I do not care if he was black or white. If I was a neighborhood watch guy and I saw a guy with a hood on his head in the middle of the night in my neighborhood, that would be a little suspicious.

I'm not trying to make it racial. But it would be different if Trayvon was climbing in or out a window then i would understand. Then i would just call 911 and tell them where he went.

I'm not trying to make it racial. But it would be different if Trayvon was climbing in or out a window then i would understand. Then i would just call 911 and tell them where he went.

 

I doubt it, I would follow him to make sure he doesn't get away. 

I doubt it, I would follow him to make sure he doesn't get away. 

Ok now i see your point there. I would just follow him but I wouldn't get out and approach him. And I'm not trying to make this racial.

Ok now i see your point there. I would just follow him but I wouldn't get out and approach him. And I'm not trying to make this racial.

 

Yeah but if I could I would take him down and hold him down until cops arrive but I never said you were trying to make this racial. I am just stating that if Trayvon would have been white, George Zimmerman would've probably confronted him to. 

Yeah but if I could I would take him down and hold him down until cops arrive but I never said you were trying to make this racial. I am just stating that if Trayvon would have been white, George Zimmerman would've probably confronted him to. 

Oh sorry. i guess i read your last post wrong.

Yeah i know but they just gave him that advice to do that. I know he didn't have to but he should have taken that advice.

 

Yes he should have stayed in his car and waited for the police to arrive. But as has been said multiple times already, he was under no obligation to obey the call taker, and he did not commit any crime by disobeying the call taker.

 

Unfortunately, "Criminal Stupidity" is not a valid charge recognized by the law. As much as I wish it were, let's face it, we'd have an even worse jail overcrowding problem than we do now...

 

Like I said before, Zimmerman should have been charged with menacing or some valid charge for the laws he actually did violate; but the prosecutors office decided not to uphold the law and go for the media headlines instead. I believe the prosecutor and his team need to be censured for their misconduct in this case.

On the evening of February 26, 2012, Zimmerman observed Martin as he returned to the Twin Lakes housing community after having walked to a nearby convenience store. At the time, Zimmerman was driving through the neighborhood on a personal errand.

At approximately 7:09 PM, Zimmerman called the Sanford police non-emergency number to report what he considered a suspicious person in the Twin Lakes community. Zimmerman stated, "We've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy." He described an unknown male "just walking around looking about" in the rain and said, "This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something." Zimmerman reported that the person had his hand in his waistband and was walking around looking at homes. On the recording, Zimmerman is heard saying, "these assholes, they always get away."

About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running." The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?" The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door. Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.  The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."  Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location. Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.

 

Now, let me point out several facts:

 

• Trayvon Martin was a 5 foot 11 hooded male with his hands in his pockets, walking around looking about.
• He was actually high on marijuana, based on the toxicology report - regardless of your opinion on marijuana, it is illegal in the state of Florida.
• He decided that he would run when there was no present danger.
• Trayvon Martin did not call 911 to tell them a man was following him, while Zimmerman DID call 911 and tell them he was following him.

He also did lose George Zimmerman, but he decided he would double back around rather than getting home and telling his father of it. He allegedly told his girlfriend that there was a white cracker following him. Now, since people love to play the racial card and say that GZ racially profiled Trayvon Martin - I'd like you to remember that Zimmerman did not call him any racial names, however Trayvon Martin did. I understand this does not change anything, but just to be clear incase someone would like to pull the racial card.

 

ABC News reported that a medical report compiled by the family physician of George Zimmerman showed that, following the altercation with Martin, Zimmerman was diagnosed with a closed fracture of his nose, two black eyes, lacerations to the back of his head, a minor back injury, and bruising in his upper lip and cheek.

 

This also makes it clear that George Zimmerman did take a beating before shooting Trayvon Martin.

 

On June 26, 2012, the prosecution released the results of a voice stress test performed on George Zimmerman the day after the shooting. A voice stress test is a type of test used to measure deceptive or psychological stress in the human voice in response to questions. Zimmerman was asked, "Did you confront the guy you shot?", to which Zimmerman answered, "No." Zimmerman was asked, "Were you in fear for your life, when you shot the guy?", to which Zimmerman answered, "Yes." The examiner concluded that Zimmerman "told substantially the complete truth" in the examination, and Zimmerman was classified as "No Deception Indicated (NDI)" according to the report.

 

What I want to point out here is that he did not confront Trayvon Martin - it was the other way around, which would make sense given Zimmerman's recollection of the events that took place. Trayvon Martin appeared "from nowhere" and said "You got a fucking problem Homie?" to which Zimmerman replied "No" - Trayvon then stated that he did now. It was also stated that Trayvon spotted Zimmerman's gun and said "You gonna die tonight", at which point they fought for the gun and George Zimmerman was able to grab it and shoot him.

 

I understand this is simply a one-sided report as we do not have Trayvon's side of the story, it is also my understanding that when the prosecution told Zimmerman there was video footage of the events, he said "Oh, thank God!" which would indicate he was indeed telling the truth.

 

I also believe that the Judge was very unfair and biased, allowing the prosecution to present a lot more than the defense was allowed. If the jury had said he was guilty, it would have likely been appealed. I also find it sick that people compare this jury to that of the Casey Anthony jury. There was a lot more evidence pointing to Casey Anthony being guilty, while there is very little evidence that George Zimmerman is guilty.

 

If you cannot accept the facts, you have the right to live as a sheep knowing only what the media has told you. It is sad that people have been manipulated by the media to believe lies - remember when ABC (or NBC, I forget which) edited police surveillance to make it appear as though George Zimmerman had no injuries?

 

It is also very sad that unpeaceful protests are continuing to take place, even after the Martins asked people to be peaceful about it.

 

This case should have not been a worldwide thing. I originally saw it on my local news the night it happened and did not think anything of it. Next thing I know the President of the United States is telling people "Trayvon was like a son I never had" and "justice will be served", Mike Tyson suggesting George Zimmerman should be killed while stating he didn't know much about what happened.

 

well i've  read what you wrote and it has a lot of inconsistencies, first off if you listened to the whole 911 call you would know that zimmerman did use a racial slur. He said and i quote fucking coon. That's referred to blacks but it wasn't put into evidence and everyone was so riled up when rachel repeated what treyvon said and i also quote creepy as cracker. Secondly toxicology did say he had marijuana  in his system but it was not enough to suggest that he was high at the time. Thirdly zimmerman never went to an emergency room to be examined by a neutral party but instead with his family doctor who could say anything. I saw the photos at the time and the emts their also stated all he had was a swollen nose, an abrasion on the forehead and a couple of laseration on the back of the head about an inch long. No black eyes, no back injuries and nomarks on the lips or cheeks. Fourthly how was there no present danger if you see a strange man watching and then following you at night and in the rain none the less. You suppose to run. Now as far as treyvon losing him, him the statements given he was tired maybe to tried to hide to catch his breathe i don't know, now wheather or not zimmerman approached treyvon or treyvon approached zimmerman and treyvon asked why are you following me for zimmerman had all the time to tell him who he was and why he was following him but didn't. Instead he replied what are you doing around here. Now in that instance treyvon could've replied that he lived in the complex but didn't. Now both parties were wrong in that instance but we still don't know who struck who first. I've watched the trial since it first begin andstop to think a minute. Not about evidence but common since. First the gun and holsteris all black and its pitch dark out and zimmerman's weapon is strapped to his rear right hip as he described in the video, and if zimmerman is on his back and treyvon is on top how was he able to see the gun unless he has nightvision or something. And how was zimmerman able to pull his gun and fired dead in the heart if he was really straddled down like he said. It's impossible to do because i tried that same scenario with my firearm and it was impossible. And how come the neighbor or the officer that arrived first could not see in firearm in the dark. He had to tell them. And if zimmerman  was to by some miracle pull out his gun and fire blinly into the dark and some how hit treyvon the bullet would've  been at an angle to suggest that he was indeed on his back. He stated that he didn't know that he hit treyvon but it was a contact wound which means the gun was pressed into his chest. He then stated treyvon replied you got me and got off of him, in that case treyvon would've been on his back or if he fell over on zimmerman  he would've rolled the body off of him. He then stated while treyvon was faced down in the dirt that he got on his back and spread his arms out but in the crime scene photo treyvon's arms were under him. That shot would've killed him instantly. Now if you listen to all the statments given by zimmerman all of them changed. Lastly as an officer of the law i know that evidence outways common sense anyday and i am black and i live in the projects but i'm not biased against either party, i just have alot of common sense and no right is right and wrong is wrong. That's all i have to say for now............lol

Yeah but if I could I would take him down and hold him down until cops arrive but I never said you were trying to make this racial. I am just stating that if Trayvon would have been white, George Zimmerman would've probably confronted him to.

Really? Because that's a terrible idea. Not only are you putting your own life in danger, but you are also possibly exposing yourself to charges of assault and false imprisonment. Citizen's arrest is almost always a bad idea - you aren't trained to arrest, you have no idea what sort of force is legal (generally not very much), you can only arrest for a misdemeanor if you personally saw them commit it, and you can only arrest for a felony if a felony was actually committed. Note the difference between that and what a cop does - If a cop thinks a felony was committed and makes an arrest, but no felony happened, the cop isn't liable. If you arrest someone and no felony happened, you go to jail. Even if you had a good reason to believe something was a felony (say, you saw vandalism and thought that it went over the threshold to make it a felony), if it wasn't (say, the damage was under the threshold), you're going to prison.

Really? Because that's a terrible idea. Not only are you putting your own life in danger, but you are also possibly exposing yourself to charges of assault and false imprisonment. Citizen's arrest is almost always a bad idea - you aren't trained to arrest, you have no idea what sort of force is legal (generally not very much), you can only arrest for a misdemeanor if you personally saw them commit it, and you can only arrest for a felony if a felony was actually committed. Note the difference between that and what a cop does - If a cop thinks a felony was committed and makes an arrest, but no felony happened, the cop isn't liable. If you arrest someone and no felony happened, you go to jail. Even if you had a good reason to believe something was a felony (say, you saw vandalism and thought that it went over the threshold to make it a felony), if it wasn't (say, the damage was under the threshold), you're going to prison.

i agree

Really? Because that's a terrible idea. Not only are you putting your own life in danger, but you are also possibly exposing yourself to charges of assault and false imprisonment. Citizen's arrest is almost always a bad idea - you aren't trained to arrest, you have no idea what sort of force is legal (generally not very much), you can only arrest for a misdemeanor if you personally saw them commit it, and you can only arrest for a felony if a felony was actually committed. Note the difference between that and what a cop does - If a cop thinks a felony was committed and makes an arrest, but no felony happened, the cop isn't liable. If you arrest someone and no felony happened, you go to jail. Even if you had a good reason to believe something was a felony (say, you saw vandalism and thought that it went over the threshold to make it a felony), if it wasn't (say, the damage was under the threshold), you're going to prison.

 

 

Well in the situation that ast trooper said I would hold him down especially if he had just climbed out of a window and started running.

Really? You'd have a REALLY hard time justifying holding someone down for that. Citizen's arrest is not something you should do. You are exposing yourself to immense civil and criminal liability, with zero training on arrests. If the guy gets hurt, you don't have the immunity a police officer has from lawsuits (police departments can sometimes be sued for injuries during an arrest, but the officers personally normally can't be). Nor are you given nearly the same leeway in use of force as a trained police officer making an arrest. Even if they were committing a crime, they can sue you for any injury caused, and they'll probably win - since you don't actually have training in making arrests, you have a very hard time in court. Call 911. Don't try to get involved. It is likely to end very, very badly for you.

Really? You'd have a REALLY hard time justifying holding someone down for that. Citizen's arrest is not something you should do. You are exposing yourself to immense civil and criminal liability, with zero training on arrests. If the guy gets hurt, you don't have the immunity a police officer has from lawsuits (police departments can sometimes be sued for injuries during an arrest, but the officers personally normally can't be). Nor are you given nearly the same leeway in use of force as a trained police officer making an arrest. Even if they were committing a crime, they can sue you for any injury caused, and they'll probably win - since you don't actually have training in making arrests, you have a very hard time in court. Call 911. Don't try to get involved. It is likely to end very, very badly for you.

i wouldn't advise you to always do it but in the situation i said, if you are strong and have been trained then you do it. apparently George wasn't.

+ 1

 

He never was guilty the Jury did the right thing

 

the African American Community and DA and media  tried to make this about race and age 

 

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/national_world&id=9171614

exactly that's why the media hyped this up they wanted to create a race war and did anyone else see the tweets about rioting if Zimmerman was acquitted? bunch of brain washed imbeciles

exactly that's why the media hyped this up they wanted to create a race war and did anyone else see the tweets about rioting if Zimmerman was acquitted? bunch of brain washed imbeciles

 

 

now the justice department has made it about Race

 

they are looking to see if there is any criminal civil right charges they can file

 

Leave it the hell alone government always sticking their noses where it doesn't belong

Edited July 14, 201312 yr by K-9 police 9

I'm going to have to say this is EXACTLY where the government's nose belongs. Someone killed someone else? Yeah, that sounds like the sort of thing the government should look into. In fact, if there was only a single crime in the world, this would pretty much be it. It may be justified, but that's what investigations are for.

As for the federal charge - This sort of thing is exactly why these laws exist. You see, in the past, people who attacked and killed blacks in the South didn't face actual punishment from state police and courts, so the federal government had to step in to protect people (why, yes, if the state is failing it's duty to protect its citizens from crime, that IS the sort of thing the federal government should step in and handle). So federal charges make a lot of sense to look into - even if it WAS self-defense, that is something for a court to decide. Based on history, state courts can't necessarily be trusted to be fair in evaluating this. So the federal government can look as well.

I think they should change the laws in Florida so they make sense.

I'm going to have to say this is EXACTLY where the government's nose belongs. Someone killed someone else? Yeah, that sounds like the sort of thing the government should look into. In fact, if there was only a single crime in the world, this would pretty much be it. It may be justified, but that's what investigations are for.

As for the federal charge - This sort of thing is exactly why these laws exist. You see, in the past, people who attacked and killed blacks in the South didn't face actual punishment from state police and courts, so the federal government had to step in to protect people (why, yes, if the state is failing it's duty to protect its citizens from crime, that IS the sort of thing the federal government should step in and handle). So federal charges make a lot of sense to look into - even if it WAS self-defense, that is something for a court to decide. Based on history, state courts can't necessarily be trusted to be fair in evaluating this. So the federal government can look as well.

if that's the case then the government should stick there nose in every murder case then.....how about no...our government is corrupt to the core they have no business in this trial Zimmerman won the case, this stuff happens in Chicago all the time but wheres the media coverage on that?

I think they should change the laws in Florida so they make sense.

 

They do make sense you just don't understand them. The only reason case got tried was because the "The community" starting to protest and light fires and just become way out of hand. They don't care about the kid they only want to protest and cause trouble. Sorry but his parents don't care about their kid they just want money, sorry to say it but a lot of them are like that. Here in Milwaukee when a kid died in the back of a cop car when he had his funeral the parents didn't even show up they just wanted money and that was it...

if that's the case then the government should stick there nose in every murder case then.....how about no...our government is corrupt to the core they have no business in this trial Zimmerman won the case, this stuff happens in Chicago all the time but wheres the media coverage on that?

Why, yes, murder is a case for government concern. Always. This isn't controversial.

Now, you may mean "federal government". Federal government != government, and if you don't realize that Florida also has a government, you really don't have a place commenting on any legal issues. Government doesn't mean federal.

In possibly racially motivated cases, history has proven that states can't always be trusted. So the federal government can also step in. If it wasn't for that history, you might have a point that the federal government shouldn't be involved, but that's a really really hard position to maintain.

well i've  read what you wrote and it has a lot of inconsistencies, first off if you listened to the whole 911 call you would know that zimmerman did use a racial slur. He said and i quote fucking coon. That's referred to blacks but it wasn't put into evidence and everyone was so riled up when rachel repeated what treyvon said and i also quote creepy as cracker. Secondly toxicology did say he had marijuana  in his system but it was not enough to suggest that he was high at the time. Thirdly zimmerman never went to an emergency room to be examined by a neutral party but instead with his family doctor who could say anything. I saw the photos at the time and the emts their also stated all he had was a swollen nose, an abrasion on the forehead and a couple of laseration on the back of the head about an inch long. No black eyes, no back injuries and nomarks on the lips or cheeks. Fourthly how was there no present danger if you see a strange man watching and then following you at night and in the rain none the less. You suppose to run. Now as far as treyvon losing him, him the statements given he was tired maybe to tried to hide to catch his breathe i don't know, now wheather or not zimmerman approached treyvon or treyvon approached zimmerman and treyvon asked why are you following me for zimmerman had all the time to tell him who he was and why he was following him but didn't. Instead he replied what are you doing around here. Now in that instance treyvon could've replied that he lived in the complex but didn't. Now both parties were wrong in that instance but we still don't know who struck who first. I've watched the trial since it first begin andstop to think a minute. Not about evidence but common since. First the gun and holsteris all black and its pitch dark out and zimmerman's weapon is strapped to his rear right hip as he described in the video, and if zimmerman is on his back and treyvon is on top how was he able to see the gun unless he has nightvision or something. And how was zimmerman able to pull his gun and fired dead in the heart if he was really straddled down like he said. It's impossible to do because i tried that same scenario with my firearm and it was impossible. And how come the neighbor or the officer that arrived first could not see in firearm in the dark. He had to tell them. And if zimmerman  was to by some miracle pull out his gun and fire blinly into the dark and some how hit treyvon the bullet would've  been at an angle to suggest that he was indeed on his back. He stated that he didn't know that he hit treyvon but it was a contact wound which means the gun was pressed into his chest. He then stated treyvon replied you got me and got off of him, in that case treyvon would've been on his back or if he fell over on zimmerman  he would've rolled the body off of him. He then stated while treyvon was faced down in the dirt that he got on his back and spread his arms out but in the crime scene photo treyvon's arms were under him. That shot would've killed him instantly. Now if you listen to all the statments given by zimmerman all of them changed. Lastly as an officer of the law i know that evidence outways common sense anyday and i am black and i live in the projects but i'm not biased against either party, i just have alot of common sense and no right is right and wrong is wrong. That's all i have to say for now............lol

 

I couldn't read what you said too much because it's difficult to read when you don't know how to properly space out paragraphs, but as I live near the area I am aware that they thought he said fucking coon. It was later determined he said "fucking punks", which is exactly what he said. I somehow doubt that you are an officer of the law though, because you should know that if you ask someone to tell you about an event that happened, every 6 months for 5 years (just as an example), especially a traumatizing event, that they will recall something a bit different every time you ask. Memories change.

 

They also did determine how he was able to shoot him with the use of the dummy.

 

When Trayvon approached Zimmerman, he asked what his problem was. He replied he had no problem - Trayvon at this point should have said something like "okay cool" and headed home, or better yet had not even approached Zimmerman. I know Zimmerman shouldn't have followed him, but when you see someone matching Trayvon's description (not skin colour, if you're confused by what I mean) in my neighborhood, you go check it out.

 

By the way I've noticed a few people in this topic remind me of Mike Tyson