Forums → WEPR → George Zimmermann Found Not Guilty

My biggest beef with the matter is:

"The fact that Zimmerman fired the bullet that killed Martin was never in question, but the verdict means the six-person jury had reasonable doubt that the shooting amounted to a criminal act."

So he shot the bullet, the bullet hit Martin, the bullet killed Martin, and he was not at least convicted of Manslaughter (which usually is the verdict given even if the shooting was an accident).

It's a groan-inducing flub. The big picture is "Is Zimmerman guilty of killing Trayvon Martin?" And even the jurors knew that he killed him! But they gave him the Not Guilty charge. The jurors who agreed to "not guilty" are retarded.

"Who was yelling? Martin's mother testified she's "absolutely" sure it was her son; Zimmerman's parents said, with as much conviction, that it was their own child."

A much-physically-larger man, Zimmerman wielding a gun, versus a much-phyiscally-smaller boy Martin wielding a packet of Skittles and iced tea. Who would reasonably have cries for help?

The big picture is "Is Zimmerman guilty of killing Trayvon Martin?" And even the jurors knew that he killed him! But they gave him the Not Guilty charge. The jurors who agreed to "not guilty" are retarded.

This was a self-defence case

If the case was a woman bein raped and she killed her atacker, would you want her to be charged with manslaughter as well?

the prosectution failed to meet its burden of proof to show that it was not a justified kiling beyond a reasonable doubt.

The burden of proof is the negligence of Zimmerman disobeying a policeman's orders, and the instigation of the physical altercation. Referring to my point above, with all the items found on Martin, who exactly would be reasonably more apt to crying out for help? A big man with a pistol or a small boy with candy?

A much-physically-larger man, Zimmerman wielding a gun, versus a much-phyiscally-smaller boy Martin wielding a packet of Skittles and iced tea. Who would reasonably have cries for help?

Referring to my point above, with all the items found on Martin, who exactly would be reasonably more apt to crying out for help? A big man with a pistol or a small boy with candy?

What self-defense is there when the man disobeyed a citizen's orders by the police to not approach the person, gun in hand, and instigated a physical altercation?

This does not work, because the victim would have been the survivor.

Firstly, Zimmerman put on weight afterwards. I believe Trayvon actually weighed more than Zimmerman at that time.

A big man with a pistol or a small boy with candy?

or a small boy with candy

small boy with candy

small boy

We can compare.

So he shot the bullet, the bullet hit Martin, the bullet killed Martin, and he was not at least convicted of Manslaughter (which usually is the verdict given even if the shooting was an accident).

Now..the page is acting like the illogical Republicans they bash..and are up and arms about the verdict and talking about how horrendous the verdict was, completely ignoring the fact that there wasn't enough evidence to convict him and just making assumptions to assert he should have been convicted.

To say that Zimmerman's size when compared to Martin's has any relevance in the case is akin to saying all fat people are criminals.

This case was wrong from the start. They should have charged him with reckless endangerment which he was guilty of by following Trayvon. Having been followed by 3 men when I was 14yo I can understand how Trayvon felt at the time.
If George had approached Trayvon, saying "Hi I'm George and I'm on the neighborhood watch, did you see anything suspicious?"
Trayvon could have said: "No, I live with my dad and I come back from the store."
That would have been over and everybody would have been fine.
George might have had good intentions at first but he went all wrong about it by profiling Trayvon. Things escalated from there.

Also in other news.
Fla. mom gets 20 years for firing warning shots

did the cop actually give him an order to not pursue him? ...b/c I really don't think he can and the way I heard it was that it was more of a suggestion than an order. "We don't need you to follow him" .... and that doesn't out right say yes or no to whether or not he should follow. If you've got to wait 15-20 minutes for cops to show up to inspect a shady situation/individual, then odds are they're probably gonna be gone if they've already seen that people have taken their presence as suspicious. What's the point of calling the cops if you know the person is going to get away. "Know"'ing here being more of the you're 99% certain the cop is going to get there and there be nothing.... not so much the knowing for 100% fact, but I'm sure I don't really need to explain that. So to make sure the matter is resolved and the suspicious person found I can see how following said person may be warranted to someone who has taken it upon himself to make sure his family and friends in the area are protected. His confronting the person is where he starts losing my support.

If you're constitutionally allowed to carry a firearm, then you can choose to do so. If you confront someone you have a problem with and they then begin to beat the feces out of your face, then I think you're constitutionally allowed to use your constitutionally allowed firearm with deadly force to save your face.

If the kid really did have him in a ground and pound situation, then he either watched too much tv (and wanted to try it for the first time), or he knew what he was doing (meaning he's probably fought before). Boxer's can get into trouble for using "weapons" if they hit someone with just their fist outside of the ring (or I think they can). Too much blunt force trauma to the head (and back of the head (concrete!)) can kill someone just as much as a bullet can.

The prosecution needed to prove that Zimmerman intended to harm/start a fight from the beginning. They needed to prove that Trayvvon didn't see him coming the second time and circle back around to beat him away (and thus stop the pursuit). From what I've seen and heard... that didn't happen. They did not prove with absolution what needed to be proven(it's a little more than what I've said). It's kinda like that woman that may or may not have killed her child and dumped her body in the woods. I'm not sure (I might be wrong! b/c I haven't gone back and reread), but I think some people here may be jumping ship now. like... some people that defended the woman that didn't report her missing daughter for around a month are now arguing against Zimmerman. I know they're not the same case, but it's basically the same thing. They couldn't prove it, and that is that. Dwelling on it and harboring ill will doesn't do much more than perpetuate the world's problems.

I'm mostly disgusted with the completely uninvolved people.... you know... the ones saying "Imma kill me a white kid if he goes free and get away with it!" ...the guy is half hispanic, but a good portion of people have made it a black and white thing. There was some black reverend that wrote something up here on the internets (Imma tryin to find it) where he thought it was ridiculous how people are searching to find black white problems to blow up in the news when like 500 youths were killed in black on black encounters in somewhere like chicago alone in the last year(s). I'm all for equality and being nice to everyone, but it seems like groups like the NAACP have become nothing but hate mongers and bigger racists than anyone else around.

I'll try and find that link, but it may be lost to the facebook pages of eternity by now

http://www.bondaction.org/content/article/37076/Black%20Racism%20Killed%20Trayvon%20

yay for googles!!! if thou ask then thou shall receive!!! not that it proves anything... it just asks the question "who are the real racists here?" (in a paraphrased manner)