46 votes

George Zimmerman’s A Better Man Than I Thought

After a day of very solid cross confirmed testimony in the Zimmerman / Martin case, it turns out that in spite of the fact that Trayvon Martin was pounding the daylights out of Zimmerman's face and skull on a concrete surface, Zimmerman never went for his side arm until he realized that Martin noticed he was armed and appeared to go for the gun saying, "You're gonna die tonight" to Zimmerman.

Only at that point of life or death decision did Zimmerman grab his weapon and fire one shot into Trayvon's upper torso.

Zimmerman testified that he did not realize that he hit Martin... he assumed that when Martin said, "You got me". Martin meant he was going to stop assaulting Zimmerman as Martin leaned back off of Zimmerman's chest.

Zimmerman then testifies that he slipped out from Martin where he was pinned down and jumped on Martins back to restrain his hands to stop his attacker from executing any further blows.

Zimmerman tossed his gun to the side and held Martins arms down as Martin lay face down.

It seems to me that the average person who took a beating from a larger stronger attacker, would go for his weapon much sooner and would not have stopped firing until he was sure the attacker was profoundly incapacitated.

Most people in that situation would have emptied their magazine on the attacker to assure their own survival.

Based on testimony and evidence, George Zimmerman exercised extreme restraint in the use of deadly force. And the single spent, shell casing proves that restraint beyond a doubt.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

these arnt facts, they are

these arnt facts, they are one side to a story

Not quite.

They are from a string of "first responders". Testimony from first responders: eye-witnesses, defendant, first "good-cop"/"bad cop" interrogation, 911 calls, and more.

In no way is this OJ Simpson. We know who, what, when, and where.

Hardly "One sided" with so much corroboration from the prosecution's own witnesses.

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

Well the fact that he gave police a full report w/o an attorney

Was very foolish.

Everything you say can be used against you.... can be twisted to fit the prosecutions needs. Can be brought to court to use against you in court. Can ONLY be used in your defense if you choose to take the stand, otherwise the defense can't bring it in.

Being interviewed without your lawyer does not make you "look" innocent. It only makes you foolish. It is designed to be used against you.

Well

This prosecution team hasn't had anything work very well to make Zimmerman look foolish.
The more they use his testimony (videos and the investigation team testimony) the worse it gets for their case.

Maybe the truth really does work after all -- even in court.

I agree it really hasn't hurt him so far

But that is not always the case. I don't think Zimmerman is a fool or that they are making him look foolish. I'm just saying it's foolish...or foolhardy to give police interviews without your lawyer present.

Many of innocent people have been prosecuted wrongly for participating in a police fishing expedition

For future reference:

The prosecution isn't shy about objecting. There was a question asked by the defense attorney indicating there was a tool, used to break into cars, found in the bushes behind a resident's townhouse in the area close to where the altercation took place. The investigator being questioned agreed, there had been such a tool found and at that location. The prosecution didn't object to this being highly speculative (the inference being it may have belonged to Trayvon Martin). On the other hand, the defense may be laying the foundation for the introduction of evidence (?).

When the MSM first reported this case, they used a picture of Martin indicating a much younger person (12) coming back from a convenience store where he bought Skittles and an Arizona Ice Tea (keep this picture in mind).

When the actual facts were reported, Martin was not a younger person (12), he was actually 17. He was suspended from school for having a baggie which tested positive for marijuana and what was described as a burglary tool and suspected stolen jewelry on him. At autopsy, according to the coroner's office, Martin had marijuana in his system.

When candy (such as Skittles or Jolly Ranchers), is combined with Arizona Ice Tea/Watermelon fruit drink, Sprite, or Mountain Dew and over the counter or prescription cough syrup, it creates a drug called either "Lean" or "Purple Drank."

Zimmerman, we were told, was a white man, who shot him.

Because the name Zimmerman sounded "white", the MSM ran with it, when the reality is he's Hispanic. The MSM had to doubled back and call him a "white" Hispanic (whatever that is). The MSM even went to the extreme of doctoring dispatch tapes and using banners to conceal the injuries to the top of Zimmerman's head. The MSM denied altogether the injury to Zimmerman's nose.

The point of this? If there is an interest in this case, don't listen to anything the MSM is reporting. Follow the trial on Youtube, listen to the original dispatch tapes, read the coroner's report and the original incident report, all of which, I believe, are still online.

No matter how its sliced

No matter how they potray the character of Zimmerman or Martin . The facts are the facts. Zimmerman killed an unarmed man....

JMHO

For Freedom!
The World is my country, all mankind is my brethren, to do good is my religion.

Unarmed is such a stupid term

Basic fighting 101- you should always have three weapons on you.

1. Your mind is weapon number one
2. Your body is weapon number two
3. Whatever you can put in your hand to give you an advantage - from a rock to a gun - is weapon number three

There is no such thing as an unarmed person(well, unless they actually are missing their arms, in which case, yes).

To quote John J Rambo - "I've always believed the mind is the best weapon"

Martin had at least two of the three weapons on him. Those are facts.

In self defence though?

While being beaten? That is the question.

Sorry folks

I have had all the classes and training too. Rule #1 avoid the conflict. From what I've seen, Zimmerman pursued Martin. Again, Martins character aside, was this someone that was avoiding a conflict? Seem pretty clear to me the situation was initiated by Zimmerman.

Could this have been prevented? I think so.

Just my opinion.

For Freedom!
The World is my country, all mankind is my brethren, to do good is my religion.

So

Following someone acting suspicious in an area close to your home is a crime now? Sorry, but whoever initiated physical violence first is the one at fault, plain and simple. The fact Zimmerman had a gun is irrelevant.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

He already called 9/11

Then took the liberty of playing Columbo.

I've seen guys like this...they drive around in the exact same model and color of a police car and have spot lights next to the mirrors and a push bar attached to the grill. They drive up behind you and get erect when you slow down and move over.

Laugh.... Common guys, Zimmerman blew it and took it to far,quit defending this clown.

For Freedom!
The World is my country, all mankind is my brethren, to do good is my religion.

Zimmerman was on

the dispatch line, not 911. There's a difference.

Playing Columbo

isn't against the law. He harmed no one.
Everything in your post is irrelevant.

Stop trying to legitimize the persecution of someone, who most probably was just defending himself. If some asshat is wandering around my neighborhood when (i've been robbed before), there have been robberies. I'll most certainly take it upon myself to see what he's up to. I'm not state dependent, I don't call the fucking cops every time there's something wrong. I take personal responsibility for my property and myself. I don't need daddy gubment to protect me. That's MY JOB.

If he starts to harm me and I fear for my safety, I'm going to shoot the guy. That's one of my most innate natural rights.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

In self defense, yes

BUT, he, zimmerman, was the agressor as he pursued martin. I.e. zimmerman made the advance, and martin was the one using self defense. Zimmerman put himself into the situation and escalated it. At the very least he should be guilty of manslaughter for negligence.

Zimmerman admitted that he was following martin based on his appearance, hoodie, and race. He was told by 9/11 operators not to follow him, and he did. Martin was unarmed, and was not committing any crimes.

Zimmerman was the actor, martin was under threat, retaliated, got the upper hand, and was then killed by Zimmerman.

It does not matter that Zimmerman acted in self defense, because he put himself in the situation, so he must be held responsible.

By that reasoning a citizen with a camera phone would deserve

to be beaten and jailed for daring to film the police or keeping an eye on them.

Just following someone holds the sentence of having your head beat in and don't you dare fight back...cuz that would be wrong...especially if he is a media protected race. Because after all, defending yourself is racist if your attacker is black.

many of you have truly liberty deprived reasoning.

Basic human rights include being able to travel and walk freely and also the right not be jumped on because you are in the vicinity of someone else. And if you are attacked you have the basic human right to defend yourself.

But it is NOT a basic human right to attack someone because you don't like them following you.

Same logic can be applied in reverse

Martin walking Zimmerman provoking....leads to conflict. Both could have been in the wrong but now one is dead and dead men don't talk.

For Freedom!
The World is my country, all mankind is my brethren, to do good is my religion.

What is...

...the absolute worst Zimmerman could have done?

We KNOW he didn't physically attack Martin. There's NOTHING to indicate that he actively threatened him, either. Which means that the very worst that he did was follow Martin.

No, by the way, thinking a guy is following you is not a good reason to assault him.

That's not what is in question

What is in question is Zimmerman used deadly force and took a life. Could this have been avoided? I'm just trying to be objective here. I have no horse in this race.

Could Zimmerman have run away? Could he have called 911 again? Someone is dead and never coming back. Deadly force should o ly be used as a last resort. If this was a last resort, did Zimmerman put himself into that predicament?

It's almost like observing a shark and jumping in the water. Someone yells to you to "get out" (9/11 operator) and rather than heed the warning, you open up a packet of blood. Then when the shark attacks, you kill it. Did the shark need to die?

That's what needs to be considered here. From what I have seen, it looks like this situation was totally avoidable.

For Freedom!
The World is my country, all mankind is my brethren, to do good is my religion.

Your reasoning is fallacious at best.

Could Zimmerman have run away?

He shouldn't have to. Period. This is the same bullshit "duty to retreat" law garbage that have put decent human beings that were simply protecting their own lives behind bars.

Someone is dead and never coming back.

Emotional rhetoric.

Deadly force should only be used as a last resort. If this was a last resort, did Zimmerman put himself into that predicament?

If I walk into a bad neighborhood and someone walks up and tries to rob me at gun point. I shoot the guy. Your stance would say I brought it upon myself. I don't have acquiesce to criminal behavior as long as I'm not violating the law I will do as i please.

It's almost like observing a shark and jumping in the water. Someone yells to you to "get out" (9/11 operator) and rather than heed the warning, you open up a packet of blood. Then when the shark attacks, you kill it. Did the shark need to die?

No it's more like. I'm swimming off the dock in my cove and shark comes in. I follow it to see where its heading and it turns around and tries to kill me, so i shoot it in the face. To say you're trying to be objective is an insult to the intellect of anyone you thought might read that statement.

That's what needs to be considered here. From what I have seen, it looks like this situation was totally avoidable.

Avoid-ability is irrelevant. If I walk outside your home; you follow me. I see you, then I try and stab you with a butterknife. That's MY FAULT. I was the aggressor against YOU. You weren't breaking the law or harming me.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

Brain development continues

Brain development continues well into the mid 20s. Children like TM lack the emotional and cognitive flexibility to handle serious conflict as well as adults do. Most adults instinctively know this and consequently protect children. Those who don't get this, like GZ, may be dangerous to children.

‘Each individual is separated from others by a "taboo of personal isolation"...this "narcissism of minor differences"'
--Sigmund Freud

I'm about a year older than Martin.

I was his age when the event took place. I can tell you for a fact what I would have done in his situation.

If I saw a guy following me, I would pick up my own pace, maybe round a few extra corners. I would avoid a confrontation - my main aim would be to exit the area. I would get home, shut the door, lock & deadbolt it, then keep an eye out for the creepy guy.

Look at that. Nobody dies. Trust me when I say this, you are doing many teenagers a disservice when you claim that we lack the cognitive flexibility to handle conflict. Used to be, 13 year olds were considered adults. If a teenager can't handle complex decisions, it's VERY likely to simply be the result of mental laziness on their part.

Also - regardless of "why" he did it, the undisputed fact is that Martin was actively assaulting Zimmerman. If I were in Zimmerman's position, I can guarantee you I would not be running through my assailant's likely mental function or motivation. In fact, I probably would have shot Martin as soon as he had me on the ground punching me, and I would also have emptied the magazine.

But they don't lack the ability to kill

High School students do somewhat have "magical thinking" and make poor judgements historically.

However, if a 17 year old can not be trusted and is prone to act so impulsively as to jump on a stranger and start banging his head on the concrete then he should be under parental watch 24-7.

I can tell you at age 12 I knew the danger I could get into if I launched myself onto some strange adult and started wailing.

If you are capable of killing someone then you had best know how to control yourself and if you can't, then you need to be babysat like 3 year old or at best a grown autistic kid for your own sake as well as others.

Look you can't have it both ways. Either he is able to walk down the street without attacking someone....or hes not.

he was told by the 911

he was told by the 911 operator "he didn't need to follow him" not "Don't follow him." Also, not listening to a 911 operator is not a crime.

Zimmerman passed 2 lie detector tests.

And how is Zimmerman the agressor??? You're saying that a 17-year-old black athlete couldn't get away from a middle-aged fatass white guy???? Yea okay. If Martin wanted to get away, he couldve. Fact is: he didn't want to get away because he was the aggressor.

The sad part is that during the phone call that he made to the woman who testified on martin's behalf, he probably said, "This guy's following me, I'm gonna kick his ass" or something along those lines and that chick probably egged him on, "Yea go kick that cracka's ass." And then she had to go fabricate her whole testimony and obviously did not want to be there at all.

I agree with you except for one thing...

...GZ himself said in that Hannity interview that he considered himself an Hispanic/American! The MSM has done their job well if even DPers are still calling GZ white. He is 1/2 white as is Obama, but is still considered a minority and for whatever reason, most minorities tend to embrace the minority side if the other half is white. GZ seemed to be annoyed that everyone was saying he was white.

I've thought long and hard about this case and have...

... heard both sides of the argument in regards to whether Zimmerman is guilty of murder.

From what I see Zimmerman may have have good intentions as his participation in a neighborhood watch group would indicate. That said, at the end of the day an innocent young man is dead.

Is there any culpability on the part of Zimmerman? Was it an accident and tragic mistake on his part? Or was it cold blooded murder? What if Trayvon Martin was defending his life from an armed stranger he perceived as a serious threat? If so, he was justified in the use of his fist to repel that threat, right? Remember he did not follow Zimmerman... it was the other way around.

I believe George Zimmerman is guilty of criminally negligent homicide or gross negligent homicide and here is why.

(1) that the defendant's conduct resulted in the death of the alleged victim; and

(2) that the defendant acted with criminal negligence.

“Criminal negligence” means that a person acts with criminal negligence when the person ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the alleged victim will be killed. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the accused person’s standpoint.

2. The requirement of criminal negligence is also established if it is shown that the defendant acted intentionally, knowingly or recklessly.

3. "Intentionally" means that a person acts intentionally when it is the person's conscious objective or desire to cause the death of the alleged victim.

4."Knowingly" means that a person acts with an awareness that [his] [her]conduct is reasonably certain to cause the death of the alleged victim.

5. “Recklessly” means that a person acts recklessly when the person is aware of, but consciously disregards, a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the alleged victim will be killed. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the accused person’s standpoint.

Whatever motivated George Zimmerman to follow Trayvon Martin - whether it be prejudice or the honest to goodness intent to protect his neighbors... he is still culpable for the chain reaction that lead to the confrontation and shooting.

Look at it from the prospective of Trayvon. He was innocently walking home from the store with a drink in hand. He notices a stranger following him. He was being stalked and may himself been in fear for his life. Zimmerman could have been a gang member for all he knew. What would you do in his situation?

And on a different note I believed OJ Simpson was guilty but now I think he is innocent of murder... and that his son Jason Simpson murdered Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman. Watch this ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG5CPhGoT3M )

=====================================

"The greatest mystery of all is truth." - Me, 2009

I've read so many comments on

I've read so many comments on the trial that more or less follow this script. I've followed this case closely and thus far nobody has refuted these facts:

- GZ observed TM and TM was aware the GZ was observing him.
- GZ and TM ended up in a physical altercation with TM on top of GZ.
- GZ was being punched/beaten about the head, and GZ's head was likely bouncing off the concrete.
- GZ was probably screaming for help.

This idea that someone who feels they are being looked at funny or followed can assault the person who they believe is following them, and that the person doing the following has no right to self defense without catching a "negligent homicide" case is absurd.

well you have to use logic in this

if martin is walking in direction A, and zimmerman is behind martin also walking in direction A, at any point zimmerman can turn to direction B and stop his pursuit.

And that's the key here, it was zimmerman who was in pursuit of martin, not the other way around.

Martin clearly felt threatened, turned, and confronted the man stalking him. HE STOOD HIS GROUND. Zimmerman could have turned and left, but instead closed in range and pursued the altercation.

HELLO!!! MARTIN IS A 17 YEAR

HELLO!!! MARTIN IS A 17 YEAR OLD BLACK ATHLETE!! HE COULDVE GOTTEN AWAY FROM A FATASS MIDDLE AGED WHITE GUY IF HE WANTED TO!!!

that was not martins ground to stand.

He didn't own that parcel of land. No one attacked him. No one even entered his personal space. Just because someone is following you does not give you the right to attack them. Zimmerman had just as much right to be there as did Martin. He could have followed him for a mile and it didn't justify having his head bashed into the ground.

You people then would defend the police detaining, arresting, or giving a beating to people who are filming them or keeping an eye on them. Because your logic would say that a citizen keeping an eye on the police is invading their personal space and the police have a right to stand their ground