Zimmerman

[Gadawg73]

If Zimmerman hadn't been armed, he wouldn't have felt "brave" enough to stalk Trayvon. Therefore, nothing would have happened and Trayvon would still be alive.

So basically, we should take away his right to bear arms?

And you are saying everyone who is armed should be able to start a fight, lose and shoot someone?

Where was anyone convicted of starting a fight?
Did this case go to trial today? What was the outcome?
I was working all day.

 

[Zoom]

If Martin was armed could he have shot zimmerman because of that law in Florida? He was stalked, correct?

Has Zimmerman been convicted of stalking?
As in every and any claim you have to be convicted of it for it to be "stalking" under the law.

The person he was stalking was killed. You heard him say someone is following him and his girlfriend said to run. He did and was killed. Poor kid.

 

[Zoom]

So basically, we should take away his right to bear arms?

And you are saying everyone who is armed should be able to start a fight, lose and shoot someone?

Where was anyone convicted of starting a fight?
Did this case go to trial today? What was the outcome?
I was working all day.

Simple question. Who followed who? Stay on point just this once and answer the question.

 

[Gadawg73]

If Martin was armed could he have shot zimmerman because of that law in Florida? He was stalked, correct?

Has Zimmerman been convicted of stalking?
As in every and any claim you have to be convicted of it for it to be "stalking" under the law.

The person he was stalking was killed. You heard him say someone is following him and his girlfriend said to run. He did and was killed. Poor kid.

What was the sentence handed down to Zimmerman for stalking today?
I thought there was a presumption of innocence in The United States Contsitution?
All claims that Zimmerman is a stalker are to be ignored because under the Constitution all defendants are presumed innocent.
Do you know you live in the United States and we have a Constitution here?
Welcome to America. Where have you been living before moving here recently?

 

[Gadawg73]

And you are saying everyone who is armed should be able to start a fight, lose and shoot someone?

Where was anyone convicted of starting a fight?
Did this case go to trial today? What was the outcome?
I was working all day.

Simple question. Who followed who? Stay on point just this once and answer the question.

So now we are "following". Following is legal here in America.
Where are you from and how do you like America, the land where all defendants are all presumed innocent under our Constitution.

 

[JoeB131]

[

No it does not make him "a child" in the criminal courts of every state.
Turn the tables, Martin carrying a gun and shoots Zimmerman.
Martin gets tried as an adult.
And you would crying for him to be let go because Zimmerman is white and Martin is a black "child".

If Martin had shot Zimmerman, he'd have been arrested that very night. He'd have gotten a shitty public defender and the only reason he wouldn't be on death row is because we finally got a Supreme court to rule that we can't execute people for crimes committed as children.

Whew. It was kind of disturbing being in the same club with Iran and Saudi Arabia there.

 

[The Professor]

Has Zimmerman been convicted of stalking?
As in every and any claim you have to be convicted of it for it to be "stalking" under the law.

The person he was stalking was killed. You heard him say someone is following him and his girlfriend said to run. He did and was killed. Poor kid.

What was the sentence handed down to Zimmerman for stalking today?
I thought there was a presumption of innocence in The United States Contsitution?
All claims that Zimmerman is a stalker are to be ignored because under the Constitution all defendants are presumed innocent.
Do you know you live in the United States and we have a Constitution here?
Welcome to America. Where have you been living before moving here recently?

Following someone is not "stalking" him. This is the most accepted definition of stalking:

"A form of harassment generally comprised of repeated persistent following with no legitimate reason and with the intention of harming, or so as to arouse anxiety or fear of harm in the person being followed. Stalking may also take the form of harassing telephone calls, computer communications, letter-writing, etc."

Nothing Zimmerman did fit that definition. The record is clear that Zimmerman was on neighborhood watch and observed someone he knew didn't reside in the area. Since there had been a number of recent burglaries in the neighborhood, Zimmerman called the police. So far, nothing illegal, in fact so far Zimmerman is doing everything that a good man would do.

After Zimmerman made the call, he was advised not to follow Martin, and he said he obeyed the recommendation. There is not one shred of credible evidence that shows Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after that. Zimmerman reported he had lost sight of Martin and then headed back to his truck. There is not a thread of credible evidence to disprove what Zimmerman said. Zimmerman claimed that Martin approached him from behind and hit hm on the head, knocking him to the ground. Eyewitnesses reported seeing Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him as he called for help.

The forensic evidence is conclusive: Martin was shot at point-blank range while he was on top of Zimmerman, beating him. I would suggest to all you Martin defenders, that if Zimmerman really wanted to kill Martin, he would not have waited until Martin knocked him to the ground. Those people who suggest that Martin was shot as he was running away from Zimmerman are most likely racist fools who didn't take the time to read anything about the case. Clearly, it didn't happen that way.

Martin's attack on Zimmerman cannot be justified. Under the law, as soon as Martin hit Zimmerman upside the head, Martin became the criminal and Zimmerman became the victim.

In this country, one does not have the right to physically assault someone just because they don't like what they're doing. Being followed does not justify beating the crap out of the one who is following you. Following someone is not a crime, but beating them is.

I'm sorry that a young man died. But since it is highly likely that Zimmerman would have been killed or at least grievously injured if he had not ended the attack with deadly force, Zimmerman's actions were justified both legally and morally.

Have any of you Martin defenders ever paused to ponder what would have happened to Zimmerman if he had not defended himself the only way he could? Would his "following" of Martin justified him being beaten to death?

My analysis: Martin was a hot-head who did not like anyone looking at him the wrong way. He resented a White man observing him and decided to teach that White man a lesson. Martin, the NO_LIMIT_NIGGA (Martin's Facebook screen name), sucker-punched Zimmerman, and then straddled him pounding him around the head and shoulders. Zimmerman had no choice but to use deadly force and he did. Zimmerman did not start the fight, Martin did. The NO_LIMIT_NIGGA found out - too late, unfortunately - that there indeed are limits.

 

[Trajan]

does it bother anyone but me that the defense never provided the original and only this grainy black and white shot of zimmerman when it was originally shot by a high speed high resolution digital camera that is intended to capture color etc.

whether you think zimmerman is a murderer or victim, matters not, you should be pissed, this is the state pulling this shit, if they do it to him they can do it it others.

 

[bripat9643]

[

No it does not make him "a child" in the criminal courts of every state.
Turn the tables, Martin carrying a gun and shoots Zimmerman.
Martin gets tried as an adult.
And you would crying for him to be let go because Zimmerman is white and Martin is a black "child".

If Martin had shot Zimmerman, he'd have been arrested that very night. He'd have gotten a shitty public defender and the only reason he wouldn't be on death row is because we finally got a Supreme court to rule that we can't execute people for crimes committed as children.

Whew. It was kind of disturbing being in the same club with Iran and Saudi Arabia there.

That's because Martin was a vicious thug trespassing on someone else's property. Calling Trevor Martin a "child" is the ultimate in stretching the truth. How many "children" do you know of who have gold plated teeth?

 

[The Professor]

[

No it does not make him "a child" in the criminal courts of every state.
Turn the tables, Martin carrying a gun and shoots Zimmerman.
Martin gets tried as an adult.
And you would crying for him to be let go because Zimmerman is white and Martin is a black "child".

If Martin had shot Zimmerman, he'd have been arrested that very night. He'd have gotten a shitty public defender and the only reason he wouldn't be on death row is because we finally got a Supreme court to rule that we can't execute people for crimes committed as children.

Whew. It was kind of disturbing being in the same club with Iran and Saudi Arabia there.

That's because Martin was a vicious thug trespassing on someone else's property. Calling Trevor Martin a "child" is the ultimate in stretching the truth. How many "children" do you know of who have gold plated teeth?

At the time Martin attacked Zimmerman he was about 7 weeks past his 17th birthday. To call him a child is ridiculous. When I was 2 days past my 17th birthday, I was in the Marine Corps. The Marines do not accept children.

Trayvon NO_LIMIT_NIGGA Martin wanted to be a bad-ass and it cost him his life.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Following someone is not "stalking" him. The this is the most accepted definition of stalking:

"A form of harassment generally comprised of repeated persistent following with no legitimate reason and with the intention of harming, or so as to arouse anxiety or fear of harm in the person being followed. Stalking may also take the form of harassing telephone calls, computer communications, letter-writing, etc."

Nothing Zimmerman did fit that definition. The record is clear that Zimmerman was on neighborhood watch and observed someone he knew didn't reside in the area. Since there had been a number of recent burglaries in the neighborhood, Zimmerman called the police. So far, nothing illegal, in fact so far Zimmerman is doing everything that a good man would do.

No disagreement there.

After Zimmerman made the call, he was advised not to follow Martin, and he said he obeyed the recommendation. There is not one shred of credible evidence that shows Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after that. Zimmerman reported he had lost sight of Martin and then headed back to his truck. There is not a thread of credible evidence to disprove what Zimmerman said.

Actually there is. A time distance analysis of the dispatcher call based on where Zimmerman parked his truck to the point of confrontation shows that there is no way Zimmerman could have arrived at the point of confrontation unless he had continued to proceed away from the truck AFTER the dispatcher advised him not to follow Martin. The dispatcher heard Zimmerman exit the truck and heard the change in voice as Zimmerman changed from speaking in the truck to walking/running outside the truck and immediately question Zimmerman.

Then of course there was Zimmerman in the reenactment video the next morning were he even says he moved away from the truck.

So both time/distance analysis showed he moved away and he said he moved away.

Zimmerman claimed that Martin approached him from behind and hit hm on the head, knocking him to the ground. Eyewitnesses reported seeing Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him as he called for help.

Correct, Zimmerman claimed that Martin approached from behind that night (audio tapes). That changed the next morning to Martin approached from in front (Video Reenactment). In both cases Zimmerman claims that Martin challenged him.

However the audio witness claims that it was the male voice she heard on the phone that challenged Martin, not the other way around. Zimmerman, when he made the statements to police that night and did the reenactment the next day didn't know that Martin was on the phone at the time that Zimmerman makes claims about Martins actions.

The forensic evidence is conclusive: Martin was shot at point-blank range while he was on top of Zimmerman, beating him.

The forensic evidence ONLY shows that the muzzle of the gun was in close proximity to Martin's hoodie, it does not conclusively prove that Martin was on top. As a matter of fact a forensic examination actually casts doubt as to that situation and at least one eye witness report says that the person on top at the time the gun was fired rose and moved into the light and that person was Zimmerman.

Now as to the forensic evidence, I wouldn't be surprised if the state has medical, ballistic and forensic experts testify as to a couple of things:

1. If Martin was on top of Zimmerman "beating him", and as Zimmerman claims, Martin punched him (as reported in the audio tapes) over a dozen times in the face then that is not likely to be a true statement since there was only one "1/8 x 1/4 inch small abrasion on the fourth finger of the left hand" (Medical Examiner's Autopsy Report). I've been in fights before in my younger days, you don't punch someone in a boney mass like the head and end up with only one small scraping of the skin.

2. Zimmerman claims that Martin was on top of him beating his head into the ground, Martin was a little over 6 feet tall, taking into account average arm length and that Martin would have to lean over Zimmerman when straddling him to at various time punch him, cover his mouth and nose with his hands, and grab the side of his head to beat it against the ground - such actions of flexing the arms means the chest of Zimmerman and Martin were in the neighborhood of 18 inches or so between them. The travel path of the bullet was perpendicular to Martins chest right over the heart. That means that Zimmerman would have had to draw his weapon, move it from the right rear hip where his holster was, maneuver it between the bodies, cock the wrist at an unnatural angle (because of the relationship of Martin being at a different angle with respect to Zimmerman) and fire. A more natural movement of the arm/elbow rotation in such a draw and fire scenario would have been for the gun to be placed more to the side of the chest with a upward trajectory.

3. Clearly there was a struggle between Zimmerman and Martin and Martin got a least one good shoot into Zimmerman's face causing the extensive nose bleed in the photo. Zimmerman also claims that Martin placed his hands over Zimmerman's nose and mouth. A close, external examination of the body is standard procedure for an autopsy, yet the ME makes no mention of any of Zimmerman's blood on Martin's hands as would be expected if the two conditions were as Zimmerman said (he was bleeding and Martin placed his hands in the blood). In addition forensic analysis returned no Zimmerman DNA from Martin's hands or from the tests conducted on the cuffs of the sweatshirt Martin was wearing. Yet if Martin was putting his hands over Zimmerman's nose and mouth as Zimmerman claimed, there would have been blood.

4. Forensic analysis of both Martin's clothing and Zimmerman's clothing was conducted by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Zimmerman claims the firearm was discharged between the two chest of the struggling individuals on the ground and that he was below Martin. There of course was GSR (Gun Shot Residue) on Martins clothes, but there was none on Zimmerman's cloths (neither the chest of his jacket nor the front of the sleeves) as would be expected for the discharge of a firearm in such a close space (between the chests). There would have been GSR blowing back from Martins chest, there would have been GSR expelled out the ejection port, and unburned gunpowder would have fallen due to gravity with Zimmerman below Martin. There was of course GSR on Zimmerman's hands but none on the sleeves (or chest). That implies that the arm of Zimmerman was extended away from the body which would not have been possible with Martin on top at the time of the shooting as Zimmerman's arm would have extended though Martin.

I would suggest to all you Martin defenders, that if Zimmerman really wanted to kill Martin, he would not have waited until Martin knocked him to the ground.

I'm not a "Martin Defender", however I'm not a "Zimmerman Defender" either. Zimmerman has already proven that he is willing to lie to the court if he thinks he will get away with it. What I do however is look at all the evidence to see if it contradicts or supports Zimmerman story.

Those people who suggest that Martin was shot as he was running away from Zimmerman are most likely racist fools who didn't take the time to read anything about the case. Clearly, it didn't happen that way.

I agree, it's pretty hard to shoot someone in the chest if they are running away. Of course I've never seen anyone claim that Zimmerman shot Martin while Martin had turned and ran.

Martin's attack on Zimmerman cannot be justified. Under the law, as soon as Martin hit Zimmerman upside the head, Martin became the criminal and Zimmerman became the victim.

Now you are making an assumption with incomplete or no evidence. There is no doubt that Martin and Zimmerman were in a struggle, yet you are assuming that Martin attacked Zimmerman, it could have very well been the other way around and that Zimmerman "attacked" Martin and the statement of the audio witness contradicts Zimmerman's version of who confronted who.

Martin walked away once and Zimmerman followed in his truck, then Martin ran away and Zimmerman followed on foot - if Martin attempted to leave the third time and Zimmerman then grabbed him, then Martin was defending himself. Which under Florida self-defense and Stand Your Ground laws he had a perfect right to do.

(Not saying there is proof that Zimmerman grabbed Martin, just saying that just because Zimmerman said Martin punched him first does not also make that true either.)

In this country, one does not have the right to physically assault someone just because they don't like what they're doing. Being followed does not justify beating the crap out of the one who is following you. Following someone is not a crime, but beating them is.

And neither is walking through a neighborhood when you are a guest of a resident of that neighborhood a crime either.

I'm sorry that a young man died. But since it is highly likely that Zimmerman would have been killed or at least grievously injured if he had not ended the attack with deadly force, Zimmerman's actions were justified both legally and morally.

Zimmerman's actions were not justified if Zimmerman is the one that initiated hostilities, neither legally or morally.

Have any of you Martin defenders ever paused to ponder what would have happened to Zimmerman if he had not defended himself the only way he could? Would his "following" of Martin justified him being beaten to death?

Of course Zimmerman defended himself from his perspective during the struggle, but this is not an "instant" in time incident. Zimmerman took direct action to start the events of that evening including the pursuit of Martin after Martin had fled the area on a dark and rainy night. From Martin's perspective he did not now who this individual was, there was no indication (and Zimmerman has not said at this point) that he called out and identified himself as Neighborhood Watch. From Martin's perspective there was this weird guy pursuing him that he'd tried to get away from through two separate actions and here he was again approaching and confronting him (as per the audio witness).

My analysis: Martin was a hot-head who did not like anyone looking at him the wrong way.

From the dispatcher call it is clear that Martin "the hot-head" had tried to evade Zimmerman twice. Once by walking away from Zimmerman's truck when Zimmerman stopped near the clubhouse and a second time by running away after Zimmerman had followed him down Twin Trees Lane.

The "hot head" appears to have been Zimmerman interjecting himself in a police matter in direct violation of the training that Neighborhood Watch personnel are given. We are told to observe and report, NOT to attempt to intercede in the event - that is the job of the police.

He resented a White man observing him and decided to teach that White man a lesson. Martin, the NO_LIMIT_NIGGA (Martin's Facebook screen name), sucker-punched Zimmerman, and then straddled him pounding him around the head and shoulders. Zimmerman had no choice but to use deadly force and he did. Zimmerman did not start the fight, Martin did. The NO_LIMIT_NIGGA found out - too late, unfortunately - that there indeed are limits.

And to provide a contrast to an obviously biased evaluation in support of Zimmerman lets turn it around in the other direction.

"George Zimmerman resentful of black people walking through his neighborhood and decided to take the law into his own hands. He called the police for no other reason then this black kid was on his turf. Zimmerman, DATNiggyTB (Zimmerman's MySpace screen name), then chased this kid down grabbing him so he didn't get away like the other black kids a few months before. Which isn't surprising considering that Zimmerman was arrested for assaulting a police officer, broke the leg of a woman while he was a bouncer, and received a restraining order for domestic violence. But the kid struggled so Zimmerman shot him. Now Zimmerman is learning there are limits to what a gun toting vigilante can get away with."​

Now, is that stupid? Sure it is. But see how that works from the other perspective?


>>>>

 

[Noomi]

And you are saying everyone who is armed should be able to start a fight, lose and shoot someone?

Where was anyone convicted of starting a fight?
Did this case go to trial today? What was the outcome?
I was working all day.

Simple question. Who followed who? Stay on point just this once and answer the question.

Zimmerman followed Trayvon. We know that because he stated it on the 911 tapes.

 

[The Professor]

Following someone is not "stalking" him. The this is the most accepted definition of stalking:

"A form of harassment generally comprised of repeated persistent following with no legitimate reason and with the intention of harming, or so as to arouse anxiety or fear of harm in the person being followed. Stalking may also take the form of harassing telephone calls, computer communications, letter-writing, etc."

Nothing Zimmerman did fit that definition. The record is clear that Zimmerman was on neighborhood watch and observed someone he knew didn't reside in the area. Since there had been a number of recent burglaries in the neighborhood, Zimmerman called the police. So far, nothing illegal, in fact so far Zimmerman is doing everything that a good man would do.

No disagreement there.

After Zimmerman made the call, he was advised not to follow Martin, and he said he obeyed the recommendation. There is not one shred of credible evidence that shows Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after that. Zimmerman reported he had lost sight of Martin and then headed back to his truck. There is not a thread of credible evidence to disprove what Zimmerman said.

Actually there is. A time distance analysis of the dispatcher call based on where Zimmerman parked his truck to the point of confrontation shows that there is no way Zimmerman could have arrived at the point of confrontation unless he had continued to proceed away from the truck AFTER the dispatcher advised him not to follow Martin. The dispatcher heard Zimmerman exit the truck and heard the change in voice as Zimmerman changed from speaking in the truck to walking/running outside the truck and immediately question Zimmerman.

Then of course there was Zimmerman in the reenactment video the next morning were he even says he moved away from the truck.

So both time/distance analysis showed he moved away and he said he moved away.




Correct, Zimmerman claimed that Martin approached from behind that night (audio tapes). That changed the next morning to Martin approached from in front (Video Reenactment). In both cases Zimmerman claims that Martin challenged him.

However the audio witness claims that it was the male voice she heard on the phone that challenged Martin, not the other way around. Zimmerman, when he made the statements to police that night and did the reenactment the next day didn't know that Martin was on the phone at the time that Zimmerman makes claims about Martins actions.



The forensic evidence ONLY shows that the muzzle of the gun was in close proximity to Martin's hoodie, it does not conclusively prove that Martin was on top. As a matter of fact a forensic examination actually casts doubt as to that situation and at least one eye witness report says that the person on top at the time the gun was fired rose and moved into the light and that person was Zimmerman.

Now as to the forensic evidence, I wouldn't be surprised if the state has medical, ballistic and forensic experts testify as to a couple of things:

1. If Martin was on top of Zimmerman "beating him", and as Zimmerman claims, Martin punched him (as reported in the audio tapes) over a dozen times in the face then that is not likely to be a true statement since there was only one "1/8 x 1/4 inch small abrasion on the fourth finger of the left hand" (Medical Examiner's Autopsy Report). I've been in fights before in my younger days, you don't punch someone in a boney mass like the head and end up with only one small scraping of the skin.

2. Zimmerman claims that Martin was on top of him beating his head into the ground, Martin was a little over 6 feet tall, taking into account average arm length and that Martin would have to lean over Zimmerman when straddling him to at various time punch him, cover his mouth and nose with his hands, and grab the side of his head to beat it against the ground - such actions of flexing the arms means the chest of Zimmerman and Martin were in the neighborhood of 18 inches or so between them. The travel path of the bullet was perpendicular to Martins chest right over the heart. That means that Zimmerman would have had to draw his weapon, move it from the right rear hip where his holster was, maneuver it between the bodies, cock the wrist at an unnatural angle (because of the relationship of Martin being at a different angle with respect to Zimmerman) and fire. A more natural movement of the arm/elbow rotation in such a draw and fire scenario would have been for the gun to be placed more to the side of the chest with a upward trajectory.

3. Clearly there was a struggle between Zimmerman and Martin and Martin got a least one good shoot into Zimmerman's face causing the extensive nose bleed in the photo. Zimmerman also claims that Martin placed his hands over Zimmerman's nose and mouth. A close, external examination of the body is standard procedure for an autopsy, yet the ME makes no mention of any of Zimmerman's blood on Martin's hands as would be expected if the two conditions were as Zimmerman said (he was bleeding and Martin placed his hands in the blood). In addition forensic analysis returned no Zimmerman DNA from Martin's hands or from the tests conducted on the cuffs of the sweatshirt Martin was wearing. Yet if Martin was putting his hands over Zimmerman's nose and mouth as Zimmerman claimed, there would have been blood.

4. Forensic analysis of both Martin's clothing and Zimmerman's clothing was conducted by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Zimmerman claims the firearm was discharged between the two chest of the struggling individuals on the ground and that he was below Martin. There of course was GSR (Gun Shot Residue) on Martins clothes, but there was none on Zimmerman's cloths (neither the chest of his jacket nor the front of the sleeves) as would be expected for the discharge of a firearm in such a close space (between the chests). There would have been GSR blowing back from Martins chest, there would have been GSR expelled out the ejection port, and unburned gunpowder would have fallen due to gravity with Zimmerman below Martin. There was of course GSR on Zimmerman's hands but none on the sleeves (or chest). That implies that the arm of Zimmerman was extended away from the body which would not have been possible with Martin on top at the time of the shooting as Zimmerman's arm would have extended though Martin.




I'm not a "Martin Defender", however I'm not a "Zimmerman Defender" either. Zimmerman has already proven that he is willing to lie to the court if he thinks he will get away with it. What I do however is look at all the evidence to see if it contradicts or supports Zimmerman story.




I agree, it's pretty hard to shoot someone in the chest if they are running away. Of course I've never seen anyone claim that Zimmerman shot Martin while Martin had turned and ran.




Now you are making an assumption with incomplete or no evidence. There is no doubt that Martin and Zimmerman were in a struggle, yet you are assuming that Martin attacked Zimmerman, it could have very well been the other way around and that Zimmerman "attacked" Martin and the statement of the audio witness contradicts Zimmerman's version of who confronted who.

Martin walked away once and Zimmerman followed in his truck, then Martin ran away and Zimmerman followed on foot - if Martin attempted to leave the third time and Zimmerman then grabbed him, then Martin was defending himself. Which under Florida self-defense and Stand Your Ground laws he had a perfect right to do.

(Not saying there is proof that Zimmerman grabbed Martin, just saying that just because Zimmerman said Martin punched him first does not also make that true either.)




And neither is walking through a neighborhood when you are a guest of a resident of that neighborhood a crime either.



Zimmerman's actions were not justified if Zimmerman is the one that initiated hostilities, neither legally or morally.




Of course Zimmerman defended himself from his perspective during the struggle, but this is not an "instant" in time incident. Zimmerman took direct action to start the events of that evening including the pursuit of Martin after Martin had fled the area on a dark and rainy night. From Martin's perspective he did not now who this individual was, there was no indication (and Zimmerman has not said at this point) that he called out and identified himself as Neighborhood Watch. From Martin's perspective there was this weird guy pursuing him that he'd tried to get away from through two separate actions and here he was again approaching and confronting him (as per the audio witness).

My analysis: Martin was a hot-head who did not like anyone looking at him the wrong way.

From the dispatcher call it is clear that Martin "the hot-head" had tried to evade Zimmerman twice. Once by walking away from Zimmerman's truck when Zimmerman stopped near the clubhouse and a second time by running away after Zimmerman had followed him down Twin Trees Lane.

The "hot head" appears to have been Zimmerman interjecting himself in a police matter in direct violation of the training that Neighborhood Watch personnel are given. We are told to observe and report, NOT to attempt to intercede in the event - that is the job of the police.

He resented a White man observing him and decided to teach that White man a lesson. Martin, the NO_LIMIT_NIGGA (Martin's Facebook screen name), sucker-punched Zimmerman, and then straddled him pounding him around the head and shoulders. Zimmerman had no choice but to use deadly force and he did. Zimmerman did not start the fight, Martin did. The NO_LIMIT_NIGGA found out - too late, unfortunately - that there indeed are limits.

And to provide a contrast to an obviously biased evaluation in support of Zimmerman lets turn it around in the other direction.

"George Zimmerman resentful of black people walking through his neighborhood and decided to take the law into his own hands. He called the police for no other reason then this black kid was on his turf. Zimmerman, DATNiggyTB (Zimmerman's MySpace screen name), then chased this kid down grabbing him so he didn't get away like the other black kids a few months before. Which isn't surprising considering that Zimmerman was arrested for assaulting a police officer, broke the leg of a woman while he was a bouncer, and received a restraining order for domestic violence. But the kid struggled so Zimmerman shot him. Now Zimmerman is learning there are limits to what a gun toting vigilante can get away with."​

Now, is that stupid? Sure it is. But see how that works from the other perspective?


>>>>

Thanks for admitting that the forensic evidence proves that Martin was shot at point-blank range. Eye witnesses testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him, and common sense should tell you that the guy on the bottom is usually the one getting the shit kicked out of him. You know, of course that the only injury to Martin (besides the obvious bullet hole) was damage to his knuckles caused by him ..... drum roll ... beating the crap out of Zimmerman.

Tell me, what specifically did Zimmerman do that gave Martin the right to knock him to the ground and pummel him? Or do you doubt the evidence which shows Martin to be on top while Zimmerman was pleading for help. Of course, you know that even Martin's dad ORIGINALLY said that the voice calling for help was NOT his son's. You know that, right??

ALL the evidence shows that Zimmerman was doing his job as a neighborhood watchman and Martin got his shorts in a wade.

One thing I assure you: The prosecution will not make race an issue, because if they do, Zimmerman will be allowed to disprove this. Zimmerman will be able to point out how he and his wife mentored Black children, how his Black neighbors admire him, and how he single-handedly sought to get justice for a Black homeless man who had been beaten by the son of a White policeman. Zimmerman would also be able to introduce an FBI report which round him innocent of any charge of racism. If the prosecution tries to paint Zimmerman as a racist, the defense will totally discredit the prosecution and will make Zimmerman a hero in the eyes of at least one member of the jury. All it takes is for a mistrial is for one member to vote for acquittal.

 

[jtpr312]

One less negro thug sucking off the D.O.C. teat.

Not how the Martin family sees it and from what I have seen of them they are good folk.
Ever lost a family member? Judged them for their mistakes and the things they did wrong when they were dead?

George Zimmerman is not exactly Georgetown society folk either. And as for smarts go, any defendant that gives national interviews to media is a pea brain at best. Zimmerman has dug his hole all by his self in many instances in this case. Does not take away from the fact that the media has rail roaded him and most of the public also but the Martin family has a loved one in the ground.

Yup, lost two brothers, not to mention unlces, aunts and a cousin. I never thought Zimmerman was a rocket scientist, what I do think is that he was getting his ass beat by a thug and he used his lawfully carried sidearm to protect himself. As for his parents being "good folk", we don't know what they are, but that's irelevent as they aren't the ones that attacked Zimmerman.

 

[jtpr312]

If Martin was armed could he have shot zimmerman because of that law in Florida? He was stalked, correct?

Following someone is not the same as "stalking" someone in legal terms. There is no law aganst following someone.

 

[jtpr312]

If Martin was armed could he have shot zimmerman because of that law in Florida? He was stalked, correct?

Has Zimmerman been convicted of stalking?
As in every and any claim you have to be convicted of it for it to be "stalking" under the law.

The person he was stalking was killed. You heard him say someone is following him and his girlfriend said to run. He did and was killed. Poor kid.

If he ran he would be alive today. He was an athlete, Zimmerman was a fat ass. It's obvious that trayvon did not run away and NO state has any laws saying you can assault someone who is following you on a public street.

 

[jtpr312]

And you are saying everyone who is armed should be able to start a fight, lose and shoot someone?

Where was anyone convicted of starting a fight?
Did this case go to trial today? What was the outcome?
I was working all day.

Simple question. Who followed who? Stay on point just this once and answer the question.

Simple answer. It doesn't matter. ALL that matters is who assaulted who? Following someone is not against the law and you have no right to assault someone who is following you. You DO have the right to defend yourself against someone who assaults you though and all the evidence seems to point to trayvon doing exactly that.

 

[JoeB131]

That's because Martin was a vicious thug trespassing on someone else's property. Calling Trevor Martin a "child" is the ultimate in stretching the truth. How many "children" do you know of who have gold plated teeth?

He wasn't trespassing on someone else's property, he was in a gated community where his father was a resident.

Zimmerman's going to prison, because no jury in its right mind is going to have a race riot over this bit of white trash.

 

[Meathead]

That's because Martin was a vicious thug trespassing on someone else's property. Calling Trevor Martin a "child" is the ultimate in stretching the truth. How many "children" do you know of who have gold plated teeth?

He wasn't trespassing on someone else's property, he was in a gated community where his father was a resident.

Zimmerman's going to prison, because no jury in its right mind is going to have a race riot over this bit of white trash.

His father was not a resident of the community, and I have to believe that not all the potential jurors are pussies with no conviction. If the US becomes a nation JoeBs, then it is well and truly fucked.

 

[JoeB131]

That's because Martin was a vicious thug trespassing on someone else's property. Calling Trevor Martin a "child" is the ultimate in stretching the truth. How many "children" do you know of who have gold plated teeth?

He wasn't trespassing on someone else's property, he was in a gated community where his father was a resident.

Zimmerman's going to prison, because no jury in its right mind is going to have a race riot over this bit of white trash.

His father was not a resident of the community, and I have to believe that not all the potential jurors are pussies with no conviction. If the US becomes a nation JoeBs, then it is well and truly fucked.

No one is going to want a dumb bit of white trash like Zimmerman wandering around their neighborhood shooting their kids, either.

And, yeah, his father was a resident of that community.