Open Thread on Zimmerman Verdict

[Robert_Sock]

There is a danger to being too open-minded. Remember the famous quote, “Don’t be so open-minded that your brains fall out.”

Sounds like a quote from a narrow-minded person.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Actually the dead do talk though forensic evidence. Which supported Zimmerman’s account. They are ignoring TM’s account already.

Then why was there no DNA of GZ’s on TM’s hands

 

[SwizzleStick]

…I don’t see how that backs this statement up:

I’m sorry, but I don’t see the point you are trying to make. If we were all prescient, nothing bad would ever happen because we could act to prevent it.

…Admittedly, a very plausible theory is that George Zimmerman was defending his life; however I am not sure if we can be absolutely certain it is factual and factual in all aspects.

We can’t be “absolutely certain” of anything because we are not omniscient. We can only rely on the evidence, the facts, the law. Zimmerman has been tried by a jury of his peers who were presented with the evidence, the facts, the law and he was found not guilty. This should be over.

 

[MaryT777]

I can think and come to conclusions on my own and I happen to agree with Zimmerman. If Martin’s behavior was as described, Martin’s behavior from my perspective was suspicious. I would find it suspicious that an unknown person would be walking slowly and aimlessly in the dark, in the rain, walking in yards and looking into windows when burglaries had occurred in the recent past.

Zimmerman said he was looking in windows. IF he was maybe he was trying to discern what to do when being followed?

What would you do? The same things Zimmerman did?

 

[adrift]

I don’t. I think it’s awful to insinuate that people are beating a dead horse.

It’s rather judgmental and disrespectful to do to people. There are 50 threads or however many on page I to just brand some particular discussions as beating a dead horse. It appears many people find the topic of interest.

I enjoy many of your posts but I also hold to be of high value, the Constitutional Right to Free Speech.

Unless it is speech you don’t like because after all it is their free speech to say that it is beating a dead horse. FYI it depends on how your setting are as to how many post not threads are on a page.

Just because you don’t find the topic interesting, I believe it is “SLANDER” asserting others are “beating a dead horse”. Does it bother you people talk about this subject?? Perhaps if you don’t like to see people discussing a subject, you should ask the forum be closed, not accuse others of “Beating a dead horse”. It seems a way to stifle debate

“Slander” you have got to be kidding. Slander first off is oral this is written so it would be libel since it is written. It would be libel if it were a malicious, false, and defamatory statement but it wasn’t.

Now you may feel that the subject has not been fully discussed but tell me what in the last 100 post has been stated that hadn’t been stated in the first 1000 post?

You have a right to protest their comment just as they have a right to make it, as you said Free Speech. It seems you are trying to stifle their free speech.

 

[Cider]

There is no free speech on a private forum. CAF makes the rules here, constitutional free speech doesn’t even apply.

 

[maryjk]

I know this case fairly well, now Zimmerman states Martin said “Do you have a problem” as in part of this confrontation but some of the way the story has been told could have one see Martin is behind Zimmerman when according to Zimmerman’s testimony, he is sucker punched, after all, Zimmerman is going back to his truck in his version which would mean he could have his back to Trayvon Martin.

So if Zimmerman had his back to Martin, why would Martin confront him? How could Zimmerman have been following Martin, if he had his back to Martin? At that point, why wouldn’t Martin leave? Go to his father’s girlfriend’s house?

A more plausible scenario?
Yes, Zimmerman had is back to Martin, because Zimmerman was walking toward his truck. Martin, asked him “Do you have a problem?” Zimmerman turns toward Martin, saying “no.” Martin sucker punches him. “Well, you do now.”

So, your bringing the word “stupid” in may not be fully cognizant of all facts in this situation.

This question is now deleted at Yahoo, yet still shows up in a bing search:

Also, your reasoning would seem to say no one has ever been followed with a gun drawn because or unless the owner should only have it drawn if he plans to use it.

If Zimmerman was walking around the community with his weapon drawn, he is lacking in some smarts, yes. Because if you are walking around with your weapon drawn you are announcing that you are armed. And you are just waiting for someone to disarm you. Possibly the cops, since Zimmerman had already called them and expected someone to show up.

If Zimmerman was walking around with his weapon drawn, and Martin saw it, he is lacking in some smarts to confront someone with a weapon.

It would make more sense, if it is a Zimmerman stated, he didn’t have his weapon drawn.

But you can continue to believe these fantasies.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Bravo and unfortunately the race hucksters and political operatives are not letting a crisis go to waste. Setting up a hotline to see if someone in the deep dark past might recall George Zimmerman being rude to a black kid in the drive up at McDonalds or some other trumped up charge of racism is truly chilling. Our own DOJ having previously suggested that we spy on and rat out each other for criticizing the President seems to think it’s playing the lead role in a modern day 1984.

I think race relations have never been worse thanks to this and other cases (Duke LaCrosse for example) where the “white” (or half white) guy must be guilty of SOMETHING so if he’s not guilty of the crime alleged he must have gotten away with some other offense.

Truly sad in a country that used to be “from many one…” We now seem to be from one many and we don’t like each other very much anymore
Lisa

It is so very, very sad. And, I agree, it is also very frightening. And, surreal. Who could have begun to guess that this would ever happen in America? Tragic.

 

[MaryT777]

Sounds like a quote from a narrow-minded person.

 

[maryjk]

Zimmerman said he was looking in windows. I**F he was maybe he was trying to discern what to do when being followed? **

What would you do? The same things Zimmerman did?

I laughed out loud when I read that.

He was looking into windows, before Zimmerman pulled up to discern what to do if he was followed?

Or are you back to claiming that Zimmerman was following him?

 

[SwizzleStick]

This is why, GZ has a plausible theory but it is not necessarily the facts.

Take the statement Zimmernan says Trayvon makes “Tonight you are going to die!”.

Do we really believe this? Some may, Zimmernan’s theory is plausible but that sounds like something one hears in a movie as pointed out. Likewise, Zimmerman could be coached by his father who has a legal background.

It’s strange Jeantel was saying Martin was giving Zimmerman some “whoop ----”, that sounds different than saying he was trying to murder him. I concur, we can’t take Jeantel’s word but I don’t find Zimmerman’s word to be foolproof as well.

This is why I think it’s plausible to say the jury did not think the State built a case for murder or else, that that is just as possible as the Self-Defense case of Zimmerman.

I don’t mean to be unkind, but that is entirely speculative and weak.

“sounds like”
“could be”
“sounds different”
“I think”
“just as possible”

Consider evidence, facts and the law.

 

[maryjk]

Ann Coulter isn’t my favorite columnist but she makes a good point here.

The Justice-for-Trayvon crowd keeps pretending there hasn’t been a trial where the evidence overwhelmingly showed that Trayvon committed the first (and only) crime that night by assaulting Zimmerman. Instead, the race agitators are sticking with the original story peddled by the media, back when we had zero facts. To wit, that Zimmerman had stalked a young black child and shot him dead just for being black and wearing a hoodie.

townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2013/07/17/to-avoid-looking-like-a-criminal-dont-commit-a-crime-n1643187/page/full

 

[SwizzleStick]

…We know Zimmerman followed Martin he said so HIMSELF when asked. YEA was his answer when asked by the dispatcher. …

He also said “OK” when the dispatcher said “We don’t need you to do that” and evidence indicates that Zimmerman did, in fact, stop following.

This has been repeated multiple times, yet you will not accept it as truth. Why not?

 

[Robert_Sock]

So if Zimmerman had his back to Martin, why would Martin confront him? How could Zimmerman have been following Martin, if he had his back to Martin? At that point, why wouldn’t Martin leave? Go to his father’s girlfriend’s house?

Again, this is all from GZ’s perspective. Why not be unbiased and consider both perspectives?

 

[SwizzleStick]

…Most blacks would likely have responded with the same phrase. …

Now you are speaking for most blacks and not just Martin? Great.

 

[LisaA]

It is so very, very sad. And, I agree, it is also very frightening. And, surreal. Who could have begun to guess that this would ever happen in America? Tragic.

I suspect this is a partly a result of the use of identity politics. Instead of Democrats and Republicans with a variety of races, sexes, ethnic groups, education levels in each we have sharply polarized segments who seem to identify with “their tribe” regardless of the issue.

When blacks spoke up with respect to the jury finding in a positive way they were threatened, demeaned, and marginalized. Holder stands up and pontificates on SYG although it had nothing to do with this case and states there will be a federal investigation, completely ignoring the judge, jury and FBI investigation, none of which found a whiff of racism. Obama talks about needing more gun control, again totally irrelevant to this case. Does ANYONE think this case would have received a fraction of the attention had GZ killed a white man? It was just a convenient opportunity to distract us from the myriad of scandals, the moribund economy, the violence in the middle east and perhaps of more importance to us as Catholics the ever increasing violence against Christians in Muslim countries.

Meanwhile we’re focused on a sad situation that resulted from poor judgment and a set of unfortunate circumstances in a small community in Florida. I think SamH was right about 950 posts ago. Why are we wasting time on this particularly when it’s simply doing battle with the overactive imaginations of several posters who don’t want to consider the facts or the evidence.

Instead of beating the dead horse, I need the head knocker emoticon.

Lisa

 

[Robert_Sock]

To condone violence is a sin! And that’s what I see happening on this thread.

 

[Cider]

He also said “OK” when the dispatcher said “We don’t need you to do that” and evidence indicates that Zimmerman did, in fact, stop following.

This has been repeated multiple times, yet you will not accept it as truth. Why not?

Because there is no truth everything is relative remember.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Still, sometimes one may have reasons to not want someone to know where they live, some reasons might not be favorable, say if Zimmerman saw Martin smoking or something, some reasons might make sense, Martin could fear for the wellbeing of his family if Zimmerman as a complete stranger knew where he lived. Most likely, Martin should have gone home but we don’t know if it’s a possibility that Zimmerman had his gun already drawn in following Martin, we simply don’t know and rely on Zimmerman’s word in the narrative.

I have posted many times that Martin could have gone to a home with a light on and asked for help or made several other choices too if he feared for his safety. You have ignored those posts as well.

 

[maryjk]

Again, this is all from GZ’s perspective. Why not be unbiased and consider both perspectives?

This isn’t from anyone’s perspective.

Simple questions about what each one did, and why.

Why would anyone walk around with their gun drawn?

Why would you confront someone walking around with their gun drawn?