- Dec 20, 2010
- 32,132
- 18,364
Could you explain why you believe it was manslaughter?
I can tell you why I agree with the jury's unanimous decision of not guilty.
I've studied this case and to me it seems like a clear open and shut case of justifiable homicide because it was self defense. According to eyewitness testimony, Trayvon Martin accosted Zimmerman, sucker punched him, and then proceeded to beat his head on the concrete walkway. And 100% of the forensic evidence is consistent with that eyewitness testimony.
In most clear cut cases of self defense like this, the person who committed the homicide would have never been arrested or charged with a crime. However, to the police, Z was not some random citizen. They hated his guts because he was a whistleblower. Previous to this incident, at a town hall meeting in Sanford, Z stood up and called for the police chief to be stripped of his generous pension because there was a brutal unprovoked assault perpetrated by the son of a Sanford Police Lieutenant that was caught on camera and the police tried to cover up.
At the town hall meeting also said that when he was on a ride along with a Sanford police officer, the lazy pig showed Z his favorite places to park and take a nap while he was on duty. After his ride along Z was pissed because instead of taking naps they could be patrolling his burglary ridden neighborhood. How dare he demand that the lazy fucks at least attempt to do their job!
The corrupt police hated Z and tried to railroad his ass. And the lowlife scum also colluded with the extreme left-wing media to make it a red ball story and get him convicted in the court of public opinion before he could get a fair trial.
IMO, the hardcore left media's most powerful motivations for helping the Sanford police efforts to railroad Zimmerman were threefold.
1) As always, the America hating left wants to create racial disharmony, discord and tension in America. The fascist international socialists have been doing this ever since their halcyon days of the Soviet Union and Chairman Mao. The Reds (international socialists) are still aware that this is the easiest way to weaken America, which they correctly see as their archenemy.
2) To weaken America, the media tried to make it about Florida's castle doctrine. "Look! That innocent teenager got killed because of the castle doctrine! OMG! We need to repeal the castle doctrine". Of course, all non-sheeple know that this case had nothing to do with any castle doctrine. This was not a stand your ground or duty to retreat case because Z was on his back with T on top of him slamming his head on the concrete. Even if Z had a snowballs chance in hell of outrunning his attacker, it was impossible to flee from that situation.
3) As usual, they made it a gun control issue. They need to keep feeding their sheep with the free people with guns=evil. They know that taking away the means of self defense from Americans weakens America.
Back to my inquiry, given the evidence and eyewitness testimony, how can you logically come to the conclusion that Z was guilty of manslaughter?
What evidence was there that made you conclude that it was manslaughter? And more importantly, what is the line of reasoning that you used to come to that conclusion.
Surely if you are confident that your reasoning is sound you will not object to presenting it to be scrutinized for flaws.
Last edited:
