Zimmerman: A New Chapter

It shows his character, and it's not a coincidence that he used a gun both times. Technically, he wasn't convicted of murder, but I consider him to be a murderer.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@ Pjdude,

I don't want to argue racism with someone who cannot even spell the word correctly but...

So now you are psychic and know why people do things? Would you stay with Zimmerman? Anybody with Zimmerman is in danger or you are an idiot to think otherwise.

One of the reasons I think your spelling of racism is incorrect (it could be European). Your entire post shows you do not read enough to recognize correct spelling.

What lie? He bought and sold guns, smoked drugs, and fought to the point a friend wanted Trayvon to teach him to fight. These are facts but that was established in other thread. This thread is just like a victory dance for me.

The snitch Trayvon beat up might argue otherwise. I bet he is glad Trayvon Martin is not coming back for the rematch Trayvon wanted (LET ME GUESS. This is news to you.). If Trayvons case had not been about denying all the evidence about Trayvons violent and criminal behavior, maybe they would have left some time to figure out why he was such a moron.

Also learn your facts boy. Police, Judge, Jury, Justice System all believe Trayvon attacked Zimmerman (Stupid Moron).

Trayvon Martin was a stupid wannabe gangsta. He got Justice.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No you'd prefer to arguing pulling guns on people is a sign of good judgement.

Um well you know other than the fact she said thats why she left.

yes I'm a shitty speller and my keyboards messed up so that means I am inherently mentally deficient. you got me.

Zero evidence he actually bought a gun. zero evidence he was high when he was killed. again you just assumed negative qualities on to the dark skinned victim. all the while ignoring his killers long history of unprovoked violent behavior. You stated that martin was on drugs during the incident. and attacked zimmerman. one of those is a flat lie the other has zero evidence behind it other than zimmerman's word. and you really think zimmerman's continued violence and reckless use of fire arms vindicates you it just makes you look like an insensitive prick when you say its your "victory dance"

guess what kids get into fights. that doesn't mean they deserve to be hunted down and killed. I got into plenty of fights as a teenager do I deserve to be shot

there wasn't any. you streching to defend a lose cannon.

don't call me boy and before you lecture me on facts why don't you learn about the US justice system.

flat out lie. the police refused to investigate. the judge to my knowledge never commented on it and several members of the jury felt zimmermann deserved to go to jail but was saved by a law designed to allow people to murder others. Not guilty doesn't mean innocent. it means not guilty.

maybe but that doesn't mean he was at fault. your racism is showing.

if you think he got justice you don't know what justice is.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@ pjdude

Exactly. I also agree poor spelling equals mental deficiencies. It is good you are aware of it.

What one is lie?
Did he have enough THC in his system to be high on drugs? Yes of course he did.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...in-had-marijuana-in-system-night-he-died.html
(see above link to get started on that reading.)

In Fact: It appears that Trayvon was out on a drug deal and not buying skittles.

Watch this video from the night he got himself killed. He was on a drug deal selling off his stash he discussed in his cellphone.

Look at his Drink/Skittles
COFCC.ORG -- We now know that Trayvon Martin had marijuana in his system, so George Zimmerman was correct when he suggested that Martin was high. We also now know that it wasn’t Ice Tea and skittles, but Arizona Watermelon juice and skittles. Both are ingredients in a drug cocktail used in the southern rap/hip-hop scene. Messages that Trayvon Martin posted on twitter suggest that he was abusing codeine in a concoction known as “lean,” “watermellon sizzurp,” “purple lean,” “purple sizzurp,” and other names. Other versions of the drink are made with Sprite.
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c8c_1338159612#3DituYhDkpHlIUG0.99

He wanted "LEAN" ... Look at him Tweeting about DMX "CODINE" Drug below.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/s/s...4db65f5 e99818badf934d40dad14929&ec_rate=230

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

SO MAYBE THE FACT THAT HE DIED STONED MAKES IT KIND OF TRUE THAT HE DIED STONED. DON'T TELL ME I FLAT OUT LIE JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO LAZY TO INFORM YOURSELF. TRY BING NEXT TIME.

Funny. I see videos from their investigation. They deemed Trayvon was a hoodlum attacking Zimmerman which is true.

I think the Gun dealing, Drug Dealing, violent man was dumb enough to bring his fists to a gun fight. You are probably too uninformed or naive to realize Trayvon Martin was dealing in illegal gun sales and this is one of the main reasons I disliked him. A dead gun dealer is a good gun dealer.

@ Everyone,

Are you smart enough to spot a drug deal?

(Watch This Then - Trayvon at Store just before shooting)
[video=youtube;3s4cp9hErSo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s4cp9hErSo[/video]

Does not matter anyway. No need to worry about this guy anymore.

 

You have been outright lying and slandering Martin since his death. It's easy to slander and lie about a dead man. Martin cannot speak for himself as your man put a 9mm slug in his heart at near point blank range. The fact is Martin was found to have TRACE LEVELS of THC in his blood. That doesn't mean the was stoned. I suggest you look up the word "trace". And it doesn't mean Martin smoked weed or ingested it as you have claimed. He could have been near people or walked past people who smoked it. And THC makes people mellow, not violent. That is probably why Zimmerman's lawyers didn't want that finding introduced in court. It would not have supported Zimmerman's claim he was attacked by Martin.

 

sp you disagree with me. and have decided to poersonally insult me because I disagree with your base slanders.

lie he had a little which doesn't come close to drug fueled.

Well except he didn't die stoned? so you were lying.

only to racist believing a racist police department. there was no investigation by the police. Martin being involved in a doesn't mean he started it. given zimmerman's history of well lying and starting fights and pulling guns on people for no reason his account isn't credible.

all of that is circumstantal at best. and you support zimmerman who is a wife beater and killer so spare me the false sincerity, you disliked martin cause he was black. your right no need to worry bout a kid. how ever we need to worry about the thug who killed him and the thugs whoi defend that man.

 

@Pjdude,

Circumstantial is a better way to spell circumstantial. Speaking as someone at least partially literate, I would suggest that some of us are bright enough to gleen criminal behaviour in Trayvons text messages (They are real, but research yourself as I am not posting the links in this revamped thread.

Back to Trayvons Phone Extractions.. READ YOURSELF
1.DEALING FOR ILLEGAL GUNS,
Taken From Extraction Report #1

@ Captain Kremmen,
This is the gun dealing CHILD you are defending. Maybe one of the guns he sold will shoot someone you know (Knock wood)?
2.VIOLENT ASSAULTS (PLURAL),

Taken From Extraction report # 1

3. DRUG ABUSE, on his own phone texts.

Taken From extraction Report # 1

and also:
Was he kicked out of his own moms home?

Taken from Extraction Record # 1

I am not saying everyone here is intelligent enough to glean criminal activity from the above Trayvon transcripts, but I am.

 

Seems to be a case of Zimmerman's word/record against the dead victim's record only (he can't speak for himself about what actually went down on the night).

Did Zimmerman have a record of instability before that tragic night? Was there a check on his stability made when he was allowed to become a neighborhood watch person with a gun?

Does anyone here know whether a verdict of "Not Proven" (as distinct from "Not Guilty") is still available to juries in Scotland who cannot decide one way or the other?

If it was available to a US jury then, would such a verdict of "Not Proven" in that instance have 'satisfied' (if 'satisfied' is the word I'm looking for) the sense of 'justice-being-done' for both 'sides' on this?

Whatever the arguments about that night/case, should the present situation (whether that case contributed or not) of Zimmerman's record/stability etc affect his right to on-going gun ownership etc?

 

No, it really wan't. Martin's personal issues were not brought into the court case and Zimmerman's "word" was of only secondary importance. He didn't even testify; as is often the case, the defendants words are considered more likely to harm his case than help it. What primarily pointed toward self defense both on the night of the incident and during the trial was the strong physical evidence that pointed clearly to self defense.

Allowed? You have the wrong idea of what a neighborhood watch often is; He was self-appointed.

Interesting, I'd never heard of that. In the US though, there is a presumption of innocence of course, so "not proven" = "not guilty". Only through informal interviews with jurors afterward is it possible to get more specific.

It is my understanding that 'Not Proven' is an inaccurate description of what the jury believed, but if we assume for the sake of argument that it is accurate, perhaps it would have helped for those who are ignorant of how the legal systems works. People who understand how the legal system works generally understand why the verdict we got was correct (as a matter of law).

 

His plea of "self defense" was effectively 'his word'; irrespective of whether he supported it with testimony under oath later or not. That alone made the case uneven as regards possibility of actually making a considered judgement having regards to ALL the versions of events on the night, irrespective of 'record' of either party.

"Often is"? Are you suggesting in this case the local law enforcement officers appointed by/for the people of the town had NO say in who can go around at night with a gun, whatever his ostensible excuse? For all anyone can tell, Zimmerman may have been part of a gang, their 'lookout' and 'caser' of potential burglary targets, and pretending to be a 'neighborhood watcher'. Or he could have been a crazy person on the brink of violence, armed with a gun.

It has to be asked at this point:

Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that Zimmerman was the "local enforcer" of a drug gang who wanted the victim out of the way for some reason (encroaching on their 'turf'?)? What better than to pretend to be a 'neighborhood watch' (self-appointee) and contrive a 'self-defense' situation where the murder was easy (victim unarmed) and Zimmerman's version was the only version of what happened?

Surely the local authorities would want to control who can wander about after dark with a gun, if only to err on the side of caution? Hence my question about checks for stability, motivation etc before being given permission to wander the streets at night armed with a gun.

Yes, it is very interesting to think about why it was introduced in the first place? There must have been a cogent/practical reason for such a 'middle ground' verdict choice, else it would never had been established? Maybe it was to cover situations such as these?

Anyhow, does anyone know if that "Not Proven" verdict is still available to Scottish juries?

Again, since not all the pertinent/background evidence was actually thoroughly collected/presented/considered, and since the victim did not have a chance to put his side of the case etc, I'd say "Not Proven" would have been the most 'palatable' (again, if 'palatable' is the word I'm looking for) verdict in such a situation. But that's only my opinion.


So, do you think Zimmerman will ever be allowed to own/carry firearms of any sort; and/or to be allowed to wander the streets again at night as a "neighborhood watch' person again?

 

@ Undefined,

Your expression for a "Not Proven" ruling permissible in courts is very Anti-American. One of the things that make life great here is how our Justice System has a foundation principle of "Presumption of Innocence" (Innocent until proven guilty). It does not matter what Trayvon did or did not do, but if there is even a remote possibility Trayvon Started the fight then any court in any land would need to find Zimmerman Innocent.

You would also have to do that to just about every crimes verdict. Nobody could ever be innocent again. If you fought off a wrongful pilfering charge, the next employer might just see you as the guy on the "Not Proven" pilfering charge, and hide all their stuff.

I think allowing guns to be used by citizens is wrong. Dingbats like Zimmerman are bound to get weapons. The United States has sickening gun issues, and they are making their way north. It's disgusting.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/09/justice/george-zimmerman-girlfriend/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

 

You do know it's common for abused and threatened people to retract statements and the like to "protect" those that hurt them?

 

Yes.

I'm also aware that during heated arguments/fights, people sometimes say things they don't mean or aren't true/are exaggerated. Which this is, I don't know, but either way, it appears likely Zimmerman will not even be prosecuted for this incident.

 

no russ it only goes to to show what people were arguing than while you defended a killer. the crazy bastard has some extreme violent tendencies that put his self defense argument in rather uncredible waters.

 

Zimmerman is involved in another shooting incident. What can you say about this clown? This time someone is using the self defense claim to justify his shooting at Zimmerman.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/11/george-zimmerman-injured-florida-shooting

 

How dare he get shot at! The nerve of the man.

 

Yeah.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

A pattern has clearly developed, Zimmerman never admits to his role and his culpability in any of these incidents. Zimmerman would have us believe he is just a very unlucky guy. Zimmerman wants people to believe he is the perpetual victim, even when he leaves a nine millimeter slug in his victim's heart.

 

well when you threaten to kill people and have a long history of violence people are going to assume your going to follow through with your threat. zimmerman is nothing more than a murderous sociopath