Quote from Arch-Angel

So what you're saying is with everything going on in the neighborhood you still don't think Zimmerman's suspicions are justified?

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying.

He didn't know who Trayvon was, he didn't know what his intentions were, and he didn't break any laws. We can say that nothing would have happened if Zimmerman didn't act just as easily as we can say that if he didn't act another house could have been robbed.

The point is that you can't base your suspicions on something that happened before. You have to base your suspicions on what is happening currently. If there isn't any reasonable suspicions currently or even if Trayvon intentions were bad and until, let's say Trayvon actually went up to a house and looked around it, then you have no right to be suspicious. Walking around looking at people's houses isn't enough to be suspicious. This is to prevent unfair and fallacious suspicions and possibly criminalizing someone who is innocent. Zimmerman may have not broken any laws at that particular point of time, but his judgment was poor.

If its wrong to base suspicions on things that have happened then do you mind explaining all the shit you have to deal with at airports post 9/11? Wow holy shit.

My thoughts here

Quote from BoomerangReturns

I personally believe Zimmerman is in fact at fault here. Why follow the kid in the first place, knowing you should contact authorities? I mean, if some guy in his thirties was following me, I'd feel provoked too. And, who knows who really started the fight? For all we know, Zimmerman could have started it. Plus, either way, he killed a young kid with his whole life ahead of him, which makes me disgusted that he's found not guilty..

What are you guys' thoughts?

Well you are right about something, maybe Zimmerman shouldn't have followed the kid. Some people feel the need to be hero and say they were looking out for the neighborhood but for fuck sake he was just a kid now he's no more. Zimmerman could have just watched from a safe distance while dialing 911 or whatever number. If a guy in his thirties was following me I'd want to be sure first by trying a couple of techniques that I know will trip him up, and if he fails I'd respond with a what the fuck do you want?
No matter who started the fight all that matter was that Zimmerman had a chance to walk away when he saw the kid was getting angry and provoked. He had the knowledge that he was a full grown man capable of destruction but he didn't walk away.

And yeah it's shitty that a life was ended, so sad.

Quote from Preserve

Walking around looking at people's houses isn't enough to be suspicious. This is to prevent unfair and fallacious suspicions and possibly criminalizing someone who is innocent.

You seem to be confusing "suspicious" with "guilty". Walking around looking at people's houses is not enough to convict you of a crime, but whether or not you're being suspicious is a subjective judgement on the part of whoever is watching you.

Quote from saintmccaw

Think of it like this: Trayvon would have been a hero and a saint by the media if he had lived and killed Zimmerman like he had intended to.

Why would Travis have wanted to kill him? Travis and Zimmerman most probably both freaked out at each other and got into a fight for "self defense". There really wasn't much of a reason for Travis to intend to kill George Zimmerman.

Anyway, moving along, Zimmerman claimed that Travis was straddling his chest and punching his face. Then, how did Zimmerman pull out a gun and shoot him? Has anyone ever thought of this? Let's hope there's an answer to that. Actually, I once had someone similarly sit on my chest waving their hands in front of my face (don't ask) and while trying to get out I dragged myself on the floor and I tried reaching around this person to fix my pants so my "buttcrack" wouldn't be flopping in people's faces (I know, it's kind of to think about that in such a situation) and I couldn't reach my waist or anywhere besides my upper chest and above. Now, once again, how did Zimmerman shoot him? He also probably didn't already have it out because, if he did he probably would've shot Travis as he approached him and if he did have it out before then that would give Travis all the reason to fight back at Zimmerman, turning the tables big time. So, once again, explain the same question, how could it have happened?

Quote from MatrixNinja2000(Naimad)

Why would Travis have wanted to kill him? Travis and Zimmerman most probably both freaked out at each other and got into a fight for "self defense". There really wasn't much of a reason for Travis to intend to kill George Zimmerman.

Anyway, moving along, Zimmerman claimed that Travis was straddling his chest and punching his face. Then, how did Zimmerman pull out a gun and shoot him? Has anyone ever thought of this? Let's hope there's an answer to that. Actually, I once had someone similarly sit on my chest waving their hands in front of my face (don't ask) and while trying to get out I dragged myself on the floor and I tried reaching around this person to fix my pants so my "buttcrack" wouldn't be flopping in people's faces (I know, it's kind of to think about that in such a situation) and I couldn't reach my waist or anywhere besides my upper chest and above. Now, once again, how did Zimmerman shoot him? He also probably didn't already have it out because, if he did he probably would've shot Travis as he approached him and if he did have it out before then that would give Travis all the reason to fight back at Zimmerman, turning the tables big time. So, once again, explain the same question, how could it have happened?

When you are defending yourself, you come at them with the intent to kill. No matter what people have to say about the true means of self defense, you make sure the person is dead/unconscious before you call the police. "Better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6."

Keeping a pistol in your pants, while the most popular, is not the only form of concealed carry. He could've been carrying it under his arms, or anything really. In reality, he probably pushed him off of him and then grabbed for his gun after he got the crap beat out of him. While he DID make the wrong call by getting out of his car, he bought that pistol to protect himself; whether it be pitbulls or a kid trying to murderize him (even if he did bring it upon himself.)

Quote from saintmccaw

When you are defending yourself, you come at them with the intent to kill. No matter what people have to say about the true means of self defense, you make sure the person is dead/unconscious before you call the police. "Better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6."

Keeping a pistol in your pants, while the most popular, is not the only form of concealed carry. He could've been carrying it under his arms, or anything really. In reality, he probably pushed him off of him and then grabbed for his gun after he got the crap beat out of him. While he DID make the wrong call by getting out of his car, he bought that pistol to protect himself; whether it be pitbulls or a kid trying to murderize him (even if he did bring it upon himself.)

If Travis felt threatened then, he was trying to stay alive not kill. That is what I was trying to say. Do you understand? Imagine yourself in this situation. Would you actually have thought of killing the person? Probably not, since in these moments, you barely think at all.

Quote from Pin

Well, i dont defend anyone on this case.

Think about it.
Some guy follows you around, after being told not to follow you. They follow you because they're suspicious of you. Being afraid he probably attacked as defense, his life felt threatened by being watched and followed. Doesn't matter how badly he beats him. If he would have killed him, the trial would either call it self defense because Zimmerman was armed and following him, or found as murder because he beat him to death. But Zimmerman had no right to kill the boy and neither did Trayvon.


Trayvon - I'm a black boy, hooded walking in a neighborhood that recently had a crime
Zimmer - That boy, he looks suspicious cause he's wearing his hood, kinda looks like a thug... I should call the police on him with no evidence, but his thugish look is suspicious
Cop - Don't follow him, it's not your job.
Zimmer - I'm going to follow him anyways
Trayvon - Why Is he after me?! What did I do?! Imma book it!
Zimmer - He's running, that means he did something better chase him!
Trayvon - He's chasing me what do i do... I have to defend myself
>>> Trayvom attacks Zimmer in an attempt to stop this stalker, most likely to knock him out.
Zimmer - He's trying to kill me or rob me! I better shoot him and kill him.

And another note, it's easy to say anything, when the other part of the situation is dead. Zimmer COULD have shot Trayvon right after he got off the phone, and then made up a story and told his neighbors to lie. Very unlikely, but possible, because only the neighbors are witnesses because the kid is dead and cant say anything. We're all following a story by other people, but the person dead may be the only honest one.

And last, in my house, and most of my family, if we're in trouble, we're taught to beat the person until they are unconscious and then call for help. For your safety. Especially when armed.

Zimmerman killed someone? What the fuck happened here?

Quote from Guitarii

Zimmerman killed someone? What the fuck happened here?

Where in gods name have you been?

Anyway, I do agree that treyvon could have maybe handled it better. Then again, i would probably do the same thing if i was being followed by a old guy on a rainy night. I still think Zimmerman should have gotten something . Maybe even community service.

Wait, did he get community service?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebu6Yvzs4Ls

here's a video. i know it is a little silly that the guy complains the media uses only certain facts to make the people appear in certain ways, and then goes on to do the exact same thing, but i assume this would be a good thing to watch if you followed the case. so you'll know the negatives and positives about both zimmerman and martin. and then the whole ending thing about obama was just stupid. anyway, it's heavy on negative martin facts, and has a few positive facts about zimmerman.

but basically, martin wasn't that innocent little boy with a great whole life ahead of him, as you seem to think in your first post. apparently this kid was a little shit who liked fighting, supposedly stole shit, and liked getting high off of cough syrup (robotussin or codeine syrup). sure, people can straighten up and change their lives, but i mean this kid is fuckin' robotripping. that is such a pathetic way to get high, and the people who get high this way probably have pretty bad drug problems seeing as the experience from it is hardly pleasant, and it tastes so fucking bad.


i agree, being followed by an older man during the night would be creepy as fuck. but that wouldn't provoke you to fucking attack him like some sort of sociopath.. at least, i'd hope not. if it were me, i would probably walk faster or start running. attacking him is just a great way to die, obviously. and then you question who really started the fight? why would zimmerman start the fight AFTER he called the police to report the suspicious kid?

from the pictures, it's obvious that zimmerman got pummeled by that kid. he shot him in self-defense. why is that hard to understand?



edit -- i didn't follow this case at all. i've read a little bit about it recently. i might have gotten it wrong in regards to how the event took place. someone in another post here said that trayvon DID start running, and zimmerman started chasing him. that makes more sense that trayvon would then decide to defend himself.

I don't think anyone can make much of a case that he was a sweet, innocent child after some lovely tweets.

It's probably just as relevant as anything on his twitter that none of those tweets are anything he came up with; they're all retweets.

Re-/Tweets or not, the case still can't be made by any remotely reasonable person that he was an innocent kid based on that and other evidence we have.

Also, I never use Twitter, so I failed to notice the "RT"'s. That's my bad.

I don't understand why people are still using past history of these people as evidence. Has anyone considered that the injuries zimmerman contained were from self-defense by trayvon? I posted this before and I want people to look into. http://www.randirhodes.com/pages/rrnews.html?article=9924394. These are the 911 calls from the night of the confrontation. The third 911 call was from anonymous caller and in the background you can hear screams for help and then a gun shot. To me the screams for help sounded like a teenager and if it was a teenager then it was Trayvon who was screaming for help. And if it was Trayvon who was screaming for help, then he didn't attack him to cause bodily harm, but in self-defense.

we are using the past history of these people because that's what the media did in order to present negative and positive portrayals of these guys. on top of that, past history can help give a little insight to someone's personality and how they might behave. i know it's not the best evidence, but it's something.

the screams do sound high-pitched, buuuut... george zimmerman is only 28, that's not very old. and you hear his voice in the phone call? it's not the most manly, i would almost call it a feminine voice. his screams could easily sound like that. and if trayvon was on top of zimmerman, bashing his head into the ground, why would he be screaming for help?