Does anyone think George Zimmerman is guilty of murder?

[Beanflicker]

Ok guys.... one of these versions is incorrect.
Which one is it, I have no idea.
But obviously they're at the heart of the matter.
Has this been conclusively determined one way or the other?

The picture that was taken of him with his nose busted was him in the back of the squad car when they arrived. This is 100% solid.

Then again maybe he punched his own nose after he shot him, then slammed own head against something to create the damage in the few split seconds between him shooting Treyvon and the witnesses coming out to see what was going on after hearing the gunshot...

[Beanflicker]

I think police and other authority fuckwits like security the world over should be taught:
When shooting an unarmed person point just below the waist or go for the knees if they are running. There should be legs on the targets at the range and full points given for a knee shot. Would save everyone a lot of trouble.

*(Kill two birds with one bullet with the waist shot on rapists ). They wont be re offending not in a full capacity again.

When a police officer has to pull out their weapon, they're not doing it to be nice. They're pulling it out to take someone down. And rightfully so. You shoot someone in the knee, they are still fully capable of returning fire with their own weapon.

[Beanflicker]

You do realise that everything you post suggests way more about yourself and your own attitude than you can ever infer from a single photo of somebody you did not know ?

A certain culture and a certain attitude ? It's called being a teenager.

It's a completely valid point. The general public, thanks to the media showing the young pictures of him smiling and wide eyed, thinks that Zimmerman just went out and shot some glassy-eyed kid who posed absolutely no physical threat to him. You show people the most recent pics of a tall, athletic 17 year old with arm tattoos, scowling and flipping the bird to the camera, and you don't get the same emotion from the public.

[Beanflicker]

Some more stuff for those interested...

OFFICIAL medical report, which details his injuries (broken nose, black eyes, minor back injury, ect)

George Zimmerman Medical Report Sheds Light on Injuries After Trayvon Martin Shooting - ABC News


Zimmerman took and passed a lie detector test the night of the shooting

Zimmerman passed lie detector on night of Trayvon shooting

[El Kabong]

You do realise that everything you post suggests way more about yourself and your own attitude than you can ever infer from a single photo of somebody you did not know ?

A certain culture and a certain attitude ? It's called being a teenager.

People want to paint me with that brush but I know PLENTY of well dressed, good mannered teenagers....I know plenty that aren't and weren't and I know a lot of the people that had the thug attitude have been arrested or shot or are currently in jail....rightly or wrongly

When I was a teenager I was taught Perception is reality...that lesson kept me out of trouble, it got me jobs. People can say "Never judge a book by its cover" but there IS a hesitation in many people not just myself to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who carries themselves in a manner resembling a common thug....sorry that's just the way it is.

Did Trayvon deserve to get shot just for "looking like a thug" no, but I can understand why Zimmerman would be suspicious about a person walking around aimlessly, in the rain, at night, when there have been a series of break ins in that area....but hey that's just common damn sense. Nobody is happy about the shooting Beanz, nobody is saying "good riddance to Trayvon" it was an incident that didn't need to occur and its tragic, but nobody can undo it.

[El Kabong]

Police officers wear hoodies, baggy clothes and have tats.

I've not seen them dress like that

[El Kabong]

As for people giving me a hard time about judging people on the way they dress....

If you see someone in a kilt....chances are you think they're Scottish or have Scottish ancestors

If you see someone in Wrangler jeans.....chances are you think they are a redneck

If you see someone in Abercrombie & Fitch....chances are you think they are a spoiled preppy

If you see someone in Carhartt apparel.....chances are they work a blue collar manual labor job

If you see someone in a Burberry hat and a track suit....chances are you think they are a chav


Do you see where I'm going with this?

[Beanz]

If following an unarmed teenager and then shooting him dead with a gun is in your eyes somehow a mark of being street savvy or following some kind of unwritten rule of "the streets" then I can not say I am at all surprised. If that is your reasoning for apportioning blame, then it puts you firmly in the same gutter with an excuse that cries, total and utter cowardice.

That's an absolute bullshit way of simplifying it. Followed? Well yeah, he's the neighbourhood watch. Unarmed? Why does that matter? If you don't have a gun and the other guy does, does that give you the legal right to smash his head in just because he's annoying you? I guess Zimmerman should have just let the kid continue to smash his head in and risk permanent brain damage or death, because hey, he was just an "unarmed kid", right? Jesus Christ, what kind of world do some of you live in?

And of course people say "well that's just Zimmerman's account. I think Zimmerman started the fight." Yeah? The neighbourhood watch guy, the guy who was calling the police and KNEW they were on their way decided to start a brawl with the taller black guy? A guy who he thought might be a dangerous criminal. REALLY? People actually buy into that logic?

George Zimmerman is a PUSSY. He didn't confront the guy, he never would have had the balls to. He called the police and had the intentions of leaving it up to the professionals. Treyvon was annoyed by it and assaulted him.

Unfortunately, you don't get to assault people because they annoy you. And unfortunately for Treyvon, you don't have to let a guy smash your brains in because he's unarmed and you have a gun.

Firstly. I was replying TO VD whose post appeared above mine in which he said



"Zimmerman had the gun. Trayvon did not. Laws of the streets clearly state you don't bring knives to a gun fight and you most certainly don't bring fists to a gun fight. Trayvon did not follow the rules. Zimmerman did. Zimmerman won the fight. Therefore Zimmerman is in the right and what he says is true"

"He doesn't have to. Rules are rules. He followed them The boy didn't. That's why he's still living and the boy is pushing up daisies. "



If you think my response was a bullshit oversimplification then maybe a little context would have helped.

Back to your points

"Followed? Well yeah, he's the neighbourhood watch. Unarmed? Why does that matter?"

Being a neighbourhood watch VOLUNTEER gives you absolutely no right to follow whatsoever. The person who answered the dispatch call despite your claim that he had no authority, actually would have undergone specific training and had a wealth of valuable experience compared to Zimmerman and his advice not to pursue should have been heeded. The fact that Martin was unarmed meant that the person pursuing him was not threatened and was himself seeking a confrontation, so yes it does matter.

"If you don't have a gun and the other guy does, does that give you the legal right to smash his head in just because he's annoying you?"

People who have their heads smashed in generally suffer at least a mild concussion. Zimmerman was found not to have by his own doctor. Zimmerman refused further medical help for his wounds which did not require stitches and are inconsistent with the type of repeated blows he claims he received. Zimmerman was by his own admission following somebody who had every right to be where they were, which was not on Zimmermans property. You are claiming that Martin smashed Zimmermans head in because that is what the suspect in a trial is telling you. We do not have the luxury of hearing the other side of the story.

"I guess Zimmerman should have just let the kid continue to smash his head in and risk permanent brain damage or death, because hey, he was just an "unarmed kid", right? Jesus Christ, what kind of world do some of you live in?"

Turn this on it's head and put yourself in the place of Martin. You are confronted by some guy who has been following you in a car and who then pursues you on foot after you attempt to run away. Should you just stand there and let him reach for his weapon ?

"....I think Zimmerman started the fight." Yeah? The neighbourhood watch guy, the guy who was calling the police and KNEW they were on their way decided to start a brawl with the taller black guy? A guy who he thought might be a dangerous criminal. REALLY? People actually buy into that logic? "

Zimmerman was a member of an MA gym. Zimmerman being shorter than an unarmed teenager he was following proves nothing. Martin if anything looks skinny or does him being black mean he looks like a dangerous criminal?

"He called the police and had the intentions of leaving it up to the professionals. Treyvon was annoyed by it and assaulted him."

You may like to believe that but Zimmerman obviously had no intention of leaving it to the professionals because the vastly more experienced dispatch caller who advised him not to pursue was ignored. You have no evidence that Martin was annoyed rather than scared himself, and you are making a huge jump to assume that the younger unarmed pursued guy was the one who initiated an assault.

"Unfortunately, you don't get to assault people because they annoy you. And unfortunately for Treyvon, you don't have to let a guy smash your brains in because he's unarmed and you have a gun."

Unfortunately you don't get to confront unarmed people when you do not work in law enforcement. Just because you make some rash judgement that they belong to a group who you think, "always gets away". A broken nose does not constitute having your brains smashed in.

[Master]

Police officers wear hoodies, baggy clothes and have tats.

I've not seen them dress like that

Out of uniform, so do lawyers and doctors.

[El Kabong]

Police officers wear hoodies, baggy clothes and have tats.

I've not seen them dress like that

Out of uniform, so do lawyers and doctors.

Yeah...out of uniform I've not seen them dress like that

[Beanz]

As for people giving me a hard time about judging people on the way they dress....

If you see someone in a kilt....chances are you think they're Scottish or have Scottish ancestors

If you see someone in Wrangler jeans.....chances are you think they are a redneck

If you see someone in Abercrombie & Fitch....chances are you think they are a spoiled preppy

If you see someone in Carhartt apparel.....chances are they work a blue collar manual labor job

If you see someone in a Burberry hat and a track suit....chances are you think they are a chav


Do you see where I'm going with this?

Yes you are agreeing that you judge people on appearances and conveniently put them into boxes as though stereotypes are anyway of judging character. Its dumb Lyle.

The photo of Martin sticking his middle finger up is a snapshot in time. It doesn't mean he is a thug. It does not mean he has a propensity for violence. Wearing a hoody is wearing a hoody, middle aged men wear hoodies you are merely reflecting a prejudice for people not dressed like you.

[El Kabong]

Yes you are agreeing that you judge people on appearances and conveniently put them into boxes as though stereotypes are anyway of judging character. Its dumb Lyle.

The photo of Martin sticking his middle finger up is a snapshot in time. It doesn't mean he is a thug. It does not mean he has a propensity for violence. Wearing a hoody is wearing a hoody, middle aged men wear hoodies you are merely reflecting a prejudice for people not dressed like you.

Hey I wear hoodies too man...but then again I guess I don't have the tats and gold teeth to make me truly gangster

[Beanflicker]

Back to your points

"Followed? Well yeah, he's the neighbourhood watch. Unarmed? Why does that matter?"

Being a neighbourhood watch VOLUNTEER gives you absolutely no right to follow whatsoever. The person who answered the dispatch call despite your claim that he had no authority, actually would have undergone specific training and had a wealth of valuable experience compared to Zimmerman and his advice not to pursue should have been heeded. The fact that Martin was unarmed meant that the person pursuing him was not threatened and was himself seeking a confrontation, so yes it does matter.

"If you don't have a gun and the other guy does, does that give you the legal right to smash his head in just because he's annoying you?"

People who have their heads smashed in generally suffer at least a mild concussion. Zimmerman was found not to have by his own doctor. Zimmerman refused further medical help for his wounds which did not require stitches and are inconsistent with the type of repeated blows he claims he received. Zimmerman was by his own admission following somebody who had every right to be where they were, which was not on Zimmermans property. You are claiming that Martin smashed Zimmermans head in because that is what the suspect in a trial is telling you. We do not have the luxury of hearing the other side of the story.

"I guess Zimmerman should have just let the kid continue to smash his head in and risk permanent brain damage or death, because hey, he was just an "unarmed kid", right? Jesus Christ, what kind of world do some of you live in?"

Turn this on it's head and put yourself in the place of Martin. You are confronted by some guy who has been following you in a car and who then pursues you on foot after you attempt to run away. Should you just stand there and let him reach for his weapon ?

"....I think Zimmerman started the fight." Yeah? The neighbourhood watch guy, the guy who was calling the police and KNEW they were on their way decided to start a brawl with the taller black guy? A guy who he thought might be a dangerous criminal. REALLY? People actually buy into that logic? "

Zimmerman was a member of an MA gym. Zimmerman being shorter than an unarmed teenager he was following proves nothing. Martin if anything looks skinny or does him being black mean he looks like a dangerous criminal?

"He called the police and had the intentions of leaving it up to the professionals. Treyvon was annoyed by it and assaulted him."

You may like to believe that but Zimmerman obviously had no intention of leaving it to the professionals because the vastly more experienced dispatch caller who advised him not to pursue was ignored. You have no evidence that Martin was annoyed rather than scared himself, and you are making a huge jump to assume that the younger unarmed pursued guy was the one who initiated an assault.

"Unfortunately, you don't get to assault people because they annoy you. And unfortunately for Treyvon, you don't have to let a guy smash your brains in because he's unarmed and you have a gun."

Unfortunately you don't get to confront unarmed people when you do not work in law enforcement. Just because you make some rash judgement that they belong to a group who you think, "always gets away". A broken nose does not constitute having your brains smashed in.

You're arguing points that are simply not true or are irrelevant.

1. Doesn't give him the right? There are no laws against a neighbourhood watch guy (or anyone else for that matter) monitoring someone who they think is acting suspicious. There is also no law stating that you have to do what a dispatcher tells you to. And the "armed/unarmed" thing is completely irrelevant, because neither man had no idea whether or not the other was armed. What your saying makes absolutely no sense.

2. I believe it because there is EVIDENCE to support that that's what happened. Just because Treyvon didn't land a KO blow that left him concussed doesn't mean he wasn't taking a beating. His wounds are documented with photo proof and an official medical report. There are also witnesses who are testifying to the fact that they saw Treyvon on top of Zimmerman throwing punches.

3. Let him retrieve his weapon? He was calling the police on Treyvon. If someone is following me, I don't think that gives me the right to sucker punch them.

4. Being a member of a MA gym doesn't give people carte blanch to assault you.

5. You're claiming a guy calling the police wasn't leaving it to the authorities. This is too stupid to even argue.

6. a) Zimmerman never confronted him, he was following him.
b) Yes you can confront someone if you're not a cop.
c) How the fuck was he supposed to know the guy was unarmed? What the fuck do you think people do? Just walk around with guns in their hands? they are hidden in holsters. Very few people walk around with their guns in plain view.

You are easily the stupidest person I've debated this with. You're saying shit that isn't true. You're making up laws that don't exist, laws that (even if they did exist) could never possibly be followed. You're shitting on people for believing an account that is backed up with witnesses and evidence, and then providing a strange "conspiracy theorist" account of what happened that would require huge leaps and a total lack of logic and common sense. It's really unbelievable.

[Beanz]

Back to your points

"Followed? Well yeah, he's the neighbourhood watch. Unarmed? Why does that matter?"

Being a neighbourhood watch VOLUNTEER gives you absolutely no right to follow whatsoever. The person who answered the dispatch call despite your claim that he had no authority, actually would have undergone specific training and had a wealth of valuable experience compared to Zimmerman and his advice not to pursue should have been heeded. The fact that Martin was unarmed meant that the person pursuing him was not threatened and was himself seeking a confrontation, so yes it does matter.

"If you don't have a gun and the other guy does, does that give you the legal right to smash his head in just because he's annoying you?"

People who have their heads smashed in generally suffer at least a mild concussion. Zimmerman was found not to have by his own doctor. Zimmerman refused further medical help for his wounds which did not require stitches and are inconsistent with the type of repeated blows he claims he received. Zimmerman was by his own admission following somebody who had every right to be where they were, which was not on Zimmermans property. You are claiming that Martin smashed Zimmermans head in because that is what the suspect in a trial is telling you. We do not have the luxury of hearing the other side of the story.

"I guess Zimmerman should have just let the kid continue to smash his head in and risk permanent brain damage or death, because hey, he was just an "unarmed kid", right? Jesus Christ, what kind of world do some of you live in?"

Turn this on it's head and put yourself in the place of Martin. You are confronted by some guy who has been following you in a car and who then pursues you on foot after you attempt to run away. Should you just stand there and let him reach for his weapon ?

"....I think Zimmerman started the fight." Yeah? The neighbourhood watch guy, the guy who was calling the police and KNEW they were on their way decided to start a brawl with the taller black guy? A guy who he thought might be a dangerous criminal. REALLY? People actually buy into that logic? "

Zimmerman was a member of an MA gym. Zimmerman being shorter than an unarmed teenager he was following proves nothing. Martin if anything looks skinny or does him being black mean he looks like a dangerous criminal?

"He called the police and had the intentions of leaving it up to the professionals. Treyvon was annoyed by it and assaulted him."

You may like to believe that but Zimmerman obviously had no intention of leaving it to the professionals because the vastly more experienced dispatch caller who advised him not to pursue was ignored. You have no evidence that Martin was annoyed rather than scared himself, and you are making a huge jump to assume that the younger unarmed pursued guy was the one who initiated an assault.

"Unfortunately, you don't get to assault people because they annoy you. And unfortunately for Treyvon, you don't have to let a guy smash your brains in because he's unarmed and you have a gun."

Unfortunately you don't get to confront unarmed people when you do not work in law enforcement. Just because you make some rash judgement that they belong to a group who you think, "always gets away". A broken nose does not constitute having your brains smashed in.

You're arguing points that are simply not true or are irrelevant.

1. Doesn't give him the right? There are no laws against a neighbourhood watch guy (or anyone else for that matter) monitoring someone who they think is acting suspicious. There is also no law stating that you have to do what a dispatcher tells you to. And the "armed/unarmed" thing is completely irrelevant, because neither man had no idea whether or not the other was armed. What your saying makes absolutely no sense.

2. I believe it because there is EVIDENCE to support that that's what happened. Just because Treyvon didn't land a KO blow that left him concussed doesn't mean he wasn't taking a beating. His wounds are documented with photo proof and an official medical report. There are also witnesses who are testifying to the fact that they saw Treyvon on top of Zimmerman throwing punches.

3. Let him retrieve his weapon? He was calling the police on Treyvon. If someone is following me, I don't think that gives me the right to sucker punch them.

4. Being a member of a MA gym doesn't give people carte blanch to assault you.

5. You're claiming a guy calling the police wasn't leaving it to the authorities. This is too stupid to even argue.

6. a) Zimmerman never confronted him, he was following him.
b) Yes you can confront someone if you're not a cop.
c) How the fuck was he supposed to know the guy was unarmed? What the fuck do you think people do? Just walk around with guns in their hands? they are hidden in holsters. Very few people walk around with their guns in plain view.

You are easily the stupidest person I've debated this with. You're saying shit that isn't true. You're making up laws that don't exist, laws that (even if they did exist) could never possibly be followed. You're shitting on people for believing an account that is backed up with witnesses and evidence, and then providing a strange "conspiracy theorist" account of what happened that would require huge leaps and a total lack of logic and common sense. It's really unbelievable.

You're arguing points that are simply not true or are irrelevant.

They are your points. It was all you said, do you have anything more relevant to add ?

The trial has yet to begin.

1. While there may be no law suggesting that you have to do what is advised by a dispatcher that does not mean acting completely contrary to what you are told is advisable, recommended or in any way justifiable. If you follow someone that could cause a confrontation, if you do that you can't then pull the "I was afraid for my life" card out as though the blame for the evening escalating actions falls on anyone but yourself. Zimmerman knew that he was armed and then went on to use that firearm to kill someone so yes it is relevant.If he was unarmed he may have thought twice about confronting someone purely on the basis that he did not recognise them. Who made him the Sheriff?

2. You do not need to land a KO blow to concuss someone.

3.How can you sucker punch someone that is following you ?

4. You suggested that Zimmerman was a pussy who would not have had the bottle to assault anyone. Pointing out his MA affiliation was not done to justify assaulting him but to refute your assertion that he was the frightened victim.

5. Did he go home after making the phone call ? did he heed the dispatchers advice ?Or did he continue his pursuit?

6.a) How do you now this. Do you have some CCTV evidence hitherto unreleased ? or are you assuming everything that Zimmerman says is the truth ?

b) You can confront someone carrying out a crime, what crime was Martin perpetrating ? Was he in Zimmermans living room? was he on private property? what law was he breaking?

c) Zimmerman claims he didn't know he was armed himself and yet remembered just in time to save his own life. The point is Martin was UNARMED and at no point produced a weapon so where was the justification to use deadly force?

I am not " shitting on anyone ". If you really think that it is so difficult to believe that the death of an unarmed teenager could not have been prevented without concocting a conspiracy theory to implicate the guy who shot him as the guilty party then maybe you are beyond reason. To think that anyone who does not agree somebody who shoots another dead is the one who deserves compensation, and that everybody's sympathy should be with him as though he is the victim, then maybe you don't understand what logic or common sense are.

[El Kabong]