The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

and, I might add, David, your speculation is even more baseless, and dumb, because Trayvon was using a Bluetooth headset, so it was not apparent that he was on a cellphone at all, so it would have been impossible to use it as"camouflage", since no one could have seen it (not to mention the fact that you and all the other defenders of Zimmerman are totally unaware that that is in fact normal cellphone behavior, so again it would hardly serve as "camoufglage". Also, if it were intended as "camouflage", which it is not apparent anyone has ever done, you'd just hold the phone, not be carrying on one of a series of conversations Trayvon had had with Jeantel that day. Yours is one of the most pathetic attempts to smear someone I've seen in some time.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

I think the phrase "we will leave them alone as long as they leave us alone", speaks volumes.

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Quote:
Glitterbag said: only assholes refer to people of Colour as 'the blacks'

Would you prefer the word "nigger"..

No, white assholes are fond of that word as well.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Trayvon got himself killed while attacking and trying to killed or greatly harm Zimmerman as a jury found first of all.

No, that's not what the jury found at all.

If you actually believe that, you lack so little knowledge of the law, the verdict, and this case, you are making a complete fool of yourself.

The jury verdict pertained to Zimmerman's state of mind when he pulled the trigger--what he believed was the case, and what motivated him to pull the trigger. That, of course, does not mean that what he believed, or told the police he believed, was actually true. That he ostensibly believed he was in danger of grave bodily harm, when he fired his gun, does not mean that was factually the case. The verdict simply gave him the benefit of the doubt, in accord with Florida law.

The verdict does not pertain to Trayvon Martin's motives--or what his intentions were--those are things that neither you nor the jurors have any knowledge of. Zimmerman killed the only person who could have testified on that matter.

I fail to see the purpose of your distortion of the verdict, or your abysmal ignorance/denial of the actual evidence in this case, in order to present what is, in essence, a fabricated account of what occurred that night.

You've fancifully transformed the reckless and inappropriate behavior of a vigilante neighborhood watch captain into some of "heroic" conduct, turned a middle-class high school student, with no history of criminal behavior in the community, run-ins with the police, or aggressive behavior toward anyone, into a murderous "thug", "hoodlum" and "a worthless piece of s--t", in order to construct a simplistic comic book fable of good vs evil with the good guy shooter triumphing and saving the day for mankind.

The problem is, you are trying to peddle your comic book as fact. Unfortunately, none of it is true. Neither of your manufactured main characters bares the slightest resemblance to what is known about the real people involved, and, consequently, your narrative ascribes motives to both parties that defy credulity.

More importantly, your cartoon does not comport with the trial evidence--your "hero" was actually motivated by animosity, something the defense did not deny, and which was evident in what he said in his call to the police, and your "villain" was clearly an innocent victim who suddenly found himself embroiled in a web spun by his stalker, and who may well have been trying to defend his own life when he was killed.

What is your personal motive for creating a simplistic fictional scenario of the events of that night? Is this how you think you're defending the "rights" of shooters and the lax laws of Florida that favor and shield them? Is this how you express your contempt for blacks and your own paranoid fears of them? Is this some sick racist need on your part to be able to rejoice over the tragically needless and avoidable death of a black child--by viewing him as "a worthless piece of s--t"?

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

/denial of the actual evidence in this case,

What actual evidence did they(the prosecution) miss? And how the Hell would you know. Your ass has got to be sore from all the talking you are doing out of it.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

absolutely baseless speculation, david, as usual.
We KNOW he was on the phone, and that's the way people on cellphones behave..
Zimmerman with fevered imaginaqtion, saw something that wasn't there in Trayvon's behavior,
and killed him for a crime he hadn't commited

That 's a foolish thing to say.
We know that he killed him for the crime of ATTEMPTED MURDER.

MontereyJack wrote:

and had no intention of commiting (i.e. burglary).

HOW do u know what intentions
martin did not have. U read his mind???
Most people don t know that.

MontereyJack wrote:

He accosted Trayvon, who, in justified imminent fear,

There was NO reason for fear.
In all of these months, none of u has ever shown a reason for fear.
If I had been in martin 's position, I 'd have been peaceful,
even pleasant; maybe just gone home, peacefully.
He 'd be INTACT now, if only he had been peaceful.
He wanted to BULLY Zimmy and he did it; near murder.
He paid the price for his bullying.

MontereyJack wrote:

fought back in self-defense.

That 's a logical fallacy,
implying that Zimmy had begun fighting.
It was an un-provoked, murderous attack, presumably so he cud brag
to his MMA qua pounding (killing?) a white.
Martin got what he RICHLY DESERVED.

MontereyJack wrote:

Then Zimmerman killed him.

With good reason!!!

MontereyJack wrote:

Zimmerman, a known liar,

The death penalty does not apply to lying.
Martin was attempting to murder him.

MontereyJack wrote:

has been lieing through his teeth
ever since about what happened.

That 's a lot nicer than rotting in a grave,
which is what Zimmy 'd be doing, if martin had his way.

MontereyJack wrote:

the evidence shows he initiated the confrontation.

U on martin's side define that
as getting out of his car,
as if he had no right to get out.

MontereyJack wrote:

He was the one with the gun.

EVERY decent American has guns.

MontereyJack wrote:

He was the one on the prod.
He was the one who was irate becauswse "they always get away".
so he chased Trayvon, who was trying to avoid a confrontation. and shot him.

U left out the little, minor detail of martin trying to murder him.

MontereyJack wrote:

Trayvon was simply walking home,talking to his friend on the phone,
when out of the night somebody he correctly felt was a creepy guy accosted him.

That is a false statement.
I know what it means to be accosted; I have been accosted.
What Zimmy did is not it.

MontereyJack wrote:

Zimmerman was the one with the violent agenda, not Trayvon.

Zimmy was only trying to get the police on martin.
If that 's what u mean, then: so be it.

MontereyJack wrote:

And to repeat, TRAYVON HAD NOT COMMITTED THE CRIME
ZIMMERMAN CHASED AND KILLED HIM FOR. TRAYVON WAS INNOCENT.

He was guilty of ATTEMPTED MURDER
and u r guilty of beginning sentences with conjunctions,
when thay do not conjoin to anything.

MontereyJack wrote:

Need I remind you that it was ZIMMERMAN the jurors
felt was getting away with murder,

IF that were actually true,
then thay woud have convicted him. Its only voting.
U 'd have voted to convict, if u 'd been on the jury.
Thay woud have too, IF thay really believed what u claim;
their verdict disproves what u allege.
Ergo: Zimmy is FREE, FREE, FREE!!!

MontereyJack wrote:

but under Florida law they couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt
(since Zimmerman killed the person who could show Zimmerman's lies for what they were).

U 'd have voted to convict.
Thay coud have and woud have,
IF thay believed what u claim that thay believed.

Thay vindicated him, as well he DESERVED, blessings be unto him.

Zimmy 's legal defense team was not a lot to brag about,
but he was acquitted because there was never any case against him.

David

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

I think the phrase "we will leave them alone
as long as they leave us alone", speaks volumes.

Nice of u to say so.

0 Replies

@firefly,

You must be a Republican. You lie like a rug.

You said that Z killed the only person who could have testified about the fight between the two. However, you know very well that a neighbor testified that M was sitting on Z and beating the crap out of him.

But I guess you don't give a fig about your credibility.

1 Reply

Abridged transcript of the Zim talkthrough vid, he confirms that a witness saw Martin on top of him-

"I started walking back to my truck.
He [Martin] yelled "have you got a problem?"...
I said "No i don't have a problem man"
He [Martin] said "you got a problem NOW" and he punched me in the face.
I stumbled, fell down, he pushed me and got on top of me.
I was trying to push him away from me, that's when I started screaming for help.
I tried to sit up and that's when he grabbed me by the head and tried to slam my head down.
My body was on the grass, my head was on the cement.
He just kept on slamming and slamming.
He put his hand on my nose and his other hand on my mouth and said "Shut the **** up"
I thought my head was gonna explode, I tried to squirm off the concrete.
Somebody here opened the door and I said "Help me, help me!", and they said "i'll call 911"
I said "No, help me, I need help!" I dunno what they did.
I had my firearm on my right side. My jacket moved up, he saw it, he looked at it.
He said "you're gonna die tonight ************!" and he reached for it.
I just grabbed my firearm and I shot him"

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Abridged transcript of the Zim talkthrough vid,
he confirms that a witness saw Martin on top of him-

"I started walking back to my truck.
He [Martin] yelled "have you got a problem?"...
I said "No i don't have a problem man"
He [Martin] said "you got a problem NOW" and he punched me in the face.
I stumbled, fell down, he pushed me and got on top of me.
I was trying to push him away from me, that's when I started screaming for help.
I tried to sit up and that's when he grabbed me by the head and started slamming my head down.
My body was on the ground (grass), my head was on the cement.
He just kept on slamming and slamming.
He put his hand on my nose and his other hand on my mouth and said "Shut the **** up"
I thought my head was gonna explode, I tried to squirm off the concrete.
Somebody here opened the door and I said "Help me, help me!", and they said "i'll call 911"
I said "No, help me, I need help!" I dunno what they did.
I had my firearm on my right side. My jacket moved up, he saw it, he looked at it.
He said "you're gonna die tonight ************!" and he reached for it.
I just grabbed my firearm and I shot him"

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55l2Dj6AeFY&feature=player_detailpage[/youtube]

GOOD WORK!!!!!

This also proves,
as Kitty Genovese, Reginald Denny and too many others have learned:
U CANNOT DEPEND UPON OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY
FOR YOUR DEFENSE, FOR YOUR SURVIVAL.
U NEED TO DEFEND YOURSELF!!!

0 Replies

Quote:

OmSigDavid said: GOOD WORK!!!!!

Thanks mate, and for good measure here are some stills from the reconstruction animation that was played to the court.
Note the householder in pic 4 clearly sees Martin on top of Zim, and testified to that effect on the witness stand-

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/zim-animA_zps7fb30d1d.jpg~original

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Quote:

You said that Z killed the only person who could have testified about the fight between the two...

No, that's not what I said. Do you have problems comprehending basic English?

I said the only one who could testify to Martin's motives and intentions was dead. And, the only one who could have done so was Martin.

The witness--who did not see the struggle begin, and who left the scene before the shooting--could not clearly see what was going on because the area was too dark. He thought Martin was on top, and he saw arms moving up and down, but he did not see "Martin beating the crap out of him." What he saw could have been a struggle over the gun, and not a "beating"--which would explain why Zimmerman's very minor injuries were not consistent with a beating or any head-pounding.

I suggest you read that witness's testimony, including the cross-examination.

But, unless the witness was a mind-reader, he could not know what the motives or intentions of the two participants were. He could not know which of the two was acting in defense of his own life, he could not know whether the one on top was trying to kill the other male, or simply subdue him, or simply get his gun from him, in defense of his own life, and, in response to a direct provocation and threatening action from the man on the bottom. The witness never saw how the altercation began.

So you are, rather foolishly, asserting as "fact" evidence that was never presented at trial.

0 Replies

You know what is so sad and amusing as if the hoodlum and the crime watch volunteer had been of the same race either white or black or whatever no one would had raised an eyebrow over this clear self defense shooting.

Then if it was a black solid citizen killing a white hoodlum in self defense any attempts to charge the black gentleman would had gotten Sharpton, the President, and people like Firefly to come down like the hammer of god on the local DA. With the footnote most of the Zimmerman supporters such as myself would have join in defending the black crime watch volunteer as unlike the Zimmerman haters we do not care about skin color.

This is a fine example of reverse racism at it very worst.

3 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo, why do you keep presenting a defense exhibit as though it accurately and honestly recreates the events? It is a deliberately misleading representation that distorts known facts--including the illumination of the area and the witness view of what took place. It was intended to mislead the jury regarding those facts.

Similarly, what is the purpose of posting George Zimmerman's version of events? The police did not believe a considerable part of what Zimmerman told them because his narrative was inconsistent, often at odds with the physical evidence, often less than credible, as well as "embellished" and "exaggerated".

Do you realize that what you are posting is only Zimmerman's version--the one-sided, self-serving, account of a known liar? What is your purpose in doing that?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

You know what is so sad and amusing as if the hoodlum and the crime watch volunteer had been of the same race either white or black or whatever no one would had raised an eyebrow over this clear self defense shooting.

Then if it was a black solid citizen killing a white hoodlum in self defense any attempts to charge the black gentleman would had gotten Sharpton, the President, and people like Firefly to come down like the hammer of god on the local DA. With the footnote most of the Zimmerman supporters such as myself would have join in defending the black crime watch volunteer as unlike the Zimmerman haters we do not care about skin color.

This is a fine example of reverse racism at it very worst.

Yes; I find humor in that.

If Martin had been a white
and if Zimmy had been a black,
then Sharpton and Jesse Jackson
woud have been screaming for an acquittal, instead.

Does everyone AGREE with that?? Firefly?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

There is nothing at all "amusing" about this homicide, you sick half-wit. Are you vicariously enjoying the "thrill" of being able to kill someone--and get away with it?

And I'm still waiting for you to respond to my previous post...

The jury verdict pertained to Zimmerman's state of mind when he pulled the trigger--what he believed was the case, and what motivated him to pull the trigger. That, of course, does not mean that what he believed, or told the police he believed, was actually true. That he ostensibly believed he was in danger of grave bodily harm, when he fired his gun, does not mean that was factually the case. The verdict simply gave him the benefit of the doubt, in accord with Florida law.

The verdict does not pertain to Trayvon Martin's motives--or what his intentions were--those are things that neither you nor the jurors have any knowledge of. Zimmerman killed the only person who could have testified on that matter.

I fail to see the purpose of your distortion of the verdict, or your abysmal ignorance/denial of the actual evidence in this case, in order to present what is, in essence, a fabricated account of what occurred that night.

You've fancifully transformed the reckless and inappropriate behavior of a vigilante neighborhood watch captain into some of "heroic" conduct, turned a middle-class high school student, with no history of criminal behavior in the community, run-ins with the police, or aggressive behavior toward anyone, into a murderous "thug", "hoodlum" and "a worthless piece of s--t", in order to construct a simplistic comic book fable of good vs evil with the good guy shooter triumphing and saving the day for mankind.

The problem is, you are trying to peddle your comic book as fact. Unfortunately, none of it is true. Neither of your manufactured main characters bares the slightest resemblance to what is known about the real people involved, and, consequently, your narrative ascribes motives to both parties that defy credulity.

More importantly, your cartoon does not comport with the trial evidence--your "hero" was actually motivated by animosity, something the defense did not deny, and which was evident in what he said in his call to the police, and your "villain" was clearly an innocent victim who suddenly found himself embroiled in a web spun by his stalker, and who may well have been trying to defend his own life when he was killed.

What is your personal motive for creating a simplistic fictional scenario of the events of that night? Is this how you think you're defending the "rights" of shooters and the lax laws of Florida that favor and shield them? Is this how you express your contempt for blacks and your own paranoid fears of them? Is this some sick racist need on your part to be able to rejoice over the tragically needless and avoidable death of a black child--by viewing him as "a worthless piece of s--t"?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

You know what is so sad and amusing...

Well..."sad"...and I guess "amusing" in a sardonic sense...

...is the fact that so many people are defending and rationalizing Zimmerman's right to stalk Martin...and then shoot him to death.

Was that what you had in mind, Bill?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I find it hard to even imagine that you once practiced law.

Thank goodness you're retired, so all future possible clients are safe from you.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

..is the fact that so many people are defending and rationalizing Zimmerman's right to stalk Martin...and then shoot him to death.

LOL talk about rationalizing your camp is the king of doing so and once more your side opinions seem completely base on the skin color of the actors involved IE reverse racism of the worst kind.

2 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

There is nothing at all "amusing" about this homicide, you sick half-wit.
Are you vicariously enjoying the "thrill" of being able to kill someone--and get away with it?

There is no thrill,
other than ending the danger. Zimmy did that.

firefly wrote:

And I'm still waiting for you to respond to my previous post...

U don t reply to MY posts,
when u dont feel like it, Firefly.

I recognize that u r within your rights to disregard my posts to u,
if such be your choice, but if u assert objections to similar conduct,
then that raises questions of hypocrisy.

David

1 Reply

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know