George Zimmerman Trial

[AUcivE09 582]

It makes me sick to see people suggest GZ is free because TM was black. Makes me even sicker to read 4 articles this morning in which locals (to whatever publication) are quoted refering to GZ as "a white man". The whole racist tone this has taken is beyond rediculous.

I felt GZ would be convicted on manslaughter and that the murder charge was only to please the real racists out there.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

If GZ is white then Obama is not the first black president.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

If GZ is white then Obama is not the first black president.

They said GZ is a white Hispanic, one juror was black Hispanic so I guess that makes Obama a white African.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Quote from somewhere else:

"A Hispanic man kills a black teen and is acquitted by an all-female jury, but in the end it's all the white man's fault."

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

In a speech today, Eric Holder said that DOJ will continue their investigation of the GZ case. They may or may not. Holder has said lots of things he doesn't follow thru on. His main objective seems to be political and trying to respond to the black "community." But for sure he is fanning the racial fires. I am seeing and hearing among my colleagues more and more racial hostility. And to be honest, I am beginning to resent the black leadership and their cronies. I find myself getting angry every time I see a black person on TV spouting off about racism when they are as guilty and anyone. Why hasn't Holder followed up like he should on the border agent Brian Terry. His parents lost a son too, in the line of duty no less. But it seems TM is a more important son because he was black and Brian was just an ordinary white guy.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

No one is ignoring it but the law states if the believes his life is in danger. The guy who testified to seeing TM didn't see when the gun was shoot and who was on top of who when the shot was fired.

First off, that's not what the law says. You don't have to fear for your life to use deadly force. Fear of great bodily harm is sufficient. Stop looking at one thing at a time and look at everything together, as the lead investigator said several times while on the stand. Are you suggesting that GZ may have overpowered TM and then shot him. Where is the evidence of this? This wasn't even suggested by the defense. The autopsy revealed ZERO evidence harm to TM. You're ignoring the evidence.

Not suggesting anything but what was presented in trial that didn't support his statements that he feared for his life. He said he was scared when TM was walking around his car. So why get out if he's so scared? You're ignoring the statements of GZ. I never ignored the evidence GZ got his azz kicked but it wasn't proven who actually started the fight. If GZ did he can't start a fight then b/c he is getting his azz beat then pull out a gun. You're assuming GZ's story is 100% right..i don't believe all of his story and nothing was shown that TM threw the first punch that would back his statement. TM could've easily been defending himself with a person with a gun. Wouldn't you fight? That's the problem...we don't know who started the fight. We do have statements from GZ as to if he felt he was in fear for his life or be seriously harmed. His statements don't support that he did; only his claim when he was faced with being charged.

GZ's word has been taken as 100% truth only because the prosecution didn't have another witness to say otherwise. The autopsy also showed no blood on his hands. How can you bash in someone's head and punch them in the nose with no blood on your hands what so ever? The rain crap is bogus b/c it wasn't raining that hard and the amount of blood GZ had there would've been some blood on TM's hands. You're the one ignoring evidence.

2 minor cuts my young son gets from falling off the play ground don't constitute as someone's life being in danger. If he was getting beat up as he claimed he'd have more server injuries than he had. A bunch of blood with no serious injuries.

Professionals testified about this. Your experience on the playground takes a back seat.

Common sense should take a front seat. The physican assistant who testifited and another medical expert stated he had no serious injuries. Didn't even require stitches. It was a fight...no one was denying that fact. Once again just b/c he lost the fight didn't give him a reason to pull a gun.

Just b/c GZ was losing a fight that he primarily initiated doesn't mean he has the right to bring a gun to fist fight.

Once again, zero evidence suggesting GZ started the altercation. You are speculating on things that aren't supported by evidence. It's nonsensical.

My statement that he primarily initiated things meant that GZ is the one that set things in motion for this to occur. He had several choices that wouldn't have allowed this to happened but choose to ignore them. That is certainly fact. True we'll never know who started but it's my opinion that GZ should be held responsible to a certain degree for setting things in motion that resulted in shooting an unarmed person. Not murder 2 or maybe not even manslaughter but there needs to be some sort of accountability for people who want to shoot first and ask questions later when they created the situation; esp. when it involves an unarmed person.

He had two flashlights with him...one small and one medium size...why not use that to hit TM if he was defending himself?

If you were paying attention to professional testimony, or have been in that situation, you would know that when you are in fear of your life you don't think the same as you normally would. I don't know why GZ didn't use the flashlights. Maye it was because TM was going for his firearm, as GZ stated, and his instinct was to get to it first.

You're the one speculating now! lol. How do you know GZ was truly in fear for his life. Where you in his head? Maybe = speculation so you're contradicting what you where telling me. Where's the proof that TM was going for his gun? If you watched the trial you would know that there was no DNA found on the gun. There was none. No doesn't mean TM didn't but there is nothing to support GZ's story either. Goes back to my point where the prosecution will continue to have a hard time with these type of cases if many just want to believe the defenses's story as the gospel b/c the other person is dead. Pretty easy to take one person's story when the other one is dead.

Secondly GZ claimed that he didn't know TM was dead until he got to the police station so if he thought TM was not dead why wasn't he still screaming after the gun shot? TM could've still been a threat to him even though he was shot....he claimed he thought he was still alive so why not keep screaming until someone came to his aid?

After the gun was fired, GZ wasn't even sure he had hit TM. GZ stated that TM raised up off of him and said something along the lines of, "you got it" or "you got me" and put his hands up. GZ stated he believed the this indicated that TM was giving up the fight because GZ reached the weapon first. At that point the altercation stopped. GZ wasn't being assaulted any longer. I don't see why he would continue screeming at this point.

So if he wasn't sure and his life was still in danger why isn't he still screaming for help? That's just common sense. Fine you want to fit GZ's story to make your arguement but it doesn't add up. I'm going to shoot at someone who i think is going to kill or do me major harm but yet i don't know if i have hit them with the bullet but do nothing? Yea right! You keep shooting until you do hit them or you hold them at bay with your gun and keep screaming for help. He's still a threat even if he was shot. The defense's expert even said that's why SWAT/police shoot people in the head b/c a person will be less of a threat. TM could've still been attacking GZ if he was shot in the leg or arm. As long as TM was a live he could've been a threat.

He claimed he was scared when TM supposedly circled his car....so why get out your car?

He didn't at that point. In the police dispatch call, GZ says that TM ran off. After that statment he gets out. Later he says he doesn't know where TM is.

Point is he stated he was scared. So the fact he didn't see TM within sight made him feel better? lol. How does that make sense? If i'm suspicious of someone and they scare me....i'm going to go out looking for them having no idea where they may be hiding or what they may have on them (example: a gun). Yea..that makes a lot of sense. The safest place was in his car with his gun.

His nose wasn't proven to be broken; he declined to go to the ENT as stated by the physcian assistant so we don't know if it was broken or not. A broken nose can affect a person's sinuses....yet GZ is willing to pay for MMA classes for over 18 months out of his own pocket but not go to the ENT for a broken nose?

This medical report says he did have a broken nose. Are you suggesting this physician is lying? Or that GZ broke his own nose after the altercation? You are reaching if so. The pictures taken of GZ after the altercation show clear damage to his nose. http://media.miamihe...2uxIe.So.56.pdf

The assistant he saw testified to the fact that he refused to go to the ENT and that no x rays were done. He may have had them after the fact but that night he refused to go to the hospital. GZ later went to a family physican...go figure. I'm sure daddy Zimmerman helped out with getting that broken nose on his medical history. The fact he denied medical attention that night with paramedics and the physican who saw him (who was not his family physican) calls question to if his nose was really broke. Who waits to go in for an appointment for any type of broken bone and considering the situation that happened that night?

I get as the law states they had no choice to let him go free but doesn't mean it's right and just. He just gets off b/c there is a loophole in the law.

What is this loophole? The ones of you that are saying this would have done the same thing if you were GZ. You won't admit it here because you don't want to be hypocritial, but if you are in fear for your life you'd whistle a different tune real quick. You would instinctively do whatever you had to do to end that beating and save yourself. And you have the legal right to do so. That isn't a loophole.

And I know this will get the response, "I wouldn't have left the vehicle." Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't. Either way, that doesn't give someone else a green light to beat you.

Maybe you would but he could've simply announced he was neighborhood watch from his car. Do you think a criminal is going to stick around after that? I don't expect most to understand TM's point b/c many have never walked in those shoes until it happens to their child or love one then they go yelling why this or why that. Point is this could've been anybody's child and GZ would've been playing wild wild west. Again...you're speculating b/c we don't know who started it so TM could've been defending himself.

GZ was clearly wrong and made changes to his story to fit self defense

I'm tired of reading this. "GZ told lies." "GZ changed his story." I've asked someone to post these lies and got only crickets. Now i'm asking you, specifically, to do the same. If you cannot, can it. If you can, as I may know what you are referring to, I'll show you the testimony stating that is completely normal in a case like this along with the testimony of the lead investigator who stated under oath that he believed GZ to be telling the truth. Once again, I can't understand why some of you ignore the evidence of this case when making your points and opinions.

Well it's the truth. Maybe not a truth you'd like to hear but it is.

1.) He stated in one video TM came from behind the bushes; in another statement he said he attacked him from behind coming from the "T" area when he was going to his car.

2.) He stated he spread TM's arms out; his arms were found underneath him

3.) GZ claimed he got out to look for an address yet he clearly passed by a visible address on a home as illustrated by the police

4.) GZ claimed in one statement his gun was positioned on his side then later changed it to being position behind his back

5.) GZ stated first that TM was running away from him. Later he states that TM was "skipping"..never seen a 17 year old skip.

6.) GZ stated at bond hearing when he apologized to TM's family he didn't know TM was a teenager but in his 911 call he clearly stated he thought he guy was in his teens...late teens. Why important you ask b/c TM was considered a minor which would've meant more extra time if convicted.

7.) GZ was asked by Irvin on lie detector test: "Where you in fear for your life when you shot the guy?"

GZ answer: No That pretty much explains it; except thereafter he had time to go home...lawyer up and change the story to fit self defense. Fine if that's not what you believe but there is plenty that would've justified a guilty verdict. He got 6 women to believe otherwise but so did OJ and Casey Anthony doesn't mean they are innocent...just found not guilty.

Point is..if his story is self defense why do certain small but key details change? The truth doesn't change...lies do. No one is ignoring the evidence just b/c they don't agree with how you view it. I've followed the trial from start to finish. If you don't agree then fine but i don't have to "can it" just b/c i don't agree with the majority. Don't like it...don't read it! Plain and simple.

Fine...he goes free..now he'll get to feel what it's like to be a black man the rest of his life. Hope he enjoys it. Point is these dumb laws need to be changed b/c it's going to be more cases like this. Everyone taking the word of the killer b/c the person who's dead can't defend themselves in court so the defense gets the benefit of the doubt in court b/c it's hard to convict without having other reliable witness to the event so the benefit goes to the defense.

Wow... Depending on your response, I may be finished discussing this with you. There were witnesses. There was audio evidence. There was physical evidence. There was medical evidence. There was testimony from many professionals. Go out and look at it so you can form a more educated opinion.

[tgr4lfe 220]

In a speech today, Eric Holder said that DOJ will continue their investigation of the GZ case. They may or may not. Holder has said lots of things he doesn't follow thru on. His main objective seems to be political and trying to respond to the black "community." But for sure he is fanning the racial fires. I am seeing and hearing among my colleagues more and more racial hostility. And to be honest, I am beginning to resent the black leadership and their cronies. I find myself getting angry every time I see a black person on TV spouting off about racism when they are as guilty and anyone. Why hasn't Holder followed up like he should on the border agent Brian Terry. His parents lost a son too, in the line of duty no less. But it seems TM is a more important son because he was black and Brian was just an ordinary white guy.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

It makes me sick to see people suggest GZ is free because TM was black. Makes me even sicker to read 4 articles this morning in which locals (to whatever publication) are quoted refering to GZ as "a white man". The whole racist tone this has taken is beyond rediculous.

I felt GZ would be convicted on manslaughter and that the murder charge was only to please the real racists out there.

That's the fault of the media. I believe GZ is free b/c of daddy Zimmerman and police who choose not to grant a real investigation and chalked it up to TM just being another thug b/c of what he was wearing. I think if TM was white, black, hispanic etc...that GZ would've done the same thing. Anger should be shifted to the police who botched things from the start. It shouldn't have took marchers or protesters for a parent to get a fair investigation into their child's murder when he was unarmed. GZ was simply sent home with all believeing his story. Take the time to correctly gather evidence and witness testimony to either support or not support GZ's story. That wasn't done. Things were done after the fact and done half azzed at that. I'm sure any parent with want that whether their child was at fault or not. That's all TM's family asked for the media hores made it into something bigger beyond just getting equal treatment and justice.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

No one is ignoring it but the law states if the believes his life is in danger. The guy who testified to seeing TM didn't see when the gun was shoot and who was on top of who when the shot was fired.

First off, that's not what the law says. You don't have to fear for your life to use deadly force. Fear of great bodily harm is sufficient. Stop looking at one thing at a time and look at everything together, as the lead investigator said several times while on the stand. Are you suggesting that GZ may have overpowered TM and then shot him. Where is the evidence of this? This wasn't even suggested by the defense. The autopsy revealed ZERO evidence harm to TM. You're ignoring the evidence.

2 minor cuts my young son gets from falling off the play ground don't constitute as someone's life being in danger. If he was getting beat up as he claimed he'd have more server injuries than he had. A bunch of blood with no serious injuries.

Professionals testified about this. Your experience on the playground takes a back seat.

Just b/c GZ was losing a fight that he primarily initiated doesn't mean he has the right to bring a gun to fist fight.

Once again, zero evidence suggesting GZ started the altercation. You are speculating on things that aren't supported by evidence. It's nonsensical.

He had two flashlights with him...one small and one medium size...why not use that to hit TM if he was defending himself?

If you were paying attention to professional testimony, or have been in that situation, you would know that when you are in fear of your life you don't think the same as you normally would. I don't know why GZ didn't use the flashlights. Maye it was because TM was going for his firearm, as GZ stated, and his instinct was to get to it first.

Secondly GZ claimed that he didn't know TM was dead until he got to the police station so if he thought TM was not dead why wasn't he still screaming after the gun shot? TM could've still been a threat to him even though he was shot....he claimed he thought he was still alive so why not keep screaming until someone came to his aid?

After the gun was fired, GZ wasn't even sure he had hit TM. GZ stated that TM raised up off of him and said something along the lines of, "you got it" or "you got me" and put his hands up. GZ stated he believed the this indicated that TM was giving up the fight because GZ reached the weapon first. At that point the altercation stopped. GZ wasn't being assaulted any longer. I don't see why he would continue screeming at this point.

He claimed he was scared when TM supposedly circled his car....so why get out your car?

He didn't at that point. In the police dispatch call, GZ says that TM ran off. After that statment he gets out. Later he says he doesn't know where TM is.

His nose wasn't proven to be broken; he declined to go to the ENT as stated by the physcian assistant so we don't know if it was broken or not. A broken nose can affect a person's sinuses....yet GZ is willing to pay for MMA classes for over 18 months out of his own pocket but not go to the ENT for a broken nose?

This medical report says he did have a broken nose. Are you suggesting the PAC is lying? Or that GZ broke his own nose after the altercation? You are reaching if so. The pictures taken of GZ after the altercation show clear damage to his nose. http://media.miamihe...2uxIe.So.56.pdf

I get as the law states they had no choice to let him go free but doesn't mean it's right and just. He just gets off b/c there is a loophole in the law.

What is this loophole? The ones of you that are saying this would have done the same thing if you were GZ. You won't admit it here because you don't want to be hypocritial, but if you are in fear for your life you'd whistle a different tune real quick. You would instinctively do whatever you had to do to end that beating and save yourself. And you have the legal right to do so. That isn't a loophole.

And I know this will get the response, "I wouldn't have left the vehicle." Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't. Either way, that doesn't give someone else a green light to beat you.

GZ was clearly wrong and made changes to his story to fit self defense

I'm tired of reading this. "GZ told lies." "GZ changed his story." I've asked someone to post these lies and got only crickets. Now i'm asking you, specifically, to do the same. If you cannot, can it. If you can, as I may know what you are referring to, I'll show you the testimony stating that is completely normal in a case like this along with the testimony of the lead investigator who stated under oath that he believed GZ to be telling the truth. Once again, I can't understand why some of you ignore the evidence of this case when making your points and opinions.

Fine...he goes free..now he'll get to feel what it's like to be a black man the rest of his life. Hope he enjoys it. Point is these dumb laws need to be changed b/c it's going to be more cases like this. Everyone taking the word of the killer b/c the person who's dead can't defend themselves in court so the defense gets the benefit of the doubt in court b/c it's hard to convict without having other reliable witness to the event so the benefit goes to the defense.

Wow... Depending on your response, I may be finished discussing this with you. There were witnesses. There was audio evidence. There was physical evidence. There was medical evidence. There was testimony from many professionals. Go out and look at it so you can form a more educated opinion.

I'm very informed about the case. Covered the case from start to finish. Just b/c i don't agree with you doesn't make me uninformed. My opinion is very educated....it's the fact you don't like my opinion....doesn't mean there are not facts and evidence to support it becuse there certainly are.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

It makes me sick to see people suggest GZ is free because TM was black. Makes me even sicker to read 4 articles this morning in which locals (to whatever publication) are quoted refering to GZ as "a white man". The whole racist tone this has taken is beyond rediculous.

I felt GZ would be convicted on manslaughter and that the murder charge was only to please the real racists out there.

That's the fault of the media. I believe GZ is free b/c of daddy Zimmerman and police who choose not to grant a real investigation and chalked it up to TM just being another thug b/c of what he was wearing. I think if TM was white, black, hispanic etc...that GZ would've done the same thing. Anger should be shifted to the police who botched things from the start. It shouldn't have took marchers or protesters for a parent to get a fair investigation into their child's murder when he was unarmed. GZ was simply sent home with all believeing his story. Take the time to correctly gather evidence and witness testimony to either support or not support GZ's story. That wasn't done. Things were done after the fact and done half azzed at that. I'm sure any parent with want that whether their child was at fault or not. That's all TM's family asked for the media hores made it into something bigger beyond just getting equal treatment and justice.

What witnesses?

[homersapien 11,393]

Not at all. However, he wasn't the innocent cherub that he was depicted to be either.

Never said he was innocent but he wasn't a thug as many stated either. TM doesn't have an arrest record. GZ is clearly the thug with the criminal record to prove it. Assualt on an officer and domestic issues and only had to go to alcohol rehab and record mysteriously goes away thanks to judge daddy Zimmerman. Then they go let GZ a criminal have a gun? Sounds about right.

But, but, a guy writing a commentary piece for World Net Daily opines that he should have been arrested instead of suspended from school. :-\ Course, even then we are not talking about anything involving physical violence (unlike Zimmerman).

This parsing of TM's character is just irrelevant BS. It has nothing to do with the fact that Zimmerman stalked and ultimately shot an unarmed kid who was minding his own business. Zimmerman gets to walk based on his own shaky story without even having to testify. Yet no one disputes the fact that he took it on himself to play cop against the request of the dispatcher.

Have you heard anything about a possible civil suit?

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

It makes me sick to see people suggest GZ is free because TM was black. Makes me even sicker to read 4 articles this morning in which locals (to whatever publication) are quoted refering to GZ as "a white man". The whole racist tone this has taken is beyond rediculous.

I felt GZ would be convicted on manslaughter and that the murder charge was only to please the real racists out there.

That's the fault of the media. I believe GZ is free b/c of daddy Zimmerman and police who choose not to grant a real investigation and chalked it up to TM just being another thug b/c of what he was wearing. I think if TM was white, black, hispanic etc...that GZ would've done the same thing. Anger should be shifted to the police who botched things from the start. It shouldn't have took marchers or protesters for a parent to get a fair investigation into their child's murder when he was unarmed. GZ was simply sent home with all believeing his story. Take the time to correctly gather evidence and witness testimony to either support or not support GZ's story. That wasn't done. Things were done after the fact and done half azzed at that. I'm sure any parent with want that whether their child was at fault or not. That's all TM's family asked for the media hores made it into something bigger beyond just getting equal treatment and justice.

What witnesses?

There were other poeple who made statements they heard events of that night but police failed to get statements from them or follow up with them. Some even appeared on t.v. telling their stories. The girl Rachel had to be located by TM's family. The policed didn't even bother to go through his phone and contact the last person or people that day he spoke with that had to be done by his family's lawyers.

[AUDub 11,158]

Justice does not always mean fairness. Lots of people go free that should be punished and many are punished that should not be.

The burden on the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the right of self defense are at the core of the justice system.

We will never know for sure if justice has been fair concerning what happened that night.

+1

In a speech today, Eric Holder said that DOJ will continue their investigation of the GZ case. They may or may not. Holder has said lots of things he doesn't follow thru on. His main objective seems to be political and trying to respond to the black "community." But for sure he is fanning the racial fires. I am seeing and hearing among my colleagues more and more racial hostility. And to be honest, I am beginning to resent the black leadership and their cronies. I find myself getting angry every time I see a black person on TV spouting off about racism when they are as guilty and anyone. Why hasn't Holder followed up like he should on the border agent Brian Terry. His parents lost a son too, in the line of duty no less. But it seems TM is a more important son because he was black and Brian was just an ordinary white guy.

It superficially resembles the actions of the first Bush DOJ after the Rodney King trial to me.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

Not at all. However, he wasn't the innocent cherub that he was depicted to be either.

Never said he was innocent but he wasn't a thug as many stated either. TM doesn't have an arrest record. GZ is clearly the thug with the criminal record to prove it. Assualt on an officer and domestic issues and only had to go to alcohol rehab and record mysteriously goes away thanks to judge daddy Zimmerman. Then they go let GZ a criminal have a gun? Sounds about right.

But, but, a guy writing a commentary piece for World Net Daily opines that he should have been arrested instead of suspended from school. :-\ Course, even then we are not talking about anything involving physical violence (unlike Zimmerman).

This parsing of TM's character is just irrelevant BS. It has nothing to do with the fact that Zimmerman stalked and ultimately shot an unarmed kid who was minding his own business. Zimmerman gets to walk based on his own shaky story without even having to testify. Yet no one disputes the fact that he took it on himself to play cop against the request of the dispatcher.

Have you heard anything about a possible civil suit?

At this point it is what it is. Just find it quite interesting the insensitivity of an unarmed child being killed with believing a known criminal who had a violent background. Just heard a few rumors about a civil suit. I doubt it; wouldn't help how the parents feel anyway IMO. Hopefully this a learning experience for all and some laws can get changed b/c it past a black or white thing....it's not about color as it could've been anyone's child...it's about doing the right thing!

[homersapien 11,393]

In a speech today, Eric Holder said that DOJ will continue their investigation of the GZ case. They may or may not. Holder has said lots of things he doesn't follow thru on. His main objective seems to be political and trying to respond to the black "community." But for sure he is fanning the racial fires. I am seeing and hearing among my colleagues more and more racial hostility. And to be honest, I am beginning to resent the black leadership and their cronies. I find myself getting angry every time I see a black person on TV spouting off about racism when they are as guilty and anyone. Why hasn't Holder followed up like he should on the border agent Brian Terry. His parents lost a son too, in the line of duty no less. But it seems TM is a more important son because he was black and Brian was just an ordinary white guy.

Seriously?

[AUcivE09 582]

It makes me sick to see people suggest GZ is free because TM was black. Makes me even sicker to read 4 articles this morning in which locals (to whatever publication) are quoted refering to GZ as "a white man". The whole racist tone this has taken is beyond rediculous.

I felt GZ would be convicted on manslaughter and that the murder charge was only to please the real racists out there.

That's the fault of the media. I believe GZ is free b/c of daddy Zimmerman and police who choose not to grant a real investigation and chalked it up to TM just being another thug b/c of what he was wearing. I think if TM was white, black, hispanic etc...that GZ would've done the same thing. Anger should be shifted to the police who botched things from the start. It shouldn't have took marchers or protesters for a parent to get a fair investigation into their child's murder when he was unarmed. GZ was simply sent home with all believeing his story. Take the time to correctly gather evidence and witness testimony to either support or not support GZ's story. That wasn't done. Things were done after the fact and done half azzed at that. I'm sure any parent with want that whether their child was at fault or not. That's all TM's family asked for the media hores made it into something bigger beyond just getting equal treatment and justice.

What witnesses?

There were other poeple who made statements they heard events of that night but police failed to get statements from them or follow up with them. Some even appeared on t.v. telling their stories. The girl Rachel had to be located by TM's family. The policed didn't even bother to go through his phone and contact the last person or people that day he spoke with that had to be done by his family's lawyers.

I think you are making this out to be something more than it really is. Rachel was not a good witness to begin with and it can be argued that she did more harm than good. I mean - what did she prove? From what I gather of EVERY witness is that NONE of them said "I saw exactly what happened." Look, I dont want to take up for GZ but the continued outcry over this is nothing but racist motives. It is unfortunate TM died that night. I do not think it matters if he was really the happy, do good kid he appeared to be when he was 12 or if he was the thug he portrayed himself to be in the recent facebook photo - 2 hotheads met up and 1 was killed. People forget that evidence shows TM could have ended this as well and I am afraid that is what sank the manslaughter charge in the the jury's eyes.

The cries that the police and prosecution didnt do their job is just wrong. They had nothing to work with to begin the case.

[autigeremt 6,652]

Which you are certainly free to do so but just to say move on doesn't mean a discussion can't continue. Don't want to hear it...pretty simple thing to do not to discuss or hear about it. Maybe you'd like to forget but some may not wish to do so.

Why? So justice can be served to fit what others want to believe? If what you say is true of the investigation, or lack thereof, then maybe we should have another look at how this case was investigated by the Police Dept. I'd like to see more evidence of that than conjecture based on what one believes over another and what you may or may not have "covered" in this case. There's no way this case would have been covered up by the police without an onslaught of media hypertension. Most outlets believed is was a fair trial based on the evidence in court. If all these people heard things but didn't see them they can't really know for sure what happened either. I think a lot of people want to see and hear what they want to see and hear. Mr. Martin was no angel. He had been suspended from school days prior for theft and other misbehavior. He was 200 miles away from his home in Miami because of his behavior. What happened between he and Zimmerman is really hard to say, but based on the evidence both men should have used better judgment, but the law sided with Zimmerman in the courtroom.

[MDM4AU 332]

Which you are certainly free to do so but just to say move on doesn't mean a discussion can't continue. Don't want to hear it...pretty simple thing to do not to discuss or hear about it. Maybe you'd like to forget but some may not wish to do so.

No one said a discussion couldn't continue. No one is stopping you from carrying on the discussion. He simply gave his opinion and it seems to have stuck in your craw.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

It makes me sick to see people suggest GZ is free because TM was black. Makes me even sicker to read 4 articles this morning in which locals (to whatever publication) are quoted refering to GZ as "a white man". The whole racist tone this has taken is beyond rediculous.

I felt GZ would be convicted on manslaughter and that the murder charge was only to please the real racists out there.

That's the fault of the media. I believe GZ is free b/c of daddy Zimmerman and police who choose not to grant a real investigation and chalked it up to TM just being another thug b/c of what he was wearing. I think if TM was white, black, hispanic etc...that GZ would've done the same thing. Anger should be shifted to the police who botched things from the start. It shouldn't have took marchers or protesters for a parent to get a fair investigation into their child's murder when he was unarmed. GZ was simply sent home with all believeing his story. Take the time to correctly gather evidence and witness testimony to either support or not support GZ's story. That wasn't done. Things were done after the fact and done half azzed at that. I'm sure any parent with want that whether their child was at fault or not. That's all TM's family asked for the media hores made it into something bigger beyond just getting equal treatment and justice.

What witnesses?

There were other poeple who made statements they heard events of that night but police failed to get statements from them or follow up with them. Some even appeared on t.v. telling their stories. The girl Rachel had to be located by TM's family. The policed didn't even bother to go through his phone and contact the last person or people that day he spoke with that had to be done by his family's lawyers.

I think you are making this out to be something more than it really is. Rachel was not a good witness to begin with and it can be argued that she did more harm than good. I mean - what did she prove? From what I gather of EVERY witness is that NONE of them said "I saw exactly what happened." Look, I dont want to take up for GZ but the continued outcry over this is nothing but racist motives. It is unfortunate TM died that night. I do not think it matters if he was really the happy, do good kid he appeared to be when he was 12 or if he was the thug he portrayed himself to be in the recent facebook photo - 2 hotheads met up and 1 was killed. People forget that evidence shows TM could have ended this as well and I am afraid that is what sank the manslaughter charge in the the jury's eyes.

The cries that the police and prosecution didnt do their job is just wrong. They had nothing to work with to begin the case.

Not asking anyone to take sides. Point is the police and investigation team didn't perform their job to the standards in which they are required to do that made it hard for the prosecution to present the case. Sure the prosecution made mistakes but not huge ones. The major injustice is the fact that after it happened that night the procedures that normally go along with an investigation were poorly carried out. GZ's story was automatically believed and pressure had to be applied for them to do their jobs correctly and after that fact it was still a messy investigation (not bagging TM's hands, not storing his hoddie correctly so that more evidence could be gathered, not following up with witnesses like Rachel). In your opinion Rachel's statements didn't mean much which certainly respect but she was very key in that she was on the phone and testified to what she heard btw TM an GZ. Sure many didn't like that she could present it better but what reason did she have to lie? She had only been friends with him for 2-3 weeks.

They wanted to do away with her testimony b/c she lied about not going to his funeral and wake b/c she felt guilty she was the last person to speak with TM. Point is whether she is believeable or not it was the police's job to find and locate her to get her statement not TM's lawyers. That's pretty basic stuff for police people. It was taking the too long to even do that and had not done so and were not getting answers or communication with the people in charge except for there wasn't enough to charge. Well Rachel's statements are pretty important b/c that called into question GZ's account. Why did he have to run home? GZ had a right to get out his car and carry a gun so it's TM's fault for not running home. So you're going to advise a 17 year old who has no clue who is following hime to run home where his father nor his father's girlfriend was home at the time...only the 12 year old boy? He didn't know if GZ was a child molester or a gang member but yet he was going to lead him right to his home where no adult was at the time. You're better off hiding until they seem to be gone or picking up a stick or something to arm yourself. Some of the things from GZ's point just isn't logical. TM runs from him then all of sudden he's going to go try to get in a fight with him. Certainly is possible but probable...highly doubt it.

[AUGradinTX 0]

No one is ignoring it but the law states if the believes his life is in danger. The guy who testified to seeing TM didn't see when the gun was shoot and who was on top of who when the shot was fired.

First off, that's not what the law says. You don't have to fear for your life to use deadly force. Fear of great bodily harm is sufficient. Stop looking at one thing at a time and look at everything together, as the lead investigator said several times while on the stand. Are you suggesting that GZ may have overpowered TM and then shot him. Where is the evidence of this? This wasn't even suggested by the defense. The autopsy revealed ZERO evidence harm to TM. You're ignoring the evidence.

2 minor cuts my young son gets from falling off the play ground don't constitute as someone's life being in danger. If he was getting beat up as he claimed he'd have more server injuries than he had. A bunch of blood with no serious injuries.

Professionals testified about this. Your experience on the playground takes a back seat.

Just b/c GZ was losing a fight that he primarily initiated doesn't mean he has the right to bring a gun to fist fight.

Once again, zero evidence suggesting GZ started the altercation. You are speculating on things that aren't supported by evidence. It's nonsensical.

He had two flashlights with him...one small and one medium size...why not use that to hit TM if he was defending himself?

If you were paying attention to professional testimony, or have been in that situation, you would know that when you are in fear of your life you don't think the same as you normally would. I don't know why GZ didn't use the flashlights. Maye it was because TM was going for his firearm, as GZ stated, and his instinct was to get to it first.

Secondly GZ claimed that he didn't know TM was dead until he got to the police station so if he thought TM was not dead why wasn't he still screaming after the gun shot? TM could've still been a threat to him even though he was shot....he claimed he thought he was still alive so why not keep screaming until someone came to his aid?

After the gun was fired, GZ wasn't even sure he had hit TM. GZ stated that TM raised up off of him and said something along the lines of, "you got it" or "you got me" and put his hands up. GZ stated he believed the this indicated that TM was giving up the fight because GZ reached the weapon first. At that point the altercation stopped. GZ wasn't being assaulted any longer. I don't see why he would continue screeming at this point.

He claimed he was scared when TM supposedly circled his car....so why get out your car?

He didn't at that point. In the police dispatch call, GZ says that TM ran off. After that statment he gets out. Later he says he doesn't know where TM is.

His nose wasn't proven to be broken; he declined to go to the ENT as stated by the physcian assistant so we don't know if it was broken or not. A broken nose can affect a person's sinuses....yet GZ is willing to pay for MMA classes for over 18 months out of his own pocket but not go to the ENT for a broken nose?

This medical report says he did have a broken nose. Are you suggesting the PAC is lying? Or that GZ broke his own nose after the altercation? You are reaching if so. The pictures taken of GZ after the altercation show clear damage to his nose. http://media.miamihe...2uxIe.So.56.pdf

I get as the law states they had no choice to let him go free but doesn't mean it's right and just. He just gets off b/c there is a loophole in the law.

What is this loophole? The ones of you that are saying this would have done the same thing if you were GZ. You won't admit it here because you don't want to be hypocritial, but if you are in fear for your life you'd whistle a different tune real quick. You would instinctively do whatever you had to do to end that beating and save yourself. And you have the legal right to do so. That isn't a loophole.

And I know this will get the response, "I wouldn't have left the vehicle." Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't. Either way, that doesn't give someone else a green light to beat you.

GZ was clearly wrong and made changes to his story to fit self defense

I'm tired of reading this. "GZ told lies." "GZ changed his story." I've asked someone to post these lies and got only crickets. Now i'm asking you, specifically, to do the same. If you cannot, can it. If you can, as I may know what you are referring to, I'll show you the testimony stating that is completely normal in a case like this along with the testimony of the lead investigator who stated under oath that he believed GZ to be telling the truth. Once again, I can't understand why some of you ignore the evidence of this case when making your points and opinions.

Fine...he goes free..now he'll get to feel what it's like to be a black man the rest of his life. Hope he enjoys it. Point is these dumb laws need to be changed b/c it's going to be more cases like this. Everyone taking the word of the killer b/c the person who's dead can't defend themselves in court so the defense gets the benefit of the doubt in court b/c it's hard to convict without having other reliable witness to the event so the benefit goes to the defense.

Wow... Depending on your response, I may be finished discussing this with you. There were witnesses. There was audio evidence. There was physical evidence. There was medical evidence. There was testimony from many professionals. Go out and look at it so you can form a more educated opinion.

I'm very informed about the case. Covered the case from start to finish. Just b/c i don't agree with you doesn't make me uninformed. My opinion is very educated....it's the fact you don't like my opinion....doesn't mean there are not facts and evidence to support it becuse there certainly are.

I don't like your opinion? I have no emotional reaction to your opinion. It just doesn't coincide with the evidence. I'm more than willing to hear facts and evidence you believe support your opinion. However, I too, followed the case/trial and haven't seen much, if any, evidence that supports a ruling other than what the jury rested on.

Looking forward to hearing otherwise...

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

Which you are certainly free to do so but just to say move on doesn't mean a discussion can't continue. Don't want to hear it...pretty simple thing to do not to discuss or hear about it. Maybe you'd like to forget but some may not wish to do so.

Why? So justice can be served to fit what others want to believe? If what you say is true of the investigation, or lack thereof, then maybe we should have another look at how this case was investigated by the Police Dept. I'd like to see more evidence of that than conjecture based on what one believes over another and what you may or may not have "covered" in this case. There's no way this case would have been covered up by the police without an onslaught of media hypertension. Most outlets believed is was a fair trial based on the evidence in court. If all these people heard things but didn't see them they can't really know for sure what happened either. I think a lot of people want to see and hear what they want to see and hear. Mr. Martin was no angel. He had been suspended from school days prior for theft and other misbehavior. He was 200 miles away from his home in Miami because of his behavior. What happened between he and Zimmerman is really hard to say, but based on the evidence both men should have used better judgment, but the law sided with Zimmerman in the courtroom.

Your facts are wrong and that's what is wrong with many people's statement. Never stated the trial wasn't fair....i've stated the investigation was botched which did make it hard for the prosecution. It is what it is but doesn't make it right and innocent..just not found guilty. I've stated TM wasn't an angel but from according to TM's teacher when this first happened...he was suppended due to being tardy not drugs. So what he smoked weed and burglary tool and had a picture of a gun...did he have a tool and gun that night? I'm sure he wish he had. So he is at fault b/c he wasn't an angel? He did nothing wrong that night to be followed and pursued which is what matters. I'm not fitting anything to support TM. I watched the trial from start to finish with an open mind and came to a conclusion. Fine if your opinion is different but my opinions are not based on being on a certain side. I've also stated that i didn't think GZ was a racist much of what many people have stated that support TM. I don't really believe that but i do believe he profiled TM according to his attire and thats no more right than racial profiling.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

Which you are certainly free to do so but just to say move on doesn't mean a discussion can't continue. Don't want to hear it...pretty simple thing to do not to discuss or hear about it. Maybe you'd like to forget but some may not wish to do so.

No one said a discussion couldn't continue. No one is stopping you from carrying on the discussion. He simply gave his opinion and it seems to have stuck in your craw.

It was implied. Nothing is stuck in my craw but thanks for inquiring.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

No one is ignoring it but the law states if the believes his life is in danger. The guy who testified to seeing TM didn't see when the gun was shoot and who was on top of who when the shot was fired.

First off, that's not what the law says. You don't have to fear for your life to use deadly force. Fear of great bodily harm is sufficient. Stop looking at one thing at a time and look at everything together, as the lead investigator said several times while on the stand. Are you suggesting that GZ may have overpowered TM and then shot him. Where is the evidence of this? This wasn't even suggested by the defense. The autopsy revealed ZERO evidence harm to TM. You're ignoring the evidence.

2 minor cuts my young son gets from falling off the play ground don't constitute as someone's life being in danger. If he was getting beat up as he claimed he'd have more server injuries than he had. A bunch of blood with no serious injuries.

Professionals testified about this. Your experience on the playground takes a back seat.

Just b/c GZ was losing a fight that he primarily initiated doesn't mean he has the right to bring a gun to fist fight.

Once again, zero evidence suggesting GZ started the altercation. You are speculating on things that aren't supported by evidence. It's nonsensical.

He had two flashlights with him...one small and one medium size...why not use that to hit TM if he was defending himself?

If you were paying attention to professional testimony, or have been in that situation, you would know that when you are in fear of your life you don't think the same as you normally would. I don't know why GZ didn't use the flashlights. Maye it was because TM was going for his firearm, as GZ stated, and his instinct was to get to it first.

Secondly GZ claimed that he didn't know TM was dead until he got to the police station so if he thought TM was not dead why wasn't he still screaming after the gun shot? TM could've still been a threat to him even though he was shot....he claimed he thought he was still alive so why not keep screaming until someone came to his aid?

After the gun was fired, GZ wasn't even sure he had hit TM. GZ stated that TM raised up off of him and said something along the lines of, "you got it" or "you got me" and put his hands up. GZ stated he believed the this indicated that TM was giving up the fight because GZ reached the weapon first. At that point the altercation stopped. GZ wasn't being assaulted any longer. I don't see why he would continue screeming at this point.

He claimed he was scared when TM supposedly circled his car....so why get out your car?

He didn't at that point. In the police dispatch call, GZ says that TM ran off. After that statment he gets out. Later he says he doesn't know where TM is.

His nose wasn't proven to be broken; he declined to go to the ENT as stated by the physcian assistant so we don't know if it was broken or not. A broken nose can affect a person's sinuses....yet GZ is willing to pay for MMA classes for over 18 months out of his own pocket but not go to the ENT for a broken nose?

This medical report says he did have a broken nose. Are you suggesting the PAC is lying? Or that GZ broke his own nose after the altercation? You are reaching if so. The pictures taken of GZ after the altercation show clear damage to his nose. http://media.miamihe...2uxIe.So.56.pdf

I get as the law states they had no choice to let him go free but doesn't mean it's right and just. He just gets off b/c there is a loophole in the law.

What is this loophole? The ones of you that are saying this would have done the same thing if you were GZ. You won't admit it here because you don't want to be hypocritial, but if you are in fear for your life you'd whistle a different tune real quick. You would instinctively do whatever you had to do to end that beating and save yourself. And you have the legal right to do so. That isn't a loophole.

And I know this will get the response, "I wouldn't have left the vehicle." Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't. Either way, that doesn't give someone else a green light to beat you.

GZ was clearly wrong and made changes to his story to fit self defense

I'm tired of reading this. "GZ told lies." "GZ changed his story." I've asked someone to post these lies and got only crickets. Now i'm asking you, specifically, to do the same. If you cannot, can it. If you can, as I may know what you are referring to, I'll show you the testimony stating that is completely normal in a case like this along with the testimony of the lead investigator who stated under oath that he believed GZ to be telling the truth. Once again, I can't understand why some of you ignore the evidence of this case when making your points and opinions.

Fine...he goes free..now he'll get to feel what it's like to be a black man the rest of his life. Hope he enjoys it. Point is these dumb laws need to be changed b/c it's going to be more cases like this. Everyone taking the word of the killer b/c the person who's dead can't defend themselves in court so the defense gets the benefit of the doubt in court b/c it's hard to convict without having other reliable witness to the event so the benefit goes to the defense.

Wow... Depending on your response, I may be finished discussing this with you. There were witnesses. There was audio evidence. There was physical evidence. There was medical evidence. There was testimony from many professionals. Go out and look at it so you can form a more educated opinion.

I'm very informed about the case. Covered the case from start to finish. Just b/c i don't agree with you doesn't make me uninformed. My opinion is very educated....it's the fact you don't like my opinion....doesn't mean there are not facts and evidence to support it becuse there certainly are.

I don't like your opinion? I have no emotional reaction to your opinion. It just doesn't coincide with the evidence. I'm more than willing to hear facts and evidence you believe support your opinion. However, I too, followed the case/trial and haven't seen much, if any, evidence that supports a ruling other than what the jury rested on.

Looking forward to hearing otherwise...

In your opinion it doesn't coincide. We just both see things from a different point of view that's all. Jury decided what they decided...very true...doesn't mean it was right. So do you believe Casey Anthony and O.J Simpson are not guilty? It's not like a jury has never made an incorrect verdict. It wasn't an accident that the jury inquired about manslaughter before the verdict was reached. Once again it is what it is but as someone said before people get away with crimes all the time. I see GZ as one those people.

[cole256 17,084]

http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/police-buried-trayvons-criminal-history/

You're always very good at research, why haven't you went to find all of Zimmerman's character flaws because there sure are plenty....neither Martin or Zimmerman's past before that incident has absolutely nothing to do with the horrible situation. I don't care if it was a kick clansman leaving a rally while screaming white power walking down the street of a black neighborhood. It may not be prudent for him to do so bit if anybody touches that man they should be arrested. Period.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

In a speech today, Eric Holder said that DOJ will continue their investigation of the GZ case. They may or may not. Holder has said lots of things he doesn't follow thru on. His main objective seems to be political and trying to respond to the black "community." But for sure he is fanning the racial fires. I am seeing and hearing among my colleagues more and more racial hostility. And to be honest, I am beginning to resent the black leadership and their cronies. I find myself getting angry every time I see a black person on TV spouting off about racism when they are as guilty and anyone. Why hasn't Holder followed up like he should on the border agent Brian Terry. His parents lost a son too, in the line of duty no less. But it seems TM is a more important son because he was black and Brian was just an ordinary white guy.

Seriously?

Absloutely serious!!! What do you think Brian's Mom and Dad would say right now in comparing the DOJ's involvement in the two cases?