Why did George Zimmerman kill Trayvon Martin?
I agree, i'm so angry with this outcome, Trayvon was the one using SELF DEFENSE, Zimmerman came after HIM and then declares to using self defense, complete bull, Zimmerman caused it, he should of been given AT LEAST manslaughter, its a shame, this society is so corrupt, even the Casey Anthony trial, same thing...let off free. - TRAYVON attacked him because Zimmerman came after him, if some creep was following you and stalking you, your telling me you would let this guy come after you and being a young boy of course he's going to try and defend himself, trayvon was the on using self defense!!!! you people are idiotic, Zimmerman is a creep, there was no need to kill someone, if it really was self defense why not shoot him in the leg huh? that would of stopped him! why did he have to actually KILL another human being, trayvon deserved to LIVE and have life, so what if he smoked pot or wasn't a straight A student, that doesn't make it ok to kill someone, I believe he didn't want trayvon to be there to testify. sick world we live in.
Are Trayvon Martin supporters aware he may have been committing felony assault when he was killed?
Ok, let's go with the idea that Trayvon was there to commit a crime with a huge IF (considering his father and fathers fiancé live in the subdivision makes this highly unlikely). George IS NOT an authority and DID NOT identify himself as one. As a matter of fact, didnt the operator say more than once "stay in your car" "we don't need you to do that" (follow him)? So explain to me what difference it would make what Trayvon was doing if George didnt have any authority to do more than call 911? Better yet, explain to me how can George claim self defense when he decided Trayvons guilt in a car with no evidence (please listen to his tone on that 911 call "these FUCKS always get away"), pursued, then got out of his car and attacked Trayvon? On what planet is self defense and instigation synonymous? George incited the altercation he ended up in. By sheer definition, George was not defending himself. He was acting out his misguided hatred. One more thing, explain, with such a rogue approach to justice, how are Black Americans supposed to feel confident in the justice system? Please explain, in terms of the reckless killing of Black lives, is this 1813 or 2013? To me, it feels like strange fruit.
Is trayvon martin a Bad Kid, or Good Kid?
It doesn't matter.
Was Trayvon Martin a resident in the "gated community" where he was killed?
he was visiting his fathers girlfriend and the family was watching a ball game on tv . o i believe his father and his girl were sharing a hme in the gated community and the boy was staying there for a visit. that kid was doing nothing wrong and had just went out to buy some snacks and iced tea. and was returning to his future stepmothers home in the community, for that he was meted out a death sentence from a bigot who wanted to play cop. his murder was clearly the aggressor and stalked the teen and confronted the kid and tried to rough him up. you could hear that poor kid on the tapes crying out for help then a shot then the screaming for help stopped. addd yuri he was not a cop , he was a wana be cop . he was susposed to be a neighborhood watch member but was not even registered for that. he was just a civilian punk who wanted to make a name for himself. and he had make one MURDER. self defense my ***. that was a planed murder. that old boy was looking for some one to hurt. or kill. and he found the perfect victim.
What do you think of George Zimmerman's recent arrest on domestic violence? Does his recent arrest lead us deeper into the true nature of who George Zimmerman is?
It calls his character into question and with it everything we thought we knew about the verdict in the Trayvon Martin trial. The rabid supporters of his and the verdict forget that we only had his word that Martin was the aggressor. In the absence of any physical evidence proving otherwise, Zimmerman's word was good enough for an acquittal. But in the court of public opinion, things have changed. Let's be clear, Zimmerman is being accused of a lot more than garden variety domestic violence. First, police have now responded to two domestic violence incidents with two separate women in less than three months - and this in less than five months since his acquittal. Now we have him allegedly pointing a loaded gun at his new girlfriend and apparently barricading himself in the house after police arrived on the scene. Add to this the earlier history of violent incidents including resisting arrests and it is becoming clear that Zimmerman is a liar and a habitually violent and frequently out of control man who should never have been allowed to possess a gun. Given that, why should we give him the benefit of the doubt about Martin or anything else? This man is a public menace. And some of his ardent supporters on the right better hope that he and they don't have more blood on their hands real soon.
Trayvon Martin Shooting (February 2012): How can George Zimmerman's use of lethal force be justified?
Zimmerman armed himself and hunted and killed Martin. It wasn't just a murder, it was a murder for sport/fun.It was "justified" because the only direct witness/victim was executed by Zimmerman.With no conflicting testimony, the only conclusion is to believe Zimmerman when he says he got lost less than 1 block from his home on streets he regularly patrols, and got out of his car, walked to another, different street to read off the street sign to give a location, and just coincidentally cornered Martin on a dead end alley, when Martin, being stalked by an armed aggressor acted to defend himself.Note, that's Zimmerman's story (with facts by Zimmerman, and embellishment by me). And that story got an acquittal. Had I been the prosecutor, I'd have argued that we should believe Zimmerman and his story was correct, and it was still a murder by Zimmerman.But the prosecutor didn't want a conviction. Like the prosecutor that illegally presented defense evidence at the Michael Brown grand jury hearing, the prosecutors are told by mayors and governors (people who can fire them) to make sure they lose. Winning causes riots. But so does losing. But the winning is perceived to be a worse result for public peace, so the prosecutors are ordered to lose, and even go so far as to break the law to do so.This isn't about stand your ground, but a separate legal standard doesn't exist for poking the tiger. If you find a tiger, corner it, and poke it until it bites you, then shoot it because you are in fear for your life, your murder of the tiger is 100% justified, and the admitted assaults of the tiger up to that point are irrelevant to the murder of the tiger.The question should be, why is it legal to poke the tiger? Putting yourself in deliberate harms way in order to encourage an other party to escalate violence due to your perceived escalation shouldn't be a defense in murder trials. Had Zimmerman not hunted Martin down with a gun, Martin would still be alive. Zimmerman was safe in a locked car and Martin out of sight, then Zimmerman followed Martin, trapping him in a dead-end alley.It's also hard to get a murder conviction. Juries don't like to sentence a person to death. And murder is considered death, or life, both of which are death in jail, one taking longer, and the other costing more taxpayer money. A jury verdict isn't always strictly on the law, but related to the psychology of the jury, as well as the skill of the lawyers.
All biased put aside.Why wasn't Zimmerman charged with Manslaughter?
"it is not illegal to follow a person" How many times have you heard this script?? It is a mindless argument, which blatantly ignores reality, or that Martin had any reason to fear for his own safety or life. also, consider the following... The prosecution asked the judge to instruct the jury that it could consider who was the first aggressor in the altercation between Zimmerman and Martin. If the judge had agreed to give that instruction, the jury might have concluded that, by following Martin, Zimmerman provoked a physical response from Martin. The defense objected to the instruction, and the judge decided not to give the first aggressor instruction. The jury was instructed to consider only whether Zimmerman reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself - when he later tussled with Martin on the ground. The jury was also told Zimmerman had no duty to retreat, that he could stand his ground, and meet force with force- including deadly force - if he was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in a place he had a right to be. Finally, the judge instructed the jury that if it had a reasonable doubt about whether Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force, they should find him not guilty. The instructions prevented the jury from considering whether Zimmerman was the first aggressor when he got out of his truck and began following Martin. When Zimmerman told the 911 operator, "****, he's running," the operator asked, "Are you following him?" Zimmerman said that he was. "OK, we don't need you to do that," the operator told Zimmerman. But Zimmerman followed Martin nevertheless. Rachel Jeantel testified that Martin told her on the cellphone he was being followed by a "creepy *** cracker." The jury was only given partial instructions on self-defense - those parts that helped Zimmerman. They were prevented from considering whether Zimmerman might have been the first aggressor, which would have negated his claim of self-defense. and people around here wonder, WHY DON'T PEOPLE JUST ACCEPT THE VERDICT AND MOVE ON??
George Zimmerman Verdict?
What are your thoughts on the Zimmerman verdict and do you agree with the killing of Trayvon Martin being justifiable. Can someone initiate confrontation, plead self-defense in a slaughter, and walk away not guilty. I try to have a neutral mind state of the matter (though I am an African America) I look at facts and evidence because that's all that really matters in the courts, what are your thoughts?