General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
George Zimmerman: God Is The 'Only Judge That I Have To Answer To'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/17/george-zimmerman-interview_n_4802481.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
After all of the testimony and hearings, George Zimmerman says he has only one judge left to stand before.
"God," Zimmerman told CNN on Monday. "I know that ultimately, He's the only judge that I have to answer to... He knows what happened. I know what happened. So I'd leave it up to him."
Nearly two years after Zimmerman killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in a gated Florida community -- and about half a year since a jury acquitted him of second-degree murder and manslaughter charges -- the 30-year-old says he still gets death threats.
"I have a lot of people saying that, you know, they guarantee that they're going to kill me and I'll never be a free man," he said. "I realize that they don't know me. They know who I was portrayed to be."
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
LeftofObama
(4,243 posts)6th and 9th commandments will get in the way.
Arkansas Granny
(31,515 posts)kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)vigilantes, tortured and killed...including rouge cops and judges?
pkdu
(3,977 posts)Just kidding!
louis-t
(23,292 posts)One of my favs.
Oh, wait, that was the one where the judges and ex-judges got together and put out hits on guys they thought got away with murder. Michael Douglas was in it.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)
sakabatou
(42,152 posts)cpwm17
(3,829 posts)when he "whoop-assed" GZ:
George Zimmerman didn't like getting his ass whooped by a stranger, and GZ felt that gave him a right to self defense.
GZ could have started the actual confrontation, but we have no evidence of that.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)gave permission for GZ to stalk him.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)but that's not the crime of the century and it didn't give TM a right to attack GZ (if that's what happened). The evidence indicates that TM committed the first actual crime: assault. That is a serious crime which gave GZ a right to think the worst: his life may be in danger.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)an armed killer that falsely judged him as a threat to the neighborhood.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)but the evidence indicates it was TM that came back and attacked GZ. The attack happened very close to the spot where the 9-11 operator told GZ not to follow. There is no evidence that GZ followed TM after that and the only way that TM could have confronted GZ at that spot is TM returned to attack GZ.
GZ's keys were on the ground from the assault (he still wasn't far from his truck), indicating GZ was carrying them in his hand and wasn't prepared for what happened.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)his stalking of an innocent young man. GZ should have stopped judging this young boy and he should have went home and let the police handle this. Instead GZ provoked a fight and then murdered TM in cold blood!
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)and the assault happened close to the location where GZ had last talked to the operator.
Your misinformation comes from the fact that there was a time delay between when GZ had last talked to the operator and the assault. People make the false assumption the delay was the time GZ needed to catch TM. That is wrong. The delay came from the fact that TM didn't go home and he returned to meet (and probably attack) GZ.
GZ was on his back receiving a beating from TM when he shot TM. Generally GZ's behavior is called self defense.
If someone close to you is given a brutal beating from a stranger. Would you blame them for doing what they need to defend themself?
B Calm
(28,762 posts)would have done what the 9-11 operator told him to do, there would have not been a fight, there would not have been a murder of an innoncent young man. The whole damn thing could have been avoided if GZ didn't elect himself to be the judge , jury, and executioner of TM!
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)there is no evidence that GZ didn't do what the operator told him to do.
GZ was still near the location where he was talking to the operator several minutes later when he was attacked (apparently). He was around the corner from his truck during the assault and he had just exited his truck when the operator told him to stop following (door slam during phone call).
In those approximately four minutes TM had plenty of time to be far away from GZ's location. This indicates that it was TM that confronted and probably attacked GZ.
It is a near certainty that GZ was on his back getting pummeled by TM when GZ shot TM. GZ at that point had a right to think the worse about his future safety. Anyone in that situation would think the same.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)he took the law in his own hands and self appointed his ass to go after this innocent young man. What GZ did, was nothing short of cold blooded murder.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)If he was where he said he was after hanging up, his car would have been only 100-150 feet away. He'd be at his car in less than a half minute.
So why was he still there?
And why did Zimmerman change his mind on the phone with dispatch, first telling police to meet him at his truck, but then telling them instead to give him a call?
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)The door slam during the 9-11 conversation indicates GZ was already out of the truck when the conversation ended. In the approximately four minutes (four minutes is a long time) from when GZ last saw TM until the assault, which was about two minute after hanging up, TM would have had to have made his way to GZ's location (unless he was hiding the whole time) and not the other way around.
You can think of alternate scenarios about how they met, but there is no way you can find GZ guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on those less-likely scenarios.
All injuries were to GZ, and they were consistent with GZ's story. GZ's keys were found on the ground, indicating he was carrying them (he was near his truck) and was not ready for the assault.
According to GZ, he was looking for an exact address. So presumably he needed a proper address so they could meet at the truck. Is GZ's story plausible: yes. Is he lying: possibly. But since he was still pretty near his truck it probably doesn't really matter that much.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)It dropping to the ground would be consistent with Rachael Jeantel's much maligned testimony. And why would someone planning a surprise ambush be talking on the cellphone up until the time of the ambush? Wouldn't that give away the element of surprise in the surprise ambush? Cellphone records confirm this to be the case.
Zimmerman's injuries were not consistent with his story. Zimmerman claimed they were life threatening and that his head had been slammed into concrete anywhere from 10 to 30 times. In fact, the injuries were described as "insignificant" and that his head had hit the ground probably no more a couple of times at most. Zimmerman himself refused emergency treatment.
Zimmerman also told dispatch for police to call him, and not to meet him at his truck. That clearly raises suspicion as to why Zimmerman wouldn't be at his truck.
And the "looking for an address" claim was the most laughable at all. Zimmerman knew the three streets in his community by heart. There'd be no reason for him to look for an exact street address if he was simply going back to his car. And I believe he only made that claim in one of his several statements to police.
It is undisputed that at least one point in time, Zimmerman was the pursuer and Trayvon was the pursued. It would make logical sense that someone being pursued by a stranger for unknown reasons might hide out for a couple of minutes before he continues. What doesn't make logical sense is someone taking 2 minutes to walk 100-150 feet. Unless that person was actually a lot farther from the truck than he claimed because he was still out looking for the fucking punk asshole who was up to no good.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)you don't have to, nor should you, wait until you have life threatening injuries before you do what you need to do to save yourself. By then it would be too late.
The injuries were consistent with GZ's story on how he was attacked. He had a broken nose and he had injuries to the back of his head consistent with his head being slammed into the concrete. I know, all of the internet tough-guys think he is such a wuss for reacting to such a beating. GZ had to experience that attack in real life, not as a pretend tough-guy sitting at his computer screen.
Rachael Jeantel has no credibility whatsoever.
We know how far GZ was from his truck when he was assaulted (apparently, though not provable that he was attacked first.) How could he have been farther? The two minutes he spent looking for an exact (house number) address (as GZ claims), or he could have been looking for TM from areas near his truck. We have no evidence he pursued farther on foot.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)It does not take 2 minutes to walk 100-150 feet back to your car. And Zimmerman did not need to go all the way across to Retreat View Circle to get a house address. His car was parked in plain view of a house with a clear street number on it. So he could have both returned to his car and gotten a proper street all in one fell swoop. He didn't do that--why didn't he do that?
His story does not compute. He was not looking for a street address on Retreat View Circle. And it would not have taken him 2 minutes to return to his car. Nor did he even want police to meet him at his car. Ergo, he had to be doing something else.
Racheal Jeantel had no credibility whatsoever because you didn't like what she said. It's as simple as that. Yet cellphone records do indicate she was on the phone up to the point of the altercation, so it's not as if she was making up the fact that she just so happened to be on the phone when things went down. That we know actually happened.
Regarding the issue of injuries, I'll repeat what I said to another Zimmerman apologist downthread. The injuries were ultimately deemed minor and insignificant. There are fistfights all the time where someone receives minor and insignificant injuries. If we allowed the other person to shoot a person in a hand to hand fight just because they think the situation might escalate, the homicide rate in this country would skyrocket. You can't just shoot someone because maybe things might get worse.
And one last thing: you said that George Zimmerman had to experience the "ambush." Now, even if we were to assume that the asinine "ambush" story were true, honestly, did George Zimmerman really have to experience it? Think about it.
pokerfan
(27,677 posts)And maybe Trayvon didn't run home because he didn't want the creepy guy--who had followed him in a car and then followed him on foot--know where he was living.
the 9-11 operator did not say not to follow him, and he explicitly stated during the trial that 9-11 operators do not give orders or tell people what to do. Did you bother to watch the trial?
Aristus
(66,327 posts)But this isn't the 'Trayvon-Martin-Had-It-Coming' website.
Take this garbage somewhere else...
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)If you haven't notice, GZ is an actual human being and he deserves a fair trial like all everybody else.
If you can't stand conversations about the actual evidence, don't read these threads.
Aristus
(66,327 posts)cockamamie story.
The evidence proves GZ stalked Trayvon Martin. The evidence proves GZ was armed. The evidence proves Trayvon Martin was not.
That spells first-degree murder in every state except Florida.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)Except for Zimmerman's own story, that is.
Tell me what evidence other than Zimmerman's own story supports your argument that Trayvon initiated the assault.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)who know what happened even though they were not there?
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Lost_Count
(555 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)....her testimony was discounted by many.
Because apparently she talked funny.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)approached Martin in a threatening way.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)I think there were many people who simply discounted her because in their minds, she wasn't photogenic to them and didn't speak with their approved diction.
But her recounting of the night in question didn't come off as contrived in any sense of the word, and supports Zimmerman aggressively pursuing Trayvon (for reasons he didn't know), even after Zimmerman had hung up with dispatch and was supposedly heading back to his car/checking out which of the three streets he was on.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Listen to the state attorney's interview of her (prior to the trial) and then tell me she has any credibility.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)The Zimmerman defense team wanted to make much hay about it to claim Jeantel was a patsy for the Martin family. I think whatever the defense wanted the jurors to think went over their heads, and I don't think it shows Jeantel was lying in her account of that evening.
So, yes, I still think she was a credible witness.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Of course, even if she was a credible witness, she has no knowledge of whether Martin attacked Zimmerman.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)Zimmerman: "What are you doing here?
Trayvon: "Get off, get off".
Phone drops.
So let's just take her testimony at face value here.
If Trayvon were planning an ambush of Zimmerman, as Zimmerman claims, why would he be the one asking if Zimmerman was following him?
And "Get off, get off"--if Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, why would he be the one saying that?
And most importantly, if Trayvon were planning an ambush of Zimmerman, why would he be on the phone with somebody up to the point of the actual ambush?
No. Jeantel's testimony most definitely supports the notion of Zimmerman as the aggressor. You appear blind to that fact.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)But I agree that if Martin was saying "get off" that does support the hypothesis that Zimmerman was the aggressor. Of course, the other eye witness testimony supports Zimmerman's story.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)The fact of the matter, though, is that Jeantel was the closest witness on the initial engagement between the two.
No one eyewitnessed the initial engagement.
By "the other eyewitness testimony" that you mention, I'm assuming you mean John Good. Good witnessed a brief couple of seconds in the middle of the physical encounter between the two where he thought that it was Trayvon on top.
However, other witnesses (Jayne Surdyka, Selma Mora) testified that they saw Zimmerman on top. And its possible that in the physical struggle that there may have been a switching of positions, so I'm not going to discount any of those accounts as not being credible.
In the end, it all goes back to logic. Why would Trayvon double back after trying so hard to lose Zimmerman? No one has ever sufficiently answered that question for me. It runs contrary to all human logic.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)I disagree. As for the logic of Martin doubling back, your view is implausible. In what world is it bizarre for a high school wannabe tough guy to make poor judgments about who to assault and throw a punch at? I have personally observed far crazier behavior many times. I am not saying Martin did attack Zimmerman, but it would hardly be surprising if he did. Moreover, it is clear that Martin had the time to get back home, but instead ended up close to the place where at first he fled. It seems that at some point he decided not to flee.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)...and attack the stranger that he had just managed to escape.
You might want to frame Trayvon as a "high school wannabe tough guy" but in reality, human instinct is pretty much universal regardless of age.
Had Trayvon and Zimmerman known each other before and had some sort of beef with one another, then it might be plausible that he decided to double back. But when the person chasing you is compete stranger and you have no idea why he's chasing you, the last thing anyone--anyone--would want to do is engage that person. It simply does not make any sense.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)You underestimate how easily one can flip from flight to fight. I have experienced it. You shouldn't think that human behavior is so consistent. It is not. And you still avoid the fact that Martin obviously chose not to go home and ended up close to where he began.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)
The shooting occurred around the top of the "T" in the sidewalk. Zimmerman's car was parked towards the upper left corner around where the crosswalk is. The house where Trayvon was staying is at the very bottom right hand corner. The only street access to that particular row of houses was on Retreat View Circle, which parallels the right side of the photograph.
This is undisputed: Zimmerman gets out of his car and starts chasing Trayvon. He loses him while on the phone with dispatch. Two minutes later, the shooting occurs.
Jeantel testified that Trayvon had lost Zimmerman. Based on the ultimate location of shooting, it's plausible to argue that Trayvon, in an effort to lose Zimmerman, ran into the alleyway between the two rows of houses (referred to as the Dogwalk).
Now, let's place the situation in the proper context. It's dark and raining. Trayvon has only been staying at this house for a couple of days and it's safe to assume he's not intimately familiar with the neighborhood. It's a townhouse community, with all the homes attached to one another and all of them looking virtually identical to one another. Especially from the back of the houses, which have no numbers on them so if you are looking at them from the Dogwalk as a non-resident, you really have no idea which house is which. Also factor in the fact that Trayvon's heart is probably racing from running from the strange man who has been chasing him for no discernible reason. So it's very logical to think that Trayvon, after perhaps hiding out a minute, figures he has lost Zimmerman for good. He heads back up the dogwalk, with the intent being to get back to Retreat View Circle, where he can properly identify the house (via a street number probably) where he's staying and get inside.
Except when he gets to the top of the T, Zimmerman is still there. And that's where it starts, and ends.
Now here's a much, much better question than your own. Zimmerman claimed that when he hung up with dispatch, he was around the top of the T in the sidewalk. It was about 2 minutes from time he hung up to the time of the shooting. The location he claims where he was at the time of hangup was probably 100-150 feet at most from his car. It does not take 2 minutes to walk 100-150 feet. Zimmerman could have easily been back at his car at that point, but he wasn't. And why did he change his mind and tell dispatch to call him instead of meeting him at his car?
Answer me that.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)The real question is who initiated the violence. You don't know the answer to that question and neither do I. Jaentel is the least credible witness imaginable and she didn't see who initiated the violence anyways. Zimmerman actually expressed relief when the police told him the whole confrontation was video-taped. Obviously there is reasonable doubt here, but you refuse to see that.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)She admitted to being initially untruthful to prosecutors on two minor issues completely unrelated to her account of the night's events. That's about it. Otherwise, she painted a pretty realistic and genuine picture of Trayvon that was not overly flattering to the point where it seemed embellished. (Do you honestly think she would have testified to the "creepy ass cracker" comment if she simply wanted to create a story for the prosecution?) Her main flaw was that she wasn't particularly eloquent in her demeanor on the stand. That has nothing to do with whether or not she was telling the truth.
As for Zimmerman's "relief" about the possibility of a videotape, I don't put much into it. Zimmerman pegged Trayvon as a criminal from literally the first moment he saw him. I honestly believe that Zimmerman thought he was doing the police and his neighborhood a favor when he shot Trayvon, that it was nothing more than a thug's death. But everything we now know about that night indicates that Zimmerman was very angry, and angry people do irrational things.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)She said "You want that too?" suggesting that she would lie if he wanted her to lie. How anyone who hears that interview can take seriously her testimony that she heard Martin say "Get off" is beyond me.
That Zimmerman expressed relief when told the whole thing was on videotape can be explained away, but it is evidence that creates reasonable doubt. That Zimmerman had injuries from the fight and Martin did not (except for the injuries on his hand and the fatal gunshot injury) creates reasonable doubt. That the only close eyewitness observer of the fight puts Martin on top of Zimmerman creates reasonable doubt. That the police officer saw grass on Zimmerman's back creates reasonable doubt. That no one saw Zimmerman initiate a fight creates reasonable doubt. That Jaentel seemed quite willing to lie in the interview by the state attorney creates reasonable doubt. That Martin apparently doubled back after fleeing creates reasonable doubt. All of this evidence is consistent with Zimmerman being a murderer, but it nevertheless does create reasonable doubt. The jury made the right call.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)and the prosecution obviously fell far short of that requirement.
TM's team got their version of events to the media not long after the killing, which the media reported as fact, or at least the media didn't present the other side.
It turns out that so much of what was originally reported was simply not true and so much of what I read here on DU was wrong. That is partly why I was originally for guilt. But it seems, many people haven't change their opinion of the case despite the drastically different facts than as originally reported.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)I don't believe the court reporter even picked up that particular line, and even if she did say it, it could have any number of meanings. As you saw, she wasn't exactly that skilled in her abilities to clearly express herself. But you appear to believe that Jeantel fabricated much of her testimony to help the state's case. Again, I would ask why on earth then she would testify to a nearly all white jury that Trayvon called Zimmerman a "creepy ass cracker", especially given the undeniable racial undertones of this case? And even if you don't want to believe a word Jeantel said, her cellphone records are undeniable--she was on the phone with Trayvon up to the point of the altercation with Zimmerman, and what sort of person talks audibly on a phone while planning a sneak ambush of someone?
The jury's verdict was the jury's verdict, and without any evidence of actual jury misconduct, I'll accept it as legitimate. However, that doesn't mean I think it was 100% wrong.
Because this was a self-defense case and Zimmerman had admitted to the shooting, he was not without any affirmative burden in this case. He did have the duty to put forward a plausible argument of self-defense (not beyond a reasonable doubt, that would be the state's ultimate burden, but still he had some affirmative burden based on the nature of his case.) In this case, that means he essentially had to put forward some sort of logical sounding claim that he was ambushed by surprise and then had no choice but to use deadly force to end it because he thought his life was in danger. And I, and many other people, simply do not think he put forward any logical scenario where he was ambushed.
Many of the things you claimed created reasonable doubt I really would argue didn't matter in the greater picture. Yes, John Good said he thought he saw Trayvon on top, but it was only for a couple of seconds in the middle of the altercation. You also had Jayne Surdyka, who gave us the only 911 call that provided contemporary recorded evidence of the moment Zimmerman actually shot Trayvon. She testified seeing Zimmerman on top and believing that the voice crying for help was Trayvon. You had other witnesses also putting Zimmerman on top.
But really, in the end, you have to ask--is it likely that Zimmerman was actually ambushed by Trayvon. And Zimmerman's story is so illogical and full of holes that I simply cannot take it serious. And once his story is discarded as not being credible, then that's all she wrote. Guilty.
I know the jury's spoken and there's nothing else that can be done about that. But I really would ask you aside from the normal evidentiary burdens, what is your personal opinion on whether Zimmerman legitimately acted in self-defense? Including all of what we about Zimmerman both before and after the incident. There are some questions that need to be considered, namely:
1. Whether Zimmerman is a volatile person prone to anger, considering his past arrest for battery on a law enforcement officer, a prior restraining order taken out against him by a former girlfriend, and contentious incidents that have occurred since his acquittal, including an altercation with his former wife and father in law and an altercation with his live-in girlfriend?
2. Whether on the night of his shooting Zimmerman's emotional judgment had been clouded by the fact that he had a major argument with his wife and she had left the house as a result?
3. Why Zimmerman--who wasn't even on regular neighborhood watch duty that evening--felt the need to call police dispatch on Trayvon and claim he was "up to no good" despite the fact he had not actually observed Trayvon doing anything that appeared to be illegal?
4. Whether Zimmerman's comment, "these assholes, they always get away" indicates some level of dissatisfaction with the prior response from police and may have indicated an intent by Zimmerman to take the law into his own hands and at least attempt to detain Trayvon while police arrived?
5. Why Zimmerman felt the need to exit his car at any time during the entire incident, and even more importantly, why he felt the need to exit his car while armed with a handgun?
6. Whether Zimmerman's comment "fucking punks" indicated some level of frustration and anger Zimmerman had at Trayvon for whatever perceived violation he believes Trayvon committed?
7. Why Zimmerman changed his mind with dispatch and told police not to meet him at his car but instead to call him when they arrived (thus indicating that he might not be at his car)?
8. Why two minutes after hanging up with dispatch when he claimed he was heading back to his car and was "attacked" was not actually at his car given that it was only 100-150 feet from where he claimed to be at the time of hang up?
9. Why someone would need to cross through to the other side of street away from his car just to get a street address and then cross back and go towards his car to report the street address, when a street address was easily visible from where his car was parked?
10. Whether it is probable for someone who is being chased by a stranger for reasons unknown to that person and who then manages to escape his pursuer to almost immediately decide to double back and attack the same stranger he had tried so hard to escape?
11. Whether it is probable for someone planning a sneak ambush on somebody to remain audible on a phone up to the point of actual ambush?
12. Why did Zimmerman only suffer injuries that were described as minor and insignificant (to the point where Zimmerman refused emergency care) and then claim his head was bashed into concrete anywhere from 10 to 30 times (which would almost certainly result in much more severe injuries)?
13. Why did Zimmerman claim that he was the individual who could clearly be heard crying for help on the 911 call when he also claimed that Trayvon had his hand over his mouth?
14. When claiming he was being severely beaten by Trayvon and that the only way to stop the fight was to use his gun, why would he shoot then immediately before Trayvon had a chance to react at a gun being pointed at him?
Ask those questions to yourself honestly, and tell me even if you agree with the jury verdict (based on the burden of proof) how probable was it that Zimmerman was legitimately acting prudently and in genuine self-defense that evening.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)but I appreciate your efforts in laying out your case. On the key point of who threw the first punch, your argument is very weak. In #11 you ask "Whether it is probable for someone planning a sneak ambush on somebody to remain audible on a phone up to the point of actual ambush?" Zimmerman never said that Martin jumped him in a sneak ambush. He said that Martin spoke to him before he punched him. So obviously Zimmerman wasn't saying that there was an ambush in the usual sense of the word--just an unannounced punch after an exchange of hostile words. Given the eyewitness testimony and the grass on Zimmerman's back and Zimmerman's injuries and the lack of injuries on Martin, that is not improbable at all. My guess would be that Martin threw the first punch, but I really don't know and you shouldn't pretend to know either. Zimmerman doesn't know why Martin returned--no one knows that--but he did. So the issue of how probable it is that someone would double back after fleeing is pretty irrelevant. Maybe he double backed because he forgot something at the store. Maybe he wanted to prove to jaentel that he was a tough guy. maybe he got lost and was looking for his house. Who knows? We only know that he ended up close to where he had begun. And if he had been so scared, why had he approached Zimmerman's vehicle earlier? As for talking on the phone up to the point of confronting Zimmerman, why in this day and age does that seem so strange to you? You talk a lot about Zimmerman's state of mind prior to the attack, but one could say similar things about Martin's. Zimmerman referred to Martin as an asshole, but Martin apparently referred to Zimmerman as a creepy-ass cracker. Neither seemed to have much good will towards each other. (Note that I am not saying that Martin was not justified in having ill-will towards the creepy guy following him.)
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)As un-PC as it might be, the fact that he described him as "creepy ass" indicates he viewed him with suspicion and apprehension. Probably not someone he wanted to encounter.
When comparing the "creepy ass cracker" and "these assholes, they always get away" statements, perhaps the most telling portion that goes to state of mind isn't necessarily the "cracker" or "asshole" part, but instead the "creepy" and "they always get away part."
Also, for the record, I think it is possible that Trayvon may have thrown the first punch. But if it happened as a result of Zimmerman grabbing or attempting to grab him in order to attempt to detain him, I think Zimmerman would still be considered the aggressor in the situation and shouldn't have been afforded the legal shield of self-defense. And I think the fact that a) he said, "These assholes, they always get away" and b) the fact he got out of the car, armed, I strongly believe that is what happened.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)from the perspective of an adult, not a 17 year old male.
Just because you can't imagine turning and attacking a pursuer, doesn't mean it didn't happen that way. The average 17 year old, male and female, regardless of race, isn't exactly famous for making the wisest choices.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)A while back, but not so long ago for me that I can't remember.
Sure, 17 year olds can make reckless choices, arguably moreso than a full grown adult. No one's denying that.
But here's the thing about that. Those reckless choices almost always come in situations where the 17 year old thinks he is invincible and where he is in control of the situation, and where there's no sense of pre-existing danger. In the 17 year old mind, if he's not in imminent danger of being hurt, his future actions preclude him from being hurt down the road as well.
So that's why 17 year olds might drink and drive or drive recklessly or shoot off fireworks at close vicinity (pleading the 5th there), etc.
But this was not your normal situation, for anyone.
Trayvon had no idea who George Zimmerman was that night. He had no idea why he was chasing him. Trayvon that night had done nothing wrong. He thought that Zimmerman could have been a predator. And when Zimmerman got out of his car, Trayvon didn't come toward Zimmerman; he ran from him. Clearly, he viewed Zimmerman as a threat that he didn't want to deal with.
That is a universal human reaction when one is in a dangerous situation. It doesn't matter if you are 17 or 70.
There is no logical explanation as to why someone who ran away from a stranger would then almost immediately change his mind and seek him out and attack him. None.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)You keep trying to apply logic based on YOUR belief, as an adult, of what a 17 male would do.
If Martin ran as you stated, how does Zimmerman catch him? I have a great deal of difficulty imagining Zimmerman being able catch Martin if both were running.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)....even if placed in a situation of potential grave danger, where that danger would be apparent to anyone, regardless of age. Being chased by a stranger for unknown reasons is going to give anyone pause, no matter how old or young. It's just basic human instinct.
As for your question, I'd refer you to some of my prior responses regarding the layout of the complex. Trayvon ran, most likely into the "dogwalk" alleyway. It's possible he hid until he thought the coast was clear, and then intended to head back home. However, the dogwalk faced the back of the houses, not the front. They were townhouses, all connected and identical with one another. It was also dark and rainy that night. For someone not that familiar with the neighborhood layout such as Trayvon, he probably wouldn't be able to identify his dad's girlfriend's home from the back....especially in the dark. He would probably only be able to identify his house from the front, with the street number visible. So it would make sense for him to head back up the dogwalk to head over to Retreat View Circle, which was the street that serviced his house. Except that he probably ran into Zimmerman at the top of the dogwalk, and things proverbially went down from that point on.
What is the much more damning question as to Zimmerman is why he claimed he was at the top of the dogwalk when he hung up with dispatch and only 100-150 feet away from his car, but two minutes later when the altercation occurs, he's still in that same exact spot? That's a much more pertinent question.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)but I DO recognize it is a possibility, something you don't.
It makes equal sense to continue down the dog walk, which is in the general direction of his father's house and go over to Retreat View Circle at the bottom of the dog walk instead of proceeding back toward where he saw Zimmerman.
In the end, the prosecution failed to prove to the jury that Martin did not strike Zimmerman, did not knock him down and did not repeatedly strike Zimmerman's head against the pavement. The prosecution failed to explain away the physical evidence that showed that is what did in fact happen.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)....is if were either under the influence of a hardcore psychotropic drug (the trace amounts of marijuana in his system don't count) or he was otherwise mentally unbalanced. I don't think the evidence points to either of those as being the case.
Absent that, I guess it is technically possible (most anything is) but I would say extremely unlikely for that to be anyone's reaction in that type of situation. It's certainly not plausible or probable.
Regarding the dog walk issue, yes he could have continued down to the end of the dog walk and then walked around to his house on Retreat View from the other side. However, that might require a deeper working knowledge of the neighborhood's layout. Given that Trayvon had only been in the neighborhood for a mere few days, and factoring in the weather, darkness, and emotional confusion given the circumstances, he might not have been aware of such an alternate route or that he wanted to risk it. In those type of situations, a person may simply choose to backtrack to the known route.
I don't know what you are getting at with your weird double negatives about what the state failed to prove what Trayvon didn't do. I will say that the evidence only shows that there was some physical altercation between the two. No witness testified as to seeing Trayvon knocking Zimmerman down. The evidence actually did not show that Trayvon repeatedly struck Zimmerman's into head repeatedly (10-30 times as Zimmerman claimed); to the contrary, Zimmerman's head wounds were considered significantly minor and non-life threatening.
But what we can look at two individual's state of mind that night. Zimmerman that evening had been in an argument with his wife and she had left the house. He's leaving to go to the store and he see's a young black male who in his words "looks like he's up to no good." On numerous prior occasions, he had called police to report other young black males who he thought were engaged in criminal activity, but apparently there were still reports of break-ins. He says "these assholes always get away", which assumes he's not that pleased with the Sanford PD's prior track record in the situation. He then says Trayvon starts running, which causes him--for whatever reason--to get out of the car, knowing he has a gun on his side. As he's running, he's heard saying, "Fucking punks."
It's not a stretch to assume that George Zimmerman was angry that night. Angry at both his home situation and what he perceived to be an ongoing neighborhood crime problem that continued to be unresolved by the authorities.
Now let's look at Trayvon. He's simply walking back from the store. He hasn't done anything illegal. He sees a stranger following him in his car. And he continues to follow him. And knows it's strange and that it might be a predator. And then the man gets out of his car and starts chasing him. For reasons he does not know why, because he hasn't done anything wrong. And he has no clue as to who this person is or what he wants. And now he's in a neighborhood that he only is slightly familiar with, since it is not his own. And this strange man has just chased him.
So is it safe to say that Trayvon's state of mind that evening was not angry, but rather scared? Even the rather impolitic "creepy ass cracker" comment denotes fear and apprehension rather than aggression. No one wants to be around someone who they find creepy.
So anger versus fear. Armed neighborhood watchman versus unarmed visiting kid. Who do you think was more prone to aggression in that situation?
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)The physical evidence and the testimony of the medical professionals was that Zimmerman was struck in the face, knocked down (grass stains on the back of his jacket) and had his head struck against the pavement of the dog walk one or more times.
The testimony of Dr Di Maio as defense expert and the prosecution's inability to convince the jury of an alternative explanation for the cause of Zimmerman's injuries is what led to the not guilty verdict.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)The evidence only showed that there was some physical altercation between the two. It's never been established that Zimmerman's head was repeated slammed against the sidewalk by Trayvon. Which again is what Zimmerman claimed.
The jury's verdict is the jury's verdict, but it was never conclusively established that Zimmerman suffered any life threatening injuries. In fact, Zimmerman's behavior post altercation (refusing emergency care) belies that claim.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)There is NO requirement to suffer life threatening injuries before using deadly force to defend yourself.
A very simple question for you: How many times will you allow your head to be struck against the pavement before you become afraid of being gravely injured?
I followed the trial, multiple medical professionals testified that Zimmerman had injuries consistent with having his head struck against the pavement and the prosecution did not have an alternative explanation for the head injuries.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)Zimmerman did claim that his head was stuck against the concrete anywhere from 10 to 30 times. That's why he said he shot Trayvon. Because he claims his head was bashed repeatedly into concrete, to the point where he was close to blacking out. Not that it struck concrete once or twice. Ten to thirty times.
The evidence did not support this assertion.
So regardless of whether or not you need to show that you have suffered a life threatening injury, Zimmerman's justification was that he did suffer a life threatening injury. Which was not actually true. He lied.
So if Zimmerman's head was not actually bashed into concrete 10-30 times, what then exactly caused Zimmerman to fear for his life? There would have to be something that justified him shooting Trayvon. So what was it?
And by the way, the way you are reading into the law creates quite the slippery slope. Under your argument, basically any type of physical contact could be grounds for use of deadly force because it could theoretically multiply and become life threatening down the road, even if not immediately life threatening. So under that scenario, any punch could be grounds for shooting someone. And that's the problem with these vaguely crafted self-defense laws specifically designed for gun owners.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)This isn't a hard question, what is YOUR threshold? How many times will you allow your head to be struck against the pavement before you become afraid of being gravely injured?
The testimony by nationally recognized forensic expert states that the evidence established that Zimmerman's head was struck against the pavement. The number of times is irrelevant. You start beating my head against the pavement, I am going to do whatever I need to do to make you stop.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)....if my head got knocked around once or twice, then no, it would not be reasonable cause for me to pull out a gun and shoot that person.
People get into fistfights all the time and suffer minor, insignificant injuries just like Zimmerman did. If we said it was okay for anyone to pull out a gun and shoot that person just because the situation might escalate, the homicide rate would skyrocket exponentially and there'd be a lot more needlessly grieving families out there. There's simply a reasonable threshold to be had, and Zimmerman's actions did not meet those requirements.
Now, if my head were repeatedly bashed into concrete 10-30 times, then arguably one might be justified in using deadly force. But guess what--that didn't happen in this case. Zimmerman lied. You can't seem to get yourself to admit to that fact because God forbid you criticize a "good guy with a gun."
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Dunn belongs in jail and I was surprised the jury hung on the murder charge and the guy in Michigan who shot at the plow driver is another that deserves to go to jail.
We do differ on how many times we'll allow someone to strike our head the pavement though and in the end, the jury, who saw ALL the allowable evidence, determined that Zimmerman's actions that night were in fact reasonable.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)geez
heaven05
(18,124 posts)zimpig to have been in the right in shooting that 'thug' Trayvon. Usual suspects defending the zimpig. Anyone with any sense knows that it was murder. I hope 'god' smites the zimpig, personally.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)they still didn't change their opinions about what happened and who was responsible for the attack. The "psychics" couldn't change their opinions so their creative imaginations had to invent alternate scenarios not at all supported by the evidence. Also, the internet tough-guys on the pro-conviction side that can't ignore the actual evidence blame GZ for being such a wuss by shooting the stranger that was brutally attacking him.
I first thought Zimmerman was guilty, but the very weak to non-existent evidence in the trial proved that a not guilty verdict was appropriate. The pro-conviction side blamed the prosecution for not presenting a stronger case. But there wasn't a stronger case to be had. The evidence was consistent with GZ's claims about how the attack went down. It's impossible for us to be sure what happened.
All of the "expert opinion" that I saw thought the case shouldn't have gone to trial in the first place. But our lovely Governor, Rick Scott, six weeks after the shooting, amid intense and misleading media coverage, appointed special prosecutor to charge Zimmerman with murder.
I don't think the case should even have been prosecuted. Maybe Zimmerman murdered Martin, but there was loads of reasonable doubt.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)but the evidence does tend to indicate it was self defense. I wish that someone could magically find a video of the confrontation, but unfortunately magic doesn't exist here.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)If someone is being chased by a stranger they've never met for reasons unknown by them, and then they manage to get away....why would they decide to double back and attack that stranger, given that they just managed to evade them?
That's the key point of Zimmerman's story, and it makes zero sense whatsoever. Everything else falls apart logically for Zimmerman from that point on.
Unfortunately, the jury was prohibited from considering whether Zimmerman's actions (namely, his pursuit of Trayvon) provoked the situation. That's the main reason why Zimmerman is a free man today, not that he had a solid story to create reasonable doubt.
clffrdjk
(905 posts)Where was the confrontation? Where did Martin die? If Martin did not double back to meet Zimmerman then wouldn't the confrontation have to take place in Martin's front yard. Are you claiming Zimmerman caught Martin and then dragged him back to where the shooting happened?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)The shooting occurred around the top of the "T" in the sidewalk. Zimmerman's car was parked towards the upper left corner around where the crosswalk is. The house where Trayvon was staying is at the very bottom right hand corner. The only street access to that particular row of houses was on Retreat View Circle, which parallels the right side of the photograph.
This is undisputed: Zimmerman gets out of his car and starts chasing Trayvon. He loses him while on the phone with dispatch. Two minutes later, the shooting occurs.
Jeantel testified that Trayvon had lost Zimmerman. Based on the ultimate location of shooting, it's plausible to argue that Trayvon, in an effort to lose Zimmerman, ran into the alleyway between the two rows of houses (referred to as the Dogwalk).
Now, let's place the situation in the proper context. It's dark and raining. Trayvon has only been staying at this house for a couple of days and it's safe to assume he's not intimately familiar with the neighborhood. It's a townhouse community, with all the homes attached to one another and all of them looking virtually identical to one another. Especially from the back of the houses, which have no numbers on them so if you are looking at them from the Dogwalk as a non-resident, you really have no idea which house is which. Also factor in the fact that Trayvon's heart is probably racing from running from the strange man who has been chasing him for no discernible reason. So it's very logical to think that Trayvon, after perhaps hiding out a minute, figures he has lost Zimmerman for good. He heads back up the dogwalk, with the intent being to get back to Retreat View Circle, where he can properly identify the house (via a street number probably) where he's staying and get inside.
Except when he gets to the top of the T, Zimmerman is still there. And that's where it starts, and ends.
Now here's a much, much better question than your own. Zimmerman claimed that when he hung up with dispatch, he was around the top of the T in the sidewalk. It was about 2 minutes from time he hung up to the time of the shooting. The location he claims where he was at the time of hangup was probably 100-150 feet at most from his car. It does not take 2 minutes to walk 100-150 feet. Zimmerman could have easily been back at his car at that point, but he wasn't. And why did he change his mind and tell dispatch to call him instead of meeting him at his car?
Answer me that.
TheMathieu
(456 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)TheMathieu
(456 posts)Your hero will get his soon.
People like that always screw up again and next time they'll nail him to the wall.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)It doesn't make you look good.
It's not about whether one likes or dislikes the defendant, it's about proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to do that here.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)it's truly amazing how blind. 
heaven05
(18,124 posts)doesn't make you look good. geez
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)That is a serious crime, you know. And it is a fact that GZ was being pummeled when he shot TM.
Your insults can't change those facts. Your faith that GZ was responsible for the violence is not evidence.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)cpwm17
(3,829 posts)is not the one on his back getting pummeled by a stranger.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I'd say you're correct.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)so what you gonna do?
Vattel
(9,289 posts)
DrDan
(20,411 posts)know better than the witnesses that took the stand
Skittles
(153,150 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)I only claim to know that, based on the evidence, the jury made the right decision.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Skittles
(153,150 posts)I know a RIDICULOUS FANTASY STORY when I hear one; now please, begone - you're BORING me
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)A kid went to the store. Bought candy and a drink. Started to walk home.
Zimmy followed him as he walked home. Zimmy thought the kid was suspicious. Zimmy was armed. Zimmy called the police. Police told Zimmy not to follow they kid. Zimmy continued to follow the kid.
There was a confrontation and a fight. Zimmy shot and killed the kid.
We also know that if Zimmy had been home taking a dump, or doing something else productive, the kid wouldn't have been killed that night.
Personally, if I saw Zimmy on the street, I'd fear for my life. I suspect that lots of folks feel that way.
And we know what some one is allowed to do if they fear for their life, in Florida.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)
durablend
(7,460 posts)"God" doesn't have horns and a pitchfork.
Just so you'll know when the time comes...
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts) 
chrisa
(4,524 posts)What's next? A reality show? Actually, I wouldn't doubt it.
Zimmerman is getting rich off of trolling our soulless media. Stop giving this troglodyte attention!
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Some of these interviewers need to grill the hell out of him and challenge some of his lame-assed responses and generic statements...This is the first time in history I honestly wish someone got the "Nancy Grace" -treatment...
Arkana
(24,347 posts)There's a special place in one of the deepest circles of hell for you.
rbrnmw
(7,160 posts)I hope you are treated like what you are for the rest of your miserable life.
Trayvon was the victim not you
Rex
(65,616 posts)WOW. This guy is so far over the rainbow, that he is LETTING God decide what to do! YIKES!
jsr
(7,712 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Aeschylus was the only dramatist I would put up there against Shakespeare. He knew what he was talking about; he wrote the human condition.
When innocent blood is spilled, the murderer does not escape justice, even if he escapes legal punishment.
Of course you have trouble sleeping, George. Of course, you feel abandoned and alone. Of course, you have no home now.
The Furies take no prisoners, and will not be fooled by your rationalizations. God be with you, because nobody else will.
Oh brother, then why bother with courts at all?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)More people should read it.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)believe in God, but I do believe that some form of Universal Justice will, in the end, work its way around.
May not be what we'd like it to be, but that's the beauty of it because often it's way worse than the justice a person might have received from his fellow man.
So hey...if his God is his only judge, then he should be very afraid.
DemoTex
(25,396 posts)He has bullshitted everyone else. Sick puppy, indeed.
diabeticman
(3,121 posts)3catwoman3
(23,975 posts)...facing God thingy, Mr. Zimmerman. The trial verdict notwithstanding, you shot and killed a teenager under circumstances that you created, when you could have just driven the hell away. You are responsible for a death that should never have occurred.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)
alp227
(32,019 posts)well let's see how Freeperville is seeing his interview:
He’s still under investigation by DoJ! Any lawyer worth his salt would tell George “S.T.F.U, already!” Now is the *best* time for silence. You can call it “intimidated into silence” if you want to, but you aren’t him, and he’s still in jeopardy. He can still go to jail.
IOW, I don’t think he’s more clever than Sarah Palin.
Gothmog
(145,154 posts)Zimmerman is craving attention. The best response to this idiot is to ignore him
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)to justify whatever they do. He really thinks God is OK with his actions?
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)
alarimer
(16,245 posts)I can't believe anyone is defending this trash.
Fuck you, George.
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)Me and a lot of other people don't like damn murderers. I have a feeling this ass hat will be answering to the specter just over his shoulder till the day he meets his true judgement.
Nanjing to Seoul
(2,088 posts)
rustydog
(9,186 posts)"Thou shalt not commit murder."
you took an innocent kid's life. Intentionally. yes, you will answer to god via Hell.
jmowreader
(50,557 posts)That way God can judge him (and he'll probably whip a Matthew 25.41 on him) and we won't have to listen to his sorry ass any more.
malaise
(268,963 posts)We have those pesky human laws and I'm betting you'll answer for your upcoming crime
wocaonimabi
(187 posts)will meet the people who will have no problem sending him on the express train to be the invisible sky being who he claims will then answer too. Now I don't put much stock in what he believes but I do believe that Zimmerman will finally be given the justice he deserves in the near future.
When that day comes, well it will be a good day seeing that justice will finally be served.
In the mean time Responsible Gun Owner, Gun Zealot, NRA Hero and Gun Owning Poster Child Zimmerman needs to STFU and well just go away.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)Fixed.
Shoulders of Giants
(370 posts)He has standards as well.
Tippy
(4,610 posts)For God said you shall not kill
Vox Moi
(546 posts)There should be two separate court proceedings.
1) Who killed whom? Burden of proof: prosecution. As always, and as it should be.
2) #1 being established, the killer appeals to the court that it was justifiable. Burden of proof: the killer.
Since Zimmerman is making an appeal to the court it is up to him to provide foundation for that appeal. In effect, Zimmerman was charging Martin with felony assault. The burden of proof - the justification for homicide - belongs to the person making that accusation.
IMHO