The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[Oldstyle]

So what we're finding it's ok to make uncorroborated and malicious statements about Trayvon Martin and his tragic death, while at the same time mere assertions about Zimmerman or recounting what he himself admitted in the 911 call causes nothing but outrage and upheaval.

You're kidding, right? George Zimmerman's "character" was under non-stop assault by the main stream media from the start on this. They managed to turn a guy who started a protest over the beating of a black man by the white son of a Sanford Police officer and mentored two black children into a "racist vigilante". Where was your outrage over that?

There is a very good reason why the Prosecution didn't bring Trayvon Martin's character into the trial and it's not because they just "forgot". They didn't go down that path, Quick because it would have allowed the Defense to bring into evidence who Trayvon was and what he was doing with his life. I know that the perception of many here is that Trayvon was an "innocent" who lost his life because he went to the store to buy some candy and was accosted by an out of control bigot cop wannabe but that view only works if you completely ignore what was going on in that young man's life.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

So what we're finding it's ok to make uncorroborated and malicious statements about Trayvon Martin and his tragic death, while at the same time mere assertions about Zimmerman or recounting what he himself admitted in the 911 call causes nothing but outrage and upheaval.

You're kidding, right? George Zimmerman's "character" was under non-stop assault by the main stream media from the start on this. They managed to turn a guy who started a protest over the beating of a black man by the white son of a Sanford Police officer and mentored two black children into a "racist vigilante". Where was your outrage over that?

There is a very good reason why the Prosecution didn't bring Trayvon Martin's character into the trial and it's not because they just "forgot". They didn't go down that path, Quick because it would have allowed the Defense to bring into evidence who Trayvon was and what he was doing with his life. I know that the perception of many here is that Trayvon was an "innocent" who lost his life because he went to the store to buy some candy and was accosted by an out of control bigot cop wannabe but that view only works if you completely ignore what was going on in that young man's life.

The prosecution didn't go into Trayvon's character or Zimmerman's because they weren't allowed to since the defense never opened the door to it until the last moment when the defense went after Trayvon and when it was too late for that.

The first rule is not to malign the victim, and that should be the primary focus in our discussions.

 

[Geaux4it]

So what we're finding it's ok to make uncorroborated and malicious statements about Trayvon Martin and his tragic death, while at the same time mere assertions about Zimmerman or recounting what he himself admitted in the 911 call causes nothing but outrage and upheaval.

You're kidding, right? George Zimmerman's "character" was under non-stop assault by the main stream media from the start on this. They managed to turn a guy who started a protest over the beating of a black man by the white son of a Sanford Police officer and mentored two black children into a "racist vigilante". Where was your outrage over that?

There is a very good reason why the Prosecution didn't bring Trayvon Martin's character into the trial and it's not because they just "forgot". They didn't go down that path, Quick because it would have allowed the Defense to bring into evidence who Trayvon was and what he was doing with his life. I know that the perception of many here is that Trayvon was an "innocent" who lost his life because he went to the store to buy some candy and was accosted by an out of control bigot cop wannabe but that view only works if you completely ignore what was going on in that young man's life.

The prosecution didn't go into Trayvon's character or Zimmerman's because they weren't allowed to since the defense never opened the door to it until the last moment when the defense went after Trayvon and when it was too late for that.

The first rule is not to malign the victim, and that should be the primary focus in our discussions.

There were actually (2) victims.

-Geaux

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

You're kidding, right? George Zimmerman's "character" was under non-stop assault by the main stream media from the start on this. They managed to turn a guy who started a protest over the beating of a black man by the white son of a Sanford Police officer and mentored two black children into a "racist vigilante". Where was your outrage over that?

There is a very good reason why the Prosecution didn't bring Trayvon Martin's character into the trial and it's not because they just "forgot". They didn't go down that path, Quick because it would have allowed the Defense to bring into evidence who Trayvon was and what he was doing with his life. I know that the perception of many here is that Trayvon was an "innocent" who lost his life because he went to the store to buy some candy and was accosted by an out of control bigot cop wannabe but that view only works if you completely ignore what was going on in that young man's life.

The prosecution didn't go into Trayvon's character or Zimmerman's because they weren't allowed to since the defense never opened the door to it until the last moment when the defense went after Trayvon and when it was too late for that.

The first rule is not to malign the victim, and that should be the primary focus in our discussions.

There were actually (2) victims.

-Geaux

And how were the scratches on Zimmerman comparable to the gunshot death of Trayvon?

 

[Geaux4it]

The prosecution didn't go into Trayvon's character or Zimmerman's because they weren't allowed to since the defense never opened the door to it until the last moment when the defense went after Trayvon and when it was too late for that.

The first rule is not to malign the victim, and that should be the primary focus in our discussions.

There were actually (2) victims.

-Geaux

And how were the scratches on Zimmerman comparable to the gunshot death of Trayvon?

One was a victim of aggravated assault and the other was a victim of a fatal gun shot wound as the result

-Geaux

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

There were actually (2) victims.

-Geaux

And how were the scratches on Zimmerman comparable to the gunshot death of Trayvon?

One was a victim of aggravated assault and the other was a victim of a fatal gun shot wound as the result

-Geaux

The malicious attacks on Trayvon should stop. Nobody knows who attacked first.

Are you saying those scratches Zimmerman sustained did anything at all to him except require the changing of some band-aids?

 

[Geaux4it]

And how were the scratches on Zimmerman comparable to the gunshot death of Trayvon?

One was a victim of aggravated assault and the other was a victim of a fatal gun shot wound as the result

-Geaux

The malicious attacks on Trayvon should stop. Nobody knows who attacked first.

Are you saying those scratches Zimmerman sustained did anything at all to him except require the changing of some band-aids?

It has occurred to me that GZ's actions that night will likely have a positive impact on future crimes considered by the weak who prey on law abiding citizens

The thug might stop to think- 'What if this guy or woman is armed?

Libs are onto something, maybe TM death will result in something positive

-Geaux

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

One was a victim of aggravated assault and the other was a victim of a fatal gun shot wound as the result

-Geaux

The malicious attacks on Trayvon should stop. Nobody knows who attacked first.

Are you saying those scratches Zimmerman sustained did anything at all to him except require the changing of some band-aids?

It has occurred to me that GZ's actions that night will likely have a positive impact on future crimes considered by the weak who prey on law abiding citizens

The thug might stop to think- 'What if this guy or woman is armed?

Libs are onto something, maybe TM death will result in something positive

-Geaux

That worked well in the Old West, but at the cost of how many innocent lives?

 

[The Rabbi]

There were actually (2) victims.

-Geaux

And how were the scratches on Zimmerman comparable to the gunshot death of Trayvon?

One was a victim of aggravated assault and the other was a victim of a fatal gun shot wound as the result

-Geaux

No. There was one victim. George Zimmerman was the victim of a felonious assault. He defended his life. Trayvon got what was coming to him for assaulting an armed man. He was not a victim. He was the perp.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

And how were the scratches on Zimmerman comparable to the gunshot death of Trayvon?

One was a victim of aggravated assault and the other was a victim of a fatal gun shot wound as the result

-Geaux

No. There was one victim. George Zimmerman was the victim of a felonious assault. He defended his life. Trayvon got what was coming to him for assaulting an armed man. He was not a victim. He was the perp.

We know for a fact that Trayvon was a victim of something, even if it was only a failure of Zimmerman to stop following and go directly back to his truck. We know he could have since after he was warned, Zimmerman stated that Trayvon was running away. If you can't travel a short distance to the shelter of your vehicle while someone's running from you, something is definitely rotten in Denmark.

No independent argument at all can be made that Zimmerman was a victim of anything. Except the scratches and mildly bloody nose, of course. Wow.

 

[The Rabbi]

One was a victim of aggravated assault and the other was a victim of a fatal gun shot wound as the result

-Geaux

No. There was one victim. George Zimmerman was the victim of a felonious assault. He defended his life. Trayvon got what was coming to him for assaulting an armed man. He was not a victim. He was the perp.

We know for a fact that Trayvon was a victim of something, even if it was only a failure of Zimmerman to stop following and go directly back to his truck. We know he could have since after he was warned, Zimmerman stated that Trayvon was running away. If you can't travel a short distance to the shelter of your vehicle while someone's running from you, something is definitely rotten in Denmark.

No independent argument at all can be made that Zimmerman was a victim of anything. Except the scratches and mildly bloody nose, of course. Wow.

Trayvon was not the victim of anything, except maybe liberal policies that formed his mindset. IN the incident in question he was the perpetrator of a felony crime against Zimmerman.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You missed my point which, I believe, I made clear, if not by stressing, "period," in my last two or three posts. I said that supporters of Trayvon can't even entertain the possibility that Zimmerman was entirely responsible for the death without undue attack.

I don't care how much you THINK that's your point, or how much you think saying "period" stresses it. Zimmerman was found "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", which means the prosecution failed to convince the jury of his guilt. That's not the same as innocent, although it has much the same effect, because our system of justice ALSO recognizes that there's often no way to know for sure if someone is truly innocent, and that sometimes, it's possible to know for sure that a person is guilty, but not be able to prove it (see "OJ Simpson").

One example would be advocating that Zimmerman be allowed to maintain a CHL. If he carries that gun around, IMHO it will only be a matter of time before he shoots another person.



Case in point.

And George Zimmerman retains HIS right as an American to not be endlessly persecuted for a crime of which he has been acquitted, simply because drinkers of the racist Kool-Aid don't like that they didn't get their way.

We can learn important lessons from what happened. This is what we do in the Land of the Free.

It's over. You demanded a trial for Trayvon Martin's death, and you got it. And you lost. Feel free to go to your grave insisting that Martin was unjustly killed, if that's your choice. But suck up the fact that Zimmerman escaped your clutches, and move the fuck on with your life.

There is still a decent chance Zimmerman will be charged with civil rights violations, as long as they don't try to prove murder or manslaughter.

Leaving aside a repetition of "You lost, suck it up and take your lynch mob and noose home", which I already said, would you care to explain how you're planning to persecute - I mean, prosecute - Mr. Zimmerman for "civil rights violations" when the FBI has already said he's in the clear on that score? If the federal government does not wish to believe it's own Federal Bureau of Investigation on the subject of law enforcement, who do they wish to believe? You?!

You lost. Stop trying to take away people's Constitutional rights to suit your own agenda. Period.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, I believe the court system is broken. That doesn't mean I'm going to get ridiculous about it and call it "delusional."

And how, might I ask, is our court system "broken", and what do you believe the "fix" is?

There is no fix in sight, for the exact same reason as in the debate here. People are unwilling to recognize inequities in the questionable outcomes.

"Causes? Explanations? We don't need no steenkeeng causes and explanations! Just assume that I'm right that it's broken, and jump right to whining about how it can't be fixed, and victimhood is inevitable!"

Strap on a pair and answer the fucking questions asked, or shut your sniveling little pantyboy mouth and sit down.

 

[Immanuel]

And how were the scratches on Zimmerman comparable to the gunshot death of Trayvon?

One was a victim of aggravated assault and the other was a victim of a fatal gun shot wound as the result

-Geaux

The malicious attacks on Trayvon should stop. Nobody knows who attacked first.

Are you saying those scratches Zimmerman sustained did anything at all to him except require the changing of some band-aids?

We agree on something. Nobody knows who attacked first, but if you read the Martin supporters on this site... they ALL know that Martin was minding his own business just going home from 7-11 right up until the very moment he was shot. Hell, I believe you basically contended that very thing a day or so ago.

Zimmerman supporters for the most part have stated there was reasonable doubt, i.e. no one knows what happened, but the Martin supporters must all have secret film that they didn't share with anyone, because they all claim Martin did absolutely nothing. Well except for The Rabbi and a few others, but they are as far off base as Martin supporters.

Immie

 

[Cecilie1200]

One example would be advocating that Zimmerman be allowed to maintain a CHL. If he carries that gun around, IMHO it will only be a matter of time before he shoots another person.

It's only a matter of time if some other person decides to knock him to the ground, sit on his chest, bash his head against the concrete, and beat him with MMA moves.

People on trial for deaths in similar manners are scrutinized at least 100 times greater than in the original death. I'm not suggesting anyone watch this movie to ascertain what I said, but I thought I'd post it anyway since it's very interesting.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHK4pRhsnRU]The Staircase Murders (2007) - YouTube[/ame]

I know you dipshits just LOVE posting Youtube videos with no commentary and just expecting everyone to ASSUME there's something meaningful and relevant there to make your point for you, but that doesn't work with me, because I don't watch other people's Youtube videos.

You're just going to have to use your words to explain what the hell you think the connection between the Staircase Murders and Zimmerman-Martin is. I shall wait with bated breath.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The prosecution didn't go into Trayvon's character or Zimmerman's because they weren't allowed to since the defense never opened the door to it until the last moment when the defense went after Trayvon and when it was too late for that.

The first rule is not to malign the victim, and that should be the primary focus in our discussions.

There were actually (2) victims.

-Geaux

And how were the scratches on Zimmerman comparable to the gunshot death of Trayvon?

You mean, aside from being inflicted first?

 

[Cecilie1200]

And how were the scratches on Zimmerman comparable to the gunshot death of Trayvon?

One was a victim of aggravated assault and the other was a victim of a fatal gun shot wound as the result

-Geaux

The malicious attacks on Trayvon should stop. Nobody knows who attacked first.

Are you saying those scratches Zimmerman sustained did anything at all to him except require the changing of some band-aids?

Knows, as in "personally saw it"? You're probably right. Knows, as in "has credible legal evidence from a murder trial, in which Zimmerman was acquitted"? That's a different story.

And I don't recall anything in Florida self-defense law saying, "Has to first sustain enough damage to impress douchebags on the Internet who don't bother to get their facts straight before shooting their pieholes off". Perhaps you could cite that section of the statute for me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The malicious attacks on Trayvon should stop. Nobody knows who attacked first.

Are you saying those scratches Zimmerman sustained did anything at all to him except require the changing of some band-aids?

It has occurred to me that GZ's actions that night will likely have a positive impact on future crimes considered by the weak who prey on law abiding citizens

The thug might stop to think- 'What if this guy or woman is armed?

Libs are onto something, maybe TM death will result in something positive

-Geaux

That worked well in the Old West, but at the cost of how many innocent lives?

Wow. You know even less about the Old West than you do about the Zimmerman case. That's fucking impressive. I didn't know knowledge on a subject could actually hit negative integers.

 

[Cecilie1200]

One was a victim of aggravated assault and the other was a victim of a fatal gun shot wound as the result

-Geaux

No. There was one victim. George Zimmerman was the victim of a felonious assault. He defended his life. Trayvon got what was coming to him for assaulting an armed man. He was not a victim. He was the perp.

We know for a fact that Trayvon was a victim of something, even if it was only a failure of Zimmerman to stop following and go directly back to his truck. We know he could have since after he was warned, Zimmerman stated that Trayvon was running away. If you can't travel a short distance to the shelter of your vehicle while someone's running from you, something is definitely rotten in Denmark.

No independent argument at all can be made that Zimmerman was a victim of anything. Except the scratches and mildly bloody nose, of course. Wow.

Sorry, Sparkles, but for Trayvon to have been a "victim of something" would require for one or more of George Zimmerman's actions to have been illegal, and none of them were. "Didn't stop following and go back to his truck" is not a crime in any state in the Union, nor is it an aggressive act justifying a violent response in any state.

Furthermore, it has been established - which you would know, if you had gotten your information from the trial evidence, rather than from your asshole - that Zimmerman DID, actually, stop following and start back to his truck after Martin ran. The shooting occurred NOT because Zimmerman followed Martin, but because Martin subsequently (that means "afterward", in case you were wondering) chose to return and start a violent confrontation.

You say "If you can't travel a short distance to the shelter of your vehicle while someone's running from you, something is definitely rotten in Denmark." I say, "If you can't run away and enter the shelter of your dad's girlfriend's townhome while someone's walking away, something is definitely rotten in Denmark." But then, I'M not shitting out lunatic theories in contradiction to the presented evidence.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

It's only a matter of time if some other person decides to knock him to the ground, sit on his chest, bash his head against the concrete, and beat him with MMA moves.

People on trial for deaths in similar manners are scrutinized at least 100 times greater than in the original death. I'm not suggesting anyone watch this movie to ascertain what I said, but I thought I'd post it anyway since it's very interesting.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHK4pRhsnRU]The Staircase Murders (2007) - YouTube[/ame]

I know you dipshits just LOVE posting Youtube videos with no commentary and just expecting everyone to ASSUME there's something meaningful and relevant there to make your point for you, but that doesn't work with me, because I don't watch other people's Youtube videos.

You're just going to have to use your words to explain what the hell you think the connection between the Staircase Murders and Zimmerman-Martin is. I shall wait with bated breath.

LOL Did you read what I wrote? I actually said not to watch it unless you find it interesting.

We were talking about a hypothetical so what connection to Zimmerman-Martin could there be?