In Defense of George Zimmerman (vanity)

[TigerClaws]

Since there's been a public rush to judgment and many key facts are being ignored by the MSM I’ll defend Zimmerman.

1. He was walking in a public place. Nothing illegal about walking behind someone.

2. He had a legal right to his gun.

3. There were robberies in his neighborhood. Someone who didn’t live there (trespass?) was walking through.

4. He called 911 but without telling the cops where to go when they arrived there’s no suspect if it turns out a robbery took place.

5. He lost sight of TM and headed back to his SUV.

6. TM confronted him and started hitting him.

7. TM broke his nose.

8. Zimmerman asked a witness for help and to call 911.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012

9. Zimmerman fired his gun in self defense due to threat of immediate bodily harm.

Okay?

What’s your case to prosecute him or even arrest Zimmerman?

Zimmerman can sue you personally for malicious prosecution so your career and wealth are 100% on the line making this decision.

PDF of Police Report:

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin%20Lakes%20Shooting%20Initial%20Report.pdf

Letter from City Manager explaining why Zimmerman was not arrested:

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf

[greyfox]

That’s a no brainer, ask the Democrats. Blacks flock to the Democratic plantation owners, they get promises that are never fulfilled but they continue to believe their benevolent plantation owners, particularly when the plantation owner is one of their own kind. Sharpton and Jackson are willing operatives of the plantation owners. The caste system is hard at work here, those who are successful are called Uncle Toms.
The rest are kept in a constant state of agitation by “community organizers” and the likes of Sharpton and Jackson.

[jpsb]

I only recently became aware of this story, but it seems to me that Ts’ ONLY valid reason to assault Z was if Z was in pursuit and T felt he was defending himself. Other then that T is the aggressor and Z is entitled to defend himself. Still curious about where the assault took place? Private property or public property? Best I can determine was inside a gated community but those come in many flavors.

[smoothsailing]

Order or not, it was imprudent, even foolish.

"Zimmerman’s statement was that he had lost sight of Trayvon and was returning to his truck to meet the police officer when he says he was attacked by Trayvon."

If this is true, Zimmerman was not being foolish or imprudent at the time he was attacked. Zimmerman's actions at this point were passive. If Zimmerman is to be believed, the attack was unprovoked.

[jdsteel]

He was told not to pursue the guy but to wait for the cops.

Incorrect. When he said he was following the person in question he was told "you don't have to do that". Very different than being told NOT to follow.

[MtBaldy]

“Pursue” implies following to capture or subdue. It’s inflammatory and not accurate in this instance. Zimmerman had no intention of taking any action, at least according to him, and was simply trying to keep Martin in sight to direct police to him.

[101stAirborneVet]

There is way too much loaded language flying around here. Thanks for pointing this one out. I've been jumping around threads trying to explain that if you're calling for a person to be charged with a crime, your description of what happened ought to be objective and clinical.

From the language some FReepers are using, it's clear they have a preconceived notion and then make the loaded words fit to describe what they think happened.

Thanks for pointing this one out.

[Hulka]

Found several posted here from his Facebook page (before being scrubbed clean by his family):

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2862657/posts?page=96#96

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2862811/posts?page=318#318

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2862811/posts?page=146#146

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2863075/posts?page=133#133

[palmer]

Are those the deceased Trayvon Martin or the other Trayvon Martin?

[calex59]

If he had been attacked in his car, he would have been within his rights to use his weapon, to stand his ground.

Wrong, if he was attacked anywhere he has the right to self defense, not stand your ground. He was being badly beaten and had every right to use his gun. The kid was the one who made the mistake, in following after Zimmerman had turned back and jumping him. Witnesses put him on top of Zimmerman beating him. Or are you saying that if you piss someone off they have they right to beat you to death and you can't legally prevent it? Just because someone follows you and irritates you doesn't give you the right to follow after them and physically attack them. Kid was wrong, Zimmerman was right.

[palmer]

He was being badly beaten and had every right to use his gun

Then TM better have a lot of powder burns on his clothes.

[Theoria]

4.) He called a non-Emergency line, not 911.

5.) He did lose sight of Mr. Martin--'We' still don't know if he headed back to his vehicle

6.) Pure speculation on who confronted who. And what a confrontation means.

7.) He had a 'bloody' nose-- Speculation if it was broken.

9.) Still speculation.

Mr. Zimmerman, is innocent until proven guilty.

[Hulka]

According to the posters here, THE Trayvon

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2863075/posts?page=140#140

[eccentric]

“Pursue” is what Martin’s impression was. Where is the evidence that he attacked Zimmerman? No witness has told how the physical confrontation occurred except Zimmerman. Take the race-baiters out of the issue and prejudice based on looks (where are the recent pictures?). One young man is dead and there is no good reason why.

[Rooivalk]

“He was told not to pursue the guy” Wrong. He was never told not to follow, not “pursue”, Martin. The dispatcher when learning Zimmerman was following Martin said, “that’s not necessary”. Far from an order and the dispatcher has no legal authority to order a civilian anyway. Do you have an agenda here or are you merely misinformed by the MSM?

Seems like you want to split hairs when it comes to bending over backwards to present this gun toting fool Zimmerman as being in the right when it came to shooting an unarmed, innocent person walking down the street.

For your information the dictionary defines pursue as "To follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, or defeat"

Looks like Zimmerman got the kill part right.

As for your braying about "The dispatcher has no legal authority to order a civilian anyway", why don't you tell us what authority Zimmerman had to accost a person who was just walking down the street and creating a confrontation that resulted in the death of an innocent person?

That explanation I would really like to hear

[eccentric]

Your key defense points #5 and 6 are crucial to the defense, but have no evidence to back them up.

[101stAirborneVet]

“Pursue” is what Martin’s impression was.

Really? When did he say he felt he was being "pursued"? Did he call you and tell you this word "pursued"?

Where is the evidence that he attacked Zimmerman?

We don't need any. Probable cause to charge Zimmerman doesn't turn on proving Martin attacked or didn't attack him.

No witness has told how the physical confrontation occurred except Zimmerman

If Zimmerman's statement matches the physical evidence, then he is to be believed.

One young man is dead and there is no good reason why.

And you may never get a reason that satisfies you. Such is the way the world turns, I'm sorry to say.

FReepers, if you want to say "I don't feel good about what happened here", or "I wish Zimmerman hadn't shot Trayvon", that's fine. But making statements that have nothing to do with criminal law doesn't serve anything.

[Hulka]

And no evidence to say it isn’t true.

Actually, we have Z’s testimony.

[Gene Eric]

>> He was told not to pursue the guy but to wait for the cops.

I was under the impression he was not obliged to follow as in: “you don’t have to”

[MtBaldy]

“as for your braying”

First off, seems like your an asshole.

Second, seems like you have already convicted Zimmerman and are just making up “facts” to support your preconceived opinion. Are you going to riot and get you a new big screen TV when Zimmerman is found innocent or not charged?

I’m going to wait and see what looks to be a very thorough investigation turns up before making any decision.

[Gene Eric]

>> The call taker stated “you don’t need to do that”.

I don’t consider that an order, but instead a suggestion or an option.