Racist George Zimmerman

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:Missed the point I see. Are you related to Sally by chance? Why don't you perform your own objective analysis and give me your conclusions? Did you even read the whole unaltered article or just Sally's little image?

My opinion is that the context remained the same.  I also have the opinion that you don't actually know what "taken out of context" means.  Feel free to prove me wrong.

And it's just your opinion. It's pretty obvious to the most casual observer what Sallys little cartoon was attempting to project. Out of context of the purpose behind the whole statement trying to intimate that George Z is a "hypocrite". I thought what he did was wrong but have to support the CJS now that a jury has spoken, unlike some people here. I have a CCL but understand every bullet one feels they must fire comes with a major caveat - every bullet has a lawyer attached to it. I'm disappointed, I thought you were smarter than Sally. Or perhaps you just like stirring the pot too. Which is it?

I have a CCL but understand every bullet one feels they must fire comes with a major caveat - every bullet has a lawyer attached to it.

You sir are a wise man. If this simple concept can be widely communicated, one life may be saved, and all this discussion and national debate will have been worthwhile. Not one person on this forum who defends Zimmerman ever wanted Trayvon to die, and if this discussion can save another kid......it is a good thing.

nochain wrote:And it's just your opinion. It's pretty obvious to the most casual observer what Sallys little cartoon was attempting to project. Out of context of the purpose behind the whole statement trying to intimate that George Z is a "hypocrite".

What was the purpose of the whole statement?

boards of FL wrote:In the end, you simply cannot go around killing teenagers who are simply walking home from the gas station.  Florida may have failed to secure a guilty verdict, but he certainly isn't off the hook.  His life is essentially over.  He will be publicly ridiculed for the rest of his life.  He will have trouble finding work.  He will likely have no social life ever again.  His name is ruined.  Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to read one day that he was the victim of some sort of drive by shooting.

And due to a fitting karmic twist, he will forever be profiled as a criminal by those around him.  Everywhere he goes, he will be viewed as an "asshole", and as a "fucking punk" that got away.  He will have a dose of his own medicine from here on out.  Enjoy it, George!

I think that's incorrect. Zimerman was sent more money than the Trayvon Martin Project. Thousands of people support Zimmerman and believe he was justified. You keep leaving out some pertinent facts when you say he killed a teenager. He killed someone who was viciously attacking him who happened to be a teenager. Quite a difference.

nadalfan wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

Sal wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:

Having never been in that neighborhood before, George Zimmerman would have stopped me and asked what I was doing there. Remember, he was a member of the local neighborhood watch and was expected to confront strangers in the high crime rate of that housing area. Also, Have you seen the true size of Trayvon Martin? He was near six feet tall and well muscled. Not this little boy

Yes, he was a young black man, so obviously, very suspicious and menacing.

You say Zimmerman would've stopped and asked you what you were doing there.

Ignoring for the moment the fact that Zimmerman NEVER reported suspicious whites, or hispanics, or asians, or women, only young black males over 40 times ...

... ignoring that fact for the moment, Zimmerman claims that Martin was "checking him out" and "circled his truck" as he sat in it.

Why didn't Zimmerman roll down his window and say something like, "Hi!  I'm George Zimmerman with the neighborhood watch.  I don't recognize you from the neighborhood.  Are you staying here?".

What do you think might have happened if he had done so?

Do you think Martin would've jumped through his truck window and started viciously beating him?

Or, do you think Trayvon would've said, "My dad lives down there."

Instead, Zimmerman chose to stalk Martin through a dark, rainy neighborhood with a loaded handgun.

And, now a teenager who was doing nothing wrong is dead.

I have a problem with that.

You don't?

Noneof it would ahve happned if martin hadn't attacked Zimmerman. End of story.

None of it would have happened if Zimmerman had stayed in his car and let the police handle it.

That would be inaccurate. Getting out of the car wasn't the trigger. Martin attacking him was. You can deflect all you want but Martin attacked and beat this man.If he hadn't done that...he'd still be alive.

He killed someone who was viciously attacking him who happened to be a teenager. Quite a difference.

Your conclusion is not fact. It is the story of the person who shot the other key witness. Those witnesses who viewed the struggle saw various people on top at various times. The finding of George Zimmerman NG does not affirm your conclusion, or make the same a fact. It could be that Martin made a conscious decision to take the offense right from the git go, and attacked Zimmerman as you have described. It could be that he was not the aggressor, but Zimmerman was and that he got his blows in during the struggle. The Jury decision does not confirm your fantasy, any more than if I argued the trial proved that Zimmerman initiated the struggle. There was a struggle, and there were two witnesses to the entire thing. One is dead. One is alive and told his story. The fact that the jury had reasonable doubt to convict George Zimmerman does not mean it was necessary for Trayvon to have been the aggressor. It simply means that if George Zimmerman had reasonable fear at some time during the struggle, his use of deadly force was justified.

If you are going to confuse the reality of a NG with your fantasy rendition of what happened that night, please give a disclaimer, or say this is what George Zimmerman said........but please do not conclude the NG jury decision required your fantasy......it did not.

2seaoat wrote:He killed someone who was viciously attacking him who happened to be a teenager. Quite a difference.

Your conclusion is not fact.  It is the story of the person who shot the other key witness.   Those witnesses who viewed the struggle saw various people on top at various times.   The finding of George Zimmerman NG does not affirm your conclusion, or make the same a fact.  It could be that Martin made a conscious decision to take the offense right from the git go, and attacked Zimmerman as you have described.  It could be that he was not the aggressor, but Zimmerman was and that he got his blows in during the struggle.  The Jury decision does not confirm your fantasy, any more than if I argued the trial proved that Zimmerman initiated the struggle.   There was a struggle, and there were two witnesses to the entire thing.  One is dead.  One is alive and told his story.   The fact that the jury had reasonable doubt to convict George Zimmerman does not mean it was necessary for Trayvon to have been the aggressor.  It simply means that if George Zimmerman had reasonable fear at some time during the struggle, his use of deadly force was justified.

If you are going to confuse the reality of a NG with your fantasy rendition of what happened that night, please give a disclaimer, or say this is what George Zimmerman said........but please do not conclude the NG jury decision required your fantasy......it did not.  

The juror said, "we all believed Trayvon initiated the fight.". She went on to say Trayvon could have continued home, he had enough time, but he didn't.

I think the juror stated that SHE believed Trayvon threw the first punch, snd the other jurors released a statement saying that she spoke for herself and not for them. Only they know what they were distancing themselves from.

Why do you think Juror B37 said the following:
"My prayers are with all those who have the influence and power to modify the laws that left me with no verdict option other than 'not guilty' in order to remain within the instructions. No other family should be forced to endure what the Martin family has endured," she wrote.

Did you know Rachael Jeantel said she believed Martin threw the first punch?

2seaoat wrote:He killed someone who was viciously attacking him who happened to be a teenager. Quite a difference.

Your conclusion is not fact.  It is the story of the person who shot the other key witness.   Those witnesses who viewed the struggle saw various people on top at various times.   The finding of George Zimmerman NG does not affirm your conclusion, or make the same a fact.  It could be that Martin made a conscious decision to take the offense right from the git go, and attacked Zimmerman as you have described.  It could be that he was not the aggressor, but Zimmerman was and that he got his blows in during the struggle.  The Jury decision does not confirm your fantasy, any more than if I argued the trial proved that Zimmerman initiated the struggle.   There was a struggle, and there were two witnesses to the entire thing.  One is dead.  One is alive and told his story.   The fact that the jury had reasonable doubt to convict George Zimmerman does not mean it was necessary for Trayvon to have been the aggressor.  It simply means that if George Zimmerman had reasonable fear at some time during the struggle, his use of deadly force was justified.

If you are going to confuse the reality of a NG with your fantasy rendition of what happened that night, please give a disclaimer, or say this is what George Zimmerman said........but please do not conclude the NG jury decision required your fantasy......it did not.  

You're friggin out of your mind! Martin had no injuries.None! The ME stated Martin had to be on top to get shot the way he did. Jeantel said she believed Martin threw the first punch.Martin was never on his back.Zimmerman was. You can continue to make up bullshit but people w/ less than average IQ's have figured it out. Zimmerman never even threw one punch.

Dreamsglore wrote:Did you know Rachael Jeantel said she believed Martin threw the first punch?

She's credible now?  
She said she believes he threw the first punch after Zimmerman tried to grab or detain him.

What do you think about what the juror said -
"My prayers are with all those who have the influence and power to modify the laws that left me with no verdict option other than 'not guilty' in order to remain within the instructions. No other family should be forced to endure what the Martin family has endured," she wrote.

Zimmerman never even threw one punch.


Why would I throw a punch when I had my gun drawn? Again exchanging fantasy based on a NG verdict to prove that one or the other was the aggressor, is simply a matter of opinion, which you are certainly entitled. It however, has absolutely nothing to do with a NG verdict in the trial. A reasonable doubt by a juror is not the same as an affirmation of your or my fantasy. We have Mr. Zimmerman's statements and you can put as much credibility in the same, and I can argue that they have very little, but neither of those positions are proven by the jurors NG.

nadalfan wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:Did you know Rachael Jeantel said she believed Martin threw the first punch?

She's credible now?  
She said she believes he threw the first punch after Zimmerman tried to grab or detain him.

What do you think about what the juror said -
"My prayers are with all those who have the influence and power to modify the laws that left me with no verdict option other than 'not guilty' in order to remain within the instructions. No other family should be forced to endure what the Martin family has endured," she wrote.

What about it? You're reading into something that is not there. They all agreed it was self defense under the law. Some may have wanted to convict Zimmerman because they believe he followed him but they all agreed it was self defense under the law.

Jeantel is making that up like she did about the get off get off. She has no evidence Zimmerman grabbed Martin and that actually discredits her trial testimony.

2seaoat wrote:Zimmerman never even threw one punch.


Why would I throw a punch when I had my gun drawn?   Again exchanging fantasy based on a NG verdict to prove that one or the other was the aggressor, is simply a matter of opinion, which you are certainly entitled.  It however, has absolutely nothing to do with a NG verdict in the trial.  A reasonable doubt by a juror is not the same as an affirmation of your or my fantasy.  We have Mr. Zimmerman's statements and you can put as much credibility in the same, and I can argue that they have very little, but neither of those positions are proven by the jurors NG.

Who said it was proven by the NG verdict? I certainly didn't. I said it was proven by the physical evidence of the injuries and witness testimony.

Dreamsglore wrote:

nadalfan wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:Did you know Rachael Jeantel said she believed Martin threw the first punch?

She's credible now?  
She said she believes he threw the first punch after Zimmerman tried to grab or detain him.

What do you think about what the juror said -
"My prayers are with all those who have the influence and power to modify the laws that left me with no verdict option other than 'not guilty' in order to remain within the instructions. No other family should be forced to endure what the Martin family has endured," she wrote.

What about it? You're reading into something that is not there. They all agreed it was self defense under the law. Some may have wanted to convict Zimmerman because they believe he followed him but they all agreed it was self defense under the law.

Jeantel is making that up like she did about the get off get off. She has no evidence Zimmerman grabbed Martin and that actually discredits her trial testimony.

You read nothing into that statement? Really?  

So Jeantel is only making up the parts that don't fit your beliefs?  

Like Seaoat, I believe that gun was already drawn.  You can argue all you want, but you have no proof it wasn't. By the way, when questioned by the police, he showed how he used both hands to shoot Trayvon, pretty amazing stuff for someone getting his head bashed and face punched.

They all agreed it was self defense under the law.

Well maybe. You might be correct. You also could be wrong. If a person did not think that is was self defense by a preponderance of the evidence or the old civil standard of belief that it was more likely than not that Zimmerman did not have justification to kill Martin, he still could have a doubt which was not beyond a reasonable doubt. All six of these jurors could have believed this killing was not justified, but possessed a reasonable doubt, and therefore following the instruction of law given by the judge found the defendant NG. I think it is imprudent at this point to take the one jurors comments as the truth, and certainly the other jurors have indicated that nobody speaks for them.

nadalfan wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

nadalfan wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:Did you know Rachael Jeantel said she believed Martin threw the first punch?

She's credible now?  
She said she believes he threw the first punch after Zimmerman tried to grab or detain him.

What do you think about what the juror said -
"My prayers are with all those who have the influence and power to modify the laws that left me with no verdict option other than 'not guilty' in order to remain within the instructions. No other family should be forced to endure what the Martin family has endured," she wrote.

What about it? You're reading into something that is not there. They all agreed it was self defense under the law. Some may have wanted to convict Zimmerman because they believe he followed him but they all agreed it was self defense under the law.

Jeantel is making that up like she did about the get off get off. She has no evidence Zimmerman grabbed Martin and that actually discredits her trial testimony.

You read nothing into that statement? Really?  

So Jeantel is only making up the parts that don't fit your beliefs?  

Like Seaoat, I believe that gun was already drawn.  You can argue all you want, but you have no proof it wasn't.  By the way, when questioned by the police, he showed how he used both hands to shoot Trayvon, pretty amazing stuff for someone getting his head bashed and face punched.

No, I read nothing into that statement because they all said it was said defense. Not manslaughter or murder 2. All of them. Jeantel never mentioned the get off in the first two interviews she gave. Not once. She later added that during the deposition and trial. Something as important as that was not mentioned? Give me a break!
As for the gun ,you have no proof either and actually it makes no sense whatsoever Zimmerman had the gun drawn while he took six blows to the head and face. A totally absurd assertion.

2seaoat wrote:They all agreed it was self defense under the law.

Well maybe.  You might be correct.  You also could be wrong.  If a person did not think that is was self defense by a preponderance of the evidence or the old civil standard of belief that it was more likely than not that Zimmerman did not have justification to kill Martin, he still could have a doubt which was not beyond a reasonable doubt.   All six of these jurors could have believed this killing was not justified, but possessed a reasonable doubt, and therefore following the instruction of law given by the judge found the defendant NG.   I think it is imprudent at this point to take the one jurors comments as the truth, and certainly the other jurors have indicated that nobody speaks for them.

Is my statement incorrect or not? Nitpicking what they could have thought makes no sense.

Dreamsglore wrote:

nadalfan wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

nadalfan wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:Did you know Rachael Jeantel said she believed Martin threw the first punch?

She's credible now?  
She said she believes he threw the first punch after Zimmerman tried to grab or detain him.

What do you think about what the juror said -
"My prayers are with all those who have the influence and power to modify the laws that left me with no verdict option other than 'not guilty' in order to remain within the instructions. No other family should be forced to endure what the Martin family has endured," she wrote.

What about it? You're reading into something that is not there. They all agreed it was self defense under the law. Some may have wanted to convict Zimmerman because they believe he followed him but they all agreed it was self defense under the law.

Jeantel is making that up like she did about the get off get off. She has no evidence Zimmerman grabbed Martin and that actually discredits her trial testimony.

You read nothing into that statement? Really?  

So Jeantel is only making up the parts that don't fit your beliefs?  

Like Seaoat, I believe that gun was already drawn.  You can argue all you want, but you have no proof it wasn't.  By the way, when questioned by the police, he showed how he used both hands to shoot Trayvon, pretty amazing stuff for someone getting his head bashed and face punched.

No, I read nothing into that statement because they all said it was said defense. Not manslaughter or murder 2. All of them. Jeantel never mentioned the get off in the first two interviews she gave. Not once. She later added that during the deposition and trial. Something as important as that was not mentioned? Give me a break!
As for the gun ,you have no proof either and actually it makes no sense whatsoever Zimmerman had the gun drawn while he took six blows to the head and face. A totally absurd assertion.

You said Jeantel said he threw the first punch, but then argue that she's a liar.

Since I am being absurd, please explain to me how Zimmerman pulled out his gun from the back, aimed, (his words) and used both hands to shoot Treyvon, all while he was getting beaten to a pulp.

Is my statement incorrect or not? Nitpicking what they could have thought makes no sense.

I am not nitpicking. We do not know. The jurors in time may clearly communicate ALL their concerns and conclusions. What they saw in the evidence and how they reached their verdict as a unit will be important, until then anybody trying to prove their conclusions as to whether Trayvon or Zimmerman was the aggressor is a bit foolish, but we have all given opinions, and we are all certainly entitled to the same.

I found it funny when somewhere in this convoluted mess of words seagoat said this was a learning process. Think back to the beginning... the only concessions he has made were forced upon him... then hedged. I'd rather teach a liberal natural selection. Not Guilty.

nadalfan wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

nadalfan wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

nadalfan wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:Did you know Rachael Jeantel said she believed Martin threw the first punch?

She's credible now?  
She said she believes he threw the first punch after Zimmerman tried to grab or detain him.

What do you think about what the juror said -
"My prayers are with all those who have the influence and power to modify the laws that left me with no verdict option other than 'not guilty' in order to remain within the instructions. No other family should be forced to endure what the Martin family has endured," she wrote.

What about it? You're reading into something that is not there. They all agreed it was self defense under the law. Some may have wanted to convict Zimmerman because they believe he followed him but they all agreed it was self defense under the law.

Jeantel is making that up like she did about the get off get off. She has no evidence Zimmerman grabbed Martin and that actually discredits her trial testimony.

You read nothing into that statement? Really?  

So Jeantel is only making up the parts that don't fit your beliefs?  

Like Seaoat, I believe that gun was already drawn.  You can argue all you want, but you have no proof it wasn't.  By the way, when questioned by the police, he showed how he used both hands to shoot Trayvon, pretty amazing stuff for someone getting his head bashed and face punched.

No, I read nothing into that statement because they all said it was said defense. Not manslaughter or murder 2. All of them. Jeantel never mentioned the get off in the first two interviews she gave. Not once. She later added that during the deposition and trial. Something as important as that was not mentioned? Give me a break!
As for the gun ,you have no proof either and actually it makes no sense whatsoever Zimmerman had the gun drawn while he took six blows to the head and face. A totally absurd assertion.

You said Jeantel said he threw the first punch, but then argue that she's a liar.

Since I am being absurd, please explain to me how Zimmerman pulled out his gun from the back, aimed, (his words) and used both hands to shoot Treyvon, all while he was getting beaten to a pulp.

How do you now where his gun was? Who has a gun in the back? So you're saying he had the gun in his hands the whole time while he was getting beaten and just laid there and let him beat him until he shot him?

2seaoat wrote:Is my statement incorrect or not? Nitpicking what they could have thought makes no sense.

I am not nitpicking.  We do not know.   The jurors in time may clearly communicate ALL their concerns and conclusions.   What they saw in the evidence and how they reached their verdict as a unit will be important, until then anybody trying to prove their conclusions as to whether Trayvon or Zimmerman was the aggressor is a bit foolish, but we have all given opinions, and we are all certainly entitled to the same.

Oh so no one else can discern the evidence? No one else can conclude what the evidence was? It was televised, you know.

PkrBum wrote:I found it funny when somewhere in this convoluted mess of words seagoat said this was a learning process. Think back to the beginning... the only concessions he has made  were forced upon him... then hedged.  I'd rather teach a liberal natural selection. Not Guilty.

I actually thought Seaoat had some sense at one time. I was mistaken. Now we have posters saying Zimmerman had the gun pulled out on Martin when Zimmerman called the police himself.Then I guess Martin punched someone w/ a gun drawn. How stupid this has gotten w/ people just refusing to see the evidence?

the only concessions he has made were forced upon him.

Specifics please.........I have no recollection of what you have written.....can you refresh my memory.

I actually thought Seaoat had some sense at one time. I was mistaken. Now we have posters saying Zimmerman had the gun pulled out on Martin when Zimmerman called the police himself.Then I guess Martin punched someone w/ a gun drawn. How stupid this has gotten w/ people just refusing to see the

I think a reasonable person could disagree on the evidence. I think that the idea of Zimmerman pulling his gun differently than he described and demonstrated is a real possibility. I have give no credibility to Zimmerman. However, I think his statement right after the indcident to police when they tricked him saying that they had a video was the most powerful......his response was good. That give credibility that Zimmerman more likely than not was screaming for help at one point, it however does not tell us if that gun was already drawn and that Martin was reacting in self defense. The physical evidence impeached Zimmerman's story of the shooting, and certainly a reasonable person could look at those inconsistencies and find consistency with an already drawn gun. We only have Zimmerman's words.........to think other options than Zimmerman's description are possible, is foolish. Two eye witnesses who saw the entire event on a well lit day, might allow George's version to be confirmed, or it could show the gun drawn....but we will never know unless George was at some later date to disclose different facts, or if on cross examination in a civil suit his statements are tested.