Zimmerman not guilty in Trayvon Martin death: Florida jury

[gl555]

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter because many have already judged Zimmerman guilty regardless of the verdict or whether the system works or not. I especially like the moron who wants to overturn the fifth amendment.

Did anyone else see the juror interviewed by Anderson Cooper (NOT Fox BTW). Amazingly insightful.

I was typing out summaries of what jury found and what they based their decision on on my iphone and was about to post and it died . . .

If you ave any doubts about race being an issue or why the jury decided the way it did, find and listen to this interview. I think you will be surprised and enlightened. Enlightened me and shows that the system does work and did work in this case.

[KarenBravo]

Violent nut-jobs can be innocent of a crime, too, you know?

No member of the gang of Zimmerman fans and boosters will admit that a jury's verdict can be wrong.

It's well documented by the Innocence Project that many of the innocent have been found guilty and, worse, executed by the state - that's the government, which so many of you are so terrified of except in this case.

A reasonable person also knows based on common sense and reasoning, logic, that a jury can be wrong in setting free a guilty defendant.

No one here wants to face that fact or to try to deal with the reality of it. No one here can face the fact or to try to deal with it.

I am not a "gang member" but I believe that a jury's verdict can be incorrect, or apart from the truth.

So, what I do not understand is that the majority of your posts are for a guilty verdict of George.

Are you now saying that you think he is innocent, because the context of everything beyond the fist statement is contradictory to your verdict of guilty.

There is not a single post of mine giving an opinion of Zimmerman's guilt, or innocence. Stop making stuff up.

It's very simple. If the prosecution did not prove it's case "beyond reasonable doubt", the jury has no option but to find him not guilty.

Not guilty does not mean innocent.

Frankly, I'm not interested in the case whatsoever and have not been following it. To me it's just one American killing another, which happens everyday, but, when I see idiotic post like repealing the 5th amendment, scrapping the concept of a jury made up of peers, or, blaming the jury when the prosecution failed to make it's case, then, I have to say something.

[cup-O-coffee]

Another reason I don't buy Martin was this vulnerable child insinuation is because, I have heard and wanted to find some confirmation, is that 17 year olds commit a disproportionately amount of the violents crimes in the US.

Article addressing a reason why 17 year olds should be tried as adults

"is important because offenders aged 16-24 account for 37 percent of arrests for violent crime in the United States and North Carolina. Data show that serious violent crime peaks during the late teenage years and declines steadily as individuals move into their late

20s. Moreover, although 15- to 19-year-olds represent approximately seven percent of the total US population, they account for more than 20 percent of all violent crimes in the United States."

http://www.familyimpactseminars.org/s_ncfis03c01.pdf

Sorry, but based on what I have heard, and the jury did not hear, Martin was a 6'2" wannabe thug with a bad attitude. He was not some innocent 12 year old child skipping home with a hand full of skittles.

Trayvon had no history with guns, no history of violence, no history of gang membership or association, no history of being an aggressive personality, was a respectable student in school with a very good attendance record, wanted to be a pilot.

Given that you want to impugn the character and the reputation of the deceased, let's get to know the live George Zimmerman better:

...bit I guess this is not relevant since no one was willing to touch it. The age of George at this time makes him younger than Trayvon when Trayvon was shot. How come you bring this up and attempt to make George appear despicable and on the other hand make Trayvon out to be a "child"?

You are being disingenuous by making calling a pot black and ignoring the kettle, or at least hoping that we don't see the kettle for what it really is... a troubled youth who was heading fast in the wrong direction in life.

I am simply calling you out on this ruse. It is pointless and I think Natalie Jackson realized that and did not want to go there.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Scott

[cup-O-coffee]

Your post fails to recognize how the entire situation originated. Origination is a vital factor in anything - it is the first question most of us ask.

I have been hanging around Thailand long enough to remember the days that any time a Farang was involved in an automobile incident that they were always held liable on the same "origination" logic: if we had not driven that day then the accident would not have occured.

The loser George Zimmerman started the event, the whole of it. Treyvon was innocently engaged in minding his own business, having a phone conversation with a dear friend, not beating up on some granny - a white granny of course. Zimmerman is the initiator of the entire series of events, Zimmerman the gunman.

But of course he is. I am quite certain that you are correct in your own views. I would suggest, though, that you might possibly be intelligent enough to realize that your views - in light of all the public information, as well as an intelligent human being's ability to infer - might set your appearance as troll-like or galactically stupid; especially at this point in the time-line.

[F430murci]

The reason they couldn't find him guilty is because NONE of those things ARE AGAINST THE LAW and ATTACKING someone IS. Self defense laws are very similar all over the USA. There is nothing special about invoking self defense in Florida.

are you sure about that?

"There is nothing special about invoking self defense in Florida."

I'm sure of it.

Excellent.

Please provide any supporting evidence you can find for your allegation or statement.

I posted not evidence, but facts of this yesterday and today. Florida law of self defense practically mirrors the law in 49 states. I think only Ohio has a different burden shift on the defense of self defense.

[gl555]

1) If it wasn't strong enough, they shouldn't have prosecuted.

2) That's why he was tried for murder. Duh.

The case wasn't strong enough because Zimmerman slaughtered the most important witness for the prosecution, an unarmed boy walking home, thus killing his way to a reasonable doubt conclusion.

[F430murci]

Your post fails to recognize how the entire situation originated. Origination is a vital factor in anything - it is the first question most of us ask.

I have been hanging around Thailand long enough to remember the days that any time a Farang was involved in an automobile incident that they were always held liable on the same "origination" logic: if we had not driven that day then the accident would not have occured.

The loser George Zimmerman started the event, the whole of it. Treyvon was innocently engaged in minding his own business, having a phone conversation with a dear friend, not beating up on some granny - a white granny of course. Zimmerman is the initiator of the entire series of events, Zimmerman the gunman.

But of course he is. I am quite certain that you are correct in your own views. I would suggest, though, that you might possibly be intelligent enough to realize that your views - in light of all the public information, as well as an intelligent human being's ability to infer - might set your appearance as troll-like or galactically stupid; especially at this point in the time-line.

Haha, not a chance . . . galactically . . . hahahahahaha.

[zydeco]

And the protesters are storming Wal-Mart. What you will not see on Piers Morgan. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-zimmerman-trial-protesters-storm-walmart-in-crenshaw-area-20130715,0,2522648.story

[cup-O-coffee]

Zimmerman wants to be a lawyer and defend others who have been "unfairly" accused.

Interesting choice!

I wonder if he'll be "profiling" his potential clients.

After his acquittal on murder charges for fatally shooting Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman may go to law school to help people wrongly accused of crimes like himself, close friends told Reuters on Sunday.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/07/15/slatest_pm_george_zimmerman_wants_to_be_a_lawyer.html

BTW, I have since heard that the limits of the financial reward Martin's family can expect in an EXPECTED civil suit against their son's killer is the estimated amount of his total earnings in his "assumed" lifetime career. That's a can of worms even trying to estimate that as nobody knows what a 17 year old boy will end up doing in life. But there it is.

Post trial statements:

O'Mara, George's Defense attorney said...

All of the information that did not make it into the criminal trial, about Trayvon Martin, is going to be very relevant in any civil proceedings, so I don;t know why they would want to sort of risk damaging the memory of Trayvon Martin by opening themselves up to review of that evidence

He also said he was "not concerned" by a push for the Department of Justice to file civil rights charges against Zimmerman, headed by the NAACP. An online petition urging Attorney General Eric Holder to file federal civil rights charges had garnered 400,000 signatures by Monday.

"I'm not concerned at all the Department of Justice, they have already done their investigation, the FBI has already looked at this case for over a year, and they never found any evidence of racism or inappropriate actions by George that would suggest a civil rights violation," O'Mara said.

O'Mara cited a portion of Florida's "Stand your Ground" law that says a person is immune from suit if they act reasonably and in self -defense, saying Zimmerman would be immune from another potential legal action - a civil suit from the Martin family.

Bernie Delarianda, the prosecuting attorney for the government said:

What it boils down to is that you have a seventeen year old kid, who is minding his own business, wearing a hoody, and gets accosted... gets followed by an individual who... wants to be a cop!

You tell me: who sounds sensible and who sounds like an immature, raving lunatic?

Regarding the mother and father bringing a civil suit, I would strongly advise them to reconsider. They may not realize it, but opening Trayvon's life up for a review of the evidence would not stop there. Any decent defense attorney would be digging into the lives of the mother, father and his mistress-then-stepmom and any and all of their relations, neighbors and acquaintances to mount an imposing case against Trayvon's character make-up, his personal views, as well as his troubled life.

I would hope that their history is spotlessly clean because when one person tries to smear someone in court, all the dirty laundry comes out.

Now you pro-Traycon people can harp all you want, but the things that the prosecutors ignored and the judge dismissed will be the bane of all of this if they want to push it out into the open.

[F430murci]

The case wasn't strong enough because Zimmerman slaughtered the most important witness for the prosecution, an unarmed boy walking home, thus killing his way to a reasonable doubt conclusion.

Uhm, that is pretty much the way it is in most murder trials. The only other eyewitness is dead.

Every single one of the special prosecutor's expert and forensic witnesses supported Zimmerman's version and explanation. An eye witness supported Zimmerman's version.

Why not listen to the juror's interview with Anderson Cooper and perhaps actually read what some of the witnesses said and see if that actually jives with what you are thinking now.

What amazes me is most of the people going ballistic don't seem to have listened to the testimony every day or understand what evidence the jury actually heard.

[Jingthing]

He can still legally carry a concealed firearm. That is not right. The killer Zimmerman has shown he is an extremely irresponsible man in respect to carrying a gun. This is so wrong.

[F430murci]

And the protesters are storming Wal-Mart. What you will not see on Piers Morgan. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-zimmerman-trial-protesters-storm-walmart-in-crenshaw-area-20130715,0,2522648.story

Free TVs!!!!!!!!!

That is logical. Let's storm Walmart, beat up a jogger, and jump up and down on strangers driving down the road because Zimmerman did not get convicted. Awesome logic.

Maybe Jasmine and the rest of the Martin family "social engineers" as she just called herself, can socially engineer a rational excuse for this!

Edited July 16, 2013 by F430murci

[cup-O-coffee]

If Zimmerman is truly not guilty, justice *not* served until Trayvon's family *pays Zimmerman* for the rigors of a false accusation and ruining Zimmerman's life. Suffering grief (even of your own child) does not absolve you from unjustly ruining someone else's life.

.

I may be mistaken but I thought it was the legal process i.e. district attorney's office and police department, that charged Zimmerman with a crime.

I really didn't follow this trial at all.

In the long run, I'd be willing to take a bet that Mr. Zimmerman will be tried in civil court and with the lower level of guilt requirements possibly be found guilty as happened to OJ Simpson.

In 1995, he was acquitted of the 1994 murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman after a lengthy and internationally publicized criminal trial, the People v. Simpson. In 1997, a civil court awarded a judgment against Simpson for their wrongful deaths; to date he has paid little of the $33.5 million penalty.^[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson

He will not be tried by the Federal Government. They are already backing down. They are kissing ass for the pro-Trayvon party by saying that they are scrutinizing the case in overly consoling tones and gestures, but they haven't a snowball's chance in hell. The Feceral Bureau of Investigation's report that George was nothing more than a busybody with a "Hero Cop" attitude, but definitely not a racist puts a lock on that. How does the government contradict itself in a civil case, when the only option they have is to try to prove George is a racist immediately after saying he is not?

The only other civil suit would be brought by the parents. They would have their lives shredded by any legitimate defense attorney. Although I cannot prove it, I am certain that those darling people aren't all that the media and make-up artists make them out to be, and my admission that I cannot prove it, I feel, is intuition that they should heed, since there would be no question if they push this and expect their lives to be presented as angelic and ideal.

[cup-O-coffee]

Trayvon had no history with guns, no history of violence, no history of gang membership or association, no history of being an aggressive personality, was a respectable student in school with a very good attendance record, wanted to be a pilot.

If you completely ignore all the evidence to the contrary on his cell phone.

Zimmerman is the guy who had the gun, which is further proof of the limits if background checks. Certainly in that state, Florida. Mental stability checks too. Zimmerman is cold blooded, an off center character.

Your opinion is noted, and emphatically disagreed with.

[rsokolowski]

Another reason I don't buy Martin was this vulnerable child insinuation is because, I have heard and wanted to find some confirmation, is that 17 year olds commit a disproportionately amount of the violents crimes in the US.

Article addressing a reason why 17 year olds should be tried as adults

"is important because offenders aged 16-24 account for 37 percent of arrests for violent crime in the United States and North Carolina. Data show that serious violent crime peaks during the late teenage years and declines steadily as individuals move into their late

20s. Moreover, although 15- to 19-year-olds represent approximately seven percent of the total US population, they account for more than 20 percent of all violent crimes in the United States."

http://www.familyimpactseminars.org/s_ncfis03c01.pdf

Sorry, but based on what I have heard, and the jury did not hear, Martin was a 6'2" wannabe thug with a bad attitude. He was not some innocent 12 year old child skipping home with a hand full of skittles.

Trayvon had no history with guns, no history of violence, no history of gang membership or association, no history of being an aggressive personality, was a respectable student in school with a very good attendance record, wanted to be a pilot.

I stand by what I said.

Show me his police record. Show me the proof he was a member of a gang. Show me he was a troubled youth or adolescent. And why should anyone demand Treyvon be a perfect model of an adolescent? Let's be fair and let's be reasonable, even tho that is not the purpose of the gang of posters here so I suppose I'm talking to the wall on this point.

Did you ever write graffiti? I have. Many people have, in different situations and circumstances. When did scrawling graffiti become a felony crime?

Trevon Martin had a clean record.

These vile attempts to defame the deceased are, moreover, shameless.

The fact remains George Zimmerman should have respected the advice from the 911 advisor and not followed Trayvon. The fact is Zimmerman should have stayed in the car. But he pursued. What's a young black kid supposed to think when he has a strange looking weirdo following him, eyeballing him, suspecting him?

Zimmerman is the gunman.

What is a young black kid supposed to do when a strange looking weirdo is following him, eyeballing him, and suspecting him (whatever that means)?

How about calling the police and tell them that someone is following you and looks suspicious. Maybe Trayvon would still be alive if he had done that.

[cup-O-coffee]

Not guilty doesn't mean innocent. He is far from innocent.

This trial was brought by the prosecution to try to prove a manslaughter charge. The prosecution could not.

I would submit that everyone who has never been on trial before is not innocent of one thing or another.

Your statement is a moot point and more or less fuel to the overall point that we should all be humble and think twice about being aggressive in any given situation because of the things we are not innocent of, and the things we are capable of not being innocent to.

On another day, George was not innocent. On that day, Trayvon was not innocent. The consequences of our guilt are largely unpredictable, yet they are what we have to live with.

To revise what you said, "not guilty does not mean innocent. We are all far from innocent."

[F430murci]

He can still legally carry a concealed firearm. That is not right. The killer Zimmerman has shown he is an extremely irresponsible man in respect to carrying a gun. This is so wrong.

Listen to the juror interview. Juror said she thinks he should have a gun and she would welcome him as a neighborhood watch person in her neighborhood. Before you bash her, hear her out and tell me what aspect of what she said was not supported by any of the evidence.

This neighborhood had a rash of breakins and listen to juror details about what juror recalled as far as everything Zimmerman had done for neighbors that had gotten robbed and terrorized by hoodlums. Don't bash the jurors until you actually her the evidence and how they decided the case.

[Jingthing]

I know what the killer did and didn't do that night.

He didn't stop stalking his victim when advised to by 911.

He didn't verbally explain to his victim who he was and what he was doing following him.

That's all any rational person needs to know about the character of that killer. Now legally still able to carry a CONCEALED gun. When other countries mock the USA for our INSANE gun culture, this would be a prime example of it.

He killed an unarmed boy when he didn't need to. That fact will never change.

The prosecution still calls him: MURDERER. I totally agree.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Jingthing

[gl555]

The jury and a whole lot of lawyers including Alan Dershowitz disagrees with you and the prosecution.

I know what the killer did and didn't do that night.

He didn't stop stalking his victim when advised to by 911.

He didn't verbally explain to his victim who he was and what he was doing following him.

That's all any rational person needs to know about the character of that killer. Now legally still able to carry a CONCEALED gun. When other countries mock the USA for our INSANE gun culture, this would be a prime example of it.

He killed an unarmed boy when he didn't need to. That fact will never change.

The prosecution still calls him: MURDERER. I totally agree.

[Jingthing]

The jury and a whole lot of lawyers including Alan Dershowitz disagrees with you and the prosecution.

I know what the killer did and didn't do that night.

He didn't stop stalking his victim when advised to by 911.

He didn't verbally explain to his victim who he was and what he was doing following him.

That's all any rational person needs to know about the character of that killer. Now legally still able to carry a CONCEALED gun. When other countries mock the USA for our INSANE gun culture, this would be a prime example of it.

He killed an unarmed boy when he didn't need to. That fact will never change.

The prosecution still calls him: MURDERER. I totally agree.

You are mistaken. Their verdict doesn't mean he isn't a murderer. It doesn't mean he acted responsibility that night. It ONLY means the prosecution didn't have the evidence to effect prosecution under the technicalities of the law where they weren't ALLOWED to consider the context of events that night, which was DAMNING to the killer.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Jingthing

[gl555]

Innocent till proven guilty. They couldn't prove his guilt. Therefore, he is innocent.

And once again, the 'main witness' getting killed is why he was charged with murder. Duh.

The jury and a whole lot of lawyers including Alan Dershowitz disagrees with you and the prosecution.

I know what the killer did and didn't do that night.

He didn't stop stalking his victim when advised to by 911.

He didn't verbally explain to his victim who he was and what he was doing following him.

That's all any rational person needs to know about the character of that killer. Now legally still able to carry a CONCEALED gun. When other countries mock the USA for our INSANE gun culture, this would be a prime example of it.

He killed an unarmed boy when he didn't need to. That fact will never change.

The prosecution still calls him: MURDERER. I totally agree.

You are mistaken. Their verdict doesn't mean he isn't a murderer. It doesn't mean he acting responsibility that night. It ONLY means the prosecution didn't have the evidence to effect prosecution under the technicalities of the law. Mainly because the main witness to indict him he killed.

[Jingthing]

Innocent legally. Not innocent in fact. Anyone with common sense can see the mistakes Zimmerman made that night clearly based on his deeply flawed personal character. This killer should not be allowed to carry a concealed weapon. No CIVILIZED society would allow it.

[F430murci]

I know what the killer did and didn't do that night.

He didn't stop stalking his victim when advised to by 911.

He didn't verbally explain to his victim who he was and what he was doing following him.

That's all any rational person needs to know about the character of that killer. Now legally still able to carry a CONCEALED gun. When other countries mock the USA for our INSANE gun culture, this would be a prime example of it.

He didn't verbally explain to his victim who he was and what he was doing following him.

The prosecution still calls him: MURDERER. I totally agree.

Why don't you lsiten to the juror interview or read the evidence.

(1) He didn't stop stalking his victim when advised to by 911.

- Juror noted that the 911 operator later in the conversation basically instructed Zimmerman to go figure out where Martin had gone because he was no longer in Zimmerman's sight.

(2) He didn't verbally explain to his victim who he was and what he was doing following him.

- Based on juror interview and the taped interview the prosecutors played to the jury, Martin was out of sight and apparently doubled back and approached Zimmerman, caught Zimmerman off guard and punched him in the nose. Please show me transcript or witness testimony to the contrary.

(3) He didn't verbally explain to his victim who he was and what he was doing following him.

- Juror said that she felt Zimmerman's life was in danger and he truly feared for his life when his head was being pounded into the concrete. The jury found his testimony credible and corroborated by expert witnesses for the state.

(4) The prosecution still calls him: MURDERER. I totally agree.

Corley is unethical and hopefully she will be dealt with as she does not deserve to have a law license and NO LAWYER SHOULD EVERY criticize a jury and cast aspersions on a jury that worked hard to do their job. Corley actually violated Zimmerman's civil rights so of course she is going to now entrench in such a position due to the nature of the allegations against her and the concerns that she could only preempt the grand jury decision not to prosecute by filing a fraudulent affidavit and suppressing evidence.

I am a bit shocked your being so irrational and refuse to review the facts and testimony. I thought you were level headed and reasonable. If you can cite countervailing evidence (not you conclusory statements), I would respect that.

[cup-O-coffee]

Zimmerman was found not guilty because the preponderance of evidence supported his version of events. Trayvon attacked him, broke his nose and injured his head and so he shot him in self defence. If it were not for racial politics, he never would have been charged in the first place.

The NAACP will lose, if they try to charge Zimmerman with violating Trayvon's civil rights.

Zimmerman did nothing to violate Martin's civil rights and every attorney I have heard - on both sides - admits this. There is NO evidence that he was a racist and plenty that he is not.

If Travon's parents try to sue him, when they lose - and they will - they will have to pay all his legal fees as well as their own. That will not be cheap. As Don West said, the percecution prosecution of Zimmerman was a disgrace.

Zimmerman has very good chance at winning a case for malicious prosecution. The prosecution withheld evidence about Trayvon's criminal activities and the defence only found out about it because of a whistle blower who was fired for turning it over.

Sanford, Florida (CNN) -- An employee of the Florida State Attorney's Office who testified that prosecutors withheld evidence from George Zimmerman's defense team has been fired.

Ben Kruidbos had been on paid administrative leave since May 28 from his job as director of information technology for the State Attorney's Office. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-it-firing/index.html

A great article on the FACTS of Zimmerman trial.

Even on the irrelevant question of whether or not Zimmerman profiled Martin, the prosecution has struggled, despite enjoying the advantage of getting to leave jurors in the dark about most of Martins past. Zimmermans monstrous hate crime, it turns out, was that he profiled a juvenile delinquent as a juvenile delinquent. He said that Martin looked like he was on drugs. He was. He said that he was behaving suspiciously. He was. Jurors may hear about the marijuana in his system (the judge has now said that the defense can use a toxicology report), but they wont hear about his suspension from school at the time, his schools discovery of stolen goods and a burglary tool in his backpack, and his past fights. http://spectator.org...the-prosecution

So Zimmerman, therefore, can kill Trayvon Martin.

Zimmerman was armed and initiated the events of that night. Martin was unarmed.

After Zimmerman shot Martin, Zimmerman made no attempt to see if he could save Martin's life. Zimmerman ignored the fatally wounded Martin because Zimmerman had done what he set out to do.

Kill.

What was supposed to do, perform emergency surgery on the sidewalk. He was a security office not a thoracic surgeon.

What he set out to do. What? If he wanted to off him, he could have gun out and offed him immediately. I doubt he set out to get his ass kicked, have nose busted and have his head pounded into the pavement so he could then have a excuse to shoot him. That's retarded and exemplifies the irrational thought process that causes racism on both sides.

Have you no humanity?

Zimmerman did nothing to try to save Trayvon Martin's life. Zimmerman instead shot Martin to kill him, i.e., shot him in or in the immediate area of the heart, the same area of the chest John Lenon was fatally shot. If Zimmerman had any humanity, he would do all he could to save the life of Trayvon.

Military doctors work to repair the captured enemy wounded and try to save their lives. Zimmerman couldn't try to save a life?! Try?!

It's clear Zimmerman hasn't any humanity for certain people. Yet a good number of posters have great human sympathy and support of Zimmerman, a guy with a gun who set out after a guy without a gun.

I'd like to think you could search hard and dig deep inside you to find some human aspect to this crime, this death, this killing - to think about saving a life. To give it a thought. To give a thought to the possibility of trying to save a human life.

I understand what you are saying, but this is a question you are asking that cannot be used as a broad brush to apply to every situation where there is one down and one left standing. I trust you are reasonable enough to understand that. Additionally, and yet again, there is no law which requires the survivor to come to the aid of the downed aggressor.

Are you suggesting that the woman that Duane Portman Sr raped in front of her children should have come to his aid after shooting him in the face? Rather instead, he went out the door and collapsed in the driveway and she dialed 911 and waited for the police to come.

As you are so fond of using other incidences as a comparative to this trial, I submit that this is not far-fetched if I use your implied context.

Although the two crimes vary by degrees (on the same line but in degrees) in their aggressiveness and terribleness, I submit that any crime of aggression should not be defended on the basis of the outcome towards the person committing the act of aggression, when the victim is in fear of their life at the moment they are being attacked.

My point is; if you are going to punch, knife, shoot, rape etc. someone, do not expect the victim to be sympathetic if their method of making you stop is incapacitating or lethal. To suggest otherwise would downplay the terror that the victim felt during the attack and their subsequent success at stopping that attack.

[cup-O-coffee]

At least 3 witneses testified that Zimmerman's nose was broken including an EMT who was on the scene and said that Zimmerman's nose was "very swollen", on both sides and bleeding, and that he had a laceration on the nose as well as swelling of other places on his face. The left-wing blogs are trying to claim it was not broken because there were no X rays done, despite expert testimony and photos that strongly suggest otherwise.

(CNN) -- A medical report by George Zimmerman's family doctor shows the neighborhood watch volunteer was diagnosed with a fractured nose, two black eyes and two lacerations on the back of the head after his fatal confrontation with Trayvon Martin. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/16/justice/florida-teen-shooting

I'll say it one.more.time. The report from the person who treated him mentions only a nose bleed and a bit of puffiness. It is public record. His family physician wrote down that he had a broken nose because Zimmerman told him that's what the EMS had said, which was untrue.

The photo the medic took after he cleaned the blood off is the one you should look at. That ain't no broken nose and I should know, mine has been broken more times than Liz Taylor's marital vows.

The broken nose was an obvious defence claim to bolster the "vicious beating" claims, but like the little scratches on his head, it was a minor injury.

Otherwise, why wouldn't he get an X-Ray to confirm, if not at least to see if it needed setting?

I'll tell you why. Because it was bulls**t, that's why.

Even if you are right, your point has been made, and I believe that it was not a deciding point in the outcome of the trial and verdict of not guilty of manslaughter. After all, George's nose was not on trial.

[gl555]

Yes let's also add that he's not innocent spiritually as well. Your arguments are getting really thin.

If you're arguing for more gun control, that's another topic entirely. This topic deals with the fact that a jury has found George Zimmerman not guilty. A whole lot of lawyers and legal scholars agree with the verdict. Not to mention a whole lot of reasonable people as well. You and others not liking the verdict and whining about it won't change that one bit.

Innocent legally. Not innocent in fact. Anyone with common sense can see the mistakes Zimmerman made that night clearly based on his deeply flawed personal character. This killer should not be allowed to carry a concealed weapon. No CIVILIZED society would allow it.

[F430murci]

The jury and a whole lot of lawyers including Alan Dershowitz disagrees with you and the prosecution.

I know what the killer did and didn't do that night.

He didn't stop stalking his victim when advised to by 911.

He didn't verbally explain to his victim who he was and what he was doing following him.

That's all any rational person needs to know about the character of that killer. Now legally still able to carry a CONCEALED gun. When other countries mock the USA for our INSANE gun culture, this would be a prime example of it.

He killed an unarmed boy when he didn't need to. That fact will never change.

The prosecution still calls him: MURDERER. I totally agree.

You are mistaken. Their verdict doesn't mean he isn't a murderer. It doesn't mean he acted responsibility that night. It ONLY means the prosecution didn't have the evidence to effect prosecution under the technicalities of the law where they weren't ALLOWED to consider the context of events that night, which was DAMNING to the killer.

Acquitted means he is innocent in the eyes of the law. Your know this.

You DON'T even know what the jury heard so how do you know what they did not hear???????????????????????????????????????????

[wealth]

It's like White slaves against Black slaves. It's also used politically to press through with the gun law and to destruct of what's really going on.

Facebook is refusing to take down the "Kill Zimmerman" page or "Riot for Trayvon" http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/03/facebook-wont-remove-riot-trayvon-page

Clear a guided event developing. What does the "Terms of Service" say at Facebook?

Edited July 16, 2013 by wealth

[mopar71]

Try this:

Zimmerman's 05' arrest Resisting officers & Obstructing justice (a felony) sentence: Anger Man class

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/30/1079338/-Zimmerman-s-05-arrest-Resisting-offices-Obstructing-justice-a-felony-sentence-Anger-Managemet

George Zimmerman's police record has come to light. NBC is reporting He was arrested in 2005 in Orlando Fl. for resisting an undercover alcohol control officer (who was making arrests in a bar), and obstructing justice (a felony). The police report described Zimmerman as interjecting himself into the situation, and when the officer identified himself Zimmerman said "I don't care who you are". When police ordered him to leave again and George replied "fuc_k you!". The police report stated Zimmerman "used violence and battery against the officer".

Zimmerman is a wild and violent nutcase who should never have been allowed to possess a firearm. Another failure of Florida law. A violent person with a violent history - against a police officer - is allowed to possess a firearm. A travesty right there.

If Zimmerman was as violent towards a police officer as you make it sound, why was his sentence for committing this felony to take an anger management class and not jail time? Something doesn't add up.

[mopar71]

Try this:

Zimmerman's 05' arrest Resisting officers & Obstructing justice (a felony) sentence: Anger Man class

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/30/1079338/-Zimmerman-s-05-arrest-Resisting-offices-Obstructing-justice-a-felony-sentence-Anger-Managemet

George Zimmerman's police record has come to light. NBC is reporting He was arrested in 2005 in Orlando Fl. for resisting an undercover alcohol control officer (who was making arrests in a bar), and obstructing justice (a felony). The police report described Zimmerman as interjecting himself into the situation, and when the officer identified himself Zimmerman said "I don't care who you are". When police ordered him to leave again and George replied "fuc_k you!". The police report stated Zimmerman "used violence and battery against the officer".

Zimmerman is a wild and violent nutcase who should never have been allowed to possess a firearm. Another failure of Florida law. A violent person with a violent history - against a police officer - is allowed to possess a firearm. A travesty right there.

If Zimmerman was as violent towards a police officer as you make it sound, why was his sentence for committing this felony to take an anger management class and not jail time? Something doesn't add up.