would wear a hat or jacket that identifies them as watchers.

yeah, and if that guy hadn't flashed his cash he wouldn't have been mugged. If that girl hadn't dressed so provocatively she wouldn't have been gang raped.

I am so tired of hearing lefties blame the victim when the perp is a protected group and the Truth hurts their agit prop of the day.

 

[Oldstyle]

From what I'd seen of his wounds, if he'd had his head slammed into concrete repeatedly, there would have been a lot more damage. From the looks of it, he got smacked in the nose and fell backwards, hitting his head on the sidewalk.

But..................even the defense said that Zimmerman was an out of shape pussy.

If that was your defense of Trayvon's actions, Sailor...all I can say is it's even a worse case than the Prosecution put on.

You say it looks like he got hit in the nose and fell, hitting his head on the sidewalk? Well, THAT right there is assault and battery. Then you've got an eye witness (Goode) who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him. THAT is an attack that was continued AFTER someone was knocked down and incapacitated. Then you want to add that Zimmerman was "an out of shape pussy"? So not only was Martin sucker punching someone...he was sucker punching an out of shape pussy and then continuing on to give him a sound beating? If you were the lawyer for the Prosecution...you might as well rest your case now because you just lost it.

If Zimmerman had stayed in his car and waited for the cops, there would have been no fight nor would a teenager have been murdered.

Like I said.................if you follow me at night and I catch you, I'm gonna turn around and ask what the fuck you're doing. If you start saying bigoted bullshit to me, I'm probably gonna knock you on your ass.

Zimmerman initiated the confrontation by following Trayvon, even after the 911 operator told him "we don't need you to do that".

Why would I be confrontational towards someone following me? Because I'd spend a lot of time overseas and have been followed before. And yeah..............in Italy I did have a confrontation.

Huge problem with your scenario, Sailor! Martin lost Zimmerman when he ran away. He was over a football field away from his pursuer in the pitch dark...right outside of the condo he was staying at. He was completely safe. All he had to do was go inside.

Martin didn't do THAT, though...did he? No, he walked back and confronted the man he had just racially profiled as a "Cracker". He went LOOKING for a fight.

 

[ABikerSailor]

If that was your defense of Trayvon's actions, Sailor...all I can say is it's even a worse case than the Prosecution put on.

You say it looks like he got hit in the nose and fell, hitting his head on the sidewalk? Well, THAT right there is assault and battery. Then you've got an eye witness (Goode) who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him. THAT is an attack that was continued AFTER someone was knocked down and incapacitated. Then you want to add that Zimmerman was "an out of shape pussy"? So not only was Martin sucker punching someone...he was sucker punching an out of shape pussy and then continuing on to give him a sound beating? If you were the lawyer for the Prosecution...you might as well rest your case now because you just lost it.

If Zimmerman had stayed in his car and waited for the cops, there would have been no fight nor would a teenager have been murdered.

Like I said.................if you follow me at night and I catch you, I'm gonna turn around and ask what the fuck you're doing. If you start saying bigoted bullshit to me, I'm probably gonna knock you on your ass.

Zimmerman initiated the confrontation by following Trayvon, even after the 911 operator told him "we don't need you to do that".

Why would I be confrontational towards someone following me? Because I'd spend a lot of time overseas and have been followed before. And yeah..............in Italy I did have a confrontation.

Huge problem with your scenario, Sailor! Martin lost Zimmerman when he ran away. He was over a football field away from his pursuer in the pitch dark...right outside of the condo he was staying at. He was completely safe. All he had to do was go inside.

Martin didn't do THAT, though...did he? No, he walked back and confronted the man he had just racially profiled as a "Cracker". He went LOOKING for a fight.

Actually, he was several houses (meaning at least 3) away from his house before he was confronted.

Zimmerman followed and tracked Martin, which is why he should be sent to jail for murder.

 

[Oldstyle]

It makes me shake my head at the concept that George Zimmerman is at fault simply because he tried to follow someone at a distance to keep them in sight until the Police arrived...but Trayvon Martin is somehow justified in walking a hundred yards away from the safety of the condo to confront someone and punch them in the nose. How does that work in a rational world? Seriously...

 

[MeBelle]

you should check out pRick Scott's FB wall.

Sucks to be the Medicare Fraud king aka the "shut that prosecutor's mouth" guy.

Hubby worked for HCA. We used to hang out with Scott.

Left for greener pastures.

Total stunnage when we found out about the Medicare fraud.

Ha ha ha! Can we do a rick scott thread to talk about this?

It would be a very short thread!

Originally posted by Toes > Rick is a pRick.

Originally posted by MeBelle > Yes, he is.

/thread

 

[Esmeralda]

She sounds racist to me. Her attempts at "rationalizing" her acquittal of Zimmerman seem to have backfired from what I've seen and heard. I heard she cancelled her book deal. I believe she had an "agenda" from the very beginning - including during jury selection. Her husband is an attorney, and I believe she really WANTED on that jury. I believe her mind was made up BEFORE the trial. Plus, 4 of the other jurors have said she doesn't speak for them.

Also, I'd really like to know if she LIED during jury selection.

Agreed. I think she probably did lie during jury selection. The trial verdict is in question because of her, as far as I'm concerned. She should be investigated for jury misconduct.

 

[Oldstyle]

If Zimmerman had stayed in his car and waited for the cops, there would have been no fight nor would a teenager have been murdered.

Like I said.................if you follow me at night and I catch you, I'm gonna turn around and ask what the fuck you're doing. If you start saying bigoted bullshit to me, I'm probably gonna knock you on your ass.

Zimmerman initiated the confrontation by following Trayvon, even after the 911 operator told him "we don't need you to do that".

Why would I be confrontational towards someone following me? Because I'd spend a lot of time overseas and have been followed before. And yeah..............in Italy I did have a confrontation.

Huge problem with your scenario, Sailor! Martin lost Zimmerman when he ran away. He was over a football field away from his pursuer in the pitch dark...right outside of the condo he was staying at. He was completely safe. All he had to do was go inside.

Martin didn't do THAT, though...did he? No, he walked back and confronted the man he had just racially profiled as a "Cracker". He went LOOKING for a fight.

Actually, he was several houses (meaning at least 3) away from his house before he was confronted.

Zimmerman followed and tracked Martin, which is why he should be sent to jail for murder.

Another person who didn't follow the testimony in the trial! What's with you guys?

Martin runs from Zimmerman and in doing so cuts off his phone call with Rachel Jenteal. When she calls back over a minute later she testifies that he is breathing hard. The distance from the T area to the condo where he is staying is about 120 yards. Rachel Jenteal testifies that Trayvon said he was right by the condo which it's hard to picture him being anywhere else if he's still breathing hard after running for sixty seconds. Meantime Zimmerman is on the phone with the Police, telling them that he's no longer able to see the man who fled. He's walking back to his SUV.

So explain to me how it is that Zimmerman is guilty of "tracking" Trayvon Martin when it's Martin who HAD to have walked BACK up the sidewalk to the T area...a full 120 yards...and appears out of the darkness with his "You got a problem?" challenge? How does that WORK in your scenario, Sailor?

 

[Esmeralda]

Follow up: What do you think of Stephanie and CrusaderFrank?

Two morons desperate for attention, IMO.

As for B-37 I agree with Lakhota, she had an agenda going in, and that agenda had nothing to do with trying to determine the truth.

no problem what you think of me, I think you are a arrogant ass who thinks your shit doesn't stink..so there...

LMAO And your mother wears combat boots.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Huge problem with your scenario, Sailor! Martin lost Zimmerman when he ran away. He was over a football field away from his pursuer in the pitch dark...right outside of the condo he was staying at. He was completely safe. All he had to do was go inside.

Martin didn't do THAT, though...did he? No, he walked back and confronted the man he had just racially profiled as a "Cracker". He went LOOKING for a fight.

Actually, he was several houses (meaning at least 3) away from his house before he was confronted.

Zimmerman followed and tracked Martin, which is why he should be sent to jail for murder.

Another person who didn't follow the testimony in the trial! What's with you guys?

Martin runs from Zimmerman and in doing so cuts off his phone call with Rachel Jenteal. When she calls back over a minute later she testifies that he is breathing hard. The distance from the T area to the condo where he is staying is about 120 yards. Rachel Jenteal testifies that Trayvon said he was right by the condo which it's hard to picture him being anywhere else if he's still breathing hard after running for sixty seconds. Meantime Zimmerman is on the phone with the Police, telling them that he's no longer able to see the man who fled. He's walking back to his SUV.

So explain to me how it is that Zimmerman is guilty of "tracking" Trayvon Martin when it's Martin who HAD to have walked BACK up the sidewalk to the T area...a full 120 yards...and appears out of the darkness with his "You got a problem?" challenge? How does that WORK in your scenario, Sailor?

Zimmerman tracked Trayvon after he left his car.

He was told "we don't need you to do that" by the 911 operator when he said he was going to follow him.

How's that work out for you?

 

[Oldstyle]

And your contention that he was 3 houses away from the condo is directly repudiated by Rachel Jenteal's testimony. When she was asked why she didn't call the Police if she thought Trayvon was in some kind of trouble with the "Cracker"...she replied that she didn't think it was necessary because Trayvon's dad was right there at the condo to help Trayvon if he needed it. If he's 3 buildings away then it's obvious that he's not close enough to home to get that help.