Latest GeorgeZimmerman News

[Upchurch]

Q. Why didn't Martin run away and call the police?

A. Because he thought the best way to deal with an unarmed white man was to beat their face in.

What is that supposed to prove? The same could be asked of Zimmerman, with a nearly identical answer. Either way, it asserts facts not in evidence.

 

[Jules Galen]

Q. Why didn't Martin run away and call the police?

A. Because he thought the best way to deal with an unarmed white man was to beat their face in.

No. Not at all.

According to the girl that was talking to him, Trayvon was almost home when he decided to turn back and confront Zimmerman. Now...why is that? Shame! Trayvon was 17 and young men at that age are very suceptible to Shame. So, Trayvon was ashamed of running from a stalker and decided to confront the stalker. Bad move for Trayvon.

And if you don't think Shame can move the emotions and thought of a 17-year-old kid, then you haven't been paying attention to any of the military recruiting - which always basically asks the young potential recruits, "Are you Tough Enough to make it our Amy/Navy/AirForce/Marines/Whatever?"

Think about that.

 

[Mumbles]

Not defending Zimmerman, but you need to admit that there was some point where Martin's actions were inexcusable and directly resulted in his death.

Actually, I don't need to concede that point at all. And I think you are wrong.

It's obvious that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin because he was a black kid walking down the street. Martin was fighting for his life, and he lost.

I have no clue why Martin is portrayed as a racist, when his attacker literally got out of his car and chased him down just for being a black guy walking around.

Martin's actions were to walk home, and to defend himself from an attacker. Everything he did was reasonable. And Zimmerman clearly murdered him.

 

[Thermal]

Sorry. I should have said that there is no unbiased evidence. Zimmerman had a vested interest in providing testimony that did not land him in jail. His is the only version of the events leading to the fight and we have no way of determining whether or not it reflects actual events.

Did you know that you can tell the truth when testifying under oath? I have done so. Perhaps you meant his testimony could be biased?

If you can provide evidence that explicitly shows that portion of Zimmerman's testimony to be true, you would be the first on this board. The jury merely found that there was not enough evidence to prove Zimmerman's guilt over a presumption of innocence.

I am not attempting to retry Zimmerman. I am sure this has been done on this forum ad nauseum.

No, but I recognize that, as I said, he has a vested interest to paint himself in the best possible light. The reliability of that testimony is low, at best.

I believe you are speculating here. Did the presiding judge deem his testimony unreliable?

It's not even evidence by legal standards, let alone scientific standards. You might as well look up his horoscope on the day in question or read his tea leaves.

Agreed. I did not mean to place credibility on the voice stress test, my bad.

It would be if a strange adult attempted to grab a lone minor on the street at night, causing the minor to feel threatened of impending injury.

Non sequitur, unless you are suggesting that this is what happened. Any evidence, or pure speculation again?

There is no evidence at all that Zimmerman assaulted or behaved in any way violent prior to his claim of shooting in self-defense. There is abundant evidence of Martin beating the living hell out of him prior to the shooting. You seem to be glossing over that and speculating on hypotheticals.

 

[Jules Galen]

Did you know that you can tell the truth when testifying under oath? I have done so. Perhaps you meant his testimony could be biased?



I am not attempting to retry Zimmerman. I am sure this has been done on this forum ad nauseum.



I believe you are speculating here. Did the presiding judge deem his testimony unreliable?



Agreed. I did not mean to place credibility on the voice stress test, my bad.



Non sequitur, unless you are suggesting that this is what happened. Any evidence, or pure speculation again?

There is no evidence at all that Zimmerman assaulted or behaved in any way violent prior to his claim of shooting in self-defense. There is abundant evidence of Martin beating the living hell out of him prior to the shooting. You seem to be glossing over that and speculating on hypotheticals.

But Zimmerman will do it again, and it will keep happening until somebody stops him.

Zimmerman is a master manipulator - he will cause strife wherever he goes. You haven't seen the last of him.

 

[theprestige]

Actually, I don't need to concede that point at all. And I think you are wrong.

It's obvious that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin because he was a black kid walking down the street. Martin was fighting for his life, and he lost.

At what point, exactly, was Martin fighting for his life? What evidence supports this?

 

[Mumbles]

Not defending Zimmerman, but you need to admit that there was some point where Martin's actions were inexcusable and directly resulted in his death.

Actually, I do not need to admit to that nonsense, and I refuse to do so. Zimmerman decided to attack Martin on his own, and decided to bring a gun into the mix.

Trayvon Martin was just a kid walking home from the store. There's nothing about that that is frightening. I see no need to blame Martin for being attacked.

 

[theprestige]

Actually, I do not need to admit to that nonsense, and I refuse to do so. Zimmerman decided to attack Martin on his own, and decided to bring a gun into the mix.

Trayvon Martin was just a kid walking home from the store. There's nothing about that that is frightening. I see no need to blame Martin for being attacked.

What's the evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin?

 

[Mumbles]

At what point, exactly, was Martin fighting for his life? What evidence supports this?

Did you miss the part where Zimmerman shot him in the chest, and he died?

 

[theprestige]

Did you miss the part where Zimmerman shot him in the chest, and he died?

Was that before or after Martin knocked him down and beat his face in? Evidence please.

 

[Thermal]

Can we be honest, and just say that Zimmerman's defenders are obvious white spremacists?

No. A normal person can evaluate a scenario or evidence and come to a conclusion without being influenced by hate. The cops who killed Eric Garner in NYC were as cruel and cowardly as they come. I base this from the evidence I have seen. I think Martin attacked Zimmerman for shadowing him, and was shot in self-defense, again based on evidence. Racial overtones don't play a part.

To be clear, I have little sympathy and no respect for George Zimmerman. Most of the white guys I know side with GZ because of the 'stand your ground' angle. Although it is off topic for the thread, I would further suggest that whites don't think about race nearly as much as you seem to think they do.

 

[Thermal]

We all saw the evidence, it was perfectly clear that Zimmerman was lying.

You need to lend your remarkable clairvoyant powers to law enforcement .

He put a lot of work to be the face of white supremacy...

You seem to forget that he is mixed-race.

And just in case you want to argue...

FYI, the video comes up with error screen.

 

[Thermal]

But Zimmerman will do it again, and it will keep happening until somebody stops him.

Can you tell me my future too?

Zimmerman is a master manipulator - he will cause strife wherever he goes. You haven't seen the last of him.

I think you overestimate his abilities. I'll bet we will see him again, though. There are a lot of people that hate him, some of which are violent.

 

[Mumbles]

And let's bring it back.

There are people who will cling to stereotype, in the face of evidence.

And yet, these same people who insist to judge people on stereotypes, will also demand that the people to be "good".

When you think about it, it's actually bizarre.

 

[theprestige]

And let's bring it back.

There are people who will cling to stereotype, in the face of evidence.

What evidence, exactly? I've asked you for evidence for your claims, and yet here you are avoiding my question. Let's bring it back to the evidence, please.

 

[Upchurch]

Did you know that you can tell the truth when testifying under oath? I have done so. Perhaps you meant his testimony could be biased?

He could have. My point is that we have no way of knowing. Pretending that we do is a fallacy.

I am not attempting to retry Zimmerman. I am sure this has been done on this forum ad nauseum.

So it goes, still no evidence.

I believe you are speculating here. Did the presiding judge deem his testimony unreliable?

It's not speculation. Zimmerman did have a vested interest in painting himself in the best possible light, all defendants do. The problem is that we have a "he said, he said dead body" situation and no other evidence to determine the truth of the matter.

Non sequitur, unless you are suggesting that this is what happened. Any evidence, or pure speculation again?

It's a counter hypothesis to the one that Martin assaulted Zimmerman first, it fits the evidence just as well and is as equally as plausible. There may be another and all of them may be wrong. Yes, of course, it is speculation. It all is. That's my point. We don't know because we lack evidence.

There is no evidence at all that Zimmerman assaulted or behaved in any way violent prior to his claim of shooting in self-defense. There is abundant evidence of Martin beating the living hell out of him prior to the shooting. You seem to be glossing over that and speculating on hypotheticals.

We know they fought. To my knowledge, no one is questioning that. The question that isn't settled is who assaulted whom first. We cannot merely assume that Zimmerman's version is true because he lived to tell his tale and Martin didn't.

 

[Belz...]

Again, let's get honest.

We know that Zimmerman was lying about his aggressive behavior towards Martin, who was just walking home from a local store.

Now, think about this. Folks gave money to defend Zimmerman. This is basically paying money to be racist.

I'm no fan of the Zimmer, here, but how is that "racist"?

Also, the jury was correct: there was not enough evidence to convict. We can suspect that we know the answer, but the fact of the matter is that we don't know why Martin attacked Zimmerman. Did Zim actually attack him first? Did he provoke him (that's where my money would be)? We'll probably never know.

 

[Belz...]

It's obvious that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin because he was a black kid walking down the street.

What definition of "obvious" are you using here?

 

[sunmaster14]

Was that before or after Martin knocked him down and beat his face in? Evidence please.

Of course, the physical evidence is very clear that Martin was shot from below while he was upright and leaning over the gun. We know this because of the spread of unburned gunpowder on his hoodie and on his chest. The hoodie must have been several inches from his chest at the time he was shot, and this could only be due to gravity pulling it down, which further proves his orientation with respect to gravity.

The only plausible explanation for the physical evidence is that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when Zimmerman shot him. Furthermore, there is eyewitness testimony that one combatant was straddling the other and pounding him MMA style. I think it is pretty much beyond reasonable doubt that Martin was the one on top of Zimmerman and whaling on him, when the shot went off.

How they got to that position is open to disagreement, although I see no reason to doubt Zimmerman's story that Martin sucker-punched him and knocked him to the ground. It is certainly consistent with every other bit of information we have.

 

[Upchurch]

How they got to that position is open to disagreement, although I see no reason to doubt Zimmerman's story that Martin sucker-punched him and knocked him to the ground.

No reason? How very skeptical of you.

It is certainly consistent with every other bit of information we have.

Which information is it consistent with, exactly?

As I've said before, if you can provide evidence that Martin assaulted Zimmerman first, you'd be the first to do so on this board.