Zimmerman not guilty

Discussion
164

[reply]What’s with Acroynms? Is it that hard to Spell out Zimmerman, or Trayvon? Or is it just plain lazziness?

Do I have to spell that out for you?

No. I am fluent in three dialects of technical acronyms and working on a forth. I may be able to construct an entire sentence comprised solely of acronyms if I think about it for a second.
Maybe you don’t know what I do to pay the bills.[/reply]

Are you seriously bragging about that? LOL!

Have fun constructing an entire sentence solely of acryonyms, sounds like fun.

165

[reply][reply]This might seem oversimplistic but…

If Zimmerman was the armed pursuer, then why isn’t Martin allowed to ‘stand his ground’? Martin had more right to beat Zimmermans’s ass than Zimmerman had to shoot and kill Martin. Yet Martin is dead and Zimmerman is free.

Because you can’t beat someone’s ass just because you think they are following you.[/reply]

You’re just making that up.

In fact the Florida law states that “people could defend themselves even outside of their homes — with deadly force if necessary — if they believed someone was trying to kill them OR seriously harm them.”

Then again…we’ll never really know what Martin thought because Zimmerman shot and killed him.[/reply]

It has to be like force only: verbal verbal or punch punch. Can’t verbal and then lash out with a punch because that is Assault and Battery. The deciding factor of self defense and STY is when it gets to a point of a reasonable fear of imminent death immediately prior to the fatal act (can’t come back later with a weapon).

Following someone who you suspect may be about to commit a crime is not a crime.
Stalking is a crime. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.048.html

RJ and TM were on the phone with each other as GZ was following TM. She testifies to the conversation and where TM went when GZ lost sight of him. TM’s dad and mum shook their heads in court as she was testifying. Now you could say that she is not credible and it is all hearsay (she lied many times previously), but I do find parts of her testimony credible. Some of what she said corroborates with GZ’s call.

166

[reply][reply]What’s with Acroynms? Is it that hard to Spell out Zimmerman, or Trayvon? Or is it just plain lazziness?

Do I have to spell that out for you?

No. I am fluent in three dialects of technical acronyms and working on a forth. I may be able to construct an entire sentence comprised solely of acronyms if I think about it for a second.
Maybe you don’t know what I do to pay the bills.[/reply]

Are you seriously bragging about that? LOL!

Have fun constructing an entire sentence solely of acryonyms, sounds like fun.[/reply]

I have bragging rights, but I’m usually pretty humble about it unless someone tries to back me into a corner. What I do sometimes is not unlike what the state or defense does: I build cases. Sometimes I have data and sometimes I don’t have data. It can get very stressful at times when there are people’s lives on the line and I have to go in and persuade and convince the powers that be to do something the correct technical way instead of the political way (remember, logic does not apply in politics).

167

What’s with Acroynms? Is it that hard to Spell out Zimmerman, or Trayvon? Or is it just plain lazziness?

Pure lazy on my part.
Late,
grmpysmrf

168

I appreciate your posts moonie and it’s easily the most coherent, thorough and thoughtful post on this topic, but the fact that he had said that coons always get away with this shit or something along those lines and the fact that they wouldn’t allow his racial intolerant past into the courtroom seems to say other wise about motive and stack the deck in his favor. not only that, your telling us that the law just says you have to be in fear for your life but an abusive husband and a warning shot merits 20 years… what happened to just scared for your life?
Late,
grmpysmrf

169

[reply]No, I’m not making that up. It’s common sense. You cannot just go around beating the crap out of people you think are following you.

How is being followed the same as someone trying to kill you or seriously harm you?

Why would somebody be following you if unless they meant you harm?, …is a much better question. Unless the person being followed waited to find out, which in many cases it would be too late anyway. Martin was unarmed. Martin ‘stood his ground’. Zimmerman shot and killed him.

That’s what happened.[/reply]
you’re allowed to kill people if you are scared for your life but if you beat the crap out of them because you are scared for your life that is a no no… see the difference? nah you’re probably too rush limbaugh-ish to understand. you make me sick wempathy!!
Late,
grmpysmrf

170

I appreciate your posts moonie and it’s easily the most coherent, thorough and thoughtful post on this topic, but the fact that he had said that coons always get away with this shit or something along those lines and the fact that they wouldn’t allow his racial intolerant past into the courtroom seems to say other wise about motive and stack the deck in his favor. not only that, your telling us that the law just says you have to be in fear for your life but an abusive husband and a warning shot merits 20 years… what happened to just scared for your life?
Late,
grmpysmrf

Oh good GRIEF just give it up you fucking LOST! You LOSE can we just delete this thread now!? I have a massive screaming headache now.

171

Oh good GRIEF just give it up you fucking LOST! You LOSE can we just delete this thread now!? I have a massive screaming headache now.

No, I don’t think he’s anywhere near “giving up”.

172

[reply]I appreciate your posts moonie and it’s easily the most coherent, thorough and thoughtful post on this topic, but the fact that he had said that coons always get away with this shit or something along those lines and the fact that they wouldn’t allow his racial intolerant past into the courtroom seems to say other wise about motive and stack the deck in his favor. not only that, your telling us that the law just says you have to be in fear for your life but an abusive husband and a warning shot merits 20 years… what happened to just scared for your life?
Late,
grmpysmrf

Oh good GRIEF just give it up you fucking LOST! You LOSE can we just delete this thread now!? I have a massive screaming headache now.[/reply]
What the fuck is wrong with you? there is no winning shit eater. you don’t like it don’t come in the thread.
Late,
grmpysmrf

173

[reply]
Oh good GRIEF just give it up you fucking LOST! You LOSE can we just delete this thread now!? I have a massive screaming headache now.

No, I don’t think he’s anywhere near “giving up”.[/reply]
cause there’s nothing to “give up,” you just don’t get it

174

I appreciate your posts moonie and it’s easily the most coherent, thorough and thoughtful post on this topic, but the fact that he had said that coons always get away with this shit or something along those lines and the fact that they wouldn’t allow his racial intolerant past into the courtroom seems to say other wise about motive and stack the deck in his favor. not only that, your telling us that the law just says you have to be in fear for your life but an abusive husband and a warning shot merits 20 years… what happened to just scared for your life?
Late,
grmpysmrf

More media manipulation. He didn’t say coon: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/04/06/cnn-walks-it-back-oops-zimmerman-didnt-say-coon-he-said-it-was-cold

This was the temperature: http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KSFB/2012/2/26/DailyHistory.html
Note: anything below 75 degrees here and people are wearing jackets.

175

The woman made the mistake of going into the garage to get her gun out of the glove compartment and go back into the house, which means she was able to walk away vs. not escape her attacker at the initial altercation. She had already escaped and went back for more with a gun in her hand.

176

[reply]I appreciate your posts moonie and it’s easily the most coherent, thorough and thoughtful post on this topic, but the fact that he had said that coons always get away with this shit or something along those lines and the fact that they wouldn’t allow his racial intolerant past into the courtroom seems to say other wise about motive and stack the deck in his favor. not only that, your telling us that the law just says you have to be in fear for your life but an abusive husband and a warning shot merits 20 years… what happened to just scared for your life?
Late,
grmpysmrf

More media manipulation. He didn’t say coon: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/04/06/cnn-walks-it-back-oops-zimmerman-didnt-say-coon-he-said-it-was-cold

This was the temperature: http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KSFB/2012/2/26/DailyHistory.html
Note: anything below 75 degrees here and people are wearing jackets.[/reply]
since when does “cold” have an “S” at the end of it?
if he did say cold it came out “fuckin colds” you can listen to the audio for your self http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOt1wEDy0SI

there is a distinct “S” sound at the end of it. in the old audio and the new enhanced audio.

Now maybe he didn’t say “coons” but he sure as hell didn’t say “cold” and you could say that puts into place reasonable doubt and I agree absolutely 100% but only because the judge would not allow the details of this man’s character into court. so again stacking the deck.

It’d be like having Hitler on trial for killing a Jewish guy and he’s overheard before it happeneing saying “I hate Juice” hmm I’m not sure. did he say “jews” or “juice?” Well if you don’t allow his character into play you too might reasonably think he was talking about the drink. But you bring in the type of person he is and it’s less likely he’s talking about Sunny D. Again Unfair.

Also, if the media was really manipulating this to the extinct that everyone is bitching they are (yourself included on this one) they never would have walked the story back.

It’s irritating to me that people keep bashing the media (on this one occasion, Normally I’m all for bashing network news) but then all that is offered (for the most part, your post not quite so much) is verbatim the stuff that is being pushed on network news as to why Zimms is innocent WTF? if it’s so bad and manipulative why does everyone keep quoting it?
Late,
grmpysmrf

177

YEEEEEEEAAAAAHHHH!!! I GOTTA DEEP SPACE THE WIDGET!!!

179

since when does “cold” have an “S” at the end of it?
if he did say cold it came out “fuckin colds” you can listen to the audio for your self http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOt1wEDy0SI

there is a distinct “S” sound at the end of it. in the old audio and the new enhanced audio.

Now maybe he didn’t say “coons” but he sure as hell didn’t say “cold” and you could say that puts into place reasonable doubt and I agree absolutely 100% but only because the judge would not allow the details of this man’s character into court. so again stacking the deck.

He’s likely saying “fucking punks” or something like that. I don’t hear “coons” at all no matter how much people keep insisting that’s what is being said. It wasn’t even used for the trial because it was obvious to everyone that he wasn’t saying “coons” and whatever he was saying was too difficult to decipher that it would just be left to assumption (which is what the media has done with it).

And who the fuck says “coons” like that now anyway? I’d like to think racism has evolved a bit. /s

It’d be like having Hitler on trial for killing a Jewish guy and he’s overheard before it happeneing saying “I hate Juice” hmm I’m not sure. did he say “jews” or “juice?” Well if you don’t allow his character into play you too might reasonably think he was talking about the drink. But you bring in the type of person he is and it’s less likely he’s talking about Sunny D. Again Unfair.

It would be nothing like that because you don’t know the type of person Zimmerman is. You can’t bring his character into play unless you make a lot of assumptions.

We now know a lot about Hitler. So, there would be enough examples to reasonably assume he’s saying “Jews”. Regardless, that would be one of the weaker pieces of evidence in this piss-poor analogy.

Also, if the media was really manipulating this to the extinct that everyone is bitching they are (yourself included on this one) they never would have walked the story back.

It’s irritating to me that people keep bashing the media (on this one occasion, Normally I’m all for bashing network news) but then all that is offered (for the most part, your post not quite so much) is verbatim the stuff that is being pushed on network news as to why Zimms is innocent WTF? if it’s so bad and manipulative why does everyone keep quoting it?
Late,
grmpysmrf

People are bashing the media because they are lying and playing the race card. They’ve been doing it from the start. Here’s some examples with sources included:

• NBC edited out the dispatcher asking Zimmerman what race Martin was in an attempt to make him seem racist - as if he was focusing on the fact that Martin was black:
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/NBC6-Zimmerman-Edit-Explanation-148961305.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/nbc-issues-apology-on-zimmerman-tape-screw-up/2012/04/03/gIQA8m5jtS_blog.html

• ABC news ran a poorly digitized video of the surveillance footage of Zimmerman in the police station and claimed that there were no abrasions on Zimmerman’s head. They later went back on what they’d stated and made the ridiculous excuse that they’d now “re-digitized” the footage and now they can see visible abrasions on Zimmerman’s head:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/police-surveillance-video-of-zimmerman-may-show-head-injury/

• ABC news also claimed that based on the poor quality surveillance footage they decided to use (and not bother enhancing) that Zimmerman obviously didn’t have a broken nose by having a doctor come on and claim, “All of the ridges in his nose are clearly defined. You would expect significant swelling in the hour or two after a break. There appears to be none. It doesn’t look like his nose was broken or badly broken”:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-case-doctor-sees-evidence-george-zimmerman/story?id=16055412
Yeah, it totally doesn’t look like his nose was broken at all:

Maybe jumping to conclusions based off of poor quality surveillance footage wasn’t a good idea.

• The media using older photos of both Zimmerman and Martin helped shape public opinion that Zimmerman was a bully who killed a fresh-faced little boy: http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Old-Photos-May-Have-Shaped-Public-Reaction-In-Trayvon-Martin-Case-145223895.html

• CNN and other media outlets using the term “white Hispanic” to emphasizes the “white” part also drew fire from many people:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/12/cnn-white-hispanic_n_3588744.html

There are many more examples of media bias regarding this whole thing and a lot of it is still happening right now. This case has been one of the best examples of trial by media I’ve seen. So many networks and people jumping to conclusions and not waiting for all the evidence to surface in order to create outrage which in turn would up ratings.

180

Smrfy, you have clearly made up your mind.

There are no books written yet; thus, I can only reference what is available.

I only have to mention a certain Food Network personality who recently made the news for telling the truth in court about something that she said many years ago while she had a gun pointed at her during a bank robbery on how some things can quickly get way out of hand in today’s media world. Pariah for something she said a long time ago in the context of an extreme situation.
Everyone should be held to such accountability.

You must be a non-verbally expressive saint if you have never said anything in the heat of the moment that you might regret saying later. I know I surely have in certain situations within certain contexts (this does not necessarily imply that I made a racial slur so just get that out of your mind now). People say things they later regret because we have emotions.

One data point does not constitute a trend; however, they will have to intro the trend as evidence to prove their civil liberties case. You say they suppressed the trend evidence; I only know what I viewed/reviewed, and I did not see that part or the part with the additional accusations.

181

On a larger picture basis, I’d just like to point out that Zimmerman was not on trial for RACISM, he was on trial for MURDER. The two are totally different.

Now, if someone’s racism leads him to murder someone . . . yeah, it’s important. But the racism is secondary and only used to put the murder into context.

Whether or not Zimmerman is a racist now or has ever been a racist at any point in his life is IRRELLEVANT. It is not a crime to be racist. Most people, whether or not they admit it, are kind of racist. Deal with it.

Have I said things when pissed off that I don’t really mean and which have been racially offensive? Of course I have (alcohol was usually involved too). And I have made PLENTY of jokes which, if people didn’t know me and know my sense of humor, could be isolated and taken out of context to show me as a racist, ignorant, no good hillbilly douchebag.

But if I’m in fear for my life and being pounded on by someone and (I’m playing the hypothetical card here) I have access to a gun or weapon and can kill that person to save myself, NONE of the above should matter. In fact, even if you can prove that I AM a racist prick, it still is irrelevant (yes, it’ll be brought out anyway).

No one ever said, “Zimmerman is NOT a racist.” Why? Because no one knows. And most people don’t care. What the jury and many have said is “Race did not PLAY A PART in this case” meaning that none of the actions taken were shown to be or felt to be racially motivated by any means. There simply was no racial component to the trial except as played by the media.

Just because a black man gets killed by a non-black person doesn’t mean it was a hate crime. It might be just regular murder . . . or, depending on circumstances, it might be self-defense.

[Stepping into my cookie-cutter angry middle-class white man shell for a moment] . . . . When blacks rob or kill or rape a white victim it doesn’t turn into a case of “racially motivated crime”, so it shouldn’t be the same for whites or any other “races”. Crime is crime and murder is murder.

182

I am so happy to know that others see through the media manipulation of this case (sincere).

I have to give Atom credit where credit is due in putting together the media summary.

I will say those long points summaries have me a bit worn out (emotional drainage). However, I would like to put together a missed opportunities summary for you also, as well as a ‘these are the key points as to why a death occurred’ summary because some people still do not understand how this happened. They remain focused on ‘but GZ started it’ and ‘TM was doing nothing wrong’. However, it takes two to reach the outcome.

My hope is that some real discussions on how to fix our court system and race relationships take place resulting in progress. I also hope that all people who have children sit their children down and have a real discussion on the topic of their personal safety so this never ever happens again.

Summaries to follow.

183

I am so happy to know that others see through the media manipulation of this case (sincere).

I have to give Atom credit where credit is due in putting together the media summary.

I will say those long points summaries have me a bit worn out (emotional drainage). However, I would like to put together a missed opportunities summary for you also, as well as a ‘these are the key points as to why a death occurred’ summary because some people still do not understand how this happened. They remain focused on ‘but GZ started it’ and ‘TM was doing nothing wrong’. However, it takes two to reach the outcome.

My hope is that some real discussions on how to fix our court system and race relationships take place resulting in progress. I also hope that all people who have children sit their children down and have a real discussion on the topic of their personal safety so this never ever happens again.

Summaries to follow.

So what’s your point, Mama Cass?
I don’t know what you are trying to proove or who you are trying to impress, BIG MAMMA, but your ramblings are a little too late. You should have spoken up long before the verdict if you wanted to make a change.

184

[reply][reply][reply][reply][reply][reply][reply][reply]I sincerely hope that the next time Zimmerman kills somebody…the jury isn’t so clueless.

Don’t blame the jury. Both sides had a hand in picking it. Blame the prosecution for not convincing them, if anything.[/reply]
Not completely true. the prosecution got over ruled by the judge when they tried to replace at least two prospective members.
Late,
grmpysmrf[/reply]

The judge overrules anything that he thinks is BS. That’s how it works in court. That doesn’t mean that both sides didn’t have an equally fair chance of picking the jury.[/reply]
I’m pretty sure the judge ruling on what she thinks is BS (with no apparent reason for calling bullshit) is pretty much the definition of not having an equally fair chance.
Late,
grmpysmrf[/reply]

The purpose of the judge is to decide what is fair and act on it. You can’t say that a judge is not being fair because the judge defines what is fair. If you are saying that the legal system is corrupt and that the judge was guilty of fraud then I think you should put on a tin hat and join the rest of the nut cases. Either way, you still can’t blame the jury. You’re saying that we should blame the judge now? Should we blame society next for making the judge who he is? Where does it end?[/reply]
it was a she. and did she deny any of the defense’s jury requests? not to my knowledge. I’m just saying an explanation would be nice as to why she wouldn’t let the prosecution dismiss potential jurors
Late,
grmpysmrf[/reply]

If you have two kids and they come up and one asks to watch Elmo and you say yes then the other comes up and asks to watch porn an you say no, do you have to give a reason for your response? Were you acting unfairly? Should you deny the other child being able to watch Elmo since you denied the other from watching porn? This is essentially the type of argument you are making. It’s ridiculous. If you have reason to believe that the judge was not fair by not throwing out the jurors then make your point. Don’t say it wasn’t fair because she didn’t also overrule some of the defenses objections and didn’t give an explanation. You are effectively pulling out the race card… which means just saying it wasn’t fair because it doesn’t suit your fancy.[/reply]
So you think the judge is a parent figure and we are all children? that’s bullshit we are adults and should be treated as such.
Late,
grmpysmrf[/reply]

I see your point. No one is suppose to ever approach another person especially a strangeer they don’t know in “real” life, unless there is a mutual understanding, trust and respect.

Zimmerman’s father is a retired judge and it’s not so much a black and white issue, but an issue of economics and the haves and the have nots and who has more wealth and prestige in a “society.”