George Zimmerman Is In Legal Trouble Again

Because you claim it as a fact doesn't make it one. The fact is we know that Trayvon ran from Zimmerman's truck and Zimmerman got out of his truck in chase with a loaded gun. Now that is a fact that can't be disputed.

No according to what Zimmerman claimed to be true because the only other person who could tell the story is dead.

Yea walked past it.

His freakin intent was to catch him, Trayvon just out ran him for the moment.

Why didn't he wait in his truck for the police if his intent was not to try and catch him. Prove that his intent was not to catch him.

BS, that was never proven in court.

It has never been proven that he went back to the apartment, that is the assertion that the defense made.

Well why do you keep saying what he could have or should have done.

I watched it when it happened and it was a farce, reading it again isn't going to change that fact.

Emmitt Till's mother sat in the court during her son's trial, after JW Milam and Roy Bryant were acquitted for his murder do you think if she would have read the transcripts over again and again she would have decided they didn't murder her son.

- - - Updated - - -

So OJ was acquitted in a Court of Law but he is a murderer, Zimmerman was acquitted in a Court of Law but he is innocent. What a joke.

 

You can label people how ever you wish. OJ is just as innocent as Zimmerman.

 

WTH does any of this have to do with GZ's new legal problems?
Which btw do not exist.

90% of this thread is off topic.

 

nothing... its just an excuse for race-baiters to spew their agenda because they are still bitter about the verdict.


it's laughable to watch

 

Its even more laughable to watch those who claim that they don't care about it to post 100 times on a thread they claim not to care about. LOL.

 

"Millions of civil rights violations occur every year that are not prosecuted. "

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*)...

So discussing a "Black Teenager" in anyway is racist to you got it..

Again look in the mirror and you will see the racism.

 

I'd like to see your data on that statement. How much do you want to bet many of those violations are false accusations of racism? You know, asshats who play the race card to dodge responsibilities?

 

Have you read my signature? Every action that results from racial prejudice is a violation of the civil rights of a person.

 

Why didn't you include the rest of the sentence in your signature? You have a period where the article has a comma. Why the deception?

The poll finds that racial prejudice is not limited to one group of partisans. Although Republicans were more likely than Democrats to express racial prejudice in the questions measuring explicit racism (79% among Republicans compared with 32% among Democrats), the implicit test found little difference between the two parties. That test showed a majority of both Democrats and Republicans held anti-black feelings (55% of Democrats and 64% of Republicans), as did about half of political independents (49%).

- - - Updated - - -

Now tell me "at this point, what difference does it make?"

 

How is walking home from the store suspicious?

As a former neighborhood watch member we were not asked to report "suspicious" people in the neighborhood but instead we were asked to report "unknown" individuals in the neighborhood. We were expressly told by our law enforcement partners that we should never assume someone is a criminal or in the neighborhood for nefarious purposes. That is a function of the law enforcement agency to determine. Even if we were to see someone entering a home through a window it was not up to us to determine if a crime was being committed. Report the person and the activity and then leave any further investigation to the law enforcement officers. We were also directed to never do anything that could lead to a possible confrontation. Finally we were told to never act like a vigilante by trying to investigate or intervene in anything we might believe to be a "suspicious" activity..

Now I don't know exactly what the neighborhood watch was told that Zimmerman was a member of but I'd assume that he was told exactly what we were told. Zimmerman violated all of the above and his training as a neghborhood watch member should have prevented all of his actions except calling in a report of a person he didn't recognize being in the neighborhood. That's all a neighborhood watch member is EVER supposed to do.

 

I choose to only address "explicit" racial prejudice because it is not a subjective determination like implicit racial prejudice. Explicit racial prejudice is based upon what a person actually states while implicit relates to "implied" prejudice which is subjective.

Simply stated I address "objective" as opposed to "subjective" racial prejudice in my signature. People can argue about the accuracy of "implicit" racial prejudice measurements but they can't argue about the accuracy of "explicit" racial prejudice so I leave no room for argument in my signature.

 

A post in which we can agree. That is also my understanding of Neighborhood Watch protocol. Zimmerman did call it in. Where he violated protocol was exiting his vehicle to follow the "Unknown". That's not illegal. He legally exited his vehicle and walked through the neighborhood and he was legally carrying a sidearm.

What Zimmerman did was unwise, IMO, and a violation of NW protocol, but completely legal.

- - - Updated - - -

You chose to cherry-pick a statement and modify it to fit your own views.

 

see, here is what neither side can know.... you are speculating, TM was just walking innocently home and refuse to accept the possibility that body language is important here.


Walking straight home on the sidewalk or shoulder of the road... not a problem....
Stopping at cars, peering in, looking over your shoulder as you look around in the rain.... are all signs that a person is casing the joint

The question I ask is how was he acting as he walked home? There's your answer as to how walking home from the store suspicious.

This is, yet again, a reason appearance is important. if you are dressed like a punk



walking around a neighborhood, in the rain.... you will raise a lot more red flags than if you are walking around a neighborhood in

it's not a crime to not be properly trained.... I've worked at many places with the same type of position. Some places have their crap together, some don't, as far as training their people.

Still, last time I checked.... observing and following does not warrant a beatdown. Zimmerman had just as much right to walk down that road, as TM did.

 

He was running/walking through the neighborhood looking for Trayvon.

 

Who said he was doing any of that?

The suspicion in this case was that he was a black teenager.

I am getting ready to walk to the store and it looks like there is a chance of rain, why would I go put on a 2pc or 3pc suit.

He wasn't walking around in the neighborhood, he was walking home.

Well it is pretty obvious this coward wasn't properly trained.

If that is the case, then Zimmerman should have gone on and minded his business because Trayvon had the same right.

 

He had plenty of chances to go home, never did.

 

After hanging around it for over a minute and appearing to make threatening gestures. Then it is real clear he ran back to the apartment telling the girlfriend he lost the guy who had been watching him, saw him cross the T and went back and confronted him.

Now where in all that did Zimmerman commit the assault and stalking you claim?

- - - Updated - - -

What court issued a death penalty?

 

The silly thugster told Precious he was by his father's girlfriend's back door.

Why didn't the moron just open the door and sashay on in?

Oh, noes! He had to prove a point. Nobody knows what that point was; he took it to his grave.

Darwin.

 

He didn't hang around for a minute or make threatening gestures... He walked past the SUV.. George changed his story on that aspect of the encounter, but its entirely possible that George FELT threatened because it was early Sunday evening, it was raining and TM was a black teen in a hoodie.

Even you must realize by now that George is an imaginative coward.

 

more liberal speculation that has no bearing on reality.
You guys need to get over his acquittal..............boy, talk about sore losers....

 

Zimmerman... and yes, I realize he could have lied... but I also realize, a kid with the past of burglary tools and women's jewelry, could absolutely been casing the joint when Zimmerman observed him, making Zimmerman right. But in a legal system where you have to PROVE Zimmerman was lying to throw out his testimony .... you came up short.


What we have is Z saying he was acting suspicious (and not just walking home like you claim)
on the other side, we have the TM supporters saying Z is lying.... ok, prove it. that's how the justice system works

or a hooded male in walking around in the rain, having nothing to do with race. you are trying to read his mind about his intentions. Tell me Madame Cleo, what number of I thinking of.... since you are so good at knowing what other's thinking is.....

if it looks like rain, here's a novel idea....



but dressing up in hoodies, no matter what race, makes you look sketchy. Yes, hoodies have a purpose... but hoodies also have a criminal element associated with it just like a red hankercheif does

you saw him walking... why didn't you testify then.... you are speculating that Zimmerman is lying that TM was acting suspicious. In order to dismiss Z's testimony and account, you have to prove your position. Giving TM benefit of the doubt does not prove Z was lying or racist

I agree.... but he's still allowed to be in the neighborhood monitoring, even confronting and asking who TM was. TM doesn't have to answer, and Z can't detain him, but one thing TM is NOT allowed to do, is attack Zimmerman.






If that is the case, then Zimmerman should have gone on and minded his business because Trayvon had the same right.[/QUOTE]

 

I don't claim it as fact the girl friend claimed it as fact, what do you have to refute her?

Prove Zimmerman intended to catch and apprehend Martin.

No according to the girlfriend and the timelines presented in court.

After hanging around it for over a minute and then yes ran passed it and back to the apartment, their encounter for the night could have ended right there had Martin choose it to end right there.

Prove it.

Why being obtuse now? He was following the request of the NEN dispatcher to let them know what he did and which way he ran.

That's proving a negative, it is YOUR contention he meant to catch and apprehend him burden of proof is on you to prove it. What evidence was presented that prove Zimmerman intended to apprehend Martin? Why didn't he pull his gun out when Martin stepped out of the shadows and confronted him?

BS yes it was.

It was proven before it ever went to court by the girl friend statements to investigators and then the timeline.

Lack of response noted.

IOW you can't refute the facts.

- - - Updated - - -

It is somewhat entertaining to watch the Martin defenders, who went down in flames at trial, still try to make their baseless arguments. It also serves as a preview to the Brown shooting and sets up that no matter if the evidence overwhelmingly proves it was a justified shooting they will cling to their supposition and conjecture and prejudiced views.

 

Says the man in the mirror. Which side constantly starts threads about Zimmerman over the slightest gossip?

 

Post the demographics of the survey.

- - - Updated - - -

Who said just walking home from the store was?

 

And he did so after three explicit request by the NEN dispatcher to keep an eye on the suspicious person, let him know what he did and what direction to which he ran. It was perfectly reasonable that he got out of his vehicle to do so.

And the fact remains, their encounter ended at that point, it was over. Zimmerman had not idea where Martin was and did not pursue him down between the buildings looking for him.