George Zimmerman found not guilty

[Suffragette1 10]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/03/us-usa-florida-shooting-idUSBRE9620RL20130703

 

---------- Post added 18-07-2013 at 13:59 ----------

 

When you say ALL the evidence, can you actually provide (links to) any that;

 

A) show that Martin attacked Zimmerman

B) if he did, that it was unprovoked

C) show that Martin was trained in MMA

 

It's worth noting that Zimmerman had been training in MMA and that some of the witnesses thought it might have been him on top

 

 

 

Again, we don't know if that's how it happened

 

See the link above. The forensics don't support Zimmerman's version of events.

[Jonny5 10]

See the link above. The forensics don't support Zimmerman's version of events.

The forensics for the prosecution don't support Zimmermans account. Not the same thing as the forensics don't support Zimmermans account.

[flamingjimmy 10]

Quite. Here is a great blog about this appalling case.

 

A blog that presents supposition as fact.

 

"Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old young black man was chased, beaten and shot by George Zimmerman in Florida on 26th February 2012...

 

...he hunted for Trayvon Martin, confronted him, attacked him and shot him dead."

 

Those are not established facts, an interesting read though.

[RootsBooster 24]

The forensics for the prosecution don't support Zimmermans account. Not the same thing as the forensics don't support Zimmermans account.

 

Are there any forensics that support his account?

[Jonny5 10]

Yes. Stuff produced by his defense. It all came out in the trail.

[andygardener 10]

When you say ALL the evidence, can you actually provide (links to) any that;

 

A) show that Martin attacked Zimmerman

B) if he did, that it was unprovoked

C) show that Martin was trained in MMA

 

It's worth noting that Zimmerman had been training in MMA and that some of the witnesses thought it might have been him on top

 

 

 

Again, we don't know if that's how it happened

 

Yes, the evidence presented at the trial to the jury, that found him not guilty.

 

With regard to who beat who, various witnesses saw one man (lets say Man A) on top of another man (Man B) and man A was savagely beating man B in the face.

 

Most witnesses identified Man A as martin and man B as Zimmerman. One identified them the other way round. Has they both disappeared in a puff of smoke never to be seen again we could not say with 100% certainty who was who, though man A being martin would seem more likely as more witnessed id'd him as such.

 

But they didn't disappear and were both medically examined. Zimmerman had black eyes, a broken nose, bust lip, bruised cheeks, lacerations to the back of his head and the back of his clothing had clearly been in contact with the ground. Martin had no injuries at all except cuts on one fist (gunshot wound aside). Zimmermans injuries are entirely consistent with being man B. Martins with being man A.

 

The other way round the injuries and lack thereof are not possible.

 

So martin was man A -the attacker and zimmerman man B - the victim. That is not in any doubt at all other than by those being deliberately bloody minded because this case has had so much media hype and "racism" talk that some people have cast justice aside in favour of a selfish arrongant lynch mob out to punish zimmerman for the crime of being the wrong (in their eyes) ethnicity.

 

---------- Post added 18-07-2013 at 18:12 ----------

 

Quite. Here is a great blog about this appalling case.

 

If your idea of great is a combination of fantasy and downright provable lies presented as "facts". Which mine isn't.

[RootsBooster 24]

Yes. Stuff produced by his defense. It all came out in the trail.

 

Yes, the evidence presented at the trial to the jury, that found him not guilty.

The only such evidence I've seen/read only supports that Martin was on top at the moment the shot was fired

 

With regard to who beat who, various witnesses saw one man (lets say Man A) on top of another man (Man B) and man A was savagely beating man B in the face.

 

Most witnesses identified Man A as martin and man B as Zimmerman. One identified them the other way round. Has they both disappeared in a puff of smoke never to be seen again we could not say with 100% certainty who was who, though man A being martin would seem more likely as more witnessed id'd him as such.

 

But they didn't disappear and were both medically examined. Zimmerman had black eyes, a broken nose, bust lip, bruised cheeks, lacerations to the back of his head and the back of his clothing had clearly been in contact with the ground. Martin had no injuries at all except cuts on one fist (gunshot wound aside). Zimmermans injuries are entirely consistent with being man B. Martins with being man A.

 

The other way round the injuries and lack thereof are not possible.

 

So martin was man A -the attacker and zimmerman man B - the victim.

There seems to be a great many people jumping to this conclusion, that the incident must have happened how Zimmerman said because it's simply not possible that he (Zimmerman) could have attacked or tried to "apprehend" Martin, taking him to the floor (remember, it was Zimmerman who had some MMA training) then Martin getting the better of him, before he (Zimmerman) could land any punches properly, thus managing to get on top and begin fighting back against Zimmerman in self-defence, at which point (after suffering several blows and having banged his head on the ground in the tumble) Zimmerman shoots him.

Absolutely no way at all that could have happened, clearly.

Edited July 18, 2013 by RootsBooster

[Sierra 22]

I'm sorry to say this but I'm afraid you are wrong. The ones that do also don't seem to have any of the problems that you describe, but there you go....

 

Hmmm. Has Rupert been pming you? Would you like to see the nasty pm he sent me yesterday?

 

However if I'm wrong, then I stand corrected.

 

Please give me the name and location of a real, civilian, open to the general public pharmacy who uses volunteers (not pharmacy students or retired pharmacists) to actually handle drugs (all drugs, not just repackage aspirin) and fill prescriptions, and the reasons why. What are the volunteers duties and job title? What are they allowed to do or not do.

 

Also, what are their requirements for such a volunteer? i.e. If someone has a degree or license from another country, it had better be good in the US and whoever is in charge had better be aware if it isn't.

 

None of this, "I write elected officials and they don't know I'm not American, tee hee." Like they actually read the crap emails people send them.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Sierra

[andygardener 10]

 

There seems to be a great many people jumping to this conclusion, that the incident must have happened how Zimmerman said because it's simply not possible that he (Zimmerman) could have attacked or tried to "apprehend" Martin, taking him to the floor (remember, it was Zimmerman who had some MMA training) then Martin getting the better of him, before he (Zimmerman) could land any punches properly, thus managing to get on top and begin fighting back against Zimmerman in self-defence, at which point (after suffering several blows and having banged his head on the ground in the tumble) Zimmerman shoots him.

Absolutely no way at all that could have happened, clearly.

 

Given that not a single witness saw any reversal of roles of man A and man B the scene that was witnessed was 100% certainly martin on top violenty attacking zimmerman on the ground.

 

What you have just invented is a completely baseless backstory to how they ended up there, which is a completely different issue as it deals with how the fight started. Maybe there eyes met and martin gently lowered zimmerman to the ground in a passionate embrace and then zimmerman told him he was going to murder martin with his gun for a laugh so martin bravely fought back in self defence? (see we can all make up incredibly implausible fairy stories).

 

Zimmermans account of what happeneed is the most plausible for a number of reasons. It fits with the physical reality of what was witnessed and the injuries sustained. He passed different lie detectors on his account with flying colours. When told (falsely) at the police station the incedant was on CCTV to see if that flustered him his response was "thank God". The language and approach of martin that zimmerman described in his account is when you look at martins social media footprint entirely in keeping with the "no limit nigga" (his foul mouthed wannabe gangsta twitter account) he sought to portray to the world. However as zimmerman could not have known this at the time if he had invented a false account why risk adding the "homies" and "mother-expletives"? If it turned out the guy he'd snuck up on and murdered was more Carlton Banks than Tupac then he'd have teachers and friends and relatives queing up to say that is not how he'd go off.

 

A racist, drug addicted (lean, I don't know whether his pot smoking was at an addictive stage) thug brutally attacked a man doing nothing more than looking out for his neighbours safety. And because the thug got shot, you and half the media want to portray a good man as a bad man and overturn solid evidence with lurid conjecture with no basis in fact and that is at best incredibly unlikely. And that's shabby.

[Halibut 12]

Given that not a single witness saw any reversal of roles of man A and man B the scene that was witnessed was 100% certainly martin on top violenty attacking zimmerman on the ground.

 

What you have just invented is a completely baseless backstory to how they ended up there, which is a completely different issue as it deals with how the fight started. Maybe there eyes met and martin gently lowered zimmerman to the ground in a passionate embrace and then zimmerman told him he was going to murder martin with his gun for a laugh so martin bravely fought back in self defence? (see we can all make up incredibly implausible fairy stories).

 

Zimmermans account of what happeneed is the most plausible for a number of reasons. It fits with the physical reality of what was witnessed and the injuries sustained. He passed different lie detectors on his account with flying colours. When told (falsely) at the police station the incedant was on CCTV to see if that flustered him his response was "thank God". The language and approach of martin that zimmerman described in his account is when you look at martins social media footprint entirely in keeping with the "no limit nigga" (his foul mouthed wannabe gangsta twitter account) he sought to portray to the world. However as zimmerman could not have known this at the time if he had invented a false account why risk adding the "homies" and "mother-expletives"? If it turned out the guy he'd snuck up on and murdered was more Carlton Banks than Tupac then he'd have teachers and friends and relatives queing up to say that is not how he'd go off.

 

A racist, drug addicted (lean, I don't know whether his pot smoking was at an addictive stage) thug brutally attacked a man doing nothing more than looking out for his neighbours safety. And because the thug got shot, you and half the media want to portray a good man as a bad man and overturn solid evidence with lurid conjecture with no basis in fact and that is at best incredibly unlikely. And that's shabby.

 

On what grounds are you slurring the victim in this way?

[andygardener 10]

On what grounds are you slurring the victim in this way?

 

I wasn't referring to the victim I was referring to the attacker, martin.

 

Racist - he casually called a man he presumed to be white a cracker while on the phone to his little chum. She testified that's how her circle of friends refer to white people, and that they think it's fine to do so. If zimmerman had said he was suspicious of an n-word to a friend and justified it on the basis that all his pals call black people that and we think it's fine then you'd be appoplectic with rage and demanding they all get locked up. Our "no limit nigga" friend does it and you think calling him a racist as a result is a "slur".

 

He's a racist. He casually used racial epithaphs, which he then followed up with violence and a witness on his side confirmed the racial epitaphs are regularly used by their social group. And if you can't call that as racism because of the colour of their skin then you're a racist too.

 

lean addict, his facebook, now temp deleted. You'll have to wait for his parents/profiteers trying to sue for civil damages for all that to come out in open court.

[Halibut 12]

I wasn't referring to the victim I was referring to the attacker, martin.

 

Racist - he casually called a man he presumed to be white a cracker while on the phone to his little chum. She testified that's how her circle of friends refer to white people, and that they think it's fine to do so. If zimmerman had said he was suspicious of an n-word to a friend and justified it on the basis that all his pals call black people that and we think it's fine then you'd be appoplectic with rage and demanding they all get locked up. Our "no limit nigga" friend does it and you think calling him a racist as a result is a "slur".

 

He's a racist. He casually used racial epithaphs, which he then followed up with violence and a witness on his side confirmed the racial epitaphs are regularly used by their social group. And if you can't call that as racism because of the colour of their skin then you're a racist too.

 

lean addict, his facebook, now temp deleted. You'll have to wait for his parents/profiteers trying to sue for civil damages for all that to come out in open court.

 

What does this mean please?