George Zimmerman Arrested -- Finally!!

[Mike Vronsky]

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

Whoever "discredited" this needs to get their ears checked. "Fucking Coons" is a clear as a bell to my hearing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNI5CA5jijw

Incidentally, carrying a weapon and following "suspicious characters" are both violations of Neighborhood Watch rules. This guy was without question looking for trouble and Trayvon was guilty of nothing more than being black at night.

WOW. Really? I just don't know if your comments are ignorant, you didn't research the facts, or you are an Al Sharpton follower who incites racism and has a reputation for such actions.

What Zimmerman has done was not illegal. The media has done their best to portray him as the bad guy and you drank the kool aid. They tried to cover up his head injury caused by Martin.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gma-shows...rayvons-death/

They edited the phone conversation.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/02...rtin-shooting/

Zimmerman did NOTHING illegal or wrong. So tell me - how many times do I have to wait with getting my head bashed in before I'm allowed to protect myself?

Facts can be read below:

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-lineh...orge-zimmerman

[Billy_Saul]

Originally Posted by dante0322

or you are an Al Sharpton follower who incites racism and has a reputation for such actions.

oh, he is an admitted Al Sharpton follower. He has referenced Al on here before

[Dr. Pecker]

Angela Corey is the new mike nifong. And f shart has got to be retarded.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

From Dante,

"Zimmerman did NOTHING illegal or wrong. So tell me - how many times do I have to wait with getting my head bashed in before I'm allowed to protect myself?"

Zimmerman did not do anything illegal???

So you've already tried Zimmerman and found him innocent? From the news article you cited:

“Even if George Zimmerman was injured in his fight,” said Abrams, “it doesn’t change the fact that the prosecutors clearly believe that Zimmerman was the aggressor. And if Zimmerman was the aggressor and they got into a fight, that doesn’t allow him to use deadly force. It simply — you can’t be losing a fight and then decide to use your gun to protect yourself.”

Can you say, with 100% certainty, that Zimmerman was attacked without provocation? I wasn't there and I don't believe you were either. There was enough evidence against Zimmerman to allow state attorney Angela Corey to bring not just negligent homicide charges but second degree murder charges. I'm sure that those who are convinced Zimmerman is innocent will call Corey a pawn of the black community.

Zimmerman did nothing wrong? A person is dead and even if Zimmerman did not break any laws, his actions and his actions alone started the chain of events that led to Martin's death. I'm sorry -- that is wrong!!

[SpeedRacerXXX]

BTW Dante,

in the article on the editing of the phone conversations -- the only thing that seems to have been edited is that Zimmerman did not volunteer the information that Martin was black, but revealed it when asked by the police dispatcher. Not a big deal to me. I could not care less what Martin's color was.

The fact is, the statement by Zimmerman:

"This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about."

would lead me to believe Zimmerman had already decided that Martin had decided to confront Martin.

And in the article on the so-called "facts" of the case. Come on!! This was an editorial by some guy writing for some rag called the "Wagist". In quickly reading the article, I found at least 2 glaring errors. The article states :

"There is hard evidence of screams for help on 911 tapes. There is evidence showing Zimmerman’s injuries, including a broken nose, and there is an eye-witness account of Zimmerman being beaten and yelling for help."

Yes there were screams for help. Very true. But 2 experts in the field have stated the screams were NOT Zimmerman's. And, second, there were NO eye-witnesses to the attack.

[irishlad]

Wow. Where are you getting your information? This sounds like you made up your mind first, then took some BS insinuations made by the media and attention seeking pundits and embraced it as fact. I have been reading and following this just out of curiosity but this is what I am seeing...

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

Dude, we're not sentencing him to second degree murder here, we're only trying to determine if his actions were racially motivated. "F***ing Coons" pretty much closed that topic for me.

Listen to the "enhanced" 911 tape linked above in this thread. No way does any reasonable person listen to that and conclude with confidence that he said that.

Incidentally, you don't need any inside information to form an opinion here Nuggie. Here's what we know, or at least I have yet to hear anyone claim otherwise:

1. Zimmerman was carrying a weapon. Guilty of violating Neighborhood Watch rules.

Neighborhood watch rules are not the law. The penalty for violating neighborhood watch rules is being asked to leave the neighborhood watch.

2. Zimmerman broke Neighborhood Watch rules and defied law enforcement in pursuing a teenager who was doing nothing more than minding his own business. Guilty once again of defying Neighborhood Watch rules, and further guilty of stupidity in following someone after specifically told not to by law enforcement. Even further guilty of racially profiling someone based on nothing more than their appearance.

Zimmerman's story is that when told "we don't need you to follow him" (not "I order you to return to your car" fwiw), he did head back to his car. No way to know if he did, but no evidence exists to refute that. The law (not FL's gun law, US law in general) requires evidence of guilt not evidence of innocence.


3. Zimmerman approached and confronted Martin. What was said or done, no one really knows, but we do know this. That by approaching and/or confronting Martin in even a remotely threatening way, Zimmerman became the instigator and/or the aggressor hence forfeiting any and all claims to self-defense.

Zimmerman claims Martin approached him as he returned to his car. No way to know if he did, but no evidence exists to refute that. The law requires evidence of guilt not evidence of innocence.

Zimmerman's account (the only one we have as Williams is dead) of the encounter - paraphrased from my memory - is as follows:
Zimmerman: Walking back to car is approached from behind
Williams: You got a problem?
Zimmerman: No
Williams: Assaults him

4. Martin was found to be completely unarmed, and Zimmerman, with the exception of a few scratches, completely unharmed. I fail to see based on these unquestionable little nuggets of information by themselves how Zimmerman could ever have felt as if his life was in peril. Again, getting punched in the face is not cause to shoot and kill someone. I would most likely have punched Zimmerman in the snout too had he been stalking and then approached me in a threatening manner at night.

Zimmerman's story was not that he was punched in the face. His story is that he was punched, knocked down, on his back with Williams on top of him, his head was being slammed into the sidewalk and that Williams went for his gun. This if true would meet almost any state's definition of "Deadly Assault" and who is armed or unarmed has no bearing on that except to determine the severity of the crime.

There were documented injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head and no medical finding has yet characterized them as "a few scratches". That is the only evidence pertaining to the truth or falsehood of Zimmerman's story. No evidence exists to refute his version of the story. Again, the law requires evidence of guilt not evidence of innocence.

5. The D.A. has filed Second Degree Murder charges against Zimmerman. They did this in lieu of filing a lessor charge of manslaughter. Why do you suppose that is? That tells me that the D.A has evidence to support according to Florida law:

a. The victim is dead;

Clearly

b. The death was caused by the criminal act of the defendant;

- Based on what I have seen and read - there isn't anything amounting to probable cause of that let alone proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

c. There was an unlawful killing of the victim by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.

Pure speculation.

We'll just have to wait and see how it plays out from here, but I've love to hear you try and argue these points.

Please link me any factual corrections, but this is what I have seen so far.

Now my speculation...

• I think 50:50 Zimmerman confronted Williams.
• I think it is unlikely Williams went for Zimmerman's gun.
• I think it is quite likely that when the confrontation occurred, Williams got physical first. Maybe because he's a thug, maybe because he felt righteous outrage, maybe because he was scared.
• I think a black guy in a hoody looked more suspicious to Zimmerman than a white guy in Khaki's and a golf shirt...but that does not make him a racist.
  
• I think none of us know either party and it is ridiculous to try to impose personalities and characters on them based on our personal prejudices and biases - but that's what most people are doing.
  

My prediction: Zimmerman is getting off. I'm not saying he does or does not deserve to based on what really happened, but I suspect there's no case. Like a committed agnostic, I am willing to say "I don't know if he is guilty but neither do you". We may never know unless some new evidence comes out at trial. Remember...it is not a crime to follow someone, it is not a crime to carry a gun, it is not even a crime to be a racist. It is only a crime to shoot someone if you don't have sufficient reason to believe that they are threatening or using Deadly Force.

The fact that the police didn't arrest him suggests they didn't feel they had probable cause. The fact that the local DA didn't plan to prosecute him suggests to me they don't have a case. The "DA" prosecuting him now is some politically selected individual who came on the scene after all the hooplah started and didn't even want to go through a grand jury.

[Mike Vronsky]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

From Dante,

"Zimmerman did NOTHING illegal or wrong. So tell me - how many times do I have to wait with getting my head bashed in before I'm allowed to protect myself?"

Zimmerman did not do anything illegal???

So you've already tried Zimmerman and found him innocent? From the news article you cited:

“Even if George Zimmerman was injured in his fight,” said Abrams, “it doesn’t change the fact that the prosecutors clearly believe that Zimmerman was the aggressor. And if Zimmerman was the aggressor and they got into a fight, that doesn’t allow him to use deadly force. It simply — you can’t be losing a fight and then decide to use your gun to protect yourself.”

Can you say, with 100% certainty, that Zimmerman was attacked without provocation? I wasn't there and I don't believe you were either. There was enough evidence against Zimmerman to allow state attorney Angela Corey to bring not just negligent homicide charges but second degree murder charges. I'm sure that those who are convinced Zimmerman is innocent will call Corey a pawn of the black community.

Zimmerman did nothing wrong? A person is dead and even if Zimmerman did not break any laws, his actions and his actions alone started the chain of events that led to Martin's death. I'm sorry -- that is wrong!!

@SpeedRacer your ignorance is part of the problem we have.

NO Zimmerman did NOT do anything illegal. He was a neighborhood watch Captain and was performing his duty in HIS neighborhood.

And with regards to you quoting Abrams

Florida Statute 776 states: (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

So the facts:
1. Zimmerman was doing his duty - which was lawful
2. Following Martin was his duty and NOT unlawful (if you say it is unlawful provide a reference to prove so)
3. Altercation was started by Martin
4. Zimmerman's head was being bashed in
5. Zimmerman's recourse was to defend himself
6. Fact - If Martin did not attack Zimmerman police would have arrived and the reason as to why Martin was there would have been discovered
7. Fact - Martin was the aggressor - Zimmerman cannot bash his head in on the concrete if he is on top of Martin

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...1K2T3VbQZYo9JK

And with regards to the State Attorney Corey ONLY filed charges against Zimmerman was due to the racial tensions brought on by Sharpton and Obama which was OBVIOUS if you saw her televised announcement.

And I notice how you gloss over the fact that when this incident occurred that you ignored the fact that the state attorney's office was contacted and he was let go based on the facts. I deputy wanted him locked up because he believe Zimmerman lied but DID NOT prove that Zimmerman lied - he just said he feels that he lied and that is NO reason to arrest someone.

http://www.thegrio.com/specials/tray...n.php#46882946

Additional chain of events:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...1K2T3VbQZYo9JK

The person WHO IS AT FAULT IS MARTIN - he should have kept his hands to himself. He had no right to punch Zimmerman.

I also noticed how you ignored the additional facts like Zimmerman's head injury and the modification of the 911 call.

In addition, the media released a younger pic of Martin to show Zimmerman as the aggressor

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...deceptive?lite

And Martin has a history of drugs and assault.

http://countervailingtruths.blogspot...on-martin.html

If Martin kept his hands to himself he would have made it home - PERIOD. Zimmerman had EVERY RIGHT to defend himself. There were no illegal actions in his actions based on Statutes or Case Law - PERIOD.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Dante, calling people ignorant because they don't agree with you is . . . well I could say ignorant but I think
you get my point

So the facts:
1. Zimmerman was doing his duty - which was lawful Zimmerman's duty (and he was not a member of any organized Neighborhood Watch organization) was not to confront anyone as he did. Even the police told him this when he called in reporting Martin's activity.
2. Following Martin was his duty and NOT unlawful (if you say it is unlawful provide a reference to prove so) Again, this was not his "duty". True it was not unlawful and I never said it was.
3. Altercation was started by Martin Were you there? What evidence do you have to support this statement?
4. Zimmerman's head was being bashed in True. But we DON'T know the reasons why Martin did it. Could be that Zimmerman pulled his gun on Martin and Martin was protecting himself.
5. Zimmerman's recourse was to defend himself If Zimmerman's story is true, then this is probably correct.
6. Fact - If Martin did not attack Zimmerman police would have arrived and the reason as to why Martin was there would have been discovered
Fact?? Again how do you know Zimmerman attacked Martin first?
7. Fact - Martin was the aggressor - Zimmerman cannot bash his head in on the concrete if he is on top of Martin
You have not jumped to a conclusion, you have made an incredible leap. I don't know what happened that night. You, on the other hand, must have been an eye-witness since you seem to know everything that happened. I am in no way saying Zimmerman is guilty but I am saying there is enough information out there to make it very questionable.
Your other references are ridiculous IMHO. I addressed 2 of them in my second note. Martin was not a saint and neither was Zimmerman, who had had run-ins with the law.

[nuglet]

For those that think there wasn't a physical altercation: Here's the news today, with an interview by the "less than competent" statement by the officer:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540...42688#47442688

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by irishlad

Please link me any factual corrections, but this is what I have seen so far.

Factual corrections here are completely unnecessary, let's try using just a little common sense.

Originally Posted by irishlad

Now my speculation...
[/COLOR][LIST][*]I think 50:50 Zimmerman confronted Williams.

I don't know who "Williams" is, but I assume you mean Martin. 50/50? There's no question in my mind Zimmerman confronted this kid. The very fact that there was an altercation between them, whatever that altercation actually was is proof alone of this.

Originally Posted by irishlad

[*]I think it is unlikely Williams went for Zimmerman's gun.

Again, I don't know who "Williams" is, but the only way Martin could have known Zimmerman had a gun would have been to confront Martin and either show him he had a gun, or threaten him with it's use. Either way, Zimmerman would have been in the wrong.

Originally Posted by irishlad

[*]I think it is quite likely that when the confrontation occurred, Williams got physical first. Maybe because he's a thug, maybe because he felt righteous outrage, maybe because he was scared.

If Martin did get physical first, that means that 1. Zimmerman did indeed approach and confront Martin in some form or fashion. Martin could have very well felt his life was in danger by the white/hispanic guy with ADHD carrying a sidearm and approaching him for no reason. Did Martin not have a right to "Stand your ground" against the guy with the gun?

Originally Posted by irishlad

[*]I think a black guy in a hoody looked more suspicious to Zimmerman than a white guy in Khaki's and a golf shirt...but that does not make him a racist.

Actually, that's the very definition of racism. Some people are just too blind or too ignorant to see just how racist they really are. Think about what you said for a moment and tell me what exactly is any more suspicious about a black guy in a hoodie than a white guy in a golf shirt and khakis? Racism and prejudice is in fact the only thing that separates the two.


Now, if I may, a few comments on this completely misguided and irrelevant list.

Originally Posted by dante0322

1. Zimmerman was doing his duty - which was lawful

His duty as far as Neighborhood Watch goes was to observe and report, nothing more. Legal is one thing, stupid is something else.

Originally Posted by dante0322

2. Following Martin was his duty and NOT unlawful (if you say it is unlawful provide a reference to prove so)

He had no business following Martin, and this WAS NOT his duty. Zimmerman is not law enforcement, so I don't know what "duty" you think he had. I don't know about you, but if anyone who is not law enforcement is observed to be following me, it will always put me on the defensive and I will always suspect trouble from that person. It may be perfectly legal to follow someone, but the moment Zimmerman made the decision to do it, it completely voided any and all rights to any claim of self-defense.

Originally Posted by dante0322

3. Altercation was started by Martin

Explain how any altercation could have even POSSIBLY been started by Martin? The very fact that these two had an altercation at all proves Zimmerman was the cause of it. If Zimmerman did not follow and ultimately confront Martin, no altercation could have resulted. Zimmerman is CLEARLY to blame for any altercation that took place.

Originally Posted by dante0322

4. Zimmerman's head was being bashed in

"Bashed in"? Hardly. There's not even the remotest piece of information to support this. Zimmerman was not taken to the hospital in an ambulance or otherwise. Not only was he not admitted to a hospital, but he wasn't given so much as a single stitch. There was no blood anywhere on Zimmerman that anyone can see, nor is there any of Zimmerman's blood at the scene. I don't know about you, but this does not fit any reasonable definition of what I would consider "bashed in" to be.

As already mentioned, losing a fight you yourself started is not justification to start shooting someone. Regardless, Zimmerman's life was hardly in danger and lack of any real physical injury is proof enough of this.

Originally Posted by dante0322

5. Zimmerman's recourse was to defend himself

Defend himself against what? His own actions? You can't defend yourself against a situation you yourself are responsible for causing.

Originally Posted by dante0322

6. Fact - If Martin did not attack Zimmerman police would have arrived and the reason as to why Martin was there would have been discovered

Huh?

Originally Posted by dante0322

7. Fact - Martin was the aggressor - Zimmerman cannot bash his head in on the concrete if he is on top of Martin

See above.

[Dr. Pecker]

Following someone and asking what theyre up to is not "starting a fight". I wish this thing had been videotaped so Zimmerman would be vindicated.

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by Dr. Pecker

Following someone and asking what theyre up to is not "starting a fight". I wish this thing had been videotaped so Zimmerman would be vindicated.

Not necessarily, but it can be if one feels threatened by the person doing the asking. That's been the case in almost every instance in my 40+ years on this planet. Anyone following me or asking me "what I am up to" for no rhyme or reason in my mind equals nothing but trouble, and frankly absent a law enforcement badge it's none of their fucking business. It also happens to legally waive any right one may have had to self-defense. By making the approach, you have instigated any and all actions that follow.

Is it really your belief that Zimmerman simply approached Martin, asked him "what he was up to", which Martin somehow took offense to and then proceeded to wail on Zimmerman? That simply defies all logic and common sense.

...and you call yourself a Dr.

[nuglet]

be sure not to read the source I posted above.. don't do it..DON'T DO IT!~!!

[Dr. Pecker]

So I could sucker punch and slam the head of anyone who asks me what Im doing? Wow. You certainly have a bizarre understanding of law, as well as right and wrong.

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by nuglet

be sure not to read the source I posted above.. don't do it..DON'T DO IT!~!!

We've all read or seen it Nuglet, the issue is that no one believes it, except maybe you?

Of course his family doctor is going to say whatever Zimmerman's attorney asked or paid him to say. Once an attorney is involved, it's all bullshit. Again, let's use some common sense. We all saw video of Zimmerman, and here is is again for good measure:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-mar...7#.T7RQnuuL4-Y

He's handcuffed, no black eyes, not a drop of blood anywhere on him, no hospital visit, no stitches, his face or head does not appear to be reddened, much less swelled as anyone would expect from such a claimed altercation. Under the law, police are required to provide medical attention for those that ask for it. Zimmerman made no such request, and police who are experts at ass-coverering also made no effort. If his head was "bashed" as he and his attorney want everyone to believe, he would have had a serious concussion. Police generally will not handcuff and escort someone with a serious concussion to the police station for questioning. The hospital would have been their first stop.

Show me an x-ray of this broken nose, photos of the cuts on his head or black eye(s) and we'll talk. Until then, it's just bullshit and I'll go with what I (and everyone else) can seen with their own eyes.