It doesn’t really matter what you believe, the facts - which came out at the trial, and showed he wasn’t guilty - are the facts. You are factually wrong.
Not sure where you get the “history of pulling or threatening to pull a weapon”, either. Unless you’re just basing your opinions on headlines, rather than finding out the facts, and I’m sure you’re not doing that, right?
Actually, the trial showed that there was not enough evidence to convict and that reasonable doubt existed. It did not categorically discount the theory that he was the one at fault, just that enough doubt remained to not be able to convict him.
Dead people can’t testify.
Having looked at the evidence, and considered what we know and don’t know about the altercation between Zimmerman and Martin, i believe that the “Not Guilty” verdict was the correct one.
But to assert that the trial itself should never have happened suggests either total idiocy, or a retarded policy of simply taking any authority figure’s word in situations like this.
I know.
I’m disputing the claim that the fact he was acquitted at trial proves that his story was accurate. The trial did no such thing.
Personally, I find the theory that he was the aggressor (either physically or by intimidating the kid by following him) completely credible, if hard to prove.
Zimmerman put the events in action and no one is to blame but him.
No, it requires observing that the evidence presented at the trial could not have supported a guilty verdict. One can ignore Zimmerman’s statements entirely, and still be unable to conclude that he’s guilty.
It was a politically motivated show trial of the victim of a crime, and a travesty of justice.
So why did you accuse Jordan Davis, the murdered kid with no record, of being “a thug” and express joy at his murder?
He didn’t attack Michael Dunn.
He was the one attacked.
We also have no evidence other than the self-serving claims by Zimmerman, a man with a record for lying, that Martin attacked him.
We know they fought but we don’t know who escalated the confrontation from verbal to physical.
It was not intended to, and even if you discount his story entirely there’s insufficient evidence to claim it was murder.
This was discussed in great depth at the time. Following someone is not an aggressive or imminently threatening act.
There’s no evidence that Zimmerman threatened or attacked Martin in such a way that would allow Martin’s punches to be in self defence. That’s really what it comes down to. People claiming Zimmerman is a murderer despite there being no evidence that it wasn’t self defence, simply because they don’t trust his story.
Judge: “Mr. Zimmerman, what do you have to say in your defense this time?”
Zimmy: “Your honor, my current girlfriend’s black eye was an avoidable tragedy. If she had just made me a sandwich like I had told her to, none of this would have happened.”
Judge: “WTF!”
Zimmy: “Don’t make me angry, judge. You won’t like me when I’m angry.”
No, he threatened Dunn, and Dunn is now imprisoned for life for defending himself. It says a lot about you that you think that’s acceptable.
Sure, Dunn should be in jail for attempted murder, for shooting as the others were fleeing, but not for murder, as there was no murder.
So, apart from the evidence, we have no evidence. Fine…
We don’t know. Fine, then Zimmerman is innocent. Come back when you can prove Zimmeman started the altercation.
But unless you have evidence otherwise, Zimmerman is the victim of a crime, not a criminal.
Yes, because not making someone a sandwich is exactly the same as attacking them for no reason. Well done, you’ve shown exactly how incapable you are of actually thinking.
When someone attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself. That is not the case when someone doesn’t make you a sandwich. Now, it may be that Zimmerman is guilty of domestic violence. Time will tell, but that has no bearing on the Martin case. Which is settled, Zimmerman did not murder or otherwise unlawfully kill Martin.
Why do you say these things as if they are facts? Sure, that’s Dunn’s story, but why do you just take his word as factual?
A list of George Zimmerman’s past run-ins with the law
— July 2005, Zimmerman was arrested and accused of resisting an officer with violence near the University of Central Florida campus after a scuffle with police. The charges were eventually dropped after Zimmerman entered an alcohol education program.
— August 2005, Zimmerman’s former fiancee filed for a restraining order against him, alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman responded by requesting a restraining order against her. Both requests were granted. No criminal charges were filed.
— February 2012, Zimmerman fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin during a confrontation in the community where Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer. Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder but acquitted after a trial in July 2013.
— July 2013, police in Foley, Texas, stop Zimmerman for speeding in a 60 mph zone. Zimmerman is let go with just a warning.
— September 2013, Zimmerman is stopped by police in Lake Mary, Fla., and given a ticket for doing 60 mph in a 45 mph zone.
— September 2013, Zimmerman’s estranged wife, Shellie, dials 911 and tells a police dispatcher that her punched her father and threatened her with a gun. She later decides against pressing charges and authorities announce in November they are dropping the case.
— September 2013, a Florida Highway Patrol trooper stops Zimmerman along Interstate 95 and issues a warning because the vehicle’s tag cover and windows were too darkly tinted.
— November 2013, Zimmerman is arrested by Seminole County authorities after a disturbance at a home in Apopka.
Will George Zimmerman kill again?: His history and the law pose serious risks
**Between George Zimmerman’s history of conduct, his state of mind and our judicial system, it’s a very real question **
George Zimmerman appears to be a man unhinged. As has been well chronicled, the 30-year-old former neighborhood watch captain – who in July was acquitted for the murder of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin — found himself back in police custody this week. This time he is accused of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and domestic battery against his 27-year-old girlfriend Samantha Scheibe, who he told authorities is pregnant with his child.
Scheibe told a police dispatcher that Zimmerman was in the house with four weapons – including a shotgun, an AR-15-style assault rifle and two handguns.
But perhaps this was to be expected. Zimmerman’s history of violent behavior existed well before his now infamous murder of an unarmed African-American child.
Now the scary but inevitable question is: Will he kill again?
Consider his history. In July 2005, Zimmerman was arrested for “resisting an officer with violence” after he intervened in a confrontation between a friend and a police officer. Zimmerman, who was under the influence of alcohol at the time, reportedly became profane and attacked the officer. Eventually charges were reduced — and subsequently waived — after Zimmerman agreed to enter an alcohol education program. But by August of the same year, his former fiancée sought a restraining order against him on charges of domestic violence. The Orlando Sentinel reported he came to her house and became violent when she told him to leave. Zimmerman skillfully counterfiled, and both parties were granted restraining orders against the other.
Zimmerman’s wife, Shellie, who stood by him during the Martin murder trial, separated from her husband in August 2013, just one month after his acquittal. In September police were called to her house following a domestic dispute. “I don’t know what he’s capable of,” she said in the 911 call. “I’m really, really scared.”
Shellie told authorities that Zimmerman had punched her father in the nose, broken her iPad, and that he had his hand on his gun. Though no charges were filed, Shellie admitted to NBC’s “Today” that she doubts her husband’s innocence in the Trayvon Martin killing case. “I think anyone would doubt [his] innocence,” she said and added that recent ”revelations helped take the blinders off” — and that she no longer knows who George really is.
Then in late October, she claimed her estranged husband nailed a marksman target with “17 bullet holes” to a wall in her parents’ home. Ostensibly he did so as a threat of what he is capable of doing – and an eerie reminder of the 17-year-old boy he killed.
And since his acquittal Zimmerman has been cited three times by police in driving infractions — twice for speeding — and in all cases he was in possession of a firearm.
Supporters of the Martin family will likely not be surprised by the newest charges against Zimmerman, nor should anyone, given this track record. Millions of us already believed him to have stalked and murdered the young Trayvon with deliberate and malicious intent. But as Zimmerman stood in arraignment this week, something became abundantly clear: Our judicial system all too easily allows men like Zimmerman back on the streets — to offend again.
Zimmerman was given a relatively low bond, and the judge willfully ignored Zimmerman’s past charges. Seminole County Judge Fred Schott told Zimmerman that he would not set bond based on prior court cases. “As far as I’m concerned, this is a brand-new case,” Schott added.
How can this be? And can one imagine such leniency being given if Zimmerman were black?
During his initial murder trial, evidence of Zimmerman’s past and mental health was largely ignored or sidelined by a near-obsessive focus on the behavior and dalliances of teenage Trayvon. One of the crucial factors in the pool of evidence was the fact that Zimmerman was prescribed the use of Adderall and Temazepam — drugs that have side effects that include hallucinations, anxiety, insomnia and aggressiveness.
This week prosecutors alleged that Zimmerman choked Schiebe a few weeks ago during a separate argument. (Though Scheibe had not reported those allegations to police until after the arrest.) Prosecutors also disclosed that Scheibe said Zimmerman had recently talked about suicide. Yet despite this pattern being typical for most domestic violence abusers — and a near certain indication that Zimmerman will continue to commit violent acts — he is back on the streets after as little as a $900 was paid to the county court. …
In the curious case of George Zimmerman the judge’s willful amnesia of his past is an indication on how this continues to happen. Not to mention what occurred in the first few hours after Zimmerman was questioned in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin – when he was let go and never charged with a crime.
Jonathan Capehart, writing for the Washington Post earlier this year, opined, “Just what in Zimmerman’s past might have led him to … kill an unarmed teenager with a gunshot to the chest is relevant in this case.”
I would add that in this latest case of domestic violence, his killing of an unarmed child should also be taken into account.
According to a 2003 recidivism research report by the state of Florida, Zimmerman’s behavior reflects a “profile” of repeat offenders who are all but certain to recommit. That study found that among the most acute factors that raise both reoffense and recidivism for offenders were prior recidivism and more disciplinary reports. For males in particular the study concluded that prior recidivism, disciplinary reports and a prior case of homicide or other violent crime increased reoffense rates exponentially.
In what world can a man accused of domestic abuse by several women, an attack on a police officer and the murder of an unarmed child not be identified as a threat to society – in need of increased scrutiny?
George Zimmerman’s relevant past
When George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin the night of Feb. 26, 2012, he ignored an admonition not to do so from the police dispatcher. The request for his arrest, written by the lead detective, noted that Zimmerman’s killing of Trayvon could have been avoided if he’d remained in his vehicle or identified himself “as a concerned citizen.” Just what in Zimmerman’s past might have led him to take these actions and kill an unarmed teenager with a gunshot to the chest is relevant in this case.
What is not relevant is Trayvon’s past. And Judge Debra Nelson made that clear today when she denied several motions by Zimmerman attorney Mark O’Mara to introduce the 17-year-old’s suspension from school, past marijuana use and his participation in fights. There’s a possibility that such evidence could make it to trial, but by releasing all the information last week, O’Mara ensured that everyone, including potential jurors, knows what lurked in his client’s victim’s past. But thanks to Florida’s incredible sunshine laws, we know a few relevant things about Zimmerman.
In July 2005, he was arrested for “resisting officer with violence.” The neighborhood watch volunteer who wanted to be a cop got into a scuffle with cops who were questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking. The charges were reduced and then waived after he entered an alcohol education program. Then in August 2005, Zimmerman’s former fiance sought a restraining order against him because of domestic violence. Zimmerman sought a restraining order against her in return. Both were granted. Meanwhile, over the course of eight years, Zimmerman made at least 46 calls to the Sanford (Fla.) Police Department reporting suspicious activity involving black males.
We also know that Witness No. 9 accused Zimmerman of molesting her when they were children. The relative’s revelation is appalling but irrelevant. What most folks don’t know is that Witness No. 9 made an explosive allegation against her cousin. “I know George. And I know that he does not like black people,” she told a Sanford police officer during a telephone call in which she pleaded for anonymity. “He would start something. He’s a very confrontational person. It’s in his blood. Let’s just say that. I don’t want this poor kid and his family to just be overlooked.” At the end of the call, Witness No. 9 urged the officer to “get character reports from other people and see if he’s ever said anything about black people, about being racist or anything like that because I guarantee you there’s somebody out there who will say it.”
That phone call was significant because it was placed two days after Zimmerman killed Trayvon and a couple of weeks before the case drew national attention. Witness No. 9 wasn’t seeking attention. “I’m a mom,” she told police. “I can’t stand seeing that some kid got shot and killed over a stupid fight, especially one that my [redacted] … because I know who he is.”
George Zimmerman is the one who stands accused of second-degree murder. He, not Trayvon Martin, is the one on trial starting June 10. And who Zimmerman is more relevant to the proceedings than who Trayvon was.
I am sure in each and every altercation, dust up and all out fight, people were simply attacking Zimmerman. Each and every time. He was always innocent. The whole world is just out to get him. :rolleyes:
Really, you’re claiming there was no murder?
The jury disagreed and found him guilty of murder.
Please explain why you think Zimmerman was clearly innocent because of the jury verdict in his case but that Dunn in innocent of murder despite the decision of the jury in his case?
BTW, how do you know that he threatened Dunn and that Dunn needed to kill him in self-defense.
What evidence do you have other than Dunn’s story which is preposterous and the 12 members of the jury, who saw far more evidence than you disagreed with.
This case, unlike the Zimmerman case had several witnesses and you seem to believing Dunn and ignoring all the other witnesses.
Why is that?
Is it because they’re black and Dunn and Zimmerman aren’t?
Why are you so sure Dunn wasn’t guilty of murder and was acting in self-defense when he shot an unarmed teenage boy to death?
To SteveG1
So, to cut through the bullshit, Zimmerman got a traffic ticket, and nothing else. There have been some unsubstantiated allegations about him, all but one of which - the demonstrably false murder charge - never made it to court.
And because of that history - one traffic ticket - you think it’s reasonable to claim he’s unhinged, that he’ll kill again? That’s absurd. The only reason he’s more likely to kill now than the average person would is that the lies spread about him by people like you put him at greater risk of attack, of needing to defend himself again, than the average person.
Yes. Defending yourself is not murder. Laws, or people, that claim otherwise are wrong and immoral, and the laws need to be changed.
The point is, I’m not sure he wasn’t acting in self defence, the evidence isn’t sufficient to show beyond reasonable doubt that he wasn’t, so the only just conclusion is that he’s innocent of murder. Specifically, that he remains innocent of murder, as that presumption must hold until proven otherwise.
No, to cut through your bullshit, he has a documented history of violence and getting away with it.
I’m done. When he gets his own ass blown away, I will pour a drink and say “it’s about fvcking time”.
I don’t understand. Is this just (for the Dunn case) “Steophan doesn’t think there was enough evidence that it wasn’t self-defense”, or “Steophan is certain it was self-defense”, or something else? Post 497 and 498 seem to have radically different levels of certainty.