http://www.mynews13.com/content/new...11/george_zimmerman_involved_in_shooting.html
I hope this is the last we ever hear of this dumbass.
I hope this is the last we ever hear of this dumbass.
Karma
- Thread starter RichardPeterJohnson
- Start date
So let me get this straight. You are happy that he has been attacked and shot? You gleefully refer to it as Karma. All because he was found innocent by a jury, and further exonerated by the Justice Dept. for a hate crime as well?
I'm just trying to understand why you hate this guy so much that you wish him harm. I mean in the wake of no wrong doing on his part as was established by the acquittal at the hands of a jury and the JD being unable to find evidence of a Hate crime.
That about sum it up?
This has always been strange to me. Black men get killed every day, mostly by other black men. On this occasion, a black man was killed by a hispanic man. Why did it get the national press coverage? The police weren't involved so it was not a police killing.
I'm going with NBC creating racial controversy to push an anti-gun agenda for a $1000 Alex. Coupled with this idiot railing in Congress about how "Trayvon was gunned down like a rabid dog"
All the while completely dismissing this aspect of it:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/19/justice/florida-george-zimmerman-arrest/index.html
Poor fella, RPJ needs to quit picking on him, he's a good guy*.
I'm going with NBC creating racial controversy to push an anti-gun agenda for a $1000 Alex. Coupled with this idiot railing in Congress about how "Trayvon was gunned down like a rabid dog"
I get the anti gun angle. But how did Sharpton and the other race baiters get involved? Why did NBC alter the audio to make Zimmerman out to be a racist? Why did the NY Times call Zimmerman a white-hispanic? How did Obama get involved? It was yet another death of a black man at the hands of another minority. I think the media desperately tried to make this a white on black racist crime. How and why did the media carry this racist angle for so long?
I get the anti gun angle. But how did Sharpton and the other race baiters get involved? Why did NBC alter the audio to make Zimmerman out to be a racist? Why did the NY Times call Zimmerman a white-hispanic? How did Obama get involved? It was yet another death of a black man at the hands of another minority. I think the media desperately tried to make this a white on black racist crime. How and why did the media carry this racist angle for so long?
Because people who run on emotion like RPJ and Countryroads ate it up.
RPJ, good you finally figured out how to use the new board. It has been boring as hell without you.
Maybe George Z could be of help in these cases.
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/05/08/dundalk-man-violently-beaten-by-group-of-teens/
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/05/10/central-park-two-muggings-over-weekend/
Last edited:
Zimmerman was found not guilty, as he should have been. Only 2 people really know what happened that night, and one of them died during the fight. We don't know what started the fight or anything else except the outcome. I'd say that we don't know that Martin was any more of a thug than Zimmerman though. Martin walked from his dad's girlfriend's house to a store, purchased a couple of items, then was walking back to the house. Nothing that we know he did that night makes him a thug, unless wearing a hoodie with the hood up in the rain somehow makes someone a thug now.
What does a hoodie with the hood up have to do with anything ? What makes him a thug was that the evidence shows he attacked Zimmerman, Martin also had several other brushes with the law. If you are interested, look it up. The evidence that came out at trial showed that Martin was assaulting Zimmerman and that Zimmerman defended himself. That's what the record shows. And if Martin had lived, he most likely was going to be charged with aggravated assault.
Last edited:
Would he possibly consider relocating to Hattiesburg after he recovers? Need someone who is not afraid to lead a march for the other side. Will have to wait to determine the targets of rock throwing and businesses to destroy.
I just knew this thread was about Zim. You do realize occurrences like this make his wallet fatter, don't you?
People will buy the book(s) and movie rights will be purchased. There's your Karma, philosophical one.
The hoodie was at issue because that is what Zimmerman claimed made him suspicious of Martin to begin with. The "evidence" that Martin "attacked" Zimmerman is that Zimmerman had injuries consistent with a fight, and Zimmerman's story was the only one available to explain it. Martin had gotten in some trouble at school, but Zimmerman had multiple brushes with the law. If Martin had lived, we would have had both sides of the story.
I think the location of the shooting with relation to Zimmerman's car is consistent with Z's version of events in that he had disengaged as instructed by the 911 operator's instruction and was then attacked by Martin.
I'm not ruling out the possibility that Zimmerman's testimony is more or less how things happened, but that's something we'll never really know - and that's the biggest reason why he wasn't convicted. I take issue with the lack of a conviction of Zimmerman reading as an implied conviction of Martin though. He has every bit as much right to stand his ground under the FL law as Zimmerman, i.e. he doesn't have to flee from potential conflict.
I still don't know how this turned into this big racial issue. Zimmerman is hispanic and from all indications race played no role in the shooting. I think because of Zimmerman's last name the media assumed he was white. But why did it become so nationalized?
If he initiated the assault, which everything seems consistent with the evidence I've read about, then he isn't standing ground. Just because you get pissed that you were being profiled does not give you the right to start beating on a guy.
I thought he had been given the right to flee when he got out of sight, he could have retreated to the apt he was going to, but instead he decided to stand his ground and be a bad ass and confront the one who was pursuing him. Actions too have consequences, and he lost his life by exercising that right to confront rather than flee and avoid the confrontation. That was a lesson that he never learned in his shortened life. From time to time decisions have to be made. Hopefully other youths have learned that you too can walk away.
He could have easily argued that he was concerned for his safety and the safety of others in the neighborhood because someone was tailing him in a car. For all he knew, this person was trying to kidnap someone. Rather than run and let others be at risk, he confronted the person. It's an easy defense in this case. Would it sell? It might. Also, we still don't know exactly how the confrontation was initiated other than Zimmerman's statements on the matter.
That's always the danger when you walk into the fray rather than trying to avoid it. The easiest fight to survive is the one that you avoid, and that's always been the common sense solution. It seems like it would have been the smart thing for Martin to do in this case. We are making assumptions about his motives to confront though, mainly because he didn't survive the confrontation.
If he did start the fight. All we know for sure is that he was winning the fight when Zimmerman shot him. Maybe Zimmerman's story isn't entirely accurate. Maybe he confronted Martin, or maybe Martin just started talking to him and the situation escalated. We won't know. If we have Martin's (or maybe another witness of the entire event), we know more for certain. I don't know that Martin did anything wrong in this situation. Winning a fight doesn't mean that you started a fight.
It doesn't matter who was winning a fight. Zimmerman was found NOT GUILTY of ANYTHING by a jury. End of story.
Last edited:
I think considering he was acquitted, it kind of cements his story as fact. If it weren't then I think he would have been convicted. I understand your position that we'll never know for absolute certain but nevertheless his innocence points to the validity of his story. The situation was clouded by the doctored 911 call and the shaping of this being racially motivated.
Everyone harps on him calling 911 over something or someone that looked questionable. Is it really any different than calling the cops because their is a rusty van parked 2 blocks from a school with Free Candy and the Pedo bear pained on the side? Or a guy that looks like he's casing a house? That's how crime is prevented. As a civilian, you aren't bound by racially profiling. If blacks don't like being profiled, then they need to do something to change their image and assuage whitey's justified fear of them.
I've already said that he should have been found not guilty. My point is that Zimmerman being not guilty doesn't make Martin guilty.
Do you think OJ's not guilty verdict cements his story as fact? I'm not trying to race bait with that, but not guilty in a court means that there was reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case against you.
I can agree with your point. I never meant to imply that Martin was guilty of breaking any laws. We can both agree that both parties were guilty of terrible judgement.
I knew you were gonna bring up OJ. My thoughts are that the cases on not similar other than they became racially charged.
Specifically, in OJ's case they were not able to prove he was there. In this case, all of the evidence pointed to Zimmerman's side of the case.
It comes across as you feel like Zimmerman was guilty and got off on a technicality. Am I missing that? I see where you think he should've got off, but I think it's because you understand the law and not so much that he was justified in his actions.?
Assumptions? Z had marks on his face, M was unblemished - in face. I think that is a statement of fact as to whom initiated the physical aggression. The only assumption that could be made in defense of M would be that Z couldn't hit hard enough to leave a mark. Too, M was out of sight long enough to escape from the scene of the altercation. If you wanted to make another assumption for M, perhaps he lost his way as a reason for not going home.
As the case was presented, I cannot see an alternate conclusion that the "reasonable man" could have made.
I don't think Zimmerman got off on a technicality, I think the justice system worked the way it was supposed to. The prosecution couldn't provide enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. I don't consider that a technicality. I do think he was in fear for his safety. He was getting his rear kicked. I don't see him as a sympathetic character though. He has had a history of violence himself, and I don't know how much credence I put in the story that he didn't start something. Depending on what happened leading up to the point where Martin was on top of him, maybe Martin was every bit as justified in his actions. That's something we can't know though.
Z was losing a fight. We know that for sure. I've seen plenty of people start fights and lose them badly, so I don't assume that the guy losing the fight didn't start it.
Obviously, the smart thing for Martin to do would have been to try to get home. He probably had that opportunity, but I don't think we know he did. Maybe he somehow got cornered by Zimmerman. Maybe he went looking for Zimmerman. I'd rather not jump to conclusions in either direction.
Do you really think OJ decision was based on "reasonable doubt"? I won my office pool by predicting "not guilty" based on the DA being so arrogant as to think he could find OJ guilty in that precinct if it had all been filmed. That my friend is Hero Worship. He would never lose a case there, IMO.
