The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

How was he "risking his own welfare"? He simply helped this family get out of their overturned car--there were no injuries, there was no element of danger.

And what do you mean "once more"--he imperiled the welfare of his fellow citizens in the past, particularly one named Trayvon Martin.

When you wind up profiling, following, and killing, unarmed black minors, who are legitimate guests in your housing complex, and who were not engaged in any wrong-doing, you can hardly claim to be "protecting" that community. He risked his own welfare to satisfy his personal obsessions that night, with blacks he considered "f--king punks", and not "to serve his fellow citizens."

Stop trying to turn him into a hero--he's not one. Maybe he just jumped on the opportunity to get some positive publicity by helping this family out. He obviously didn't want his name kept out of it.

It is unlikely he would had known before placing his life at risk however would it matter to people like you and the Sharptons of the world if he single handedly save a bus load of black children?

It did not matter after all that he did raised public hell over a black homeless man being beaten by a white gentleman who was connected to a local police officer and not prosecutor for the beating or that there had not been found one indication that he had a racist bone in his body.

Whether or not THIS family was black, George Zimmerman almost certainly saved one or more black lives by croaking Trayvon Martin. Martin wasn't going to stop with one killing and most victims of black murderers are black...

Where was his life placed at risk? No one in that car was even injured.

Why do you find it necessary to exaggerate and distort this way? He did nothing remotely heroic.

And he made sure he'd get publicity for doing it.

Exaggeration and distortion has been a hallmark of this and similar threads since the beginning, and not just from the Zimmerman faction.

We will never know if Trayvon would had gone on to killed others if his attacked on Zimmerman did not result in his death however he surely seems to be a time bomb ready to go off at anyone who would had annoyed him.

Once more I can not picture myself at any stage of my life launching a full blown attacked on someone for just following me on public streets.

He surely was a time bomb that could have gone off at anytime.

I no longer read Firefly postings but I am assuming she is claiming that it is no big deal to pull someone out of an overturn truck.

Somehow I wonder how many similar deeds our Firefly had done in her life or whether she ever went out of her way to serve her community as Zimmerman did IN taking his time for free to be a member of crime watch.

Or for that matter campaign for justice for a homeless black man beaten up in his community. Going to public meeting to speak out over the matter and working with local black churches.

One hell of a racist Zimmerman surely is.

Now I'm convinced you're completely out of contact with reality.

To listen to you, and some others on this thread, George Zimmerman was simply minding his own business when Trayvon Martin suddenly appeared, and not only attacked him for no reason, but actually wanted to kill him for absolutely no reason.

Martin, of course, had no criminal record, and had never wandered around attacking total strangers before. He was a high school junior who planned on attending college, like his older brother, after high school. He was a middle-class kid, from a hard-working decent middle class family, and he had never been identified as having significant psychological problems or anti-social problems of any kind.

All Zimmerman saw that night was a black kid, who was a guest in that complex, walking around talking on his cell phone, and he erroneously racially profiled that kid, just as you're doing now, so he appeared sinister. Your comments lend credence to the notion that Zimmerman was engaging in racist thinking, if his views were at all similar to yours.

Zimmerman, on the other hand, had twice been in court for problems with his aggressive impulses, which included attacking a law enforcement officer, and he had been court-ordered to take anger management classes. And according to the domestic partner who obtained a restraining order against him, for her own protection, he was constantly threatening to kill himself. He hadn't managed to graduate from a community college, the police force had turned down his application, and his on-going psychological problems accounted for the fact he was seeing a psychologist at the time of the shooting. He was in heavy debt, and his future prospects were not all that rosy when he decided to play vigilante that night. And, from his attempts to conceal his assets from the court, as well as his hiding the existence of a second passport, at his bail hearing, he revealed himself to be a liar of questionable character whose word cannot be trusted.

All things considered, Trayvon Martin was a choir boy when compared to George Zimmerman--and Martin had every right to defend himself from this psychologically disturbed, reckless, impulsive, armed nut who had been following him in the dark for no apparent reason.

If Zimmerman's most ardent supporters are also expressing their own racist views, that, in itself, says a lot about what motivated Zimmerman that night. You can identify with the racist thinking that motivated him...

re BillRM
Is the fact that Zimmerman may have had good intentions supposed to make up for the fact that he wrongly profiled a kid who had nothing to do with any crimes in Sanford and ended up killing him?

He feel he had reasons, by the way he is walking in the rain to wish the police to checked him out as there is no evidence that Zimmerman had a damn racial bone in his body so it is unlikely that race was one of those factors. As in fact one of the police investigator came to the same conclusion.

True those CBS even went so far as to edit the damn 911 tape to show otherwise!!!

Next Zimmerman was attacked by Trayvon and without that attacked Trayvon would now be enjoying his 18 year on the earth.

Sorry but Trayvon had no right to attacked Zimmerman for annoying him and Zimmerman had every right in the world to defense his life once the attacked had been launch.

This thread calls to mind the adverse comments at the time of the critics towards Samuel Richardson's Pamela. That beneath the sanctimonious odour of self-righteous indignation and moral virtue there could be detected a whiff of pornography.

There is a fine line between outraged homilies and commercial pornography as we can well see today in many a media production.

The DSK case was a classic in the genre. It verily teetered.

When you make accusations, you need to spell it out. Generalizations don't offer anything.

All the evidence suggests Martin did not "attack" Zimmerman--he responded to Zimmerman's threatening behaviors and provocation. In the state in which I live, Zimmerman would not have been able to claim self-defense in an altercation he intentionally provoked.

Stop trying to minimize or distort the impact of Zimmerman's menacing behavior on a minor who was simply on his way home after a trip to the store--there was only one adult in this situation. Zimmerman wasn't "annoying" Martin, he was threatening a child by following him in the dark and frightening him. And young black men, particularly those living in the South, know what can happen when a white man follows you in the dark for no apparent legitimate reason. And Martin expressed his apprehensions about that to Rachel Jeantel.

And, you are ignoring the rather blatant fact that Zimmerman was the one with the past history of attacking people. He wound up in court for attacking a law enforcement officer. He was the one who was court-ordered to take anger management classes. He was the one who had taken a great deal of training in fighting at a gym. He was also armed with a loaded gun.

Strange that you do not see that the laws of self-defense also apply to young black men who feel threatened, who feel that their lives might be in danger when strangers follow them in the dark. You apparently do not believe in equality under the law. You are, in effect, saying that blacks do not have the same rights of self-defense as others. If that's true, then Trayvon Martin's civil rights were violated that night. He had a legal right to defend himself if he felt in imminent danger of great harm or death. And the fact that he did wind up dead from this man, would certainly lend credence to such fears.

This is how Zimmerman looked after shooting Martin that night.

He was not severely beaten--his injuries are very minor. The nose does not appear broken, he was not otherwise punched in the face, there are no bruises or swellings on the back of his head, just two tiny scrapes and some streaks of dried blood from those scrapes--no evidence, at all of any repeated head pounding.

Those injuries of Zimmerman's do not justify the use of lethal force. They are nowhere near life-threatening.

This is what Trayvon Martin looked like after the shooting.

He was the one whose life was threatened--by a psychologically disturbed man, with poor impulse control, a self-appointed vigilante, who erroneously profiled him as one of the "f--king punks" he was determined not to let get away.

It was Trayvon Martin who had the right of self-defense that night. George Zimmerman was the walking time bomb. And Trayvon Martin's dead body is the evidence of that.

One, you don't know that the kid had nothing to do with the rash of burglaries in Sanford. There don't seem to have been any MORE such burglaries since the kid got croaked...

Two, the only PROFILING that ever took place in this picture was Trayvon Martin profiling HIMSELF by doing some sort of a slow walk home in the rain, looking at and into houses. ANYBODY would have suspected him of being a burglar and casing houses.

The kid had in fact been suspended from school for having burglary tools and women's jewelry in his locker.

You wrote,

So, what are you trying to imply? That killing an innocent kid is okay if it stops future crimes? You're a ******* idiot@!

KILLING A TEENAGER WHO ATTACKED YOU AND PUT YOU IN REASONABLE FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE IS 100 PERCENT LEGAL AND ALWAYS HAD BEEN LEGAL.

Bill, You understand nothing. You're on Ignore, so you can post all you wish.

Did you not do that before?...........LOL

He didn't live in Sanford. I think he had visited at that community only a handful of times, and he was always there with his father.

He lived in Miami Gardens, as do both of his parents.

Now black kids have to worry if they walk too slowly?

He was walking around, not looking at anything in particular, because he was involved in talking on his cell phone. He wasn't in a hurry, because he was waiting for the NBA game to go on TV at 7:30, and he had almost a half hour until then, and maybe he just wanted to be outside and get some exercise until then. The chief investigator on this case said, on the witness stand, that he would not have found anything suspicious in Martin's behavior.

No, that's not true. He was suspended because trace amounts of pot were found in a baggie in his backpack.

Why would this middle-class high school kid, who wasn't disadvantaged or deprived. who had no history of any anti-social activities, and no history of run-ins with the law, and who was heading toward college, suddenly have been thinking about committing burglaries in a place where his father's fiancé lived, at 7 pm on a Sunday night? That makes sense to you? He was only interested in getting home in time to watch that basketball game--like a normal 17 year old kid.

Black adolescents are not guilty until proved innocent. That was the mistake in thinking you share with George Zimmerman.