Zimmerman not guilty in Trayvon Martin death: Florida jury

mopar71 · July 16, 2013

Step by step guide on how to avoid getting shot and killed by George Zimmerman
If you follow these simple and easy steps, then you, too, can avoid getting shot and killed by George Zimmerman.

Step #1: Don’t pin George Zimmerman down on the ground.

Step #2: Don’t break George Zimmerman’s nose.

Step #3: Don’t give George Zimmerman two black eyes.

Step #4: Don’t repeatedly slam George Zimmerman’s head on the pavement.

That’s it. Just four simply, easy steps.

It works for me.

And if you follow these steps, it will work for you too.

George Zimmerman had worked in a bar as its bouncer.

All this baloney that Zimmerman was weak and couldn't defend himself is as bogus as the fiction account in the above post. The fact is Zimmerman was a bull, a buffalo actually, who could hold his own in an altercation with a fellow goon even bigger than he was. Zimmerman bounced big rednecks out of the bar where he had worked as a bouncer.

Yet he was beaten up by a "child" without landing a significant punch. That doesn't make sense to me and I don't think it made sense to the jury either.

mopar71 · July 16, 2013

@gl555

You are simply one of the gang bangers at this thread, hammering out posts that are absent content or argument and which are scribbled for the cheap sake of banging out a senseless and irrelevant post.

Your posts are devoid of rationality, reasoning, argument, logic, substance, coherence, meaning.

It seems that those here who agree with the verdict cite the evidence and witness statements that the jury saw. While the people who disagree with the verdict cite old media reports/commentary and are the ones that fit your description above.I don't really understand how people can simply ignore what happened during the 16-day trial. Why bother even having them in the first place?

cup-O-coffee · July 16, 2013

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.

KarenBravo, are you aiming this reply to the others, or at / including me? Could you clear that up, because I would like to reply if I am included in this. Cheers.

F430murci · July 16, 2013

Haha, makes you proud to be an American. Love the first picture? WTH??? Poor SUV.

http://www.idesigntimes.com/articles/6700/20130716/la-los-angeles-oakland-crenshaw-riots-trayvon-martin-protests-rioters-violence-lapd.htm

Edited July 16, 2013 by F430murci

F430murci · July 16, 2013

And when I play Ozzy backwards I hear Satanic messages.

Really, pub? Like he could edit it out and NBC could not file their unedited version if what you are saying is true.

Not sure I understand. Did Zimmerman edit that racial slur out of all the 911 recordings in existence including special prosecutor's copy and the FBI and DOJ copies. Maybe he had Snowden hack in and do it for him.

Was the one I attached altered?

Can you link me to version that Zmerman or Snowden has not edited?

Edited July 16, 2013 by F430murci

JLCrab · July 16, 2013

From comment posted on NY Times yesterday: Even in view of this (neighborhood watch) sign, why would the Martins assume walking through their own neighborhood was "suspicious" -- why would they imagine themselves on the "intruder" rather than "protected resident" side of the sign's equation

From NY Times article on CNN interview with a trial juror: The fact that Mr. Martin was black did not drive Mr. Zimmerman to suspect and follow him, she said. It was the overall situation — he was cutting through the back, the townhouse complex had been hit by a rash of burglaries, and Mr. Martin appeared to be walking aimlessly in the rain, looking in houses, she said.

Publicus · July 16, 2013

#Zimmerman Edits out "F'cking Coon" from 911 Tape He Filed with Court in lawsuit against NBC

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/07/1167991/--Zimmerman-Edits-out-F-cking-Coon-from-911-Tape-He-gave-the-Court-in-lawsuit-against-NBC

Comparing the completely unedited 911 Tape to Zimmerman's edited version.

Transcript Unedited 911 Tape of George Zimmerman saying "F'cking Coon"

911 dispatcher: We’ve got them on the way. Just let me know if this guy does anything else.

[1:39]

Zimmerman: OK.

These <deleted>

, they always get away.

When you come to the clubhouse, you come straight in and you go left. Actually, you would go past the clubhouse.

911 dispatcher: OK, so it’s on the left hand side of the clubhouse?

[2:08]

Zimmerman: Yeah. You go in straight through the entrance and then you would go left. You go straight in, don’t turn and make a left. He’s running.

911 dispatcher: He’s running? Which way is he running?

[2:14]

Zimmerman: Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood.

911 dispatcher: OK, which entrance is that he’s headed towards?

[2:22]

Zimmerman: The back entrance.

‘<deleted> coons’

911 dispatcher: are you following him?

Edited July 16, 2013 by Publicus

Ulysses G. · July 16, 2013

Zimmerman Is a racist and the Jury never heard that fact He said " F***king C**ns "

Zimmerman is NOT a racist and he never said " F***king C**ns ", These are both lies. That was confirmed by both the FBI and evidence that was presented in court. A racist would not mentor black children in their home, take a black girl to the prom or do fund raising for a black man who badly needed it.

Zimmerman said "f*cking punks" as was presented in court over and over again. If there was any evidence that he said something else, the corrupt prosecution would have been screaming that instead. The dishonest smear campaign by malicious left-wing blogs against a man who was found not guilty in a court of law is in full swing.

There is no way that Eric Holder is going to charge Zimmerman with a hate crime. He knows that he would lose and be humiliated. That is just deceitful posturing and political pandering. He has changed the subject to the "stand your ground" law instead, even though it has nothing to do with this case. Zimmerman has won his case and all the attempts to harass him, by those who want to ignore the law, will eventually fizzle to nothing.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Ulysses G.

Publicus · July 16, 2013

#Zimmerman Edits out "F'cking Coon" from 911 Tape He Filed with Court in lawsuit against NBC

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/07/1167991/--Zimmerman-Edits-out-F-cking-Coon-from-911-Tape-He-gave-the-Court-in-lawsuit-against-NBC

This is the screenshot of the PDF lawsuit (Complaint) Zimmerman filed with the Court against NBC.

sustento · July 16, 2013

Does anyone apart from me find it strange that a jury member has a 'literary agent' or is this yet another instance of the peculiarities of the US justice system?

Ulysses G. · July 16, 2013

#Zimmerman Edits out "F'cking Coon" from 911 Tape He Filed with Court in lawsuit against NBC

Insisting that lies are true does not change the fact that they are LIES.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Ulysses G.

Publicus · July 17, 2013

And when I play Ozzy backwards I hear Satanic messages.

Really, pub? Like he could edit it out and NBC could not file their unedited version if what you are saying is true.

Not sure I understand. Did Zimmerman edit that racial slur out of all the 911 recordings in existence including special prosecutor's copy and the FBI and DOJ copies. Maybe he had Snowden hack in and do it for him.

Was the one I attached altered?

Can you link me to version that Zmerman or Snowden has not edited?

The link is in my post above containing the three links, if you'd bothered to read the post and visited the links.

Since you need to be led by the hand, here's the link again, from the third link in my post above.

Zimmerman Edits out "F'cking Coon" from 911 Tape He Filed with Court in lawsuit against NBC

http://www.dailykos....uit-against-NBC

It's all at this link for you to read. Do you often require spoon feeding?

I anyway posted the original 911 tape, i.e., the unedited one, as you can find on this page (as I write this) from this link.

Then I also posted Zimmerman's edited transcript filed with his lawsuit against NBC, a screenshot also taken from this link.

Maybe you've read them by now, but then again, maybe not.

Publicus · July 17, 2013

Does anyone apart from me find it strange that a jury member has a 'literary agent' or is this yet another instance of the peculiarities of the US justice system?

Perhaps our resident extinguished gentleman legal counsel can provide further free advice to you as he's readily been doing at this thread.

Then perhaps not.

Johpa · July 17, 2013

Insisting that lies are true does not change the fact that they are LIES.

Sort of akin to the American vernacular phrase "swiftboating", the repetition of falsehood so many times that it is accepted as a truth by many.

Publicus · July 17, 2013

#Zimmerman Edits out "F'cking Coon" from 911 Tape He Filed with Court in lawsuit against NBC

Insisting that lies are true does not change the fact that they are LIES.

deny, deny, deny.

Denials in the face of reality strains any credibility you may have, which is not much as it is, if any.

SteeleJoe · July 17, 2013

Does anyone apart from me find it strange that a jury member has a 'literary agent' or is this yet another instance of the peculiarities of the US justice system?

It has nothing to do with the justice system. She is no longer a part of the judicial process and any private citizen can hire an agent if they want. Surprising that Publicus can't work that out. Or anyone for that matter.

Strange? Not really - she's not wasting any time in preparing to cash in.

Distasteful? Certainly.

Publicus · July 17, 2013

Step by step guide on how to avoid getting shot and killed by George Zimmerman
If you follow these simple and easy steps, then you, too, can avoid getting shot and killed by George Zimmerman.

Step #1: Don’t pin George Zimmerman down on the ground.

Step #2: Don’t break George Zimmerman’s nose.

Step #3: Don’t give George Zimmerman two black eyes.

Step #4: Don’t repeatedly slam George Zimmerman’s head on the pavement.

That’s it. Just four simply, easy steps.

It works for me.

And if you follow these steps, it will work for you too.

George Zimmerman had worked in a bar as its bouncer.

All this baloney that Zimmerman was weak and couldn't defend himself is as bogus as the fiction account in the above post. The fact is Zimmerman was a bull, a buffalo actually, who could hold his own in an altercation with a fellow goon even bigger than he was. Zimmerman bounced big rednecks out of the bar where he had worked as a bouncer.

Yet he was beaten up by a "child" without landing a significant punch. That doesn't make sense to me and I don't think it made sense to the jury either.

Have you heard the one aunt blabby juror speaking anonymously on tv and to the press? If she's any indication, the jury is a bunch of dingbats.

Six of 'em, all dingbats.

Ulysses G. · July 17, 2013

#Zimmerman Edits out "F'cking Coon" from 911 Tape He Filed with Court in lawsuit against NBC

Insisting that lies are true does not change the fact that they are LIES.

deny, deny, deny.

Denials in the face of reality strains any credibility you may have, which is not much as it is, if any.

Yeah, sure, me and the entire justice system.

SteeleJoe · July 17, 2013

Have you heard the one aunt blabby juror speaking anonymously on tv and to the press? If she's any indication, the jury is a bunch of dingbats.

Six of 'em, all dingbats.

You are unbelievable.

I have rarely seen such rampant bigotry and so complete an abandonment of any effort at objectivity: and I've seen a lot of it - but not often at this level.

Even worse than some of the Zimmerman partisans. And that's saying something.

Edited July 17, 2013 by SteeleJoe

Publicus · July 17, 2013

Does anyone apart from me find it strange that a jury member has a 'literary agent' or is this yet another instance of the peculiarities of the US justice system?

It has nothing to do with the justice system. She is no longer a part of the judicial process and any private citizen can hire an agent if they want. Surprising that Publicus can't work that out. Or anyone for that matter.

Strange? Not really - she's not wasting any time in preparing to cash in.

Distasteful? Certainly.

The latest news report I heard this morning is that the former juror and, I suspect, aspiring author, has been embarrassed and severely criticized enough to cancel her plan to write a book or to write anything about the trial. The cheap tart can actually be embarrassed, although I'm not sure I buy that part of it. She was humiliated into canceling the planned book contract.

But she's still being aunt blabby in the shadows and anonymously on any tv network that will let her in the door. I wonder if she's charging for the interviews.

Dingbat.

geriatrickid · July 17, 2013

Who was aggressive and who wasn't? I think all the jury needed to see was the photos of a beaten Zimmerman and see the coroner report which showed Martin had no injuries other than the bullet wound. Those facts alone, minus the race and media hype would have most if not all people here saying it was self defense.

Let's deal with just the facts, in particular the Treyvon Martin autopsy findings.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/05/17/trayvon.martin.autopsy.pdf?hpt=hp_t2

1. Aside from a small abrasion on the left 4th finger, there were no lacerations or bruising on the deceased's hands. Nor was there any debris such as hair, skin or clothing associated with Zimmerman under the deceased's fingernails or on his hands.

Typically, when an assailant pummels or beats the victim, the hands show signs of the event. This happens when the hand hits hard tissue such as the mouth, and the head. When there is a struggle, with grappling, the hands, particularly the fingernails, pick up fibers, skin and hair from the victim.

2. The testimony and cross examination of the DNA expert and the pathologist do not support your assertion.

One of the worst errors made in the investigation occurred at the police station, where Zimmerman was allowed to wash up before his evidentiary documentation was undertaken. (This is not disputed.) There may have been important evidence on Zimmerman's hands. Whether there was or wasn't, was not considered germane as the police did not do their job in that regard.

There may have been a struggle. Whether or not it was actually such that it would have caused serious harm to Zimmerman cannot be established by the autopsy finding. What was important for the jury was Zimmerman's state of mind and the jury believed that he was in fear of his life. That's the jury's decision based upon other arguments presented. What cannot be argued, is that the autopsy report supports such a conclusion, because it does not. The autopsy report did not support the defense assertion. The jury did however, accept other components of the defense arguments such that they voted to acquit Zimmerman.

Ulysses G. · July 17, 2013

Who was aggressive and who wasn't? I think all the jury needed to see was the photos of a beaten Zimmerman and see the coroner report which showed Martin had no injuries other than the bullet wound. Those facts alone, minus the race and media hype would have most if not all people here saying it was self defense.

Let's deal with just the facts

The EXPERTS supported Zimmerman's version of events.

"This is consistent with Mr. Zimmerman's account that Mr. Martin was over him, leaning forward at the time he was shot," said DiMaio, the former chief medical examiner in San Antonio.

DiMaio testified that lacerations to the back of Zimmerman's head were consistent with it striking a concrete sidewalk. Later, when looking at photos of Zimmerman's injuries taken the night of the shooting, DiMaio identified six separate impacts to Zimmerman's face and head. He said he believed Zimmerman's nose had been broken.

Defense counsel Mark O'Mara gestures while describing the possible angle of the gun shot that killed "It's obvious he's been punched in the nose and hit in the head," he said. http://news.yahoo.com/expert-says-evidence-jibes-zimmermans-story-155634620.html

Scott · July 17, 2013

Apparently some of you are done discussing this topic, but are continuing to post. If you have nothing further to say about the topic, then please move on.

Posts deleted.

Scott · July 17, 2013

This will be my final warning to stick to the topic. Henceforth what will be issued is suspensions.

F430murci · July 17, 2013

Apparently some of you are done discussing this topic, but are continuing to post. If you have nothing further to say about the topic, then please move on.

Posts deleted.

Actually, every thing I said from AG speech today related solely to this case. It's cool. I am done here after one last rant.

I am more worried about the big picture of this case which we are now seeing: racial tension, racial divide, racial preferential treatment and pandering to a bunch of pro Martin rioters with a government that is apparently happy to spur them on by making ridiculous statements that are I accurate but meant to inflame passion and cause prejudice.

I vented enough and much better to do it on here than around people here that will realize I do have a screw lose.

I never thought I would hear the stuff in the US that I have heard in the last month or so. Ciao.

geriatrickid · July 17, 2013

Who was aggressive and who wasn't? I think all the jury needed to see was the photos of a beaten Zimmerman and see the coroner report which showed Martin had no injuries other than the bullet wound. Those facts alone, minus the race and media hype would have most if not all people here saying it was self defense.

Let's deal with just the facts

The EXPERTS supported Zimmerman's version of events.

"This is consistent with Mr. Zimmerman's account that Mr. Martin was over him, leaning forward at the time he was shot," said DiMaio, the former chief medical examiner in San Antonio.

DiMaio testified that lacerations to the back of Zimmerman's head were consistent with it striking a concrete sidewalk. Later, when looking at photos of Zimmerman's injuries taken the night of the shooting, DiMaio identified six separate impacts to Zimmerman's face and head. He said he believed Zimmerman's nose had been broken.

Defense counsel Mark O'Mara gestures while describing the possible angle of the gun shot that killed "It's obvious he's been punched in the nose and hit in the head," he said. http://news.yahoo.com/expert-says-evidence-jibes-zimmermans-story-155634620.html

Did you intentionally leave out my section so as to facilitate your going off on a tangent? I specifically stated that the autopsy results of Treyvon Martin did not support the defense position. You are referencing Zimmerman's injuries.

DiMaio's comments did not question the autopsy report findings. Show me where in the trial transcript he did.

Dr. DiMaio was brought in as a defense expert to address the fatal fun shot trajectory. He raised reasonable doubt as to the position of Treyvon Martin when he was shot. That was his job and his theory, based upon his experience, was considered by the jury.

Dr. Maio raised reasonable doubt in respect to Zimmerman's injuries but he was also specific as to the need for a CT scan to determine if there had been serious injury. There was no CT scan taken, nor did Zimmerman obtain medical care on the night of the homicide. Zimmerman instead sought medical assistance the next day and the photographs presented were from that visit. The injuries may have been legitimate, but they IN NO WAY detract from Treyvon Martin's autopsy.

In respect to Zimmerman's injuries Dr. DiMaio testified that Zimmerman’s head injuries could have been caused by coming into contact with concrete and that such injuries can be dangerous. That's his opinion, and it raised doubt. Note however, that Dr. DiMaio only raised the possibility. There is a big difference between a finding in fact and the suggestion of possibility. He was there to raise as much doubt as he could. He did his job. All that was needed was reasonable doubt.

As a side note, Dr. DiMaio also highlighted the incompetence of the police forensic personnel when he pointed out that Treyvon Martin's wet clothes were put in a sealed plastic bag. This allowed the growth of mold and bacteria which degraded any DNA that may have been on the garments. Such DNA may have better supported the defense case, and it may have better supported the prosecution's case. The improper handling of the evidence and the allowing of Zimmerman to wash up before evidence was taken can be considered to be major technical errors. Had proper procedure been followed, there is a strong likelihood either the prosecution or the defense case could have been better substantiated. The errors make Thailand's forensic personnel look professional in comparison.

manarak · July 17, 2013

I have difficulties to believe that some posters on this thread support a person attacking and beating up an unknown stranger for the sole reason that they noticed the stranger observing them.

Even if verbally provoked, it doesn't allow anyone the right to physically harm anyone.

People mention Zimmerman's training, previous job as a bouncer, etc. to say the gun use was disproportionate - but it is easy to get unlucky in a fight or surprised and lose the upper hand, especially if the adversary is used to fighting in school yards.

After a broken nose and two black eyes, having my head thumped onto the sidewalk, I too would have shot my aggressor.

One detail that isn't mentioned enough here, is that Martin got shot at a distance of 60 or 70 yards from his door. It would have been very easy to retreat there, but Martin chose to assault Zimmerman instead.

Martin was acting suspicious before the altercation and then acted aggressively - not the way a normal innocent person would act.

I guess if he had simply explained himself things would have turned out differently.

Anyone threatening to kill someone and then attacking that person should expect the victim to use a weapon and lethal force. I think that is normal and common sense.

Edited July 17, 2013 by manarak

SteeleJoe · July 17, 2013

After a broken nose and two black eyes, having my head thumped onto the sidewalk, I too would have shot my aggressor.

This is a small but not entirely insignificant point that I had refrained from mentioning before (as it will likely be seen as a nitpick) but people keep tallying Zimmmerman's injuries as a means of defending his actions (a tactic I question but that's another story):

It is not at all unusual to get two black eyes from a broken nose. They don't necessarily signify separate injuries - so people imagining a blow to the nose and then two to the area of his eyes, are perhaps overestimating. (Just as they may be when they talk about his head being smashed into the pavement as hard as possible).

Anyway, at least you were more honest than some - others say Zimmerman shot Martin for fear of his life (though later suggest with an ugly attempt at humor that Martin was shot for beating Zimmerman up), and don't ever consider that Martin may have been dealing out violence for fear of his, but you say straight out you'd shoot someone for kicking your butt.

uptheos · July 17, 2013

So basically if I get into a fight for whatever reason, and I happen to be winning that fight, I can legally have my brains blown out. Goodness me.

Legal or illegal is meaningless to the guy getting his brains blown out. Whenever you get in a street fight you can't count on everyone fighting fair or that you won't get seriously injured or killed. It's just not worth fighting. This is where Trayvon's age and experience probably did come into play. As the texts and videos on his phone showed, he was no stranger to schoolyard fights where someone gets their butt kicked and that's the end of it. At least until they meet again. If anything positive comes from this tragedy, hopefully some other young men will think twice before fighting a stranger. Sadly, the events since the verdict seem to show that the lesson learned was to gang up on strangers instead of one-on-one fights.

It's very meaningful to the guy pulling the trigger tho isn't it. In the real world fights happen all the time. They just aren't usually a problem unless cretins are armed to the teeth.

The only lesson I see is you wanna be the one packing the gun. Enjoy Wild West America

The lesson here, and it is the very lesson that I attempt to instill in my own children, is that living in the USA you never ever get involved in any altercation, that you always back off from any argument, because you never know which idiot, which short-tempered lout, is carrying a firearm. Because in the USA any moron can legally walk around carrying a gun and many do.

I thought you needed a special permit to carry a concealed gun?

Is this correct?

cup-O-coffee · July 17, 2013

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.

The case wasn't strong enough, eh? How would you manage to make it stronger; with opinion, or as Bernie de la Rionda opined in his evidence-lacking closing argument to the jury:

"use (your) “God-given common sense” to find the defendant guilty of second-degree murder"