Friday, July 19, 2013

Some Thoughts On The Zimmerman Trial

George Zimmerman is a dead man.

Whether he is killed by some racist thug in retaliation for the death of Trayvon Martin, or by his own hand, he is, effectively, a dead man.

The New Black Panthers have placed a $10,000.00 bounty on his head (dead or alive), his address, phone number, and even his social security number have been posted on the internet.

Obama, Eric Holder, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton have pronounced him guilty regardless of the verdict, and all their willing accomplices in the media are fanning the flames.

He can run, and he will, but he cannot hide.

He will probably not live to the end of the year.



This is a photo of George Zimmerman taken when the verdict in his trial was announced.

 Is this the face of a man who is happy?

Does he look haughty or proud?

 Does this look even reflect relief that his ordeal is finally over?

No, this is the face of a man who knows his trouble is just beginning.

I would say all these idiots that still proclaim his guilt will someday have to answer to their Creator for their arrogance in presuming Zimmerman to be guilty in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but they don't care. All they care about is fomenting racial hatred and division.

I feel for George Zimmerman.

 George Zimmerman dated a black girl in high school. He even took her to the prom. He defended a homeless black man against the police. He tutored black children in his home in his free time.

That is not the face of a racist.

However, thanks to the race baiters and our racist President all the way down to the Prosecutor and Judge that tried him, along with their willing accomplices in the media, he might well be a racist now.

Who would blame him?

 Anyone who still believes George Zimmerman is a racist or a murderer or a racist murderer in spite of all the evidence to the contrary is an idiot.

35 comments:

Jim said...

The New Black Panthers have placed a $10,000.00 bounty on his head

That was last year before he was charged. Catch up. They have said nothing about a bounty since the verdict.

Please quote the President saying Zimmerman is guilty.

No, this is the face of a man who knows his trouble is just beginning.

Actions have consequences. Next time stay in the truck.

in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary

There is no "overwhelming" evidence to the contrary. The jury was initially split down the middle.

Prosecutor and Judge that tried him

You have some sort of evidence that the prosecutor and judge are racist? As far as the president and AG, pffft. Same old shit from you.

Zimmerman made poor choices that night. That we know for sure. Martin may have made poor choices that night. We don't know for sure. Martin was a kid. Now he's dead.

Why were Zimmerman's actions self defense and Martin's weren't?

I have not one ounce of animus towards George Zimmerman. I don't know or particularly care if he is a racist. He probably isn't. But you don't have to be a racist to profile a black boy. And you don't have to be a racist to shoot him. You just have to put yourself in a position where it happens. He did and he didn't have to. He made a mistake.

Mark said...

Jim, if you really think Trayvon Martin didn't bring his own death on himself, and George Zimmerman did anything wrong that night, you are a moron. That's all I need to say to you about that.

Mark said...

Here's more: http://youtu.be/Ebu6Yvzs4Ls

Marshall Art said...

Mark,

People like Jim, feodor, Geoffrey and so many other fools refuse to consider the entire story that was the Martin/Zimmerman case. They don't want to. They want to make assumptions so they can pontificate on the fantasies they prefer to the reality that is. Read Geoffrey's last three posts for some real goofiness (keep vomit bag nearby). Totally off the rails.

Jim said...

Jim, if you really think Trayvon Martin didn't bring his own death on himself

No gun, no dead black kid.

No exiting the truck, no dead black kid.

Mostly morons call other people morons.

so many other fools refuse to consider the entire story that was the Martin/Zimmerman case. They don't want to.

You and yours included:

1) Zimmerman had a gun. It was black.
2) Zimmerman carried that gun in an internal holster. It was black.
3) Zimmerman demonstrated that the holster was in his pants near his back right pocket.
4) Zimmerman said that Martin was on top of him. A witness testified that Martin was atop Zimmerman like an MMA fighter with knees on either side of Zimmerman. The defense council demonstrated the same in the courtroom.
5) Zimmerman claims that Martin was (in your words) beating the crap out of him, noticed Zimmerman's gun and tried to grab it.
6) Zimmerman claims he reached for and drew his pistol and shot Martin as he was being beaten.

Would you care to explain when and how Martin would see or know that there was a gun to reach for if it was a dark night, the gun was black, and it was in an internal holster UNDERNEATH Zimmerman? Would you care to explain how Zimmerman could have, with a "thug" on top of him in an MMA position with knees on either side of him could reach underneath himself and draw his gun from his internal holster and then shoot Martin?

Now that's some fantasy there!

Occam's Razor applies. The mostly likely explanation is the simplest. The gun was drawn prior to the physical contact.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

No attacking Zimmerman, no dead black man

(17 years old is not a kid - it's a young man.)

If the gun was drawn before Zimmerman was attacked, then how did his nose get broken and his head bashed?

Race bating liberals are just media lemmings who never think for themselves.

Marshall Art said...

"No attacking Zimmerman, no dead black man"

And this is truly the only mistake that matters in this whole sorry saga. Nothing in Zimmerman's collection of actions included any suggestion of even making contact with Martin, much less shooting him.

Martin, on the other hand, could have no other intention based on the facts as we know them. He was looking to confront Zimmerman, and in a hostile manner. If not, he could easily have simply called out to him, "Are you following me?"

Jim said...

17 years old is not a kid - it's a young man.

My son is 20 years old. I often refer to him as a kid. I can't help it if "kid" is less threatening in your mind.

If the gun was drawn before Zimmerman was attacked, then how did his nose get broken and his head bashed?

Martin attempted to defend himself. Zimmerman's head had two scratches on it. It wasn't "bashed".

He was looking to confront Zimmerman, and in a hostile manner.

Was it you on the other thread that said something to the effect that race-baiting liberals were conjecturing "facts" that were not in evidence?

If not, he could easily have simply called out to him, "Are you following me?"

So "You got a problem?" was the wrong password?

Zimmerman could have just as easily said, "I mean no harm. I'm the neighborhood watch and the police are on their way."

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

"Kid" is a poor choice of verbiage used to imply a child was killed. He was not a child, except in the context of all of use being the child of someone.

Your claims that Martin was the one defending himself goes against all the evidence - facts that liberals like you want to pretend don't exist.

The fact that Martin was acting in aggression is a fact in evidence. Look at his history, look at the fact that he retraced his steps to confront Zimmerman. You liberals think people should just let themselves be attacked by black people, because only blacks are allowed to shoot other blacks.

I can't stand discussion anything with ignorant people like you. You waste my time.

Jim said...

"Kid" is a poor choice of verbiage used to imply a child was killed.

No, it is used to state that a kid was killed.

Your claims that Martin was the one defending himself goes against all the evidence

Absolutely ludicrous assertion on your part. Martin didn't have a gun; Zimmerman did. That's evidence. Martin was minding his own business; Zimmerman was not. That's evidence. There is no definitive evidence that the cries for help were not from Martin.

Look at his history

That is NOT evidence.

look at the fact that he retraced his steps to confront Zimmerman.

There is no evidence to prove that the motive to "retrace" steps was in order to confront Zimmerman and not to escape him.

You liberals think people should just let themselves be attacked by black people

You wingers that that black people should just let themselves be assaulted by anyone without defending themselves.

I can't stand discussion anything with ignorant people like you. You waste my time.

And yet you continue to do so. Admit it. You love it. You're just frustrated because you can't win the argument.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The truth wins - your lies and self-deception lose.

Marshall Art said...

"Absolutely ludicrous assertion on your part. Martin didn't have a gun; Zimmerman did. That's evidence."

That's evidence of what, exactly? Of nothing more than the fact that GZ was armed.

"Martin was minding his own business; Zimmerman was not. That's evidence."

No, that's speculation. But Zimmerman WAS minding his own business as that business of his included his duties as a volunteer of the neighborhood watch. As part of that business, he was concerned that maybe Martin might be one of those who were making their business to burglarize homes in the neighborhood. If that was indeed Martin's business, which we cannot know now, it was bad business to be minding, but a business of which it was GZ's business to take measures to prevent.

"There is no definitive evidence that the cries for help were not from Martin."

As definitive as there could be considering the position of eyewitness Johnathan Good. He wouldn't state unequivocally that it was GZ calling for help, but rational people understand that when one guy is being beaten, and there are calls for help being yelled, it is probably the guy being beaten doing the yelling. Plus, he supposed that due to the fact that TM was upright, his yells would echo off the walls of the building he was facing (away from Good), whereas GZ was facing up and towards where Good was viewing the incident. THESE are facts as related to the court by the eyewitness.

"There is no evidence to prove that the motive to "retrace" steps was in order to confront Zimmerman and not to escape him."

feo's "evidence" would suggest otherwise actually. But he was careful to avoid this possibility suggested by his "evidence". I will agree that it speculation to say that Martin retraced his steps to confront GM, but it is not a possibility the known facts can eliminate.

"You wingers that that black people should just let themselves be assaulted by anyone without defending themselves."

Just another foolish comment that shows how little you know about conservative people. We damned near rejoice at stories like this one, and this one (though not 100% certain he's black---you might not think so) and of course, this one, which bears a striking resemblance to this TM/GZ case.

"You're just frustrated because you can't win the argument."

Babbling on with nonsensical, irrelevant and speculative goofiness does not indicate you're winning anything but pity.

Marshall Art said...

I see my last link did not enter properly. here it is again

Jim said...

That's evidence of what, exactly?

Evidence that Martin may have felt threatened and tried to defend himself.

No, that's speculation.

It is NOT speculation that Martin was minding his own business. He had a right to be where he was, was not engaged in any criminal activity, was walking home from a convenience store with snacks.

It was NOT Zimmerman's business to get out of his truck and follow Martin. That is NOT speculation.

If that was indeed Martin's business, which we cannot know now

There is no evidence whatsoever that is was.

a business of which it was GZ's business to take measures to prevent.

No, it was his business to watch and report.

As definitive as there could be considering the position of eyewitness Johnathan Good.

Good was not the only witness. Another witness, a teacher, told police that Martin had yelled for help.

Marshall Art said...

"Evidence that Martin may have felt threatened and tried to defend himself."

But you questioned how he could have seen the gun if it was holstered behind GZ and GZ was on his back in the dark. Get your speculations straight.

"It is NOT speculation that Martin was minding his own business."

It IS speculation given that the only survivor of the night insists TM was acting suspiciously. I doubt one could honestly imply that GZ counts walking straight home on the sidewalk as "suspicious".

"It was NOT Zimmerman's business to get out of his truck and follow Martin."

It might not have been the recommended procedure for a neighborhood watchman, but he WAS engaged in his business. It is the business of all responsible people to guard against suspicious activity.

"There is no evidence whatsoever that is was."

Except for what GZ regarded as suspicious behavior which indicated the possibility. That's all anyone has suggested, including Zimmerman.

"No, it was his business to watch and report."

Watching and reporting is part of preventing. But watching is difficult when the subject being watched moves out of view. Maintaining surveillance by following to KEEP the subject in view was his business as he saw it. No crime there at all.

"Another witness, a teacher, told police that Martin had yelled for help."

Provide a link as I haven't come across that. But don't get cocky after stating no one knows with any certainty who did the yelling. However, once again, rational people would not suspect the guy doing the beating being the one yelling for help. That's a stretch anyone should be embarrassed to suggest.

Jim said...

But you questioned how he could have seen the gun if it was holstered behind GZ and GZ was on his back in the dark. Get your speculations straight.

Sorry if you don't get the point. Unless Zimmerman turned his back to Martin and pulled up his jacket, the only way Martin could have seen the gun was because it was drawn prior to the physical contact.

It IS speculation given that the only survivor of the night insists TM was acting suspiciously.

The assertion that Zimmerman THOUGHT Martin was "acting suspiciously" does not preclude that Martin was in fact minding his own business.

No crime there at all.

Never suggested it was a crime. Suggested it was a mistake.

provide a link

Link.

That's a stretch anyone should be embarrassed to suggest.

Not in the least. It is entirely plausible that a person fighting another person would yell for help if he felt he was in danger.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dueling links:
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/kuligowski/130722

Jim said...

That link is a load of horse manure.

Claims that the government's objective in this case is gun control are ludicrous.

Zimmerman saw a large, hooded young man.

Uh, wearing a hoodie is not "hooded". Wearing a white sheet is "hooded".

At the point of the pummeling both individuals had access to the same weapon.

If Zimmerman kept his gun in an internal holster inside the right rear pocket of his pants, and Zimmerman was on his back, and Martin was on top of him, how exactly did Martin (or either of them for that matter) have access to the weapon?

The evidence proved that Martin was violently causing great bodily harm to Zimmerman.

For which Zimmerman did not seek medical attention. How great could the bodily harm have been?

Once Martin had equal access to the firearm

There is no evidence that Martin had "equal access" to the firearm or was in fact aware of the firearm unless it was brandished by Zimmerman. Supposedly it was in an internal holster inside the back of Zimmerman's pants.

one must completely ignore the fact that Martin's criminal behavior led to his own death.

What criminal behavior led to his own death?

After Zimmerman identified himself as Neighborhood Watch

Zimmerman never identified himself as Neighborhood Watch.

We must also pretend that covering one's face with a hood in public for no apparent reason should not evoke suspicion.

Covered his face? This wasn't a mask. And it was raining. There is no evidence that Martin was in anyway trying to cover his face so as to conceal his identity.

It doesn't surprise me that you read shit like this much less use it as a link to support your argument.

Mark said...

Jim, the evidence and testimony at the trial confirms Trayvon Martin walked through back yards on his way to his father's house. Not on the sidewalk, and not even in the streets. The backyards! Why didn't he stay on the sidewalks? Zimmerman wouldn't have had to get out of his car in order to watch Martin if he had stayed on the sidewalks. He couldn't drive his car through the backyards. Wandering through other people's backyards at night is a suspicious thing to do, especially considering there had been a rash of burglaries in that neighborhood. If Trayvon was so innocent, why was he sneaking around in other people's backyards?

Then. Martin reached his father's house, and called his friend, Dee Dee, and told her so. He was home. He was safe. Yet, he chose to go back to where he could confront Zimmerman, whereupon, instead of calmly discussing why Zimmerman was following him, he chose to punch Zimmerman in the face, breaking his nose, and knocking him to the ground where he pounced and began pummeling Zimmerman. Whether George Zimmerman was in danger of succumbing to his injuries or not is anyone's guess, but if I were in that position, I would fear for my life, and if I was armed, I would shoot to kill, too. And so would you, Jim, unless you are a sniveling coward, in which case you would probably be dead.

In conclusion, and this is the last time I am going to address your idiocy, Anyone who says that George Zimmerman was not justified in defending himself against a violent attack is a moron, Jim. Classify yourself.

Jim said...

Jim, the evidence and testimony at the trial confirms Trayvon Martin walked through back yards on his way to his father's house.

Not true. When Zimmerman first spotted Martin, Martin was walking on the street or sidewalk in plain view. It wasn't until near the end of the sequence after Martin saw that Zimmerman was following him that Martin was walking in backyards between houses.

why was he sneaking around in other people's backyards?

He wasn't. See above links.

Then. Martin reached his father's house

He never reached his father's house (Martin was actually staying at his father's girlfriend's house). Regardless, looking at the interactive map linked above, it is clear that Martin never came anywhere near his destination.

He was home. He was safe. Yet, he chose to go back to where he could confront Zimmerman

There is no evidence of this.

Anyone who says that George Zimmerman was not justified in defending himself against a violent attack is a moron

Anyone who says that there is no possibility that Martin was the one defending himself against an armed attack or that only Zimmerman had a right to defend himself is being dishonest or ignorant. Most often it is morons who call other people morons.

Jim said...

I meant armed assault, not armed attack.

Mark said...

http://youtu.be/Ebu6Yvzs4Ls

Jim said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jim said...

Another link that tries to paint Martin as a hoodlum and Zimmerman as a good Samaritan with a pristine past.

It doesn't matter if Zimmerman was racist or not. What matters is if he erred in getting out of his truck and carried a gun. What matters is whether he drew his pistol before the physical contact or after.

It doesn't matter if Martin was a hoodlum or not. It doesn't matter if he went to buy ingredients for a drug cocktail. It doesn't matter if there are pictures of him flipping the bird. What matters is whether he believed he was in danger when confronted by a man on a dark night and tried to defend himself.

The video also states that media accuse Zimmerman of following Martin with the intent to shoot him. That is a straw man argument.

Martin's parents had their day in court, as they should have. The verdict is in and that's the end of it in terms of the Martin/Zimmerman case.

The issue of race in this case has less to do with whether or not Zimmerman was a racist (probably not and irrelevant) and more to do with the wide-spread assumption of guilt when it comes to young black men. This verdict doesn't end that issue.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

I checked out your link. First of all, it's old. Second of all, it has blatant errors, if not outright lies. It calls Zimmerman a "self-appointed" neighborhood watch captain. This has been refuted by another NWC in the complex who said he was appointed by others involved in the program, not himself.

It also states twice that the dispatcher ordered or encouraged GZ to remain in his vehicle. Transcripts of the call plainly indicate this is not the case. They asked him if he was following TM and then said they don't need him to do that. Nothing more regarding GZ staying in his vehicle is mentioned.

I don't bring this up to dispute the point about the witness claiming it was TM yelling for help, but only that the article is a crap source to cite.

"Unless Zimmerman turned his back to Martin and pulled up his jacket, the only way Martin could have seen the gun was because it was drawn prior to the physical contact."

You want to believe that GZ had his gun drawn already? That flies in the face of any notion that the kid would then throw a punch at all. You have to have Zimmerman looking to shoot the whole time, which doesn't conform at all with the known facts. But then, you "justice for Trayvon" types are willing to do a Reed Richards to make things stretch to your liking.

"The assertion that Zimmerman THOUGHT Martin was "acting suspiciously" does not preclude that Martin was in fact minding his own business."

But it IS speculating to presume Martin was walking normally down the sidewalk when GZ reported otherwise. Without witnesses to refute or contradict GZ, all you have is speculation about how Martin was returning home. (I see you are using feo's goofy re-enactment video. It, too, is speculation. Zimmerman's testimony does NOT put TM on a sidewalk walking like a normal person. It wouldn't be "suspicious" and worthy of his attention that night.)

"It is entirely plausible that a person fighting another person would yell for help if he felt he was in danger."

Sure, if he's a pussy like some woman in a comedy. But TM was a fight-club dude and a hard ass. Plus, he had the upper hand until GZ shot him. You just keep speculating and insisting it is fact.

"Anyone who says that there is no possibility that Martin was the one defending himself against an armed attack or that only Zimmerman had a right to defend himself is being dishonest or ignorant."

Neither of these is suggested by anyone. For the first part, it's not a matter of possibility, for it's possible that Zimmerman WAS acting like the racist hunter of young black kids some want him to be. However, it ain't likely. Neither is the likelihood that Martin was acting defensively. Even if he was being stalked by GZ, he acted offensively, actually aggressively, in the way he chose to deal with the situation. NOT "defensively" at all.

To the second bit, no one has suggested that only GZ has a right to defend himself, but only that he was the one who was attacked, not the other way around.

Marshall Art said...

"What matters is if he erred in getting out of his truck and carried a gun."

Neither matters because he had the right to do both. Because he has that right, there is no error in his getting out of his truck or carrying a gun.

"What matters is whether he drew his pistol before the physical contact or after."

There's no evidence that contradicts his testimony to police. So what matters is that testimony and the fact that no evidence or testimony exists to contradict it.

"It doesn't matter if Martin was a hoodlum or not. It doesn't matter if he went to buy ingredients for a drug cocktail. It doesn't matter if there are pictures of him flipping the bird."

Actually it does, because it factors into the speculation you want to be true: "...he believed he was in danger when confronted by a man on a dark night and tried to defend himself." Your speculation works a lot better with a kid who was not into making drug cocktails, flipping the bird in text pics and being a hard ass. A logic speculation is that this is the reason why TM's record was not allowed in the trial.

"The video also states that media accuse Zimmerman of following Martin with the intent to shoot him. That is a straw man argument."

Not true. There have been scores of people in the media running this line. The media includes more than just news reports, but you'll note that I pointed out errors in your link above. Mistakes or slanted reporting? Who knows?

"The issue of race in this case has less to do with whether or not Zimmerman was a racist (probably not and irrelevant) and more to do with the wide-spread assumption of guilt when it comes to young black men."

Bullshit. The only concern is THIS young black man and the insistence that he somehow has been denied or deprived of justice for being shot while beating up someone. The issue of race in this case is the attitudes of the "justice for Trayvon" people and their speculations about what happened and refusal to accept what did happen and the righteous verdict in the trial. No one defending GZ is ignoring the tragedy of another dead kid. No one defending GZ gives a flying rat's ass what the kid's race was. His race doesn't matter to us at all. Never did. Never could.

Jim said...

Because he has that right, there is no error in his getting out of his truck or carrying a gun.

You have the right to fill your house with gas. Lighting a match would be an error.

So what matters is that testimony and the fact that no evidence or testimony exists to contradict it.

There is evidence. Zimmerman had an internal holster in the back of his pants. That's evidence. Zimmerman was on his back. That's evidence. Martin was on top of him that's evidence. All of these bits of evidence can contradict that Martin saw the gun and tried to grab it.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

First the claim is that the gun was on his back right hip, which would be more to the rear side, and now it is that the gun was on his back.

The guy would have to be laying still without trying to get free or get up in order for him to be unable to reach a gun on his right rear side. Jim's ilk would have the guy totally helpless and just laying there, when anyone who is afraid of having the crap beat out of them would be moving defensively - including even rolling side to side. Some people are just plain stupid and have never been in such a situation so they think they can speculate just about anything.

Marshall Art said...

"You have the right to fill your house with gas. Lighting a match would be an error."

Is this supposed to be a parallel or analogous to this issue?

"All of these bits of evidence can contradict that Martin saw the gun and tried to grab it."

If it could have, it would have, but it didn't. And why? Because those "facts" do not stand alone, and those facts MUST depend upon circumstances happening in a particular manner for which there is absolutely NO evidence. You continue to use speculation to make your case against GZ, while we continue to insist on looking only at what we know.

Personally, if I wanted to talk about mistakes being made, I would point to GZ's obvious lack of self-defense training that would have lowered the possibility of him being caught with a sucker punch to the nose which, if you've ever taken a good shot to the nose you'd know this well, is painful and disorienting. Self-defense training would have made it far more likely that GZ would have maintained a distance from any opponent. Self-defense training, while not mitigating a need or desire to arm one's self, would have made the need to draw his weapon less necessary or likely.

But as the known facts plainly show, and here I'm referring to ALL known facts, the really definitive mistake of this episode is the mistake TM made in hauling off on a total stranger in the rainy dark of night, as if there was no way he could lose. He lost. Big time. It's all on him.

Always On Watch said...

Possibly of interest....

The Neighborhood Zimmerman Watched: He’d been personally affected by a spate of burglaries in the run-up to the tragic night

and My post "One More Time"

Marshall Art said...

AOW,

Good links. Thanks, but they'll be ignored.

Jim said...

He will probably not live to the end of the year.

Odds are more likely that he'll get a job as a Fox "contributor".

Jerry Salim said...

This is a Great Article ever i see... thank's for sharing :D

Agen bola Terpercaya Bursa303 adalah salah situs / website Agen Judi Bola terbaik dan terpercaya dalam hal taruhan judi online. Taruhan Bola Online Sports369 Dengan Taruhan Casino SBobet Sports369 adalah Situs Judi Online Terpercaya Indonesia dengan Minimal Deposit Agen Judi Casino 100ribu.

Cara Bermain Judi
Judi Online Aman | Agen dan Bandar Taruhan Judi Online

Jerry Salim said...

This is a Great Article ever i see... thank's for sharing :D

Agen bola Terpercaya Bursa303 adalah salah situs / website Agen Judi Bola terbaik dan terpercaya dalam hal taruhan judi online. Taruhan Bola Online Sports369 Dengan Taruhan Casino SBobet Sports369 adalah Situs Judi Online Terpercaya Indonesia dengan Minimal Deposit Agen Judi Casino 100ribu.

Cara Bermain Judi
Judi Online Aman | Agen dan Bandar Taruhan Judi Online

Calf pen said...

Thank you so much for sharing This post. It's gretful blog I have really enjoyed keeping up with you on this blog. movingfloor is firm care of animal health and providing best quality health care service for animals Calf pen is a necessary part of animal house.