Skip to comments.Evidence mixed for Zimmerman's self-defense claim [Media Hoping George is Convicted]
Posted on 05/18/2012 1:53:50 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
When George Zimmerman tries to convince a judge or a jury that he shot Trayvon Martin in self-defense, the evidence in the case appears to be a mixed bag.
More than 200 pages of photos and eyewitness accounts released byprosecutors Thursday show he and Martin were in a loud and bloody fight in the moments leading up to the shooting...
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
George's attacker has already been sainted by Pope Sharpton.
I cannot believe the absolute sick racism in this case. How many blacks have been killed by other blacks since this happened? 100s? 1000s?? Yet a guy who quite possibly could have been defending himself is threatened with death, lynchings by black people all the way up to the POTUS who took sides against him simply because he is hispanic, which BTW is only partially true being that I read his grandmother was black. What kind of President does this anyway? A racist that’s who.
Zimmerman had good reason to fear for his life.
Hmmm...a Hispanic with more black blood in him than Barack Obama, defending himself is now considered a lily white racist?
The media is desperately hoping for a riot that will come after an acquittal. They are conveniently ignoring the WITNESSES to Martin pounding on Zimmerman, and Zimmerman calling for help and instead relying on the grieving parents to identify the voice.
The stupid, liberal, hoplophobic, sheeple have to be reminded that Martin was acting SUSPICIOUS, which drew Zimmerman’s attention, then ran for unknown reasons, which raised Zs suspicion even more.
If that is enough to have a police officer make a Terry stop/detention, then it’s enough for a citizen to follow and observe.
Everyone says that Trayvon Martin was doing no wrong. That’s a lie. He was hiding behind someone’s house waiting to ambush Zimmerman upon his return. That’s trespassing. He could have dialed the police but his street thug culture forbids him from doing it. He could have been in the door of his house long before Zimmerman would have caught him but still ran the chance of Zimmerman finding out his address.
So he ambushed this “cracker” and got killed for his trouble and now this isn’t just a fight for Zimmermans exoneration, it’s fight for the right of ALL Americans of self-defense.
AP says when George TRIES to convince the court it was self-defence...
In America it is the prosecution that has to TRY to convince the court that it was murder—AND BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT!!!!
The Lefts’ insane desire to live under Marxist tyranny has them jumping the gun and already trying to pass off their wishful thinking as objective reporting.
If we had not all of us been born in original sin none of this would have happened
By this logic every time anyone gets out of an automobile he waves his legal rights especially his right of self-defense. That he got out of his car is utterly irrelevant to the issues in the case just as the preposterous question, "Did the fact that Martin was black play a role in Zimmerman's actions?"
Assuming arguendo that Zimmerman hated black people-a preposterous supposition considering his heritage and known public record of working with black children-is utterly irrelevant unless one can prove a crime occurred. If no crime occurred there was no race crime. There was no crime of any kind and Zimmerman's state of mind as an alleged racist is of no legal relevance. To assume otherwise is to argue that Zimmerman had a right to shoot and kill a man bashing Zimmerman's head into the cement if the man were white or Hispanic, but not if the man were black. Why? Because Zimmerman was racist. One's legal rights to self-defense do not turn on one's degree of political correctness.
The article, perhaps in some distorted politically correct idea of journalistic "fairness," opines:
"But other evidence supports the contention of Martin's parents that Zimmerman was the aggressor."
What evidence? The first piece of "evidence" produced to support the contention is not evidence at all but opinion:
"The investigator who called for Zimmerman's arrest, Christopher Serino, told prosecutors the fight could have been avoided if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement. He said Zimmerman, after leaving his vehicle, could have identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and talked to him instead of confronting him. The report was written March 13, nearly a month before Zimmerman's eventual arrest."
Zimmerman had an absolute right to get out of his car. It does not affect his right to self-defense one iota. The opinion of the officer in his report is nothing but opinion. It does not describe any violation of law or any action which would vitiate a right of self-defense.
Next, the article cites as support of the case against Zimmerman:
"He said there is no evidence Martin was involved in any criminal activity as he walked from a convenience store to the home of his father's fiance in the same gated community where Zimmerman lived."
Evidence of Martin's innocence of collateral criminal activity is not proof of Zimmerman's guilt of criminal activity. The author shamefully conflates the two. There is other evidence of Martin being on drugs which the author diminishes but which is certainly relevant and that which I believe the court could not rightly exclude contrary to the assertion the article.
This is evidently the sum total of the "evidence" tending to show Zimmerman's guilt. The author does adduce other factors which perhaps he intended include in his list of "facts" tending to show Zimmerman's guilt. The author says:
"A distraught woman told an investigator that she stays away from Zimmerman because he's racist and because of things he's done to her in the past, but she didn't elaborate on what happened between them."
Can you imagine a judge permitting such testimony as this to be introduced in a criminal trial? Even if true, and even if it shows racial hatred by Zimmerman against blacks, it is utterly irrelevant until a crime is demonstrated. It does not relate to Zimmerman's right of self-defense which exists quite independently of his state of mind. Remember, his right to self-defense is not subjective but objective, did he reasonably believe he was in imminent jeopardy of grave bodily harm? This has nothing whatever to do with whether he hates black people or likes strawberry ice cream.
The author has one more piece of evidence culled from the huge supply of evidence submitted by the prosecution:
"The man, who described his heritage as "Middle Eastern," said that when he first started, many employees didn't like him. Zimmerman seized on this, the employee said, and bullied him."
How did Zimmerman bully him? The article states:
"Zimmerman wanted to "get in" with the clique at work so he exaggerated a Middle Eastern accent when talking about the employee, the man said. The employee told investigators that Zimmerman made reference to terrorists and bombings when talking about him."
This travesty of justice is engaged with the media in a synergistic travesty of journalism.
If only Zimmerman had not been born in original sin.
I never rely on anything from the Associated Press—just about the worst wheel grinding “news” organization there is.
“This travesty of justice is engaged with the media in a synergistic travesty of journalism.”
The Third Reich did the same to Jews.
Holder’s dismissal of the New Black Pamper voter intimidation case is state-sponsored racism at the highest level of government.
When a country’s government teams up with its media to promote a nefarious agenda, history shows that very bad things happen to multitudes of innocent people.
What would Dietrich Bonhoeffer do?
I think the media is hoping none of the public is willing to actually look at the evidence and will accept their "executive summary" instead.
First, this picture:
Second, a great one-liner summary of this whole case that I saw here (wish I had the original post so I could properly attibute):
What we have here is a brown Democrat shooting and killing a black Democrat, and somehow this is the fault of white Republicans.
The whole narrative that has been attempted here is so screwed up it's unbelievable.
The MSM along with Sharpton and other Obama agents intend to cause one. The left sees political advantage to a little death and destruction.
I put the wrong snip in my reply. This is what I was referencing. The left sees political advantaging in causing rioting and the MSM, Sharpton, and other Obama agents will try and cause some bloodshed and destruction to further the inflame and divide political strategy.
The Baltimore "Empowerment Temple Church" seats 2000. A full house is expected.
You can bet the farm that Mrs. Martin isn't hitting the speaker's circuit around the country for nothing. If she's energetic enough, and she is, this tour can be extremely profitable. She's already copyrighted various embodiments of her son's name. She's striking while the money iron is red hot.
The "Empowerment Temple Church" recently held a "Hoodie Sunday" service, packed with black yutes all wearing dark hoodies. There's a photo of hundreds of hoods packed in the pews wearing their trademark hoodies. Talk about being unsettling and creepy-looking to see this sight in a church interior.
Are "hoodies" now the black males' counterparts of burkhas?
Pretty soon, half our population will be silently gliding along the streets like cloaked, concealed, shrouded zombies clad in costumes straight from a horror movie.
What we have here is a brown Democrat shooting and killing a black Democrat, and somehow this is the fault of white Republicans.I bet this brown Democrat isn't a Democrat anymore, not after the way the white Democrats are trying to lynch him.
During an investigation an LEO is likely to have a lot of hunches, but until he can prove them in court he should keep his mouth shut.
The first couple sentences in the article are wrong - “When George Zimmerman attempts to convince a judge that he is innocent...”
No - the prosecutor must convince the JURY that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
George Zimmerman is innocent right now and will be until convicted by a jury of his peers.
Yeah and "he who (purports) to be looking out for us" O'Reilly had this gold-digging, race-hustler (Crump) on his show a couple of nights ago (for what, the 4th or 5th time?) and was falling all over himself to be "fair and balanced," and let Crump advance this BS while agreeing with his faux narrative and not challenging him very much.
Don't know if Zimmerman's lawyer or parents/family have decided to stay off the radar screen and not make any tv appearances but wonder why neither have appeared on Bill's show to dispute this one-sided smear machine.
Unless that Mooncalf State's Attorney has someone they are not divulging who was an eye witness of the incident (from the get go) this narrative ain't gonna fly and Z will be found not guilty.
Great post...if only Tray had not had a craving for Skittles n’Tea and did not leave his house, if only he had waited for the police to get there-oh that’s right, he didn’t call them, if only.....I could go on for hours!
How can you prove what was in someone’s mind? How can they prove that Z was thinking about getting/killing a black man just because he was black?
Because he got out of his car while a black man happened to be in the area and he knew that by getting out of his car, he was provoking the black man and because the black man felt threatened,he would make the black man attack him and that would give him a reason to shoot and kill a black man just because he didn’t like black men?
And then, when he saw the black man was actually a huge 17 year old black child, he wanted to kill him anyway just because the 6ft black child was black?
And because Z planned all of this while opening his car door, he deserved to get beaten up because he was a “white” man hunting down a black “child” and the 6ft+ black child felt threatned?
Like you said, none of this would have happened if Eve had stayed home and hadn’t picked and eaten that darn apple and made Adam eat it; what was she thinking??!!
yellow journalism - Inflammatory, irresponsible reporting by newspapers. The phrase arose during the 1890s, when some American newspapers, particularly those run by William Randolph Hearst, worked to incite hatred of Spain, thereby contributing to the start of the Spanish-American War. Newspapers that practice yellow journalism are called yellow press.
Hate comes from envy. If hate is a thought crime, envy should be also. That way all leftists would be in jail.