State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman Trial Thread

[Shodan]

@Mr-Pookie

1. The one who testified for the defense about a home invasion.

So her involvement was to show that the neighborhood had a crime problem, and that Zimmerman was trying to help with that problem.

2. Certainly not any medical expert. His own expert had trouble seeing the injuries in the pictures. (I know, doesn’t matter though…)

Actually, it does matter. Your grotesque exaggerations and excluded middles make your posts look stupid and extremist. That’s your right, as long as you realize that it indicates on what your position is based.

Here I snipped a bunch of stuff where you point out that what Zimmerman did wasn’t wrong, wasn’t illegal, but you think indicates that he should be punished for doing, or something.

9. How about amazing that GZ didn’t go back to his car, where the police expected to find him over several minutes.

The police didn’t expect to find him at his truck. He told the NEN dispatcher that he would get his exact location and give it to the police when they called him. That’s why he got out to look for an address. We know this from the transcript, which records Zimmerman’s statements well before the attack, and therefore the statements are either [ul][li]true, or []Zimmerman was planning on shooting hisself a ngger and wanted to be sure the police were there when it happened.[/ul] [/li]

10. My point is why this adult didn’t announce himself since he was pursuing this kid? Why not continue a conversation.

He wasn’t pursuing him at that point, and according to Dee Dee Zimmerman did not get much of a chance to converse - Martin attacked immediately upon being asked what he was doing.

Look at it from TM’s perspective.

I am looking at it from Martin’s perspective. If Martin was afraid of Zimmerman, why did Martin double back to confront Zimmerman? He was “right by” his father’s house, a few steps away from the living room where he was watching the All-Star game. Right where his step brother was, for whom he was allegedly fetching Skittles and juice. But instead of completing his errand, instead of going home, even though both Zimmerman and Martin agree that they had lost sight of each other, he goes back a hundred yards looking for the white guy. “I am afraid of that guy, and I got away from him. So I better go looking for him.” Maybe this makes sense to you. Maybe it made sense to the “NO LIMIT NIGGA”. But it doesn’t make sense to anyone else.

11. According to “Dee Dee”, and we all know how much everybody believes her testimony. I just want to stick with 911 call info and Zimmerman’s interviews.

No thanks - you don’t get to selectively ignore the evidence.

You are right it doesn’t matter.

Why do you bring it up, then?

The answers are only silly or stupid because GZ said it happened that way.

Nope. As I have mentioned several dozen times, we ought only to believe what anyone says insofar as the evidence backs it up. None of what you claim is backed up by any evidence, and you mention specifically that you would prefer to ignore evidence that contradicts your assumptions. All of what I have said is backed up by evidence.

So it goes in Zimmerman-Martin threads. I suppose eventually we on Team Reality will get tired of pointing out the same things over and over again. Just not yet.

Regards,
Shodan

[Mr-Pookie]

@Human_Action

That’s a fine theory, but you wrote both that, by his statements, Zimmerman did not “make a disarming statement” and that he “said nothing”. That’s simply not true.

If you wrote instead “Zimmerman made a move that could have been interpreted as being provacative, even if he said what he claims to have said”, I wouldn’t have made a peep about it.

Agreed. I got carried away with my point a bit there. In my mind I didn’t see it as disarming, flat, or unemotional statement, but you are correct.

[Tollhouse]

@Condescending_Robot

He specifically said he cannot “second guess or judge” what happened in the prior quote, due toi it being “God’s plan.” By his own standard, he is now a blasphemer.

Of course, what he’s really doing in the second quote is walking back the idea that Martin died because God deputized George Zimmerman to kill him as an agent of divine wrath, because that sounds exactly as insane as it is. But let’s not overlook the fact that he ever said it in the first place, nor that there are Zimmerman defenders in this thread who have questioned the theological propriety of bringing him to trial, since the fact that Martin is dead proves that God wanted it so.

The statement gz made " that it was God’s plan" is so highly abnormal in this situation. What normal person would say on national tv, that him shooting and killing a youth was “Gods plan”…in an evil sick kind of way, I believe this one statement is the most honest thing hes ever said in this entire case, perhaps the only honest thing. Notice that I said its honest, I didnt say its true. I believe its honest for gz to utter those words, because he thinks of himself as like a god, …that I believe are really at thr heart of this case. His own cousin stated that him and his family have very hateful ideas about black people, unless they " act white". He has a deep and seething hatred for blacks. Additionally, he seems devoid of any real empathy or conscience, he is probably a sociopath and sociopaths consider their needs only, over others, they see themselves as god, in a way. So I believe when he said it was “Gods plan” he was speaking for himself. Transference.

[Terr]

@Tollhouse

What normal person would say on national tv, that him shooting and killing a youth was “Gods plan”…

Of course, he didn’t say that. As I showed in the omitted statement from the interview.

[doorhinge]

@Mgalindo13

Stoid

I’m starting to see why others get so frustrated with you. You ask for an explanation for a given phenomenon, are given one with cites and then hand-wave it away because you “do not find that remotely believable.” You make an assertion about facts, get called out, then completely ignore it.

You continue to ignore facts/evidence/arguments that don’t fit your narrative of Zimmerman being a cold-blooded killer.

Which is one reason why Stoid would have been excluded from this jury. There is “supposed” to be a presumption of innocence.

[Mr-Pookie]

@Shodan

So her involvement was to show that the neighborhood had a crime problem, and that Zimmerman was trying to help with that problem.

Actually, it does matter. Your grotesque exaggerations and excluded middles make your posts look stupid and extremist. That’s your right, as long as you realize that it indicates on what your position is based.

If you feel that way.
I thought the only thing that mattered was evidence? I am giving you evidence. Evidence of Zimmerman’s habitual problem with making mistakes, forgetting important things like he is armed, and irresponsibility that equates to half of the reason TM is dead. Trust me, I know, all of it was legal.

Here I snipped a bunch of stuff where you point out that what Zimmerman did wasn’t wrong, wasn’t illegal, but you think indicates that he should be punished for doing, or something.

I thought I’d save you the time and add your robotic response for you.

Not that he should be punished for each single thing he did that was completely legal. Just framing his own words and defense in the way he said it went down. Anybody can judge that as they wish. The defense certainly portrayed Zimmerman as defenseless and righteous while painting Trayvon as a goon. That was the way they chose to frame it.

The police didn’t expect to find him at his truck. He told the NEN dispatcher that he would get his exact location and give it to the police when they called him.

Because he didn’t know where he’d be.

[quote]
That’s why he got out to look for an address. We know this from the transcript, which records Zimmerman’s statements well before the attack, and therefore the statements are either [ul][li]true, or []Zimmerman was planning on shooting hisself a ngger and wanted to be sure the police were there when it happened.[/ul] [/li][/QUOTE]

You are wrong.

Look up the transcript. Nobody asked Zimmerman where he was until well after he got out of the truck.

Zimmerman says “He’s running” and Zimmerman gets out of the vehicle to follow unprovoked. Not the same as “what address are you parked in front of” which happened a minute later.
audio

Note the key piece of “evidence”:
Dispatch: “Are you following him”
GZ: “Yep”

He wasn’t pursuing him at that point, and according to Dee Dee Zimmerman did not get much of a chance to converse - Martin attacked immediately upon being asked what he was doing.

Correction, Martin attacked immediately after asking what he [GZ] was doing.

I am looking at it from Martin’s perspective. If Martin was afraid of Zimmerman, why did Martin double back to confront Zimmerman?

I never supposed to know what Trayvon was thinking. Did he “double back” without a doubt?

He was “right by” his father’s house, a few steps away from the living room where he was watching the All-Star game. Right where his step brother was, for whom he was allegedly fetching Skittles and juice.

How far away was 7/11? “right by” is a relative statement open to all sorts of interpretation.

But instead of completing his errand, instead of going home, even though both Zimmerman and Martin agree that they had lost sight of each other, he goes back a hundred yards looking for the white guy.

Trayvon never told the police why he went back. That is if he went back.

“I am afraid of that guy, and I got away from him. So I better go looking for him.” Maybe this makes sense to you. Maybe it made sense to the “NO LIMIT NIGGA”. But it doesn’t make sense to anyone else.

I agree. Why did GZ get out of his car to go after the asshole punk who was holding something?

No thanks - you don’t get to selectively ignore the evidence.Why do you bring it up, then?

You don’t get to either then. But then again:

1 evidence x 0 credibility factor = 0 evidence.

I guess we get to weight the testimony as we see fit. Your side definitely uses this with parts of the Jeantel testimony and any of GZ’s “misrememberings”.

Nope. As I have mentioned several dozen times, we ought only to believe what anyone says insofar as the evidence backs it up. None of what you claim is backed up by any evidence, and you mention specifically that you would prefer to ignore evidence that contradicts your assumptions. All of what I have said is backed up by evidence.

All of what I said is backed up by GZ’s evidence both in his interviews and NEN call as well as other accounts that do confirm bits of GZ’s story. Sorry if you don’t like the evidence.

So it goes in Zimmerman-Martin threads. I suppose eventually we on Team Reality will get tired of pointing out the same things over and over again. Just not yet.

You zany Zimmerman Creationists are a good sounding board… sometimes.

[Leaper]

Here’s a question that was inspired by something I read (that COULD be interesting as a separate one, but there are too many threads on this to begin with): Zimmerman’s lawyer, understandably, has claimed that the not guilty verdict has vindicated his client, and that it indicates that his client “did nothing wrong.” Many of those who disagree with the verdict actually agree with this POV.

Do you think that George Zimmerman’s actions have been vindicated or otherwise approved of by this verdict?

[Bricker]

@Leaper

Here’s a question that was inspired by something I read (that COULD be interesting as a separate one, but there are too many threads on this to begin with): Zimmerman’s lawyer, understandably, has claimed that the not guilty verdict has vindicated his client, and that it indicates that his client “did nothing wrong.” Many of those who disagree with the verdict actually agree with this POV.

Do you think that George Zimmerman’s actions have been vindicated or otherwise approved of by this verdict?

His lawyer is not a neutral, detached observer. He’s a zealous advocate.

It would border on malpractice for him to say, “Now, remember, folks, all this verdict means is that the state didn’t prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. For all we know, the jurors thought George probably did it.”

Nonetheless, all this verdict means is that the state didn’t prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. For all we know, the jurors thought George probably did it.

[Oakminster]

@Bricker

Nonetheless, all this verdict means is that the state didn’t prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. For all we know, the jurors thought George probably did it.

There was never any doubt that he did it. The only question was whether what he did was a crime.

That said, although the jury verdict means that his actions were not criminal, they were not necessarily “right” in a non-legal sense. This was a fight, and a killing, that simply did not have to happen. Zimmerman should have stayed in his vehicle, windows up and doors locked. Let the cops deal with Martin.

[camille]

@Terr

Of course, he didn’t say that. As I showed in the omitted statement from the interview.

Except that he did say it, before trying to walk back from it after the fact. Your “omitted statement” comes three pages (two commercial breaks) later in the transcript, likely after being prompted by O’Mara to “readdress” his original remark.

From the Fox News Transcript:

HANNITY: Is there anything you regret? Do you regret getting out of the car to follow Trayvon that night?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: Do you regret that you had a gun that night?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: Do you feel you wouldn’t be here for this interview if you didn’t have that gun?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: You feel you would not be here?

ZIMMERMAN: I feel it was all God’s plan and for me to second guess it or judge it –

HANNITY: Is there anything you might do differently in retrospect now that the time has passed a little bit?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

[Terr]

@camille

Except that he did say it, before trying to walk back from it after the fact. Your “omitted statement” comes three pages (two commercial breaks) later in the transcript, likely after being prompted by O’Mara to “readdress” his original remark.

From the Fox News Transcript:

Can you point out where in that quoted statement Zimmerman says “that him shooting and killing a youth was “Gods plan””?

[septimus]

@Terr

Of course, he didn’t say that. As I showed in the omitted statement from the interview.

Wrong.

Here is the Hannity interview. I’ve set it to start at the point where GZ expresses no regret. (Back it up a short distant to learn that GZ thought he’d missed TM and didn’t know TM was dead for hours. :smack: )

… “Is there anything you’d do differently?”
“No, sir.”
(ETA: I see my post became redundant as I spent a long while searching through the interview Youtube.)

[camille]

@Terr

Can you point out where in that quoted statement Zimmerman says “that him shooting and killing a youth was “Gods plan””?

What part of “It was ALL God’s plan” is unclear to you?

[Terr]

@septimus

Wrong.

Here is the Hannity interview. I’ve set it to start at the point where GZ expresses no regret. (Back it up a short distant to learn that GZ thought he’d missed TM and didn’t know TM was dead for hours. :smack: )

… “Is there anything you’d do differently?”
“No, sir.”

From the same interview

"First I’d like to readdress your question when you asked if I would have done anything differently. When you asked that I thought you were referring to if I would not have talked to the police, if I would have maybe got an attorney, if I wouldn’t have taken the CVSA, and that I stand by. I would not have done anything differently.

But I do wish that there was something, anything, I could have done that wouldn’t have put me in a position where I had to take his life. And I do want to tell everyone: my wife,my family, my parents, my grandmother, the Martins, the City of Sanford, and America, that I’m sorry that this happened. I hate to think that because of this incident, because of my actions, it’s polarized and divided America, and I’m truly sorry."

[Terr]

@camille

What part of “It was ALL God’s plan” is unclear to you?

The part where you apparently claim to be psychic and know what Zimmerman was referring to when he said that. In spite of his explanation of what he meant by it, later in the same interview.

[Tollhouse]

@doorhinge

I think it was presumptuous of TM to travel some 300 feet to confront a stranger without first ascertaining that his intended victim was armed.

Uh, yea, IF you believe gz…cop batterer, child molester, woman beater and liar, no for some reason I dont buy his bullshit

[Tollhouse]

@Terr

The part where you apparently claim to be psychic and know what Zimmerman was referring to when he said that. In spite of his explanation of what he meant by it, later in the same interview.

Its clear that you will believe gz in spite of himself

[camille]

@Terr

The part where you apparently claim to be psychic and know what Zimmerman was referring to when he said that. In spite of his explanation of what he meant by it, later in the same interview.

Yes, I must be psychic, because I could have predicted your response to being called out.

Tell me, did he ever get around to “explaining” what he meant when he told Hannity he never heard of “Stand Your Ground”, when it turned out he studied it extensively in his college course? Maybe one of your sources has an explanation on offer that hasn’t been publicized?

[Terr]

@Tollhouse

Its clear that you will believe gz in spite of himself

It is clear that you’re willing to lie about what he says.

[Terr]

@camille

Tell me, did he ever get around to “explaining” what he meant when he told Hannity he never heard of “Stand Your Ground”, when it turned out he studied it extensively in his college course?

You’re wrong, again (surprise, surprise). It was shown that the SYG law may have been discussed (certainly not “extensively”) in the college course. It was not shown, at all, whether Zimmerman was there on that one day when it was discussed, whether he has read the material for that one day, and whether the law was actually referred to as “SYG” when it was taught.