Last Updated:August 28 @ 12:04 pm

Brown: If His Head is Bloody Charges Shouldn't Have Been Filed

By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown

The chant during the OJ trial was, "if the glove don't fit then vote to acquit." In the Trayvon Martin killing the legal system should focus on the wounds of George Zimmerman. Now that the bloody photographs of the back of George Zimmerman's head has been released, we must ask, why was he charged with second-degree murder?

These photos are clear evidence George Zimmerman was acting in self-defense, and according to Florida law, Zimmerman had a right to protect himself that tragic night.

We expect the national news media to manipulate and mislead in a case such as this, and they didn't disappoint. NBC doctored the 911 tapes. News websites photoshopped Zimmerman's pictures to make him appear more "white." Some photos even have Zimmerman's brown Hispanic eyes as being a light Aryan blue. All this news manipulation was intent on creating racial tension.

We expected a higher standard from prosecutors. It now seems clear that prosecutors are also trying to manipulate this case for exposure and career advancement. They have been as craven as the news media.

The conflicting stories from the night of the death of Trayvon Martin should have been sorted out by police working in concert with prosecutors. Instead, we have seen prosecutors intimidated by a national movement intent on using Trayvon Martin's death to create racial tension and use the tragedy to reelect Barack Obama.

This entire case has become a toxic political situation, and justice for George Zimmerman is being sacrificed on the altar of expediency and racial politics.

Florida statutes are clear. To be charged with 2nd Degree Murder under Florida law Zimmerman must possess a "depraved mind having no regard for human life." Also Zimmerman would have to demonstrate malice.

Taking a human life in Florida only becomes a criminal homicide if it is without justification. Self-defense including the use of deadly force in self-protection is explicitly recognized in Florida law.

Likely the decision made by police the night of the killing to release and not arrest Zimmerman was a good one. It is disgusting to see a pack of race hustlers leading a mob force to trial in this case by explicitly threatening riots if no criminal charges were filed.

Whenever a young person is killed, it is tragic. But the tragedy started when Trayvon Martin embraced the gang banger lifestyle. It happened when Trayvon Martin responded by decking Zimmerman to the ground. It started when Zimmerman's head was pounded against the ground. It was only finished when Zimmerman fought back.

Prosecutors when faced with the photos of Zimmerman's injuries should have resisted responding to a mob, even when it is led by a President and an Attorney General. Prosecutors should be immune from intimidation and manipulation for political big wigs.

Now if the Zimmerman case goes to trial we have to look forward to a summer of deeply divisive and prolonged legal proceedings which will only heighten racial tensions.

But these tensions will be a welcomed change of topic for Obama's administration which wants to talk about anything but their miserable stewardship of the economy.

---

©2012 Floyd and Mary Beth Brown. The Browns are bestselling authors and speakers.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
Rate this post:
Rating: 9.9/10 (77 votes cast)
Brown: If His Head is Bloody Charges Shouldn't Have Been Filed, 9.9 out of 10 based on 77 ratings





Don't leave yet! Add a comment below or check out these other great stories:

43 Comments

  1. PATRIOTComment by PATRIOT
    April 26, 2012 @ 1:11 pm

    The evidence seems to indicate that Mr. Zimmerman was in fact acting in self defense against an attack by Trayvon Martin. The death of Mr. Martin is unfortunate but his own actions appear to be to blame. Now Mr. Zimmerman is being charged with second degree murder by grand-standing prosecutors that know he will not be convicted. Mr. Zimmerman is being victimized by a currupt system for political reasons and will have to pay thousands of dollars in legal fees. Is this justice for Mr. Zimmerman and the rest of America?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (48 votes cast)
    • davnkatzComment by davnkatz
      April 26, 2012 @ 5:06 pm

      Keep a few things in mind.
      1. The official prosecutor knew it was self-defence, but he recused himself because he didn’t have the kahones to stand up to intimidation from a variety of sources.

      2. The replacement prosecutor probably realizes the case is lost but wants to make a name for herself. If the jurors succumb to threats and intimidation and gives her a guilty verdict, so much the better.

      3. If Zimmerrman IS convicted, he can appeal every court up to and including SCOTUS. Ultimately, it will be found justifiable homicide (providing he has a good lawyer).

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (17 votes cast)
    • SuncoastComment by Suncoast
      April 28, 2012 @ 11:47 am

      “If his head was hit…you must acquit!”

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
  2. genesalComment by genesal
    April 26, 2012 @ 1:36 pm

    No charges were filed and none should have been. The fact that he was finally charged proves the political motivations of the Far Left and their cohorts, certainly mostly, racist.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (42 votes cast)
  3. inluminatuoComment by inluminatuo
    April 26, 2012 @ 1:41 pm

    “If His Head is Bloody Charges Shouldn’t Have Been Filed”

    like “If the glove doesn’t fit you have to aquit” but only if you are the right color and can be used by the liberal media to glean votes for the Democrat party, and you are a prosecutor up for re-election.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (43 votes cast)
  4. dmg61Comment by dmg61
    April 26, 2012 @ 1:45 pm

    Also note the photos they use of Trayvon. When he was a cute kid. They won’t use the ones taken close to the time of his death showing he’d embraced the gangster lifestyle.

    Now Zimmerman’s family is being threatened. That’s “JUSTICE” all right.

    Scary and sad this case. What’s scary is it could happen to anyone else.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (39 votes cast)
  5. JBQComment by JBQ
    April 26, 2012 @ 2:02 pm

    The scary part of this is the “lock step” synopsis by all of the mainstream media.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (36 votes cast)
    • fredroeComment by fredroe
      April 26, 2012 @ 6:24 pm

      Yahoo said in it’s news release that Zimmerman had snuck out of the county like he was a man on the run. I’d ‘sneak’ out too if I had a bounty on my head.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (11 votes cast)
  6. garyComment by gary
    April 26, 2012 @ 2:15 pm

    Early in the reporting of the case I had heard a comment that Zimmerman had said, “He went for my gun.” This has always bothered me. If true, and that’s not for certain either, it would mean that Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun. That raises an issue: how did he know? If he did? It would seem to me that the whole rationale of Martin’s “attacking” Zimmerman was either an attack or a defensive move on his part to try and disarm Zimmerman.
    So which is it, and how will we ever know, given no witnesses and only Zimmerman left to testify.
    This is very disturbing to me. However, it could raise a reasonable doubt, which is all that is needed to decide the case. Careful, sound judgment is needed here, and we won’t get it with crowds picketing for “justice” on either side. This is a disgrace on our legal and political system, our news reportage, and our pressure groups that seem only created to cause hasty judgment. I wouldn’t want to be on the coming jury.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 2.6/5 (25 votes cast)
  7. wdjincComment by wdjinc
    April 26, 2012 @ 2:21 pm

    The mainstream liberal media should be condemned and held accountable for inciting racial violence and race-baiting Obama needs to be voted out of office this November.

    To charge Zimmerman with murder with malice is just plain stupid. The prosecutor is bending to the pressure and looks to seek publicity. She will lose this case once all the facts are presented.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (35 votes cast)
  8. bobComment by bob
    April 26, 2012 @ 2:22 pm

    This is a political lynching. Our “leaders” lack the courage to do the right thing and face down the mobs.
    The democrats have descended to their basic unit, the Lynch mob.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (34 votes cast)
  9. LAPhilComment by LAPhil
    April 26, 2012 @ 2:43 pm

    One reason I’m glad this case is going to trial is because there are still too many unanswered questions. We need to hear Zimmerman tell his story and see the evidence of his injuries, as documented by the paramedics and police records from the night of the incident. We need to know exactly how he was able to get hold of his gun and whether or not he had no choice but to shoot Martin to save his life. It’s going to take a trial to get to the bottom of this case and allow the speculation to finally come to an end, and hopefully the jury will reach the proper verdict based on the evidence. Without a trial the respective sides will continue to believe what they want to believe and the racial tensions will continue to simmer.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.0/5 (17 votes cast)
    • voreasonComment by voreason
      April 27, 2012 @ 9:12 am

      Phil, unanswered questions are answered by Grand Jury or DA department then it is determined whether a trial (whether a crime has been committed under law) is to take place. Meddling presidents,attorney generals, and other outsiders should shut their pie holes. Florida law has “stand your ground” type language, like it or not it seems likely political pressure supersedes the rule of law – in other words the responding officers and DA’s correct but inconvenient determination was it appears swept aside.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (10 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      April 27, 2012 @ 11:49 am

      voreason:
      Point taken, however, Grand Jury and D.A. investigations are not open to the public. If it stopped there we would never know the real facts of the case and the Al Sharptons, Jesse Jacksons, Spike Lee, Black Panthers, etc. would go on screaming about how this was a racist murder of a black man and we would never hear the end of it. I’m not saying that trials should be held just for that reason, but there is that upside of getting the truth out (or hopefully something close to it) to the public.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
  10. trashmanComment by trashman
    April 26, 2012 @ 2:45 pm

    I am afraid that guilt or innocense is not the question now nor has it ever been.We all remember the aftermath of the Rodney King trial, riots, looting and fire bombing.The Zimmerman trial could bring us more of the same or worse. I have brought up the divide and conquer principal several times and this is/will be just the latest example.

    November is coming: Time to take out the Trash.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (30 votes cast)
  11. bobComment by bob
    April 26, 2012 @ 2:49 pm

    “We need to know exactly how he was able to get hold of his gun and if he had no choice but to shoot Martin to save his life”?

    HUH?

    His gun was properly in it’s holster. I suppose he could have allowed his head to bounce off the pavement a few more times, just to be sure of Martin’s intentions, but you never really know which one of those bounces will be the one which kills you.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (29 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      April 26, 2012 @ 3:06 pm

      How do you know exactly where the gun was when Zimmerman got his hands on it? I imagine it might be rather difficult to get to your gun while someone is pinning you to the ground and beating the hell out of you. It might have come out of his holster, assuming he had one, or he may have struggled with Martin for it, I just don’t know, do you? I think I’ll wait for the facts to come out rather than speculate further, thank you.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.2/5 (11 votes cast)
  12. CharlieComment by vietnamvet
    April 26, 2012 @ 2:56 pm

    “Early in the reporting of the case I had heard a comment that Zimmerman had said, “He went for my gun.” This has always bothered me. If true, and that’s not for certain either, it would mean that Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun.”

    Zimmerman’s father was interviewed, and he told this to Foxnews.
    Zimmerman’s head was being pounded on the sidewalk, so he was trying to squirm away from that hard surface. The activity caused his firearm to become exposed to Martin’s view.

    According to Zimmerman’s Dad, that’s when Martin said something like, “You’re gonna die, now.”

    I reckon Martin was killed in a struggle for control of the weapon …

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (21 votes cast)
  13. backgammon48Comment by backgammon48
    April 26, 2012 @ 3:13 pm

    We may never know the details of this case. What we do know is that our racist President got involved. This is all about a race war and getting his base ready for election. This is a strange but frightful editorial, and the comments are what Obama wants.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/18/trial-of-george-zimmerman-could-trigger-another-rodney-king.html

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (18 votes cast)
  14. fern1939@yahoo.comComment by winterfr
    April 26, 2012 @ 3:34 pm

    What none of you mention here, is the fact that when Zimmerman called 911, they told him to not continue following…he continued following, and at some point even got out of his truck. Had he stayed in his truck, Martin would still be alive today.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 1.0/5 (12 votes cast)
    • genesalComment by genesal
      April 26, 2012 @ 4:45 pm

      BS the prosecution’s lead investigator CANNOT and WOULD NOT substantiate that tidbit even UNDER OATH, he said he didn’t know. Hearsay is not permitted even in a Kangaroo Court such as this.

      Had Trayvon not broken Zimmerman’s nose he would be alive today.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (14 votes cast)
    • theresolutevoiceComment by theresolutevoice
      April 26, 2012 @ 10:09 pm

      Go read the transcript of the 911 call. It clearly indicates the Zimmerman was not following Trayvon Martin. He even says that Martin is running away toward the back entrance of the complex. My question is WHY did Martin not just continue running and disappear and go home? He had to turn around and come back and confront Zimmerman. That’s why he ended up dead.

      Also, Zimmerman says on the tape he is very hesitant to give his home phone # because he doesn’t know where Trayvon is —-”what he’s …….”. Also, Zimmerman is waiting for the police clearly and even telling the operator where he’s waiting. Trayvon Martin simply decided to confront and did so, which led to his death.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)
  15. bobComment by bob
    April 26, 2012 @ 3:48 pm

    “they told him to not continue following”.

    Nope, they didn’t. The dispatcher said “you don’t need to do that” and Zimmerman said “O.K.”.

    Sounds like you’re getting your news from the MSM. They’ve botched the story from the first report.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (18 votes cast)
    • fern1939@yahoo.comComment by winterfr
      April 26, 2012 @ 4:03 pm

      Sounds like the same thing to me…but OK, they said “you don’t need to do that, but Zimmerman continued following and even got out of his truck. Again if he had stayed in his truck, Martin would still be alive today. And that’s a fact. And that’s why he was finally arrested.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.3/5 (12 votes cast)
    • handymanherbComment by handymanherb
      April 26, 2012 @ 4:26 pm

      He was walking to the other side of the house the get the house number, he was still on the phone with 911, then went back to his truck, don’t you guys have Internet, it’s all there if you get away from the left slanted sites

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (16 votes cast)
    • genesalComment by genesal
      April 26, 2012 @ 4:48 pm

      winterfr knows, we’ve been thru this before with him but just like all the other radical leftists they figure he who talks the most or repeats themselves the most wins, truth be damned.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (12 votes cast)
    • iamacmanComment by iamacman
      April 28, 2012 @ 12:28 am

      “Again if he had stayed in his truck, Martin would still be alive today. And that’s a fact. And that’s why he was finally arrested.”

      winterfr, AGAIN, you are confused, as are most libs, as to what actually constitutes a FACT… Zimmerman could have shot TM without getting out of his truck, right? If Z had stayed in his truck, TM could have been shot and killed by somebody else, struck by lightening, or died of a heart attack, could he not have?

      If TM had not returned to confront Z, he would be alive today.

      If TM had not attacked Z, he would be alive today.

      If TM’s parents had taught him the proper way to act, he would probably be alive today.

      Those are not necessarily facts, but they are of high enough probability to call them VIRTUAL facts…

      Get your facts straight, will you?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • bobComment by bob
      April 28, 2012 @ 4:44 am

      “VIRTUAL facts”?
      That’s got to be the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard yet, totally worthless in a court of law. I can’t believe you would want to be tried based on “VIRTUAL facts”, convicted by “VIRTUAL facts” and hung by “VIRTUAL facts”.
      If George Zimmerman doesn’t get a hearing based on factual facts then you don’t deserve one either, if you’re on the wrong side of a Lynch mob.
      George Zimmerman acted in self defense, do you want to give up your right to defend yourself to a mob of opinionated fools inventing “VIRTUAL facts”?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      April 28, 2012 @ 1:05 pm

      Bob: That’s been what I’ve been trying to say, but it seems like you’ve made a couple of assumptions yourself, like Zimmerman’s gun was in his holster, and that he told the dispatcher “OK” when he was told it wasn’t necessary for him to follow Martin. Neither of those assumptions has yet to be factually established.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • iamacmanComment by iamacman
      April 28, 2012 @ 1:52 pm

      Who the h*ll said anything about wanting to be tried on virtual facts, Bob? I was merely addressing winterfr’s fallacious statement that he thinks is factual:

      “Again if he had stayed in his truck, Martin would still be alive today.”

      by debunking the factuality in the statement and by throwing in some “facts” of my own, with the difference being that I addressed the fact that my facts weren’t truly factual by tempering them with the adjective “virtual”, which has the dual effect of making my statements “almost” factual, but such that they are highly probable. Whereas winterfr’s statement declares that it is a fact that, had Z stayed in his truck, M would still be alive today, my statements, although highly probable, are not facts, and I made it OBVIOUSLY CLEAR to anyone but a moron, that they are not, via use of the word “virtual”.

      Your quantum leap, that I am suggesting that someone would want to be tried on virtual facts, is, in fact, the only statement here that is ridiculous, Bob.

      Furthermore, your statement that “George Zimmermen acted in self defense” is even more ridiculous, given the context of this conversation. Have you considered that he might NOT have acted in self defense? Obviously not, but perhaps you should have before making that ridiculously premature statement…

      Your position is as ridiculous, naive and DANGEROUS as those of Sharpton, Jackson, the Black Panthers, etc. Before being aware of all of the evidence, and before the trial, they have declared him guilty and YOU have declared him innocent…

      Consider this possible scenario (and it could be what happened – only GZ knows for sure):

      TM comes back and says to GZ, “Why are you following me?” (or something else neutral and non threatening).
      GZ pulls his gun and points it at TM (or maybe he just shows it in his belt) and says “Because I’m going to blow you away”.
      TM, fearing for his life, lunges for the gun, grabs it, and they wrestle for it.
      They both fall to the ground, GZ landing on his back.
      The gun is knocked loose and is on the ground.
      TM is scared and panicked and he tries to knock GZ out by banging his head on the pavement so that GZ can’t follow through on his threat to kill him.
      As they struggle, GZ locates the gun, grabs it, and shoots TM, killing him.

      Tell me, Bob, given what we know at this point, could that scenario be possible? And, if so, did GZ kill TM in self defense?

      And, if not, who is ridiculous here, me or YOU.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • bobComment by bob
      April 28, 2012 @ 5:26 pm

      It isn’t illegal to get out of a truck. It isn’t illegal to watch a stranger walk through your neighborhood. It isn’t even illegal to ask the stranger who he is and what he is doing. The stranger doesn’t have to answer, but you can ask. The stranger can tell you to go to Hell. The stranger can’t, however, lay hands on you, no matter how pissed off he is.
      If Martin flipped out and punched Zimmerman simply because he thought he was being “dissed” I really can’t see any other options for Zimmerman, other than stopping the attack. I hope no one here would have told Zimmerman to just lay there and take it.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • iamacmanComment by iamacman
      April 28, 2012 @ 8:15 pm

      Bob,

      That is NOT the point. The point is, you said “George Zimmerman acted in self defense”, as if that is a fact. I said you’re wrong because you can’t possibly know what happened.

      Now you say “The stranger can’t, however, lay hands on you, no matter how pissed off he is.”

      Again, not only are you avoiding the issue, but you’re making another false assumption – that Martin was “pissed off”. How do you know that?

      I suggested that it was possible that Zimmerman actually accosted Martin, and that Martin may have been defending himself, thereby creating a hypothetical situation which would make Zimmerman guilty of murder. I’m not saying that’s what happened, but I am saying that that is a possibility, which refutes your statements that “Zimmerman acted in self defense” and that “Martin was pissed off”, which were made as if they are fact, when they are nothing more than assumptions on your part.

      You come on here and tell me that I am ridiculous for using the term “virtual facts”, and falsely imply that I would want to be tried on virtual facts, when I did not say that, nor did I imply anything even remotely close to that.

      Since you keep getting deeper and deeper in the hole you’ve dug for yourself, I’d suggest you just shut up before you bury yourself completely. Either that, or respond in a meaningful way, and address the actual issues rather than avoiding them and flinging more bullsh*t out there.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • bobComment by bob
      April 28, 2012 @ 10:04 pm

      It is obvious that Martin punched Zimmerman. Unless there is strong evidence that Zimmerman initiated hands on physical contact that’s all she wrote. In court, if you can’t prove it, it didn’t happen.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • genesalComment by genesal
      April 29, 2012 @ 12:10 am

      bob

      Have pity on him as he is just babbling and making stuff up, just to be obstinate, I suppose. He’s really making himself look silly but has worked himself into a corner he can’t exit from.

      The witness saw Martin on top of Zimmerman and told Martin to stop. Martin didn’t stop so even if Zimmerman initiated, once Martin subdued him and didn’t stop Zimmerman had no choice, but to use self defense. Unless there are other witnesses saying different it’s Z’s word against M’s word and the prosecution can not prove otherwise. Martin’s short criminal career was quickly over.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • iamacmanComment by iamacman
      April 29, 2012 @ 3:16 am

      genesal

      Silly? Really?

      It’s silly to take the position that one should not make factual pronouncements when one does not have facts to back up those pronouncements? Please tell me how that can be so, because that is my position and, if that makes me “silly”, then I guess I’m silly.

      And exactly what did I make up? I’ll tell you what I made up – nothing. Unless you consider positing hypothetical situations “making stuff up”. That is certainly one perspective, however skewed. However, these hypotheticals are at the heart of my point. No one KNOWS what happened in the moments leading up to the actual altercation. There are no witnesses to that. So to say that “George Zimmerman acted in self defense”, as Bob did, or to assume things that happened prior to the altercation, as you have, is just plain irresponsible.

      Bob, re: “if you can’t prove it in court, it didn’t happen”, NOT. You obviously do not understand the concept of “reasonable doubt”. Go look it up, then tell me that things need to be PROVEN in court, in order to have happened. Can you say OJ?

      Re: “It is obvious that Martin punched Zimmerman.” No, it is NOT obvious because there are other possibilities and you have not seen any incontrovertible evidence of this because it does not exist.

      genesal, because a “witness saw Martin on top of Zimmerman and told Martin to stop”, that is not in any way proof that Zimmerman acted in self defense.

      I posited a hypothetical situation having to do with Zimmerman physically attacking Martin or threatening him with a gun PRIOR TO that witness coming into the picture. If that happened, and Martin got shot in the ensuing altercation, then a case could most certainly be made against Zimmerman for murder, and I’m sure that’s what the prosecution is going to contend. And, although I don’t believe it happened that way, the POSSIBILITY exists that it did. And there are a thousand other possibilities at this time because no one has seen all the evidence except the police and lawyers.

      Are you aware that Martin had no juvenile record and had never been arrested?

      Are you aware that the funeral director, who prepared Martin’s body for burial, said that he found “no physical signs that there had been a scuffle”, including no bruised knuckles?

      Are you aware that Zimmerman was arrested in July 2005 on charges of felony resisting arrest with violence and battery on a police officer? And that his ex-fiancee filed a temporary restraining order on him, claiming she was afraind because he was violent?

      Are you also aware that Martin’s young girlfriend gave a recorded affidavit wherein she said that Martin was on the phone with her while this was going on, and that she says Martin told her he was being followed by Zimmerman? And that she overheard some of the confrontation?

      Are you aware that the leading investigator, a Sanford homicide detective that was called in to investigate the incident, didn’t believe Zimmerman’s story and wanted to charge him with manslaughter but was trumped by the DA because of a lack of evidence?

      And how than did they end up in the grass with Martin lying face down with a gunshot wound to the chest and Zimmerman sitting on his back?

      Did you know that two Forensic voice analysis experts, hired by the Orlando Sentinel, concluded that it was not Zimmerman who could be heard on the tape crying for help (48% match, which is a very poor match; for a positive match the software requires over a 90 percent match), and that the cries come to an abrupt stop right after the shot, strongly implying that the person screaming for help was Martin?

      As for Martin coming back to confront Zimmerman, Zimmerman himself stated that Martin ran away.

      Are you both still POSITIVE that Zimmerman killed Martin in self defense? Does none of this cause you to have any doubt whatsoever? At the very least, I think you’d have to agree that Zimmerman appears to have some responsibility in Martin’s death.

      I’m just suggesting that you guys stop making factual statements when you don’t have facts to back them up. It’s irresponsible.

      For the record, I’m not sure what happened. There are conflicting stories and evidence. I can’t say for SURE that Zimmerman acted in self defense because I don’t really KNOW what happened because I’m not privy to all the evidence and there hasn’t been a trial. Given what I DO know, the only thing for SURE is that multiple scenarios and possibilities exist and to make arrogant proclamations as if you KNOW what happened is, well, er, uh, silly!

      Consider this:
      Martin was a young kid walking with a bag of skittles, at around 7PM, 70 yards from his home. He was unarmed. He belonged there and was doing nothing wrong, and had committed no crime.

      Here comes Mr. Self Appointed Neighborhood Watch Captain wanna-be Keystone Cop, son-of-a-judge and starts stalking and following the kid.

      He calls 911 and calls the kid a f*cking coon and is told that he doesn’t need to follow the kid but, according to the kid’s girlfriend who Martin was on the phone with, he keeps following Martin. Neighborhood “watchers” are supposed to “watch, observe and report”, not follow…

      He told police he continued following Martin because he needed to find out the street name for the 911 operator. He had made 40+ 911 calls to the cops in the past year regarding that neighborhood. This time, though, this guy, who should be THOROUGHLY familiar with the streets of the neighborhoods he patrols, doesn’t know the street name? Really?

      So Zimmerman decides to leave the safety of his vehicle to confront someone who a) looks suspicious, b) is much larger than him, and c) could be on drugs (as he said to 911). Why would he do this? Oh, yeah, because HE KNOWS HE HAS A GUN, a fact that he conveniently did not tell the dispatcher.

      If he did continued to stalk the kid, he put them both in harm’s way and could be considered responsible for the murder.

      Now at this point, we know that an altercation took place, but we simply don’t know what caused it.

      Zimmerman stalked Martin, and might have provoked him, tried to detain him, might have threatened him, or might actually have physically attacked him, AS HE HAS BEEN KNOWN TO DO IN THE PAST ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION.

      Or, Martin might have attacked Zimmerman.

      The point is, we don’t know what happened.

      We do know they ended up on the ground, with Martin on top, and that Martin got shot and killed.

      We don’t know WHY.

      So I want both of you silly children to please stop acting like idiots and talking like you know why and what happened because you don’t.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • genesalComment by genesal
      April 29, 2012 @ 8:44 am

      Yes, yes, yes very silly!
      You said that Bob said that Martin was pissed. He said no such thing. I think that is what you heard, but that is not what he said.

      You’re absolutely right no one knows. It’s Zimmerman’s word which is true, in judicial terms because nobody can dispute his word, And the fact is he is innocent unless he’s proven guilty in the future.

      Well, see, that’s why you’re looking so silly. Hypothetical this and hypothetical that we’re talking facts and you talking make up stories. Who are you trying to get to change their minds by repeating and repeating without dealing in facts. All of the facts presented so far by the Judge, the prosecution and the defense points to self defense. You shouldn’t feel that you have to be right and have everyone believe that you’re right. You stated your case, we ours, live with it.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • iamacmanComment by iamacman
      April 30, 2012 @ 1:15 am

      genesal,

      You seem like a pretty nice guy, and I agree with your political bent, but you are reading this whole thing about Zimmerman/Martin wrong.

      You said:

      “You said that Bob said that Martin was pissed. He said no such thing. I think that is what you heard, but that is not what he said.”

      Yes he did. Per BOB:

      “It isn’t illegal to get out of a truck. It isn’t illegal to watch a stranger walk through your neighborhood. It isn’t even illegal to ask the stranger who he is and what he is doing. The stranger doesn’t have to answer, but you can ask. The stranger can tell you to go to Hell. The stranger can’t, however, lay hands on you, no matter how pissed off he is.”

      Now, who do you think he was referring to when he talks about the “stranger”? Let’s see, could it be Batman? Megan Kelly? No! it’s Trayvon Martin!

      If you’ll read and pay attention to the entire dialog that occurred between us, you would know that Bob thinks that Martin attacked Zimmerman (Bob said “It is obvious that Martin punched Zimmerman”) because he believes Martin was “pissed off” over Zimmerman following him or “dissing him”, and offered this as clarification and to back up his root proclamation that “George Zimmerman acted in self defense”. That is what the above HYPOTHETICAL situation offered by Bob illustrates.

      So, yes, Bob is saying that Martin punched Zimmerman because he was “pissed” or felt “dissed”, and that Zimmerman thus acted in self defense by killing him. That is Bob’s position.

      So, when you say “You shouldn’t feel that you have to be right and have everyone believe that you’re right”, if people (you) didn’t say things that are inaccurate or incorrect, I wouldn’t have to prove you wrong, now, would I?

      You said:

      “It’s Zimmerman’s word which is true, in judicial terms because nobody can dispute his word”.

      I kind of have to disagree with you here also (surprised?). His word most certainly CAN be disputed, by contradictory EVIDENCE. Did you read my last post where I mentioned all that evidence? Much of it lends credence to the distinct possibility that this might not have happened the way Zimmerman says it did, and the prosecution is most certainly going to use that evidence (and much more that we don’t know about yet) to DISPUTE Zimmerman’s word.

      You said:

      “Hypothetical this and hypothetical that we’re talking facts and you talking make up stories. Who are you trying to get to change their minds by repeating and repeating without dealing in facts.”

      I’m not sure who’s posts you’re reading but I’d suggest you pay closer attention when you read, and look up the word “fact” in the dictionary because there is a huge disconnect between what a fact is and what YOU believe a fact is. I offered ONE hypothetical. That’s right, ONE. The rest of the things I mentioned were FACTS. If you can find more than one hypothetical offered by me, then point it out. Otherwise, I think you need to come out of fantasyland and realize that the ONLY one who has stuck to FACTS in this conversation has been ME. You and Bob are the ones who have made ridiculous assumptive statements based absolutely on conjecture, and without proof.

      I called you and Bob on that because it’s irresponsible and leads to big problems. You put yourself on the level of Sharpton, Jackson, the Black Panthers and, frankly, the left, when you do it. So, I guess if you simply can’t admit that you’re wrong, and you keep doing it, you WILL have to live with your decision to do so.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  16. RobComment by Rob
    April 26, 2012 @ 4:10 pm

    It’s ironic that Zimmerman, a registered Democrat, is being “defended” from the black/liberal lynch mob by conservatives. The police, ON THE SCENE, decided they had no cause to arrest…after six hours of investigation. A spineless prosecutor only decided to indict/arrest, after the civil rights con men took to the streets. Scary AND pathetic

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (16 votes cast)
  17. LTComment by blt2go
    April 26, 2012 @ 4:11 pm

    It is just blatant black racism and was created by the likes of Shapton and Jackson. They just cannot handle the truth.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (15 votes cast)
  18. bobComment by bob
    April 26, 2012 @ 4:19 pm

    “Zimmerman continued following”?

    You don’t KNOW that! At this point it is nothing but speculation.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (11 votes cast)
  19. BillzillaComment by Billzilla
    April 26, 2012 @ 5:21 pm

    It all started when Trayvon’s parents failed to ground him for being suspended from school. If he’d been made to stay home, instead of being allowed out to get Skittles, it wouldn’t have started.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (10 votes cast)
    • genesalComment by genesal
      April 26, 2012 @ 5:30 pm

      His parents are separate and he was staying with his dad because of the suspension from school.

      So… if he wouldn’t have got suspended, he wouldn’t have gone to his dads, and would be wandering a different neighborhood then he’d still be alive.

      I haven’t heard about any more break-ins there.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (10 votes cast)
  20. bobComment by bob
    April 26, 2012 @ 6:06 pm

    “It’s ironic that Zimmerman, a registered Democrat, is being “defended” from the black/liberal lynch mob by conservatives”.

    Not really, it has always been conservatives standing for constitutional processes. Calling conservatives “right wingers” ignores the fact that conservatives are politically in the center, where The Constitution is. The extremes, right and left, really have a lot in common and aren’t philosophically related to conservatives.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (12 votes cast)

Leave a Comment





Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer