Standup Citizen George Zimmerman

[alzan]

Can please provide evidence of such? It was not in the prosecution's evidence that was released or introduced during the trial.

From the 1000's page long thread on ATPN: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2231467

When GZ originally exited his truck after following TM to ask TM his business.

GZ considered TM suspicious before he exited his truck; his duty per NW guidelines was to not confront but to notify police.

Also if you look up the legal usage of "accost" and "assault" you'll find they are verbal in nature.

 

[LegendKiller]

From the 1000's page long thread on ATPN: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2231467

When GZ originally exited his truck after following TM to ask TM his business.

GZ considered TM suspicious before he exited his truck; his duty per NW guidelines was to not confront but to notify police.

Also if you look up the legal usage of "accost" and "assault" you'll find they are verbal in nature.

Where, exactly, did he confront? There was only one confrontation here. TM.

 

[emperus]

Enough with the false equivalence. Nobody gives a shit whether you'd trust GZ or not, if he is not guilty, he is not guilty. Just because you don't like him doesn't mean he is guilty of any of this.

You do understand not guilty does not mean innocent right?

 

[LegendKiller]

You do understand not guilty does not mean innocent right?

And?

The preponderance of evidence supported GZ. Even the prosecutions own "star" witness clearly said that not only did TM go out to actually initiate a conflict, he was in fact using racist terms. All of this "GZ stalked" or "GZ accosted" or "GZ assaulted" is a bunch of bullshit in the face of somebody actually going out with the intent to physically confront somebody, something which GZ did *NOT* do.

Let me repeat that, the prosecutions own witness backed up GZs version of events. TM evaded and came back. TM was not a "good actor" given his burglary past. He was a fighter by his own admission. He was a discipline problem by his own father's admission. He was potentially a druggie and thought he was a little "gangsta".

 

[Svnla]

You do understand not guilty does not mean innocent right?

I am sure you say the same thing about OJ, right?

 

[positivedoppler]

Enough with the false equivalence. Nobody gives a shit whether you'd trust GZ or not, if he is not guilty, he is not guilty. Just because you don't like him doesn't mean he is guilty of any of this.

I didn't refute that he is not guilty. I merely asked that are people positive that he's innocent. After all, if you are not completely sure that he's innocent, then you are admitting that there's a chance he was guilty and gotten away with murder. I'm not sure why people are so emotionally invested in this that they can't complete a post without cussing.

 

[LegendKiller]

I didn't refute that he is not guilty. I merely asked that are people positive that he's innocent. After all, if you are not completely sure that he's innocent, then you are admitting that there's a chance he was guilty and gotten away with murder. I'm not sure why people are so emotionally invested in this that they can't complete a post without cussing.

What does it matter if you are 100% positive either way? In our legal system, which is far superior to the alternative, it only matters if there is a reasonable doubt The preponderance of evidence shows that GZ's sequence of events were correct.

Who cares about "cussing"? The world isn't some civilized little bubble.

 

[positivedoppler]

What does it matter if you are 100% positive either way? In our legal system, which is far superior to the alternative, it only matters if there is a reasonable doubt The preponderance of evidence shows that GZ's sequence of events were correct.

Who cares about "cussing"? The world isn't some civilized little bubble.

I'm not discussing the result of the legal system. The legal system's conclusion was that the Jury weren't sure so they couldn't convict him even though 3 wanted to. The purpose of this thread and a few others is to make people ask given GZ's alleged behavior, does it boost the likelihood that GZ initiated the fight? I think the question is at least worth pondering. If you are so adamant regarding GZ's innocence, then go ahead and answer my original question honestly. If you feel given everything released in trial and recently in the media you would feel confident having GZ being a friend of your family, then I 100% support your decision to support GZ.

Just like how OJ Simpson was found Not Guilty, that doesn't mean he didn't actually killed NS. Just like in the OJ trial, I've read the police conspiracy planting theory and the his son is the real killer theory. I think there is a chance OJ is not the killer but the world will never known. Since I'm not 100% sure of OJ's innocent, there's not a chance in hell I would want him to be near my family. I'm trying to be objective about everything and not drag emotion and cheer for any side like a football game.

If you feel that Cussing is the best way to get your point across, so be it.

 

[cubby1223]

I'm not discussing the result of the legal system. The legal system's conclusion was that the Jury weren't sure so they couldn't convict him even though 3 wanted to. The purpose of this thread and a few others is to make people ask given GZ's alleged behavior, does it boost the likelihood that GZ initiated the fight? I think the question is at least worth pondering. If you are so adamant regarding GZ's innocence, then go ahead and answer my original question honestly. If you feel given everything released in trial and recently in the media you would feel confident having GZ being a friend of your family, then I 100% support your decision to support GZ.

Just like how OJ Simpson was found Not Guilty, that doesn't mean he didn't actually killed NS. Just like in the OJ trial, I've read the police conspiracy planting theory and the his son is the real killer theory. I think there is a chance OJ is not the killer but the world will never known. Since I'm not 100% sure of OJ's innocent, there's not a chance in hell I would want him to be near my family. I'm trying to be objective about everything and not drag emotion and cheer for any side like a football game.

If you feel that Cussing is the best way to get your point across, so be it.

 

[cubby1223]

You do understand not guilty does not mean innocent right?

And are you so open to the possibility that Martin may just have started the fight?

I didn't think so.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

From the 1000's page long thread on ATPN: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2231467

When GZ originally exited his truck after following TM to ask TM his business.

GZ considered TM suspicious before he exited his truck; his duty per NW guidelines was to not confront but to notify police.

Also if you look up the legal usage of "accost" and "assault" you'll find they are verbal in nature.

Yet GZ was not able to talk to TM as he ran away. TM then came back minutes later to physically acost and assault GZ.

 

[positivedoppler]

And are you so open to the possibility that Martin may just have started the fight?

I didn't think so.

Sure I am, but if TM started the physical confrontation he's dead so what more is there to do?

Now are you open to the possibility that GZ might have started the physical confrontation and that a possibly murderer is roaming the around a free man?

 

[Druidx]

From the 1000's page long thread on ATPN: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2231467

When GZ originally exited his truck after following TM to ask TM his business.

GZ considered TM suspicious before he exited his truck; his duty per NW guidelines was to not confront but to notify police.

Also if you look up the legal usage of "accost" and "assault" you'll find they are verbal in nature.

According to the Prosecutions star witness, TM was the one who initiated verbal contact with the "creepy ass cracker"

 

[Druidx]

You do understand not guilty does not mean innocent right?

I understand that. I also understand how frantic you've always been to claim GZ was guilty no matter what. You constantly mis-characterized the facts of the case. You consistency misquoted Det. Serino, claiming he said it was racial when he said the exact opposite. Then you proved how irrational you were concerning this case when you continued to claim Detective Serino said it was racial even after his FBI interview was released, which said in black and white that Serino didn't think it was racial.
You implied anyone who didn't agree with you was blinded by racism. You spent months insulting anyone who disagreed with you. Then the minute it was obvious the TM/GZ case was not going to go the way you said it would and you might have to eat a little crow,what happens then?
You flip out, claiming you will never post on this forum again because the Mods supports racism, all because someone insulted you after you had been doing the same to countless others for months.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35245487&postcount=64385

No surprised you returned 6 months later to start calling a whole new group racist.

 

[cubby1223]

Sure I am, but if TM started the physical confrontation he's dead so what more is there to do?

Now are you open to the possibility that GZ might have started the physical confrontation and that a possibly murderer is roaming the around a free man?

(1) The evidence overwhelmingly supports the version that Martin began beating the shit out of Zimmerman before he drew his gun (self defense, not murder).
(2) No, I'm not afraid that Zimmerman is a "free" man.
(3) Mob justice has placed a life-long punishment on Zimmerman regardless of the court decision.

 

[emperus]

I am sure you say the same thing about OJ, right?

I'm not litigating your version of the case. Again, you seem to always see things as black and white. (Probably why you support GZ). I'm a black man and so I obviously thought OJ was innocent. I didn't care about the OJ case then and didn't follow it enough to know anything other than the "if it doesn't fit you must acquit."

 

[Darwin333]

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2014/09/12/police-george-zimmerman-named-in-fla-road-rage-incident/



4 violent incidents since Trayvon Martin. Clearly, this delicate individual is simply a misunderstood man.

Hope Zimmerman's cheerleaders are proud this guy is free to be, uh, something.

Why the fuck would he call the police two days later, when he was in no danger, and then decline to press charges? What's the point?

 

[Darwin333]

Sure I am, but if TM started the physical confrontation he's dead so what more is there to do?

Now are you open to the possibility that GZ might have started the physical confrontation and that a possibly murderer is roaming the around a free man?

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

The physical evidence simply did not support a guilty verdict regardless of what any of us think happened. I don't know what really happened but I do know that the jury delivered the correct verdict considering the evidence that was presented.

So to answer your question, yes, I would rather a murderer roaming around a free man than an innocent man in jail. If he has done illegal shit since then, charge him and put him on trial for it but I do find it rather odd that no one has pressed charges out of 4 separate events.

 

[nehalem256]

Why the fuck would he call the police two days later, when he was in no danger, and then decline to press charges? What's the point?

You are clearly under estimating George Zimmerman's mind control powers.

It probably took him 2 days to break out from under George's spell :sneaky:

 

[Svnla]

I'm not litigating your version of the case. Again, you seem to always see things as black and white. (Probably why you support GZ). I'm a black man and so I obviously thought OJ was innocent. I didn't care about the OJ case then and didn't follow it enough to know anything other than the "if it doesn't fit you must acquit."

Are you serious? Do you even read your own posts?

Here are your own words:

You do understand not guilty does not mean innocent right?

I'm a black man and so I obviously thought OJ was innocent.

Psssst.....you do know that OJ was found not guilty, right? RIGHT?

And you said I am the one that see things as black and white? :biggrin:

 

[emperus]

Are you serious? Do you even read your own posts?

Here are your own words:




Psssst.....you do know that OJ was found not guilty, right? RIGHT?

And you said I am the one that see things as black and white? :biggrin:

Lol. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Read the paragraph, try to understand the context in which it was written and then read that sentence again.

 

[Svnla]

Lol. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Read the paragraph, try to understand the context in which it was written and then read that sentence again.

LOL @ you. You say one thing and then turn around and say/do another thing. Got caught red hand. Again. Trying hard to dig yourself out.

Remember this? Again, in your own words.

This is going to be my last post in this thread and in this forum.

And here you are. In this very same forum. Context you said?

Yeah, reading comprehension, eh? :biggrin:

 

[emperus]

LOL @ you. You say one thing and then turn around and say/do another thing. Got caught red hand. Again. Trying hard to dig yourself out.

Remember this? Again, in your own words.



And here you are. In this very same forum. Context you said?

Yeah, reading comprehension, eh? :biggrin:

Here is my post again.

I'm not litigating your version of the case. Again, you seem to always see things as black and white. (Probably why you support GZ). I'm a black man and so I obviously thought OJ was innocent. I didn't care about the OJ case then and didn't follow it enough to know anything other than the "if it doesn't fit you must acquit."

Reread the post or don't. Use some common sense or don't. Either way you're obviously an idiot settled in your idiocy. So what value is a conversation with you?

 

[Svnla]

Here is my post again.



Reread the post or don't. Use some common sense or don't. Either way you're obviously an idiot settled in your idiocy. So what value is a conversation with you?

Ahhhh.. can't dispute the facts, pull the insults.

Again, your own words:

This is going to be my last post in this thread and in this forum.

You were saying something about an idiot? Uh huh. Do you mean "hypocrite"?

 

[emperus]

Ahhhh.. can't dispute the facts, pull the insults.

Again, your own words:



You were saying something about an idiot? Uh huh. Do you mean "hypocrite"?

When you have nothing more to argue, you change the topic. Like I said you're an idiot.