Zimmerman not guilty

[BackInTex]

This guy isn't shy about his opinion:

I didn't watch the whole thing. Did you make it before or after the verdict was known?

[Flybrick]

It seems as though most people's opinions of this case are divided along party lines. Is everything political now?

In light of the President's comments before the trial, the Senate Majority Leader's comment yesterday of "This isn't over yet," and the Attorney General Holder's comments today, have you found an answer to your rhetorical question?

[earendel]

This guy isn't shy about his opinion:

What? No "Hitler reacts to the Zimmerman verdict" video?

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

From the moment he ignored the 911 operator's instruction not to follow, I would have found Zimmerman guilty of something. That's the moment where everything turned, for me.

But.

I did not hear five weeks of testimony that the jury heard, nor 10-12 hours of conversations they had in deliberations. So I trust them and I believe in the system. Except the system still seems to work more favorably for some defendants/victims than others. But until that gets fixed, I stand by the jury's work even though it's not the verdict I preferred.

You can read the transcript of the 911 call here. The 911 operator said "OK, we don't need you to do that"

[BackInTex]

From the moment he ignored the 911 operator's instruction not to follow, I would have found Zimmerman guilty of something. That's the moment where everything turned, for me.

But.

I did not hear five weeks of testimony that the jury heard, nor 10-12 hours of conversations they had in deliberations. So I trust them and I believe in the system. Except the system still seems to work more favorably for some defendants/victims than others. But until that gets fixed, I stand by the jury's work even though it's not the verdict I preferred.

You can read the transcript of the 911 call here. The 911 operator said "OK, we don't need you to do that"

It is not illegal to not follow a 911 operator's suggestion or even instruction. Poor judgement is also not a crime. You can't make up your own laws (i.e. find him guilty of something, anything, what about this, or this?)

shameful

The really sad thing is to look at the kind of person Zimmerman truly was and what the media has portrayed him as and what has stuck in folks mind about him simply because it works for their agenda.

[silverscreenselect]

The really sad thing is to look at the kind of person Zimmerman truly was and what the media has portrayed him as and what has stuck in folks mind about him simply because it works for their agenda.

You mean the guy who was arrested for shoving a police officer.
The guy who had a restraining order filed against him by his ex-fiancee, after he hung around her house "checking up" on her and shoved her when she asked him to leave.
The guy who was rejected as a police applicant on multiple occasions.
The guy who was a failure as a car salesman and insurance salesman (great people skills).
The guy who called the police 46 times since being on Neighborhood Watch, the last year focusing on suspicious black men or boys.
The guy who went around knocking on doors telling neighbors to be on the lookout for suspicious black males who might be lurking around.
The guy whose black neighbor goes downtown to exercise because he is afraid to walk around the neighborhood because Zimmerman had been warning everyone about people who looked like him and was afraid.
The guy who called the cops to report a teenage black neighbor had stolen a bicycle that turned out to be registered to the teenager all along.

I think we have a pretty good idea who Zimmerman was. You would too if you didn't get all your facts from Rush Limbaugh and the others who spend their time obsessing about Trayvon's supposed wannabe gangsta affiliations.

[BackInTex]

The really sad thing is to look at the kind of person Zimmerman truly was and what the media has portrayed him as and what has stuck in folks mind about him simply because it works for their agenda.

You mean the guy who was arrested for shoving a police officer.
The guy who had a restraining order filed against him by his ex-fiancee, after he hung around her house "checking up" on her and shoved her when she asked him to leave.
The guy who was rejected as a police applicant on multiple occasions.
The guy who was a failure as a car salesman and insurance salesman (great people skills).
The guy who called the police 46 times since being on Neighborhood Watch, the last year focusing on suspicious black men or boys.
The guy who went around knocking on doors telling neighbors to be on the lookout for suspicious black males who might be lurking around.
The guy whose black neighbor goes downtown to exercise because he is afraid to walk around the neighborhood because Zimmerman had been warning everyone about people who looked like him and was afraid.
The guy who called the cops to report a teenage black neighbor had stolen a bicycle that turned out to be registered to the teenager all along.

I think we have a pretty good idea who Zimmerman was. You would too if you didn't get all your facts from Rush Limbaugh and the others who spend their time obsessing about Trayvon's supposed wannabe gangsta affiliations.

What are your sources? Part of mine is the FBI.

Federal agents interviewed Zimmerman’s neighbors and co-workers, but none said Zimmerman had expressed racial animus at any time prior to the Feb. 26

I would think that if half of what you got from Al Sharpton was true, the FBI would have concluded differently.

[silverscreenselect]

What are your sources? Part of mine is the FBI.

Here's a few sources:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.1053223 (this one also has a picture of the area where you think Trayvon hid to pounce on George)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... vant-past/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... e-log.html

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/03/19/v ... itual.html

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/geor ... c-violence

[Ritterskoop]

From the moment he ignored the 911 operator's instruction not to follow, I would have found Zimmerman guilty of something. That's the moment where everything turned, for me.

But.

I did not hear five weeks of testimony that the jury heard, nor 10-12 hours of conversations they had in deliberations. So I trust them and I believe in the system. Except the system still seems to work more favorably for some defendants/victims than others. But until that gets fixed, I stand by the jury's work even though it's not the verdict I preferred.

You can read the transcript of the 911 call here. The 911 operator said "OK, we don't need you to do that"

It is not illegal to not follow a 911 operator's suggestion or even instruction. Poor judgement is also not a crime. You can't make up your own laws (i.e. find him guilty of something, anything, what about this, or this?)

shameful

I expressed myself poorly, since my statements/position came across as shameful.

I intended to suggest that at the moment he was told not to follow, he had a choice. He chose the action that shows me he had a wrong intention, to harm someone else. If he had chosen to stay where he was, or to go home, that would have showed he did not have intention to harm someone else. Both results and intention have their places in evaluating whether an action is moral.

But I thought I said very clearly that I support the verdict, because those folks heard all of the evidence and I did not. I believe in the system, and do not appreciate being called shameful for that belief. That is a strong word to apply to someone who has spent years studying ethics and morality and how we can make the world better, and teaching those concepts to young people so that they, too, can make the world better.

[TheCalvinator24]

You can read the transcript of the 911 call here. The 911 operator said "OK, we don't need you to do that"

It is not illegal to not follow a 911 operator's suggestion or even instruction. Poor judgement is also not a crime. You can't make up your own laws (i.e. find him guilty of something, anything, what about this, or this?)

shameful

I expressed myself poorly, since my statements/position came across as shameful.

I intended to suggest that at the moment he was told not to follow, he had a choice. He chose the action that shows me he had a wrong intention, to harm someone else. If he had chosen to stay where he was, or to go home, that would have showed he did not have intention to harm someone else. Both results and intention have their places in evaluating whether an action is moral.

But I thought I said very clearly that I support the verdict, because those folks heard all of the evidence and I did not. I believe in the system, and do not appreciate being called shameful for that belief. That is a strong word to apply to someone who has spent years studying ethics and morality and how we can make the world better, and teaching those concepts to young people so that they, too, can make the world better.

How do you know he ignored the dispatcher's instructions? Based on the sounds we hear on the 911 tape, he was already out of his car when he was told that they police didn't need him to follow. He responds, "Okay," and it sounds like (from the change in his breathing) he immediately stops jogging.

Quite simply, there is no evidence to support the claim that Zimmerman disregarded what he was told. It's another "fact" that has been made up by others to support their pre-determined (one might even say prejudiced) theory of the case.

[silverscreenselect]

How do you know he ignored the dispatcher's instructions? Based on the sounds we hear on the 911 tape, he was already out of his car when he was told that they police didn't need him to follow. He responds, "Okay," and it sounds like (from the change in his breathing) he immediately stops jogging.

But he somehow winds up in the logical place where someone who knows the neighborhood would go to cut off someone else who doesn't know the neighborhood.

And it goes against the instructions that the police had given Zimmerman's Neighborhood Watch group in the past, and which Zimmerman, as the coordinator, should have been better aware of than anyone else.

[Bob Juch]

What are your sources? Part of mine is the FBI.

Here's a few sources:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.1053223 (this one also has a picture of the area where you think Trayvon hid to pounce on George)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... vant-past/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... e-log.html

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/03/19/v ... itual.html

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/geor ... c-violence

And Zimmerman's own words here: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/16 ... -behavior/

[BackInTex]

... at the moment he was told not to follow, he had a choice. He chose the action that shows me he had a wrong intention, to harm someone else. If he had chosen to stay where he was, or to go home, that would have showed he did not have intention to harm someone else. Both results and intention have their places in evaluating whether an action is moral.

I don't see how you get to "..he had a wrong intention, to harm....".

If it were me, I might have continued tailing Martin, not 'stalking' (the phrase used by others as it is a more menacing term to suit their purpose of demonizing Zimmerman), so I would know where he was should the police arrive and even to make sure Martin sees me so if he were intending to do wrong he would decide against it not wanting to be witnessed. At that point, Zimmerman did not think Martin had done anything wrong, just suspected he might be about to. At that point, Zimmerman was not trying to catch up to Martin to arrest or detain him, or shoot him as some say (again just to demonize him for their purposes of maintaining the racial tensions), just to observe and possibly deter him from doing anything wrong by being present. Yet you state that action indicates he intended to to harm? Have you ever followed someone for some purpose to see where they are going or what they are about to do? Were you at that point intending to harm them as well?

[Beebs52]

What are your sources? Part of mine is the FBI.

Here's a few sources:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.1053223 (this one also has a picture of the area where you think Trayvon hid to pounce on George)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... vant-past/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... e-log.html

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/03/19/v ... itual.html

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/geor ... c-violence

And Zimmerman's own words here: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/16 ... -behavior/

"Addicting Info started as a resource to discredit all the lies and propaganda that the right-wing spreads. When I undertook the project I thought I would probably have about 100 different articles about a number of different myths, and people could sort through them at will. Eventually that expanded to news and other info, and I quickly realized the DAUNTING task of actually trying to discredit EVERY right-wing myth that is in existence, especially with the constant creation of new ones.

Now, I look for people who seem to have a similar goal in mind, whether they have realized it or not, and recruit them to join Addicting Info’s team. I’m very pleased to say that we’ve assembled an incredible team of writers. We provides a blend of news that interests liberals along with research intensive articles about issues which liberals care about.

A lot of you have asked for more information about the writing staff of Addicting Info, so we will be posting it soon. If you’re a writer and would like to contribute to our site, please contact us at editor@addictinginfo.org and send links to any current blogs you are writing or any political fan pages you manage through facebook. Unlike many other political news sites, we pay our writers, based on article views.

Thanks for your interest in our site!



Read more: http://www.addictinginfo.org/addicting- ... z2ZFIKEdOY
"

Seems like a reputable site.

[silverscreenselect]

At that point, Zimmerman did not think Martin had done anything wrong, just suspected he might be about to. At that point, Zimmerman was not trying to catch up to Martin to arrest or detain him, or shoot him as some say (again just to demonize him for their purposes of maintaining the racial tensions), just to observe and possibly deter him from doing anything wrong by being present.

I'm glad you have perfect insight into George Zimmerman's thought processes. Does this ability extend to anyone or merely wannabe cops with police records for assault and anger management issues.

[Flybrick]

Ficticious headline:

White liberal gameshow wannabe kills conservative black man.


The no-doubt top notch investigative reporting will probably dig up two armed robberies against the white guy that provided motivation for killing the black guy and infer cowardice on his part for not doing something about not one, but two armed robberies in the past, therefore he was 'channeling' his rage against the poor black man.

Too far-fetched?

Then why, after a jury heard the evidence, found the hispanic, Zimmerman, not guilty, are you still b1tching?

Based on facts presented, it was self-defense. Not a shining moment for anyone, but not one single fact has been given that states or proves Zimmerman did anything wrong. Not "stalking," not "profiling," not one action wrong or illegal. Not one.

Martin may not have either (my suspicion is that he initiated the violence, thus no sympathy that he was met with overwhelming violence), but he was't around to give his version so we can't know.

Tie goes to the defendent in our system. In this case, it was a hispanic man not a "white" man as portrayed far and wide - including here. Funny how the underdog is rooted for when it's convenient.

Next racially hijacked case, please...

[Bob Juch]

... at the moment he was told not to follow, he had a choice. He chose the action that shows me he had a wrong intention, to harm someone else. If he had chosen to stay where he was, or to go home, that would have showed he did not have intention to harm someone else. Both results and intention have their places in evaluating whether an action is moral.

I don't see how you get to "..he had a wrong intention, to harm....".

If it were me, I might have continued tailing Martin, not 'stalking' (the phrase used by others as it is a more menacing term to suit their purpose of demonizing Zimmerman), so I would know where he was should the police arrive and even to make sure Martin sees me so if he were intending to do wrong he would decide against it not wanting to be witnessed. At that point, Zimmerman did not think Martin had done anything wrong, just suspected he might be about to. At that point, Zimmerman was not trying to catch up to Martin to arrest or detain him, or shoot him as some say (again just to demonize him for their purposes of maintaining the racial tensions), just to observe and possibly deter him from doing anything wrong by being present. Yet you state that action indicates he intended to to harm? Have you ever followed someone for some purpose to see where they are going or what they are about to do? Were you at that point intending to harm them as well?

No one saw what Zimmerman did. There was no testimony as to what Zimmerman did. If Zimmerman was only following Martin he would not have gotten close enough for there to be a confrontation.

[Bob Juch]

Ficticious headline:

White liberal gameshow wannabe kills conservative black man.


The no-doubt top notch investigative reporting will probably dig up two armed robberies against the white guy that provided motivation for killing the black guy and infer cowardice on his part for not doing something about not one, but two armed robberies in the past, therefore he was 'channeling' his rage against the poor black man.

Too far-fetched?

Then why, after a jury heard the evidence, found the hispanic, Zimmerman, not guilty, are you still b1tching?

Based on facts presented, it was self-defense. Not a shining moment for anyone, but not one single fact has been given that states or proves Zimmerman did anything wrong. Not "stalking," not "profiling," not one action wrong or illegal. Not one.

Martin may not have either (my suspicion is that he initiated the violence, thus no sympathy that he was met with overwhelming violence), but he was't around to give his version so we can't know.

Tie goes to the defendant in our system. In this case, it was a hispanic man not a "white" man as portrayed far and wide - including here. Funny how the underdog is rooted for when it's convenient.

Next racially hijacked case, please...

There are white Hispanics. Some of my ancestors were.

Zimmerman does not self-identify as Hispanic.

Why do you think Hispanics are "underdogs"?

[Flybrick]

I think we found Ms. Rachel Jeantal's mentor...

[BackInTex]

At that point, Zimmerman did not think Martin had done anything wrong, just suspected he might be about to. At that point, Zimmerman was not trying to catch up to Martin to arrest or detain him, or shoot him as some say (again just to demonize him for their purposes of maintaining the racial tensions), just to observe and possibly deter him from doing anything wrong by being present.

I'm glad you have perfect insight into George Zimmerman's thought processes. Does this ability extend to anyone or merely wannabe cops with police records for assault and anger management issues.

You state your opinions as fact about 90% of the time, then to support your opinions against others' opinions you ask silly questions like the above. You're a piece of work. Really.

Nothing I've said above is contradicted by any evidence or facts in this case. Or even reasoned thinking. Nothing.

[silverscreenselect]

Based on facts presented, it was self-defense. Not a shining moment for anyone, but not one single fact has been given that states or proves Zimmerman did anything wrong. Not "stalking," not "profiling," not one action wrong or illegal. Not one.

Martin may not have either (my suspicion is that he initiated the violence, thus no sympathy that he was met with overwhelming violence), but he was't around to give his version so we can't know.

Tie goes to the defendent in our system. In this case, it was a hispanic man not a "white" man as portrayed far and wide - including here. Funny how the underdog is rooted for when it's convenient.

So the fact that Zimmerman had an arrest record for violent assaults, had been fired as a bouncer for getting too rough with customers, and had several complaints against him by his neighbors for his "watch activities" means that an unarmed teenager probably assaulted him. Oh yes, the teenager had some gangbanger fantasies, as opposed to Zimmerman's Dirty Harry fantasies. More specifically, he was black, and Zimmerman wasn't. And being Hispanic when compared to a black man is a whole different thing than being Hispanic when compared to a white man.

Reasonable doubt doesn't mean proved innocent; it's the standard we live by in this country. Fortunately, we do have a civil justice system in which Zimmerman won't have all these presumptions and he won't be able to take the fifth. And he won't be facing the type of crappy, overworked prosecutors that Central Florida has an abundance of (See: Anthony, Kaycee).

I personally think the word "racist" is way, way overused and is heard and understood differently by white and black people. White people often interpret "racist" as a Klan type who harbors actual ill will towards blacks or other minorities. By this standard, George Zimmerman wasn't a racist. What he did, and what some of the people on this Bored apparently choose to do, is to selectively interpret evidence to fit with preconceived ideas.

ZImmerman had an arrest record and a history of violent behavior - Unimportant
Zimmerman had been rejected by the police and violated instructions given to Neighboorhood Watch - Unimportant
Zimmerman had repeatedly called police about suspicious black men and boys in the neighborhood - Unimportant
Zimmerman had pestered neighbors to the stage of making them uncomfortable about suspicious blacks in the neighborhood - Unimportant
Martin thought it would be cool to be a gangsta - Ding, ding, ding, he took on a bigger, heavier armed man.

I live in a neighborhood with a lot of Trayvon Martins. I would much rather be living here than in a neighborhood in which there's an armed George Zimmerman wandering around on the lookout for suspicious characters.

Two things I would be more than willing to bet on but sadly will never have the chance:

If George Zimmerman had shot a 17-year-old white boy or a woman under the same circumstances, he'd have been found guilty.

2) If

[silverscreenselect]

At that point, Zimmerman was not trying to catch up to Martin to arrest or detain him, or shoot him as some say (again just to demonize him for their purposes of maintaining the racial tensions), just to observe and possibly deter him from doing anything wrong by being present.

I wonder how you would react if some armed, creepy looking guy first on car and then on foot followed you around at night "just to observe and possibly deter you from doing anything wrong by being present." Especially, if he then cut you off from getting home.

[BackInTex]

No one saw what Zimmerman did. There was no testimony as to what Zimmerman did. If Zimmerman was only following Martin he would not have gotten close enough for there to be a confrontation.

You have convenient lack of imagination (I know you have a very good one based on previous posts) or maybe continued lack of comment sense. Unless Zimmerman was actually piggybacking Martin, when Martin rounded a corner Zimmerman would have lost sight of him temporarily. I don't think any evidence showed Zimmerman to have and superhuman powers and could see through walls. I may be wrong. During that loss of sight Zimmerman could have slowed down while Martin sped up. It would be easy for Martin to lose Zimmerman briefly. Especially if as SSS says Zimmerman cut him off at the pass. So it could have been, and likely was, Martin who closed the gap in a surprise ambush. I'm not saying this is what happened because I was not there, but it could have (and I will say likely did) happen that way. But we'll never know because Martin got himself suspended from school and ended up being in a wrong place at a wrong time.

[silverscreenselect]

But we'll never know because Martin got himself suspended from school and ended up being in a wrong place at a wrong time.

The shooting occurred on a Sunday, while Martin was visiting his father to watch the NBA All Star Game.

Funny, how you repeatedly mention Martin's suspension for having some pot in his bag and omit to mention Zimmerman's assualt arrests.

[BackInTex]

But we'll never know because Martin got himself suspended from school and ended up being in a wrong place at a wrong time.

The shooting occurred on a Sunday, while Martin was visiting his father to watch the NBA All Star Game.

Funny, how you repeatedly mention Martin's suspension for having some pot in his bag and omit to mention Zimmerman's assualt arrests.

You don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty"? Was Zimmerman convicted of assault? No