Trayvon Martin, Martyr

ABC’s Nightline’s intro to this piece about Trayvon Martin’s parents’ Black Lives Matter advocacy leaves a little something out. See if you can spot what’s missing . . .

It was five years ago this month when 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, unarmed, holding just a bag of skittles and a bottle of iced tea, was shot and killed by neighborhood watch George Zimmerman.

No, not the noun between “neighborhood watch” and “George Zimmerman” (“member”?) — although editing. I’m thinking there should be something about the fact that a court of law adjudicated Mr. Zimmerman innocent of murder, confirming that Mr. Martin had attacked and was beating Mr. Zimmerman at the time of the shooting.

But that would have killed the vibe for this piece, which probably should have aired on WTBS (Waving The Bloody Shirt). Granted, ABC goes on to mention the acquittal in passing, without touching on the self-defense component. Enough said?

Martin’s father has his own take on the shooting, of course. “This was a child who lost his life to a senseless act of violence, gun violence, to someone who wanted to be a vigilante.”

Counterpoint? Yeah, no. Pictures of Trayvon as smiling teen? Sure! And why not finger Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law too, despite the fact that Mr. Zimmerman never used its provisions in his defense. Might as well also trot out President’s Obama’s assertion that if he’d had a son, he would have looked like Trayvon.

Trayvon’s mother is considering running for office. I wonder where she stands on gun control, and why this report didn’t mention any of the Martin’s proposed solutions for “gun violence.” Or not.

comments

  1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

    holding just a bag of skittles and a bottle of iced tea, was shot and killed

    Um, no he wasn’t holding ice tea and skittles. He had dropped those and was atop Zimmerman beating his head into the curb.

    1. avatar DDay says:

      His parents think he would be graduating college? LOL. The kid was a street fighter who was trying to sell a gun online and had stolen property in his backpack at school. He was going to be a career criminal, no question in my mind.

      1. avatar Jim says:

        He already was a career criminal and that was the reason he was living at his dad’s apartment that month. No going to be at all.
        This was a hood thug who’s career was cut short when he decided to attack the wrong person. He was basically on the porch of where he was staying and instead of going inside decided to go back and kick some cracker ass. Fortunately for society the cracker did us a favor and took this young piece of trash out before he hurt other innocent people.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Don’t forget that his girlfriend he had been on the phone with went on Piers Morgan’s show and mentioned that Treyvon told her that he thought Zimmerman was gay and that was why he gave him the ‘whoopass’. Funny nobody ever invited her on TV after that. Treyvon was gay bashing when he got shot.

    2. avatar sagebrushracer says:

      yup, they keep forgetting that the pesky evidence points to GZ getting a beat down and TM getting shot for it. Ole GZ is not the sharpest pencil in the box so I doubt his ability to “paint the scene” and alter physical evidence.

      given the life style he was posting about on his latest social media, I would lay heavy odds he would be dead or in jail by now anyways.

    3. avatar ThomasR says:

      This why the old media is constantly losing readers as well as trust,, because it is so obvious now that they are only selling a completely twisted narrative that has absolutely no connection to reality or the truth, but that only supports the victim industry of the eternally “oppressed” minority, “murdered” by “white (Hispanic) privilege”.

  2. avatar Scott C. says:

    Martyr? Nope. Just punk kid who picked on the wrong person and paid the ultimate price for his actions. Sucks to be him, better for the rest of society.

  3. avatar tdiinva (now in wisconsin) says:

    Martin is the Horst Wessel of the BLM movement.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      The Helpless Vassals Song
      (To the tune of The Horst Wessel song)

      Bloody shirt on high! Our ranks tightly closed!
      MDA and MAIG march with quiet, steady step.
      Children shot by gun-loving whackos
      March in spirit within our ranks.
      Everyone shot by gun-loving whackos
      Marches in spirit within our ranks.
      Clear the streets for the anti-gun battalions,
      Hear in the media our storm of derision!
      Millions are looking upon Progressives full of hope,
      The days of free healthcare and iPhones dawns!
      Millions are looking upon Progressives full of hope,
      The days of the Second Amendment are almost gone!
      For all the people, the call to disarm is sounded!
      For civilian disarmament we are prepared to fight!
      Already Bloomberg’s banners fly over the streets.
      The illusion of safety will be ours in a little while now!
      Soon Bloomberg’s banners will fly over all streets.
      All guns will only be memories in a little while now.
      Bloody shirt on high! Our ranks tightly closed!
      MDA and MAIG march with quiet, steady step.
      Children shot by gun-loving whackos
      March in spirit within our ranks.
      Everyone shot by gun-loving whackos
      Marches in spirit within our ranks.

      by Cliff H (With no apologies to the Nazi author)

  4. avatar Nanashi says:

    Iced tea, skittles and cough syrup, which combine to a method of flavoring cough syrup so it can be abused as a recreational drug. A drug which causes high levels of aggression (consistent with his attempt to murder a Hispanic man) and liver damage (consistent with the thug’s autopsy).

    1. avatar DaveL says:

      Except there was no cough syrup, which of course is the source of the actual drugs in such a concoction.

      That’s like pointing out that he had all the fixings of a Cuba Libre, except the rum, or the ingredients for a screwdriver, except the vodka.

      1. avatar Mister Fleas says:

        No cough syrup on his person at the time, but he had posted online that he enjoyed mixing and using “lean” to get high.

      2. avatar D-Fens says:

        If you really want to be accurate, there was no cough syrup and he had no ice tea either. He had Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice cocktail, a main ingredient in lean, but the media didn’t want you to know that so they changed it to “iced tea” in all their stories.

    2. avatar Steven Stein says:

      Well, Trayvon got what he deserved for his behavior.
      Too bad BLM is capable of seeing only one side of the issue; and I would hesitate to call that side the “unerring” truth. Activists are rarely capable of seeing actual truth; just certain issues/facts upon which they can grasp tightly and refuse to allow themselves to accept further information which might alter their mindset.

  5. avatar LarryinTX says:

    If Osama had a son, he would have probably had a goofy name like Trayvon, and been raised to be just as much a punk as Trayvon, as well.

  6. avatar TomD in CO says:

    ABC News should be ashamed – but then, that would show that they understand right from wrong – which they clearly don’t.

  7. avatar skiff says:

    Zimmerman never used “stand your ground” as a defense at his trial.

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      “Zimmerman never used “stand your ground” as a defense at his trial.”

      Absolutely right. He couldn’t.
      Neighborhood Watch discourages (they can’t really forbid) carrying a gun. This situation is why they do that..
      Zimmerman couldn’t claim it because he wasn’t doing anything even distantly resembling standing his ground. He disobeyed police orders to stay in his car, and went hunting Martin. You can’t really claim to be the victim when your prey turns on you.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Zimmerman couldn’t claim it because he wasn’t doing anything even distantly resembling standing his ground. He disobeyed police orders to stay in his car, and went hunting Martin. You can’t really claim to be the victim when your prey turns on you.

        Your grasp of Florida’s Stand Your Ground statues appears to be as tenuous of your grasp of the facts regarding the incident between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.

        Zimmerman disobeyed nothing. Zimmerman was never given a legally binding order by the police. Zimmerman was never told to stay in his car. There is no evidence that Zimmerman “hunted” Martin.

        Zimmerman did nothing unlawful, while being somewhere he lawfully had the right to be; therefore, Zimmerman never forfeited his statutory right to invoke SYG. He couldn’t invoke SYG, however, because invocation of SYG requires one to have the means/opportunity to retreat. One cannot retreat when one’s attacker is actively preventing escape – such as by the attacker straddling his victim, and pushing his victim back to the ground every time his victim attempted to escape.

        The only predator in that incident was Trayvon Martin who, after evading Zimmerman’s visual contact and reaching the ostensible safety of Brandy Green’s apartment, decided of his own volition to return some 400 feet back to accost and to attack Zimmerman.

        1. avatar Big Bill says:

          “Your grasp of Florida’s Stand Your Ground statues appears to be as tenuous of your grasp of the facts regarding the incident between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.

          Zimmerman disobeyed nothing. Zimmerman was never given a legally binding order by the police. Zimmerman was never told to stay in his car. There is no evidence that Zimmerman “hunted” Martin.

          Zimmerman did nothing unlawful, while being somewhere he lawfully had the right to be; therefore, Zimmerman never forfeited his statutory right to invoke SYG. He couldn’t invoke SYG, however, because invocation of SYG requires one to have the means/opportunity to retreat. One cannot retreat when one’s attacker is actively preventing escape – such as by the attacker straddling his victim, and pushing his victim back to the ground every time his victim attempted to escape.

          The only predator in that incident was Trayvon Martin who, after evading Zimmerman’s visual contact and reaching the ostensible safety of Brandy Green’s apartment, decided of his own volition to return some 400 feet back to accost and to attack Zimmerman.”

          Zimmerman lost sight of Martin. Lawful order or not, Zimmerman admitted he was instructed to wait in his car. As a Neighborhood Watch member, his function was to observe and report, not to follow (or, once he lost sight of his quarry, to hunt).
          Zimmerman couldn’t use stand your ground because he went looking for trouble. The fact that he was ambushed is proof that he was hunting, not following. I may not be a lawyer, but I do know how stand your ground works, and so did Zimmerman’s legal team; that’s why they never brought it up.
          Self defense (what was used in Zimmerman’s defense) works, because he was ambushed.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Lawful order or not, Zimmerman admitted he was instructed to wait in his car.

          Nope. Never happened. He was never instructed to wait in his car, nor did he “admit” to receiving such instruction.

          What the NEN operator said was: we don’t need you to do that [follow Martin]. And what Zimmerman did, and said that he did, in response, was to stop walking.

          As a Neighborhood Watch member, his function was to observe and report, not to follow (or, once he lost sight of his quarry, to hunt).

          True or untrue, his status as a NHW member, or the functions of NHW, are utterly irrelevant to the legal assessment of what happened that night.

          Zimmerman couldn’t use stand your ground because he went looking for trouble.

          Please cite where in the Florida SYG statutes that “looking for trouble” forfeits one’s right to invoke SYG. You can’t, because it’s not there.

          Zimmerman had every right to be where he was, and he did nothing unlawful by walking down a sidewalk. Even if he had been in actual pursuit of Martin, said pursuit would not have been unlawful.

          Nothing Zimmerman did that night caused him to forfeit his legal right to invoke SYG.

          The fact that he was ambushed is proof that he was hunting, not following.

          That you keep repeating this assertion ad nauseum doesn’t cause the assertion to be true. It is factually incorrect, and illogical. That Zimmerman was ambushed in no way whatsoever proves that he was “hunting”. Such an assertion is absurd on its face.

          I may not be a lawyer, but I do know how stand your ground works, and so did Zimmerman’s legal team; that’s why they never brought it up.

          No, clearly you don’t. And his lawyers didn’t invoke SYG because they didn’t need to. The case was one of simple, open-and-shut, self-defense. SYG did not apply, because to have the option of standing one’s ground, one must have the alternative option of retreat. Zimmerman had no such alternative option. He wasn’t standing his ground, figuratively or literally. Literally, Zimmerman was on his back, being straddled by his attacker, and being actively prevented from getting up.

        3. avatar Chris T from KY says:

          Thanks for stating the truth. Some people just can’t handle it.

        4. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

          Yep. Good job this time Chip.

  8. avatar Vinny says:

    Ah, but again, it was ABC who used a photo touch up software to remove any blood and cuts to G.Z.’s head and face. ABC is making Joseph Goebbels proud again.

  9. avatar Sam I Am says:

    This is probably one of those incidents where we are supposed to put hands in pockets and look down at our feet while saying, “Tragedy, tragedy, but the court was correct.”

    No. I do not accept that stance. Trayvon Martin earned his reward, and his parents, having raised such a youngster, received theirs.

  10. avatar Hannibal says:

    “I’m thinking there should be something about the fact that a court of law adjudicated…”

    Fair enough but there is no question that Zimmerman did indeed shoot and kill Martin.

    It’s just everything up to that moment that is disputed.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      No, not really. The jury resolved all of the factual issues. It necessarily found that St. Trayvon was assaulting and battering Poor Georgie Porgie, and that Georgie was justified in shooting in self defense. The story that Georgie hunted St. Tray down and executed him is unsupported by the physical evidence, the 911 tape, the evidence of injuries to Georgie, and Georgie’s testimony as to what happened. The only “evidence” that was ever produced in support of the prosecution twas that Tray was black and George was “white,” and that the 911 operator–who is not leo–told George to back off–which George apparently did.

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        Zimmerman did not back off, he actively went hunting for Martin.
        I don’t know where this particular lie started (“the 911 operator–who is not leo–told George to back off–which George apparently did”), but it is obviously not true. The dispatcher, who is not a sworn LEO, but is indeed a member of a LEA, gave Zimmerman instructions, and he immediately ignored them, and went hunting. Zimmerman never backed off.
        Martin was no saint, for sure. The news media has misrepresented him. But Zimmerman went hunting, and was blindsided by his prey, pure and simple.

        1. avatar John E> says:

          You keep using the word hunting to promote your bias. You could say follow, because he was up to no good.

        2. avatar Big Bill says:

          “You keep using the word hunting to promote your bias. You could say follow, because he was up to no good.”
          No, Zimmerman was hunting, not following.
          How do I know this? Because he was ambushed. If he were following, he would have known where Martin was.
          This is not bias, it’s just the facts.
          Check any timeline to see this. Zimmerman lost sight of Martin, and continued his hunt. When you don’t know where your quarry is, but you continue looking for it, you aren’t following, you’re hunting.
          Sorry this doesn’t fit YOUR bias, but that’s the way life is.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          How do I know this? Because he was ambushed. If he were following, he would have known where Martin was.
          This is not bias, it’s just the facts.

          No, it is neither bias nor fact. It is rank speculation.

          But, that you admit that Zimmerman was ambushed indicates that you admit that Martin was the aggressor.

          Check any timeline to see this. Zimmerman lost sight of Martin, and continued his hunt. When you don’t know where your quarry is, but you continue looking for it, you aren’t following, you’re hunting.

          Yes, let’s look at that timeline:

          – Zimmerman calls NEN to report Martin
          – Martin approaches, then circles, Zimmerman’s vehicle
          – NEN operator tells Zimmerman to let them know what Martin does
          – Martin takes off running, then disappears around the back of the building, around the corner from the sidewalk “T”
          – Zimmerman exits his vehicle, and walks toward the sidewalk “T”
          – NEN says that they don’t need Zimmerman to follow Martin
          – Zimmerman stops, standing at the back corner of the building, at the end of the sidewalk that forms the “T”
          – Zimmerman says that he doesn’t know where Martin is/went
          – Zimmerman talks to NEN operator for a bit longer, says he is returning to his vehicle
          – Zimmerman ends NEN call
          – Zimmerman walks across the end of the building, toward the sidewalk “T”, headed toward his vehicle
          – Martin approaches, confronts, and assaults Zimmerman

          If there was “hunting” in this scenario, it was the “hunting” done by Martin, who circled back 400 feet to confront Zimmerman out of the darkness at the sidewalk “T”.

          Your take is rank, specious speculation.

        4. avatar Big Bill says:

          “No, it is neither bias nor fact. It is rank speculation.

          But, that you admit that Zimmerman was ambushed indicates that you admit that Martin was the aggressor.”

          You are not reading to see what I say, but to see how to rebut what I say.
          Yes, Martin was an aggressor; I never said otherwise.
          I said Zimmerman was hunting Martin, and the fact that he was ambushed means he wasn’t “following.”
          What I am saying (and have said) is that there is no “good guy with a gun” here; both were up to no good.

        5. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I don’t know where this particular lie started (“the 911 operator–who is not leo–told George to back off–which George apparently did”), but it is obviously not true.

          Based on the evidence presented at trial, it is obviously quite true. When the NEN operator told Zimmerman, “we don’t need you to do that”, Zimmerman said, “okay” – and clearly stopped walking, as evidenced by the immediate cessation of wind noise in the background of the call. Further, Martin ran all the way to Brandi Green’s apartment, and Zimmerman never left the vicinity of the sidewalk “T” some 400 feet away from Brandi Green’s apartment. The altercation between the two only took place because Martin decided to return to confront Zimmerman.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The altercation between the two only took place because Martin decided to return to confront Zimmerman.”

          Yes. So he, Martin, could put an asswhoop on a gay (according to his girlfriend).

        7. avatar Big Bill says:

          “The altercation between the two only took place because Martin decided to return to confront Zimmerman.”

          It occurred because both Zimmerman and Martin were up to no good.
          Martin came back because Zimmerman acted like a predator. Does that excuse MArtin? Absolutely not; he should have dialed 911, to report being followed.
          Was Zimmerman the innocent here? Of course not. He followed Martin, even though he admitted he was told not to. When he lost Martin, did he return to his car? No, he went on the hunt, and was ambushed.
          I’m not trying to say Martin was innocent, he wasn’t. He went on the hunt, too. The two met each other, and Martin lost.
          There was no “good guy” here. Zimmerman was found not guilty, that’s all.

        8. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Was Zimmerman the innocent here? Of course not.

          Of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, only one of the two that night did anything unlawful: Trayvon Martin. Nothing that Zimmerman did that night was unlawful.

          He followed Martin, even though he admitted he was told not to.

          Wrong, no matter how many times you repeat it.

          When he lost Martin, did he return to his car? No, he went on the hunt, and was ambushed.

          When Zimmerman lost visual contact of Martin, Zimmerman was still in his vehicle.

          (Are you sure you understand the actual facts and evidence of the case?)

          I’m not trying to say Martin was innocent, he wasn’t. He went on the hunt, too. The two met each other, and Martin lost.

          The only one who “hunted” was Martin. There is zero evidence that Zimmerman “hunted”, and ample evidence that he did not. Zimmerman never left the vicinity of the sidewalk “T”. Martin ran 400 feet away, and instead of going inside Brandi Green’s apartment, Martin circled back 400 feet to confront Zimmerman.

  11. avatar 2Asux sucks says:

    F them

  12. avatar DMD says:

    Was it not ABC that aired an edited version omitting vital parts of the phone call(s) between GZ and the police operator–intentionally edited by ABC to make GZ appear as the stalking aggressor ?? Adorable Deplorable DMD

    1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      NBC, AIR.

  13. avatar JasonM says:

    No, not the noun between “neighborhood watch” and “George Zimmerman” (“member”?) — although editing.
    –any TTAG writer

    Oh, the irony.

  14. avatar John in TX (Was CT) says:

    Clearly, any parent in the western world would prefer his/her child to be alive and in jail, rather than dead. And, equally clearly, it’s not fair to badger the parents of someone who died at a young age.

    But really, I’d love to hear his answer to “What do you think would have happened if Zimmerman hadn’t been armed while your son was bashing his head into the pavement? Where do you think Trayvon would be today?”

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “And, equally clearly, it’s not fair to badger the parents of someone who died at a young age.”

      But OK if the parent’s (and enablers) badger us?

      1. avatar John in TX (Was: CT) says:

        Frankly? Yes. He has the right to say whatever the heck he wants. I take umbrage with ABC and the news organizations using this very flawed narrative to push a political agenda, and egging the parents on, not with the parents themselves.

        I am sure that each of them has privately done some real soul-searching about what they could have done better, but the media rewards them for spouting nonsense.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          ABC is facilitating, not manipulating. That family seems incapable of “soul searching”, any of them.

          And no, it is not OK (legal, but no OK) to recommend observers refrain from “badgering” parents, while quietly enduring the badgering of ABC (and others) and the family, constantly telling us how tragic and unfair their child criminal managed to off himself.

    2. avatar Big Bill says:

      How about this: “What do you think would have happened if Zimmerman had stayed in his car as instructed by the 911 dispatcher? Where do you think Trayvon would be today?”
      Zimmerman would be living a far more normal life today, and Martin might, or might not, be either in jail or dead.

      1. avatar John E> says:

        from all evidence he would be gang banging.

      2. avatar John in TX (Was CT) says:

        Is it against the law to get out of your car? If you get out of your car, do you give up your right to live?

        1. avatar Big Bill says:

          “Is it against the law to get out of your car? If you get out of your car, do you give up your right to live?”
          Interesting questions.
          Yes, sometimes it IS illegal to get out of your car.
          And, yes, sometimes if you get out of your car, you DO voluntarily give up your right to live.
          In the first question, if a LEO stops you, orders you to stay in your car, it is illegal to get out of your car.
          As for the second question, if your car is in such a place that if you get out, youn wilol fall to your death, then yes, you give up your right to live.

          If you are referring to something I wrote, I never said it was illegal for Zimmerman to get out of his car. And nothing I said could be construed to say that by doing so he gave up his right to live.
          Your questions demonstrate the lengths some people will go to in order to justify their bias.

        2. avatar Excedrine says:

          Big Bill, we’re not talking about LEO stops or other ridiculous and irrelevant hypotheticals. We’re talking about you being deliberately, demonstrably, willfully ignorant when all available evidence thoroughly and completely undercuts everything you’ve said about this case.

          Your questions and commentary demonstrate that you’re psychologically projecting the mental gymnastics you’re doing onto others in order to justify reiterating a long-defunct and repeatedly-falsified narrative.

          You’re wrong. You know you’re wrong because you’ve been shown where and how you’re wrong. You were always wrong and you’re always going to be wrong so long as you refuse delivery of the facts — not any single one of which has supported your version of reality about this case. Period.

        3. avatar Big Bill says:

          I answered a question.
          If you don’t like the answers, blame the questioner, not me.
          I also pointed out why the question was stupid. Maybe you missed that part.
          Don’t get mad at me for being literate.

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I answered a question.
          If you don’t like the answers, blame the questioner, not me.
          I also pointed out why the question was stupid. Maybe you missed that part.
          Don’t get mad at me for being literate.

          No one is getting mad at you. He was merely pointing out the logical fallacy of your responses.

        5. avatar Big Bill says:

          “No one is getting mad at you. He was merely pointing out the logical fallacy of your responses.”

          I was asked if it is illegal to get out of your car. I pointed out that, yes, it can be.
          I was asked if you can give up your right to life by getting out of your car. I pointed out that, yes, if you are stupid enough, you can do so.
          I was not asked if Zimmerman did either of those, and pointed out that I never, ever, said he had.
          What I pointed out is that Zimmerman was stupid. I stand by that assessment. He knew the recommendations of Neighborhood Watch, and decided to ignore them. No timeline is complete enough to say he didn’t hunt Martin. No witnesses could account for most of the time from when Zimmerman first saw Martin to the final part of the ultimate confrontation; all we have is second-hand accounts.
          I never said Zimmerman was guilty of anything other than poor decision making. I stand by that.
          If all of you want to make Zimmerman a knight in shining armor, be my guests.

        6. avatar Excedrine says:

          Big Bill, you tendered an irrelevant and categorically incorrect answer, is what you actually did. Your answer was stupid, not the question. So, yes, I still rightly blame you. You’re also clearly not very literate at all, given your propensity to repeatedly and completely ignore all the factual evidence that always has and continues now to totally undermine your position in this case. No one is getting mad here except for you.

          I pointed out the logical fallacies that you use, to exclusion of all recognizable forms of reason and logic, to build all of your (non)arguments on.

          The timeline is more than complete enough to say that not only did Zimmerman not hunt Martin, but Martin hunted Zimmerman. There is more than enough eye-witness testimony and forensic evidence to account for any alleged time gaps. We are not trying to make Zimmerman a knight in shining armor, that’s what you’re trying to do to Martin. You still have ZERO evidence — empirical or otherwise — to even build your assessments on in the first place. Stand by them all you like, but repeating the same old, tired lies over and over again will never make them true. I can promise you this.

        7. avatar Big Bill says:

          Excedrine, if you want to make ad hominum attacks, I can go there, but don’t need to. You are showing who you are all by yourself.

          These are the questions I was asked: “Is it against the law to get out of your car? If you get out of your car, do you give up your right to live?”

          I would like you, if you can, please tell me how the answers I gave were, to use your words, “categorically incorrect “?

          You can continue your diatribe if you wish. I doubt many will bother to take you seriously.

        8. avatar Excedrine says:

          Big Bill, if you want to point out logical fallacies that aren’t there, and only exist in your own diatribe thus far, I don’t even need to go there. You are the kind of person that you like to think I am, and you’ve conveniently demonstrated that all by your lonesome by being guilty of exactly what you’ve falsely accused me of.

          You gave irrelevant and categorically incorrect answers couched in nothing even remotely resembling reason or logic. Both your premises for these answers and the examples you gave are not analogous to the incident in question and aren’t even relevant to the discussion. Myself and others have rightly pointed this out to you more than once and you have yet to address it.

          We know you’re going to continue your diatribe at some point, and many here do take me seriously. Unlike you.

        9. avatar Big Bill says:

          “You gave irrelevant and categorically incorrect answers couched in nothing even remotely resembling reason or logic. ”

          You say that, but you then say I answered out of context.
          OK, here’s some context that I pointed out earlier, but you failed to understand, so I’ll say it again:
          I never said Zimmerman committed an illegal act in getting out of his car.
          Have you got that? Do you understand why I answered that way? Because the question was out of context.

          I never said Zimmerman gave up his right to live by getting out of his car. The question was out of context.

          Do you understand that now? If you don’t, please let me know. Maybe I’ll t y p e i t s l o w e r f o r y o u.

        10. avatar Excedrine says:

          You did answer completely out-of-context. There’s no question about that. Your answers were out of context, not the questions. And yes, there was the clear implication by you and others that Zimmerman must have doing something illegal every step of the way that night, even though neither you nor anyone else that wanted to see him burn for defending himself have any proof whatsoever — empirical or otherwise — to any wrongdoing on his part whatsoever.

          Hence the line of questioning which you so ungracefully dodged by giving totally asinine answers.

          Do you understand that, now? If not, maybe I could b r e a k i t i n t o s m a l l e r w o r d s f o r y o u.

        11. avatar Big Bill says:

          “You did answer completely out-of-context. There’s no question about that. Your answers were out of context, not the questions. And yes, there was the clear implication by you and others that Zimmerman was doing something illegal every step of the way that night, even though neither you not anyone else that wanted to see him burn for defending himself have any proof whatsoever — empirical or otherwise — to any wrongdoing on his part whatsoever.”

          Sorry, but you’re an idiot.
          The questions, as asked, were NOT in context, unless you think that word means something other than what everyone else does.
          I NEVER hinted that Zimmerman did anything illegal. NEVER. I NEVER said he gave up his right to life by getting out of his car. NEVER.
          If you want to continue, go ahead. I’m through dealing with someone who can’t read for comprehension and wants to try to tell others what they said when if they could read they’d know better.

        12. avatar Excedrine says:

          Sorry, but, you’re projecting. Again. Still. More. The questions, as asked, were in context. No one should have to reiterate what’s being alluded to when no one changed the topic of discussion. No one was talking about anything else other than the Zimmerman case when those questions were asked, and if you possessed even one iota of the reading comprehension that you falsely claim that I lack, you’d know this. You went on a tangent that is completely irrelevant to this case in each of your answers, and you damn well know it. But, you clearly think that words mean something other than what everyone else does.

          You’re actually through dealing with someone whose arguments you can’t refute and instead rely exclusively on baseless accusations, psychological projection, and petty ad hominem attacks. If you want to continue being wrong, be my guest and keep digging that hole. It’s not my fault you can’t put down the shovel.

      3. avatar Excedrine says:

        How about this: You actually producing any evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman was even ordered to stay in his car in the first place. (Or any evidence to back up any of your wholly unsupported — and unsupportable — claims, for that matter.)

        Oh, wait. There isn’t any. Anywhere. Because he wasn’t.

        Period.

        1. avatar John in TX (Was CT) says:

          5 years later, I’m still trying to figure out how I managed to go decades getting out of cars on a daily basis, in all sorts of places in front of all sorts of people, without someone attempting to murder me.

        2. avatar Excedrine says:

          I know, right? It must be some kind of miracle.

  15. avatar scooter says:

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes… but that lesson is lost if nobody remembers it that way. Sigh…

  16. if he had been shot by another black kid no media coverage I am tired of blacks using the race card

  17. avatar Harm Uden says:

    This is the media trying to rewrite history. T. Martin was a thug and died when he tried to do thug shit.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      The media is not trying to rewrite history. They are repeating the history they wrote initially.

  18. avatar strych9 says:

    “Trayvon’s mother is considering running for office.”

    Well, that explains it.

  19. avatar AlanInFL says:

    Let see, a nearly six foot 17 year old thought he was a bad ass when he was pounding the hell out of Zimmerman.

    He had chosen poorly. To me, the media was trying to create the hostility that we did not needed for the area.

    1. avatar TX Gal says:

      Well put! Trayvon would not have even been staying with his father had he not been suspended from school! If he has been at home doing doing homework. Simple consequences of “thug” culture”

  20. avatar Hank says:

    Surprised ol trayvon hasn’t been made as a transgender Muslim immigrant yet. Give it time.

  21. avatar Rabbi says:

    Next time, try raising your son not to be a thug.

  22. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    If his dad is so bothered by “gun violence”, then he probably shouldn’t have been trying to help Martin (illegally) buy a gun.

    Then again, if he had been equally bothered by “fist violence”, he might have prevented his son from trying to “put bangaz on a cracka” that fateful night.

  23. avatar Brian says:

    The more cynical among us referred to this particular Assumption of Room Temperature as ‘The passion of St. Skittles.’

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      HA!

      Well played dark humor. +5.

  24. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    Trayvon Martin is a waste and a loser who was a foot and a half in jail or the grave anyways. If Zimmerman didn’t shoot him someone else likely would have or he would have wound up in the pokey. His school and the police should be ashamed for getting him undone on the crimes he committed to fix their numbers.

    In terms of the parents screw them too. If they were being parents odds are a lot less their “angel” would have wound up living a thug life and dying a thug death. He certainly played a stupid game, and won a stupid prize for doing such. His sorry ass wasn’t worth NBC editing 911 tape for, and his parents should be ashamed for thinking they’ve won the ghetto lottery and trying to convert it into something for their personal or political gain.

  25. avatar Adub says:

    Saint Trayvon was trying to kill somebody and got killed instead. That’s what liberals don’t like. No victims that way. They’d rather GZ be dead, Trayvon be in prison, lament how the system failed him, and demand more control over your life.

    I don’t have a problem with Trayvon being dead. He got what he deserved.

  26. avatar Roymond says:

    Martyr?

    No, just a dead body illustrating the fact that if you harass and stalk a violent sort of person there’s a good chance you’ll get some violence, and thus a chance to kill that person.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Interestingly enough, Trayvon Martin did harass and stalk George Zimmerman. Though, it was Trayvon Martin himself who introduced violence into the encounter – an encounter that happened solely because Trayvon Martin made it happen.

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        Zimmerman certainly played a role in this whole fiasco.
        He was armed. That’s his rtight, to be sure. However, he was also on Neighborhood Watch, which strongly discourages being armed.
        He ignored instructions of both the 911 dispatcher and neighborhood Watch by hunting Martin.
        His prey turned the tables on him, and both paid a price. Martin died, Zimmerman went through the legal system, which is no fun. His life is effectively ruined.
        Actions have consequences.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          He was armed. That’s his rtight, to be sure. However, he was also on Neighborhood Watch, which strongly discourages being armed.

          Actually, no. Zimmerman was in his vehicle, on the way to the store. He was not acting in any capacity as Neighborhood Watch.

          He ignored instructions of both the 911 dispatcher and neighborhood Watch by hunting Martin.

          Nope. The NEN operator never instructed Zimmerman to “stay in his car”.

          You should probably understand the evidence and facts of the case, before trying to opine on it.

        2. avatar Big Bill says:

          “Actually, no. Zimmerman was in his vehicle, on the way to the store. He was not acting in any capacity as Neighborhood Watch.

          He ignored instructions of both the 911 dispatcher and neighborhood Watch by hunting Martin.

          Nope. The NEN operator never instructed Zimmerman to “stay in his car”.

          You should probably understand the evidence and facts of the case, before trying to opine on it.”

          More “false news”?

          http://www.usatoday(dot)com/story/news/2013/06/25/zimmerman-trial-trayvon-neighborhood-watch/2455163/

          If he wasn’t on neighborhood watch, it’s news to the neighborhood.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          He ignored instructions of both the 911 dispatcher and neighborhood Watch by hunting Martin.

          Listen to the NEN call recording. You are wrong. Period.

          If he wasn’t on neighborhood watch, it’s news to the neighborhood.

          Please quote where I claimed that Zimmerman was not a part of neighborhood watch.

        4. avatar Excedrine says:

          Yes, Zimmerman did play a role in that fiasco. He was the prey and Trayvon was the hunter. The Neighborhood Watch does not specifically instruct people to go unarmed, nor should they. He also didn’t disobey the dispatcher’s instructions. Literally all available evidence points to Zimmerman stopping when told to.

          Zimmerman’s life was effectively ruined by judicial activism brought to his doorstep by an overzealous prosecutor who damn well knew had absolutely no standing in pressing any charges on him whatsoever. Not only did he rightly beat all charges, but was also vindicated of any wrongdoing by his psychotic ex when she was confronted with high-definition video of her being in the wrong. Then, some whack job tried assassinating him on the highway and failed.

          He’s lucky to be alive because of people like you having the audacity to continue levying wholly unsupported — and unsupportable — accusations of wrongdoing against him, when no such evidence exists of any of it, anywhere, period.

          You’re wrong. You know you’re wrong because you’ve been shown where and how you’re wrong. You’ve always been wrong, and you’re always going to be wrong. Stop digging, you’re only going to end up burying yourself deeper.

  27. avatar Pawl from Florida says:

    Travon Martin was thrown out of her home by his mother because she couldn’t control him. His father had to take him off the streets. She saw dollar signs when he was shot and hired a lawyer who hired a public relations firm to portray Martin as this innocent small child.
    Zimmerman was on the phone with 911 when he was asked for his location. George got out of his car to look at the building address and was attacked then.
    This was according to Massab Ayoob who was at the trial for testimony in case it was needed.

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      “Zimmerman was on the phone with 911 when he was asked for his location. George got out of his car to look at the building address and was attacked then.
      This was according to Massab Ayoob who was at the trial for testimony in case it was needed.”

      Not according to Ayoob:
      http://backwoodshome(dot)com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2013/07/13/the-zimmerman-verdict-part-1/

      1. avatar Pawl from Florida says:

        There is a whole chapter on this in Massad Ayoob’s book “Deadly Force”. That is where I got that from.

  28. avatar Swilson says:

    And how is his mother qualified to be running for office? Because her son died? If that is the only criteria, I’d rather vote for a Gold Star mother than a mom who clearly failed at being a mother.

    Whenever this shite happens the wailing and knashing of teeth begins all over again. And for what? Was Trayvon going to cure cancer? Was Trayvon going to land on Mars? Forget that, was Trayvon even going to hold down a job in the service dept. of a Hyundai dealership and be a contributing member to society? Doubt it. If you want to be a drain on society, whatever, but he was already beginning to prey on society so no big loss here.

  29. avatar herb says:

    someone’s opinion on the martin case is a good litmus test for white guilt and fuddiness. Blacks are pushing for the right to commit crimes unimpeded by law or good people.

  30. avatar James69 says:

    surfing the dead to political office, ah, America…..

  31. avatar IAmNotTheHulk says:

    Dont make no thang, wont be no thang. Or something along that line.

  32. avatar Tara B. says:

    After reading through these comments, am I correct to say that Trayvon Martin deserved to die because of his funny sounding (black) name, and that he was carrying skittles to make a drug concoction with the cough syrup he must have had at his destination, and that he had no right to stand his ground againt the stranger who was following him? And let’s not forget that the girl he was talking to on the phone was essentially an idiot. Would it perhaps have been better if Trayvon (with his stupid black name) has been carrying a gun and just shot Zimmerman? Whether or not Trayvon was a “thug” has absolutely no bearing here. He was walking down the street at night, minding his own business, when a large stranger started following him. I don’t really care about the video, or anyone’s projections of what Trayvon Martin’s future might have been, or not been. He had a fundamental right to be alive, and Zimmerman took that away from him. Had Zimmerman not followed Martin, then the entire incident would not have happened. You can’t find Martin guilty of crimes he had not yet committed and a future he never had. To be clear, I am the owner of multiple guns (including a pre WWI Colt 1911 that most of you would envy–and I shoot it) and target shoot regularly. And if Zimmerman had done to one of my kids what he did to Trayvon, I would have gotten my affairs in order, hunted him down, and turned him into a Swiss Cheese.

    1. avatar John in TX (Was CT) says:

      He didn’t “deserve to die”. He posed an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to someone who was committing no crime (straddling Zimmerman and pounding his head into the pavement), who lawfully used lethal force to stop that threat. The death was the outcome of that threat being stopped.

    2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      am I correct to say that Trayvon Martin deserved to die because…

      No. He deserved to get shot because he attacked Zimmerman. That was the first illegal act.

    3. avatar Sam I Am says:

      In answer to all your questions: Yes.

      Feel better now? Feel vindicated? Feel all gooey inside, like you are social justice warrior of the year? Feel satisfied that a thug kid attacked a person who was doing no harm? Feel superior because a poor, black. ghetto child died trying to beat up a gay man (according to his girlfriend, Trayvon went after Zimmerman because Z was “white” and probably gay). Happy now that you have unmasked yourself as a raving homophobe? Put that on your hoodie and see hot the peeps take it.

    4. avatar Excedrine says:

      Clearly, you haven’t been reading the comments here, at all. No one here was making any of those claims in the first place, and you damn well know they aren’t. Trayvon was trying to take away Zimmerman’s fundamental right to live, not the other way around. Zimmerman was headed back to his car after Trayvon walked about 130 yards to safety, then he back-tracked over that same 130+ yards to attack someone who was not only not following him, but was headed away from him. All of the other claims of Trayvon’s criminal past are absolutely relevant, too, because they speak to his character (or lack thereof) and what lead him to make the fatal mistake of attacking someone who was not a threat to him. Had Trayvon not followed and attacked Zimmerman, this entire incident would not have happened. Had Zimmerman killed one of your children, it probably would have been their fault to begin with, you would have failed to kill Zimmerman like that whackjob on the highway did, and you’d be sitting in prison or dead because Zimmerman would have killed you — and rightly so.

  33. avatar Tara B. says:

    Resorting to name calling is always the sign of a weak mind and the arguments that go with it. I don’t wear a hoodie, nor am I a SJW.

    Because there were only two witnesses, and one is dead, we will never really know who jumped whom, and personally I think Zimmerman lied. The young woman who testified about her cell phone conversation with Martin about Zimmerman was not his girlfriend. Young people use “gay” as a derogatory term in a very generalized way, such as “that car is gay.” It doesn’t mean that Martin fought Zimmerman because Martin was homophobic. Finally, Zimmerman’s injuries (and I have seen the original police photos) were quite minor, and look like street-fight lite. While so many of you mention Martin’s potential “thug” future, what contributions to society has Zimmerman made since the incident? Do tell. I understand he helped someone after a car accident, and that is a plus. Anything else? He seems to have turned into a professional victim/parasite (says the raging homophobe). As for Martin’s parents, their son is dead, and has been the ongoing subject of a smear campaign. What do you expect? I just Martin was just a life unworthy of life.

    (for excedrin: I have trained in combat marksmanship, and when I shoot, I don’t miss).

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Wwwaaaahhhhh; no cigar.

    2. avatar Planet_Federal_Way_Twax_City says:

      “(for excedrin: I have trained in combat marksmanship, and when I shoot, I don’t miss).”

      Whoa, better watch out. Looks like we got ourselves a real badass over here.

    3. avatar Excedrine says:

      Expect we actually do know who jumped whom, because all available evidence — whether forensic or eye-witness — says that Trayvon jumped Zimmerman. What you personally think is utterly irrelevant and of no consequence, least of all because you’re categorically wrong and you damn well know that you are. The other idiot testifying about her phone call was his girlfriend. Trayvon did think Zimmerman was gay. Zimmerman’s injuries were not “minor” and would have been far more severe, if not even fatal, had he not shot Trayvon. Zimmerman’s contributions to society after the incident are irrelevant, and his contributions before this incident were already far greater than Trayvon’s. He saved a family of four from a burning, overturned vehicle, and uncovered the senseless beating of a homeless black man by the son of a white police officer. You and people like you have turned him into a pariah, and instead he turned it into a financial positive for himself. The only smear campaign here and elsewhere has been against Zimmerman. Whatever apparent “smears” here against Trayvon and his parents are what we sane people like to call facts, couched in the evidence presented at trial and factual observations about crime and criminals published ad nauseum in criminological journals whose articles are also featured here.

      And yes, whether you like it or not, people like you who talk shit like you do almost invariably have the poorest performance when the rubber meets the road. You either would have missed or caught fatal return fire, which you would have only so richly deserved for attacking an innocent man.

  34. avatar Heywood Jablome (Pronounced Jah-blo-meh) says:

    They forgot to mention that he was a good boy, who dindu nuffins!
    Why, he went to church every day, and was about to turn his life around… He was about to release his first album…
    Barf me out, and gag me with the spoon.

  35. avatar cisco kid says:

    Looking past all the hate lets try and see the forest for the trees. When you shoot someone even though in my opinion Zimmerman was within his right to do so it does not mean you are not subject to being prosecuted even If it makes no sense. Politics, Race, and the News Media may cost you thousands in legal fees to keep yourself from going to jail even though you committed no crime. Zimmerman came very close to being convicted. The attitude some Right Wing Radicals have is that if I am in the right I am going to shoot someone often is not too bright a move as Zimmerman found out. If Zimmerman had obeyed the Police dispatcher and stayed in his car out of sight not only would he not have ended up in a confrontation and shooting but by that time Martin may have had enough time to start to break into a house which would have given the Police the chance to arrest him for attempted burglary and put him away (at least for awhile) in jail where he belonged.

    I have had Right Wing Morons right on this forum claim that if they caught someone stealing from them either on their property or saw them breaking into their house that they would immediately open fire. Bad move, as when you kill someone over property it looks bad to a jury even if you are within your rights. Especially if the person moving around in the dark happened to be a teenager. In many States its against the law to kill someone over stealing or damaging property. In our concealed carry class we were taught that in our State if we saw that someone had broken into our car and was taking a radio out of it, lethal force or even physical force against them could result in a long and expensive court case against us. The law can often be fickle according to what jury and what prosecuting attorney has the case. I have followed cases in Ohio were in some instances people went to jail for shooting someone in a robbery and in other cases got off scott free when in my opinion they should not have such as when a teenage boy was hanging on a rope from the ceiling quite helpless and was shot by the owner of the building but in another case a store owner actually gunned a fleeing robber down with an uzi sub machine gun in broad daylight on a city street and was not prosecuted. Or in another case when a man shot a fleeing man that had broken into his barn and went to prison over it.

    The moral of the story is that property can be replaced and most of the time the stuff being damaged or stolen is worth far less than the thousands you will have to pay lawyers to defend yourself especially when the lawyer turns out to be one of your biggest enemies.

    I had an acquaintance who went to court because the city shut his bar down over noise. Not only did he lose the case but his crooked lawyer ended up owning his bar which of course re-opened immediately because the lawyer crook had pull with the city officials. The acquaintance then found out the legal system was so crooked that he could not get any lawyer to sue his lawyer as they all stick together.

    In another case (rare as winning the lottery) a woman lawyer was giving free legal advice to disadvantaged people and she in turn got sued from a variety of lawyer crooks who succeeded in running her out of town. She should have known greed rules the world and that no good deed goes unpunished in the real world.

    So in conclusion being trigger happy is not a situation you want to ever be in unless it was the absolute last resort. You not only will have to fight a prosecutor, the News Media, and possibly a sympathetic jury, who is all for the deceased but maybe also your lawyer who may end up stealing more from you than the thief who you shot. Its called legalized robbery and many times there is no defense against it.

    1. avatar Excedrine says:

      Not only was Zimmermman not even “ordered” to stay in his car, but the dispatcher had no statutory authority to issue lawful orders in the first place. And yes, he did stop when he was told to, anyway. There is also no way of telling whether or not they would have collided at a future date, either, especially given Trayvon’s already well-known and well-documented tendancies towards violence and bigotry. Zimmerman did not, whether you or anyone else likes to think so or not, go out looking for trouble that night. Instead, it found him and likely would have maimed or killed him had he not defended himself with lethal force.

      I also dare you to cite even one instance of anyone here making such a ludicrous claim, to include a link to the alleged article and the handle of the alleged writer. Also keep in mind that in some states, that’s actually legal and is even an affirmative defense against both criminal and civil litigation, too. We know the “justice” system is far from perfect, and we don’t need nor want a lecture. Good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to good people. We get it. Moreover, the actual moral of the story is that it’s not even about the property at all, but the principle of the thing. If you rob someone, it’s only right if there at least some expectation of a forceful response — and, generally speaking, the defender shouldn’t ever have to worry about going to jail for protecting themselves and what’s theirs. Period.

      None of the examples you cited are even analogous to the Zimmerman case, either. Not one. Further, being that Trayvon was a minor, the “justice” system was already treating him with kid gloves. He was consistently found to be in possession of stolen property and burglary tools in his backpack at sk00l. That is, before he was expelled for violence. He was also well-known to law enforcement as a member of a street fighting gang, and already had a rap sheet. Somehow, he was still out on the streets without so much as a curfew, let alone probation, and presumably still robbing houses being that the burglaries in that neighborhood suddenly stopped altogether for over a year after he died. So, no, I sincerely doubt that his criminal career would have been even briefly interrupted by being caught red-handed in someone’s house pilfering their goods.

      I’m not saying that Trayvon deserved to die. He could very well have turned his life around, eventually, if he ever would have had the urge. But, he played a stupid game with the wrong person and won a stupid prize. Nothing but pure political pressure and racism enabled that three-ring circus of a trial, too, being that the prosecutor’s office damn well knew they didn’t have a leg to stand on to charge him with any-damn-thing under the Sun from the get-go. The prosecutor, the media, and the race hustlers pulled out all the stops — even trying (and thankfully failing) to take the man’s life while on the highway, in one instance — to make it seem like anything other than the clean-and-simple, open-and-shut case of self-defense it really was.

      So, in conclusion, there was actually nothing at all “trigger happy” about what Zimmerman did, and no one — absolutely no one, anywhere, at any time whatsoever — has ever been able to dredge up any evidence whatsoever that there ever was. It simply does not and has never existed, end of story. People like you who continue to revive the long-defunct, repeatedly-falsified assertion that he was somehow a self-styled vigilante, trigger happy, power-hungry, racist, or any other bullshit label — even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary of all of them — are the real problem.

      Lying is the only thing that adequately describes this kind of horseshit. This goes above and beyond mere ignorance or naivety. It’s plain willful, knowing dishonesty. Nothing more, nothing less.

      1. avatar cisco kid says:

        I beg to differ. Zimmerman was indeed ordered not to intervene as it was alluded to ad infinitum on broadcasts covering the story. It was one of the reasons he almost went to jail.

        And your denial that you think Martin should not have died is contradicted by your own prior statement and I quote:

        Quote—————–If you rob someone, it’s only right if there at least some expectation of a forceful response — and, generally speaking, the defender shouldn’t ever have to worry about going to jail for protecting themselves and what’s theirs. Period. —————-Quote.

        Yes Right Wing Racism and Sadism and Brutality are the hallmarks of Conservatism. Civilized States in America and in the rest of the world outlaw murder over property rights as human life is more valued that mere possessions that can be replaced. You of course would disagree entirely and it comes from Conservative Greed and Stinginess and the idea that the ultimate God is money over human life. And lets face facts your Racism is overflowing in your diatribe.

        Zimmerman was a man playing at being Cop and its one of the reasons he went after Martin rather than doing what he was told by the dispatcher and staying out of a confrontation. The Jury felt the same way and one Juror interviewed stated that they actually were trying to find a way to legally convict him. No one on the Jury seems to have had any sympathy for Zimmerman because he was the one who caused the initial confrontation that led to the shooting.

        Martin may have indeed been everything he was accused of, a thug, a thief and a bully but none of what he did that night (which was nothing illegal) was grounds to confront him, cause a fight and to kill him before the Police arrived. Zimmerman knew that the Police were on the way but chose to play a Dirty Harry Role in the encounter pure and simple. He wanted to play out the Cop fantasy of “Do you feel lucky Punk, then make my day” That’s a fact the Radical Sadistic Right Wing Fanatics fail to admit too. To the Far Right every solution to the most minor of problems is execution on the spot as their God given right of absolute power over the most minor or perceived violation of any rule and their own greedy view that loss of a penny is grounds for murder.

        And in response to Chips in the head Bennet he conveniently ignores the beginning of the episode where it was Zimmerman who approached Martin first which led to the argument that started the episode. True, Martin who then left could have kept going but that is not the point. Zimmerman started the fight pure and simple and the Jury was well aware of that fact. Martin could not that night have cared less about whether Zimmerman was there or not he only became enraged when he was confronted by Zimmerman. Even if Zimmerman had wanted to do something before the Police arrived just walking down the street whistling and not paying much attention to Martin would probably been enough to convince Martin that breaking in to a house that night would have involved an eye witness but again Zimmerman was hell bent on playing cop and thought he could bully Martin which led to the initial argument. Its just that Zimmerman ended up getting more than he bargained for because Martin who was by then in a rage decided on revenge both because of the initial confrontation and also because his probable robbery had been thwarted.

        In conclusion Zimmerman was a want a be cop, he started a confrontation he could not handle and almost lost his life over it and almost went to prison because he failed to let law enforcement get there and handle the situation. Martin did indeed contribute to his own death but it was Zimmerman who caused the entire tragedy by not staying out of it and letting the Police handle the situation. In other words there was fault on both sides but the needless death was the fault of Zimmerman. The Far Right does not see it as a needless death but lusts after the fact that a Black man was blown away which they consider sub-human. Their responses reek with racism over the incident.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          And in response to Chips in the head Bennet he conveniently ignores the beginning of the episode where it was Zimmerman who approached Martin first which led to the argument that started the episode.

          Nope. Wholly untrue. Zimmerman did not approach Martin. Martin circled back 400 feet, from the safety of Brandi Green’s apartment, to approach and to confront Zimmerman.

          When you throw around ad hominem while demonstrating terrible grasp of the facts of the case, you only make yourself look foolish.

        2. avatar Excedrine says:

          cisco kid, you can beg to differ all you want to. Zimmerman was not, regardless of whatever broadcast you wish to cite — one of which was deceptively edited to make it into something which it’s not but you still oh-so-desperately cling to as if it’s gospel — ordered to do anything. Dispatchers have not the statutory authority to issue legally-binding orders. Oh, and let’s not forget the fact that Zimmerman did stop when told to, anyway. He actually almost went to jail because people like you, like I’ve already said, continue to revive the long-defunct, repeatedly-falsified assertion that he was somehow a self-styled vigilante, trigger happy, power-hungry, racist, or any other bullshit label — even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary of all of them.

          And your baseless assertion that I think Martin should not have died, which is something I never said and you damn well know I never said it, only adds to the growing list of out-and-out lies that you’ve spun here. I actually said that he didn’t deserve to die for no reason, which is true, but such was a foreseeable consequence of his actions.

          Yes, left-wing racism, sadism, and brutality are the hallmarks of Liberalism. Civilized states in America allow peaceable citizens to defend their property, and what the rest of the world does is irrelevant and inapplicable here, anyway, in any case. You, of course, would disagree entirely and that comes from Liberal greed and stinginess, and the idea that the ultimate God is the State over human life. And let’s face actual facts here: your anti-white racism is overflowing in your diatribe.

          When you have no evidence for the assertions that you’re levying against someone you disagree with, yet another hallmark of Liberalism, you found that trait first in yourself and are merely projecting it onto the other.

          Zimmerman was not playing at Cop and he did turn around and start back to his car after the dispatcher told him that they didn’t need him to follow Martin. That is how the jury actually felt and there was but one Juror that was looking for a way to convict him. Zimmerman did not cause the initial confrontation, either, because he was on his way back to his car when Martin backtracked over 100+ yards to attack Zimmerman from behind like the coward he was.

          According to his own public record, Martin was guilty of most everything he was accused of. There’s no “maybe” about it. And, again, Martin caused the fight and it got him killed. Zimmerman did not play at Dirty Harry, either, because he was on his way back to his car when Martin attacked him from behind. So, no, there was no cop fantasy or whatever other wholly unsupported — and factually unsupportable — horseshit you want to slap on this case. To the far Left, every solution to the most minor problems is execution of dissidents on-the-spot, as their State-given right of absolute power over the most minor or perceived violation of any rule and their own greedy view that loss of a State’s penny is grounds for murder.

          Martin stated the fight, pure and simple, and that was the fact that the jury was actually well aware of. And would eventually lead to his rightful acquittal. Martin did care, too, and an awful lot since he ambushed someone who was not pursuing him. So, no, Zimmerman was not Hell-bent on playing cop and you still have no evidence — empirical or otherwise — to build that knowingly baseless assertion on, either. It’s just that Martin actually got more than his bargained for because he attacked and could very well have killed someone, but was shot for his trouble.

          In conclusion, Zimmerman was not a wanna-be cop, he didn’t start a fight, and almost went to prison because of people like you breathlessly clinging to demonstrable lies spun by the media. Martin caused the entire tragedy by being the street thug he was, and attacking an innocent man. So, no, there was fault on only one side — and one side only. The Far Left does not see it as a teachable moment, but lusts after the fact that a black child was shot, which they consider sub-human. Their responses reek with racism over this and nearly every other incident like it.

  36. avatar David says:

    The comments here and on so many other pages regarding this topic are fucking sad.

    These are the latent racist ideals which makes me ashamed of the “pro gun” community.

    Zimmerman should have had his ass charged with manslaughter and thrown in prison. Every person I’ve ever heard “think” otherwise is so latently bigoted it’s sickening.

    How would you feel if you kid was doing nothing illegal and noticed some guy following them around at night. What would you expect your child to do after that person was blocking their path to get home to you.

    Since the teenager was dead in this scenario, and the person who was left standing had about zero fucking reasons to be hassling the kid, I don’t leap to Zimmerman being a victim.

    Why was the “stand your ground” concept applied to Marytn? It’s completely reasonable to consider the possibility that Zimmerman was illegally detaining Trayvon which led to the fight. But hey, the guy everyone came to the fucking side of clearly has and was a well rounded, respectable, rational, pro gun guy before and after right? Fuck the dead black kid.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      How would you feel if you kid was doing nothing illegal and noticed some guy following them around at night.

      Irrelevant, because that didn’t happen.

      And clearly, Martin wasn’t fearful of Zimmerman, because Martin intimidatingly circled Zimmerman’s vehicle while Zimmerman was on the NEN call.

      Martin then took off running, evaded Zimmerman’s visual contact before Zimmerman ever got out of his vehicle, and Zimmerman never caught sight of him again. At no point was Zimmerman “following him around”, because Zimmerman had no idea where Martin was, or went.

      And yet again, Martin demonstrated his lack of fear of Zimmerman by circling back 400 feet from the safety of Brandi Green’s apartment to the sidewalk “T” to confront Zimmerman.

      What would you expect your child to do after that person was blocking their path to get home to you.

      Irrelevant, because that didn’t happen.

      In fact, Martin made it back to Brandi Green’s apartment, and instead of simply going inside, he circled back 400 feet to confront Zimmerman.

      Since the teenager was dead in this scenario, and the person who was left standing had about zero fucking reasons to be hassling the kid, I don’t leap to Zimmerman being a victim.

      You must ignore 100% of the evidence presented at trial in order to hold such an opinion. The evidence proves that Zimmerman was the victim.

      Why was the “stand your ground” concept applied to Marytn?

      Because Florida SYG statutes don’t apply to someone who initiates unlawful physical aggression. Because there is zero evidence that Zimmerman used any force whatsoever against Martin, other than and prior to the single, fatal gunshot.

      It’s completely reasonable to consider the possibility that Zimmerman was illegally detaining Trayvon which led to the fight.

      No, it is completely unreasonable. You must ignore 100% of the evidence presented at trial to hold such an opinion. Again: Martin reached Brandi Green’s home. He then chose, of his own volition, to circle back 400 feet to confront Zimmerman.

      The only unlawful detention took place when Martin had Zimmerman pinned to the ground, pushing Zimmerman down whenever Zimmerman tried to get up.

      But hey, the guy everyone came to the fucking side of clearly has and was a well rounded, respectable, rational, pro gun guy before and after right? Fuck the dead black kid.

      The only one ignoring facts and evidence, while injecting race, is you. Project much?

    2. avatar Excedrine says:

      Your comments on this and many other pages regarding this topic are fucking sad.

      There are no latent racist ideals here to speak of, and unless and until you can actually cite them to include a link to the article and the name of the commenter, you are every bit the racist that you (don’t) see in others. And then some.

      Zimmerman should never have been charged with anything from the get-go. Every person I’ve ever heard “think” otherwise is as bigoted as you think any of us are — including you.

      Martin didn’t do anything illegal until he decided to back-track from safety over 100 yards to attack someone from behind who was well on his way back to his car. Sure, I’d be upset if my kid died, but I wouldn’t be upset at the man who killed him in self-defense once all of the relevant facts were laid out. And no, Zimmerman was not blocking Martin’s path to get home, either. He actually went home and reached home, and you’d know this if you ever looked into the available evidence. Which you clearly haven’t.

      Sine the teenager was the aggressor in this scenario, and the person left standing wasn’t fucking hassling the kid to begin with, I don’t leap to Martin being a victim.

      “Stand Your Ground” wasn’t applied to Martin. It wasn’t even evoked in this case. It’s actually completely reasonable to consider that Zimmerman wasn’t illegally detaining Martin, because there’s no evidence — empirical or otherwise — to the contrary and Martin attacked Zimmerman while he was on his way back to his car after already reaching safety. Again, you’d know all of this had you actually looked at the available evidence. Which you clearly fucking haven’t. But, hey, the guy everyone else actually came to the fucking side of was clearly a cherubic angel who wasn’t doing anything wrong, right? Fuck the Hispanic man that the dead black kid could very well have killed.

      You’d just rather baselessly ad-hominem everyone who doesn’t immediately agree, to a “T,” with whatever bullshit narrative spun by the media. A narrative you’ve clearly never dedicated even one fucking second of critical thought to examining for yourself — and no you fucking haven’t.

  37. avatar cisco kid says:

    Here is a run down on what happened from beginning to end. The only thing missing was News Media reports that Zimmerman did indeed approach Martin first. The story Zimmerman told is that he was in his car when Martin first encountered him really makes no sense. Zimmerman himself admitted Martin was walking behind the Apartments and was busy looking in the windows which would have meant that it was highly unlikely Martin was even aware of Zimmerman sitting in his car. Lets face facts in a busy city cars come and go all the time with people in them. Martin would have had no reason to suddenly come over and threaten Zimmerman in his car. At any rate even if what Zimmerman said was true Zimmerman admits he was told not to keep chasing Martin when he reported to the dispatcher that he was indeed chasing Martin. . This is what led to the fist fight and the death of Martin because Zimmerman admitted he left his car to chase Martin. All of it was totally unnecessary proving it was Zimmerman who started the confrontation by chasing Martin.

    At the very least Zimmerman should have served jail time as he did indeed cause an unnecessary death by not doing what he was requested to do. and trying to take the law into his own hands. He knew the Police were on the way yet he wanted to play cops and robbers without the authority or expertise to do so.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Clearly, your grasp of the facts and evidence of the case are is as bad as Big Bill’s. Of course, if you rely on Wikipedia, I suppose it’s an understandable ignorance.

      At the very least Zimmerman should have served jail time as he did indeed cause an unnecessary death by not doing what he was requested to do.

      Nope. Martin’s death was a direct result of Martin’s unlawful actions.

      Zimmerman did do as requested (established fact, not in dispute). But even if he hadn’t, the request was not a lawful order, and Zimmerman was under no legal obligation to adhere to it. Not doing as requested would not have been an unlawful act. Even if he had continued to do what he was doing (walking down a sidewalk in a public area), doing so would have been lawful. Even if he had been doing so while in actual pursuit of Martin, doing so would have been lawful. Even if he had caught up to Martin, and confronted Martin, doing so would have been lawful.

      The first (and only) unlawful act that night was the unlawful use of force, by Martin, in assaulting Zimmerman. Martin escalated that assault to the point that he put Zimmerman in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, thereby legally justifying Zimmerman’s use of deadly force in self-defense.

      1. avatar cisco kid says:

        Your a very disgusting human being. You ignore the MORALITY OF THE MATTER. Jury’s are not robots they are human. They knew damn well that Zimmerman’s actions were not warranted and that he had no legal right to play cops and robbers. Zimmerman started the confrontation and it resulted in Martins unnecessary death. Even a Moron can see the truth provided that you are not a blatant racist on the matter. Yes you can argue technicalities to exonerate Zimmerman but normal people will all agree and with survey’s did indeed agree that the fault lied heavily on the shoulders of both men. Both were hot heads, both were sadists, both were prejudiced as to the race of the other and both were out to destroy each other. One got lucky and won and the other died.

        Just because a man was peering into windows did not warrant any violent action or threats by Zimmerman. Chasing some one is indeed a threat and as a lawyer (if you even are one) you should be aware of this and yes it is indeed illegal even when a white man does it. The jury knew all of this and as stated the woman juror stated they all tried very hard to convict Zimmerman but he just beat out the law by a very thin thread.

        The whole Zimmerman story never passed the “smell test”. Martin was twice as big as Zimmerman and if he suddenly ran he was frightened and the question is “why was he suddenly afraid of a man much smaller than he was? I rather think that Zimmerman flashed his gun at Martin far sooner than he ever admitted to. Martin not knowing who Zimmerman was then circled Zimmerman and attacked him. The fact that Martin who again was much larger attacked from behind almost proves that Martin did indeed know Zimmerman had a gun. And of course it resulted in Martins death when he tried to get Zimmerman’s gun away from him. Zimmerman even admitted Martin tried to get his gun and without realizing it his statement seems to say that this was the real reason Martin attacked him. We will never be sure of all the details as there were no witnesses but Zimmerman fooled no one especially the jury. The jury all knew there was much more to the story and since Martin was dead we will never hear the other side of the confrontation. Its the only thing that really saved Zimmerman because if Martin had lived its almost certain it would have been Zimmerman that would have went to jail and not Martin as he had committed no crime that night until he was attacked by Zimmerman which brought on the fight. Zimmerman even admitted to the dispatcher that he was hell bent on revenge for all the break ins that had occurred previously (if we an even believe that there were a lot of them) His conversation with the dispatcher proves this. Zimmerman was out for a fight that night and he got one and the jury all knew it. Zimmerman tried to take the law into his own hands and a good lawyer would have made that paramount in the case but the jury was not stupid either, they already knew this. Again if Martin had lived and only been wounded a good lawyer would have sent Zimmerman to jail and rightly so.

        Lets face facts racism continues to play a paramount role in the story of Martin’s death. The Far Right Cheers whenever a Black man is killed and makes no pretense about it. To the Far Right Zimmerman is a hero who had every right to play judge, jury and executioner because he was gunning down a Black Man which in their eyes is Sub-human and always considered guilty even when in Martin’s case all of the facts will never be known and we will never know what Martin was doing or intended to do when peering in some windows.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          @Chip

          You can’t fix…s is, as s does.

          Swine, Pearls and all that.

        2. avatar John in TX (Was CT) says:

          Ummm…. no. Racism has no part in my feelings on why Zimmerman (who I, personally, think is a shmuck) was justified in using force against Trayvon Martin.

          It’s not racist to say that one out of 41 million African-Americans in the country put another citizen in justifiable fear of death or grievous bodily harm.

          It is racism to say that “Black people will always fly into a violent rage over [X]”.

          Welcome to the right- we focus on the individual.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Your a very disgusting human being.

          *You’re. Please. Ad hominem should at least use proper grammar.

          You ignore the MORALITY OF THE MATTER.

          Zimmerman was 100% within moral rights to use deadly force in self-defense against an unprovoked attack.

          Jury’s are not robots they are human. They knew damn well that Zimmerman’s actions were not warranted and that he had no legal right to play cops and robbers.

          There is zero evidence that Zimmerman “play[ed] cops and robbers.”

          Zimmerman started the confrontation…

          There is zero evidence that Zimmerman started the confrontation. In fact, evidence presented at trial refutes that claim, and proved that Martin started the confrontation.

          …and it resulted in Martins unnecessary death.

          Martin’s death was indeed unnecessary. But Martin’s death came as a result – and consequence – of Martin’s own actions.

          Even a Moron can see the truth provided that you are not a blatant racist on the matter.

          So, are you claiming to be a moron, or a blatant racist?

          The facts and evidence presented at trial – by the State, no less – fully exonerated Zimmerman.

          Yes you can argue technicalities to exonerate Zimmerman but normal people will all agree and with survey’s did indeed agree that the fault lied heavily on the shoulders of both men.

          Fortunately for George Zimmerman, and for everyone else accused of a crime, due process rights are not subjected to surveys.

          Both were hot heads, both were sadists, both were prejudiced as to the race of the other and both were out to destroy each other. One got lucky and won and the other died.

          One person unlawfully assaulted the other person. One person justifiably used deadly force in self-defense in response to the unlawful assault from the other person.

          George Zimmerman, whom you accuse of being a hot-head sadist, fired a single shot from his firearm, only after allowing himself to be subjected to assault for a considerable amount of time, including being sucker-punched, knocked to the ground, mounted “MMA-style”, being continually punched and beaten while being knocked down repeatedly when he tried to get up, and having his head bashed into the sidewalk and ground.

          Your claim is that a hot-head sadist, after being subjected to such an assault by someone against he was racially prejudiced, would limit himself to a single gunshot?

          Just because a man was peering into windows did not warrant any violent action or threats by Zimmerman.

          And Martin peering into windows produced no violent action or threats by Zimmerman.

          Chasing some one is indeed a threat and as a lawyer (if you even are one)…

          Why on earth do you think I’m a lawyer? How many times do I have to tell you, before you listen? I’m not a lawyer; I’m an engineer.

          …you should be aware of this and yes it is indeed illegal even when a white man does it.

          Please cite the relevant Florida statutes that indicate that merely chasing someone constitutes a threat, that merely chasing someone constitutes a threat of use of unlawful force, and or that it is illegal for a white man (or, perhaps, a White Hispanic, I suppose) to chase someone (presumably, a non-white person).

          Go ahead. Look them up. I’ll wait.

          The jury knew all of this and as stated the woman juror stated they all tried very hard to convict Zimmerman but he just beat out the law by a very thin thread.

          That very thin thread was the insurmountable self-defense claim that Zimmerman had, as an overwhelming result of the facts and evidence presented at trial.

          The whole Zimmerman story never passed the “smell test”. Martin was twice as big as Zimmerman and if he suddenly ran he was frightened…

          Rachel Jeantel does claim that Martin claimed some fear of Zimmerman. However, Martin’s subsequent action of not going inside Brandi Green’s apartment, and instead circling back 400 feet to confront Zimmerman put the absolute lie to that claim. Martin was not afraid of Zimmerman.

          …and the question is “why was he suddenly afraid of a man much smaller than he was?

          If we’re playing the speculation game, I’ll provide alternate speculation: perhaps Martin was up to no good, saw Zimmerman watching him, saw Zimmerman make a phone call, and figured that Zimmerman was calling the police. Perhaps it was not Zimmerman of whom Martin was afraid, but rather the police.

          I rather think that Zimmerman flashed his gun at Martin far sooner than he ever admitted to.

          There is zero evidence to support such speculation, and the evidence we have refutes it.

          When Martin first saw Zimmerman, Zimmerman was in his vehicle, on his phone. If Zimmerman had brandished his firearm while in his vehicle, it would make absolutely zero sense for Martin later to try to approach Zimmerman from 400 feet away, knowing he was approaching an armed man who had already brandished his firearm.

          When Martin was on top of Zimmerman, beating the crap out of him, Zimmerman’s gun was still holstered. How do we know? The presence, witness, and testimony of John Good. Thus, it makes zero sense that Zimmerman would have had his firearm unholstered when Martin approached him, because Zimmerman would not have reholstered his firearm after being assaulted.

          The only logical scenario, based on available evidence, is that Zimmerman’s firearm was holstered until he used it.

          Martin not knowing who Zimmerman was then circled Zimmerman and attacked him.

          You state this point as fact; good.

          What I can’t understand, though, is how you can accept this point as fact, while also claiming to believe a) that Martin was frightened of Zimmerman, or, b) that Martin knew Zimmerman was armed before circling back to confront/attack him.

          The fact that Martin who again was much larger attacked from behind almost proves that Martin did indeed know Zimmerman had a gun.

          That’s one way to speculate.

          The more logical speculation is that Martin attacking Zimmerman from behind proves nothing more than that Martin wanted to (as Martin’s cousin phrased it) “put bangaz on a cracka”.

          And of course it resulted in Martins death when he tried to get Zimmerman’s gun away from him.

          Of course. And that death would have been morally and legally justified by Martin’s actions.

          Zimmerman even admitted Martin tried to get his gun and without realizing it his statement seems to say that this was the real reason Martin attacked him.

          Zimmerman said that Martin tried to get his gun, while Martin was straddling Zimmerman, beating him into the ground.

          If Martin knew that Zimmerman had a firearm before he accosted him, why did he merely straddle Zimmerman and beat him with his fists and arms for 90 seconds, instead of immediately going for Zimmerman’s firearm?

          We will never be sure of all the details as there were no witnesses…

          No witnesses?

          You must have missed the trial.

          …but Zimmerman fooled no one especially the jury.

          The jury that acquitted Zimmerman of all charges? That jury?

          The jury all knew there was much more to the story and since Martin was dead we will never hear the other side of the confrontation.

          We heard a good bit of Martin’s side through the testimony of Rachel Jeantel. The available evidence also tells a considerable amount of the otherwise-untold story.

          Its the only thing that really saved Zimmerman because if Martin had lived its almost certain it would have been Zimmerman that would have went to jail and not Martin…

          If the police had arrived before the fatal gunshot, Martin would have been arrested and taken to jail for the obvious assault he was committing against Zimmerman.

          …as he had committed no crime that night until he was attacked by Zimmerman…

          There is zero evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin. All available evidence indicates that it was Martin who attacked Zimmerman (something that you stated as fact a bit earlier in your comment).

          …which brought on the fight.

          There was no “fight”. A fight requires two participants. There was only an assault: an attacker and a victim.

          Zimmerman even admitted to the dispatcher that he was hell bent on revenge for all the break ins that had occurred previously…

          Zimmerman merely lamented dejectedly that “they always get away”. He said nothing about a desire to exact revenge.

          …(if we an even believe that there were a lot of them)…

          The police reports were entered as evidence.

          I’m really surprised that you missed the trial.

          His conversation with the dispatcher proves this.

          His conversation with the NEN operator proved no such thing.

          Zimmerman was out for a fight that night…

          Ironically, Zimmerman’s NEN call refutes such a claim. He didn’t actually want an encounter with Martin.

          …and he got one and the jury all knew it.

          Zimmerman certainly got assaulted. Everyone – jury included – knows it.

          Zimmerman tried to take the law into his own hands…

          There is zero evidence that Zimmerman did anything that constituted an attempt to take the law into his own hands.

          …and a good lawyer would have made that paramount in the case but the jury was not stupid either, they already knew this.

          Any good lawyer would know that any such actions would be irrelevant, unless they were unlawful, or constituted initial physical aggression – and there is zero evidence that Zimmerman was the initial physical aggressor. All evidence indicates that Martin was the initial physical aggressor.

          Again if Martin had lived and only been wounded a good lawyer would have sent Zimmerman to jail and rightly so.

          Wrong. Had Martin lived, police would have been faced with a he-said, she-said scenario. And in that scenario, one person would have bruised knuckles (consistent with punching someone), a non-fatal gunshot wound, no other injuries, and pants with wet grass stains on the knees – while the other person would have a broken nose, a bloody head, abrasions to the back of the head, and wet grass on the back of his jacket.

          Police would easily have put the pieces together, and would have arrested Martin for assaulting Zimmerman.

          Lets face facts racism continues to play a paramount role in the story of Martin’s death.

          Indeed. But I suspect that it does so in completely the opposite way that you intend.

          The Far Right Cheers whenever a Black man is killed and makes no pretense about it.

          I see a lot of your kind, who are quick to accuse the right of such. But your accusations do not align with reality. The comments here (and essentially everywhere else) state that Martin justifiably died as a result of his actions – something that has absolutely nothing to do with race.

          To the Far Right Zimmerman is a hero…

          I see a lot of your kind, who are quick to accuse the right of such. But your accusations do not align with reality. The overwhelming majority of comments here (and essentially everywhere else) are that Zimmerman is anything from an idiot, to a schmuck, to someone looking for trouble, to someone who is merely unlucky. The Zimmerman Hero Worship Cult seems to be a figment of the left’s imagination.

          …who had every right to play judge, jury and executioner because he was gunning down a Black Man which in their eyes is Sub-human and always considered guilty…

          Ah yes. The obligatory, racist ad hominem. It is as unsurprising as it is uninteresting.

          …even when in Martin’s case all of the facts will never be known…

          We know enough of the facts and evidence that there is no need to know all of the facts. With the evidence that the prosecution presented at trial, if the State had been attempting to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted lawfully in self-defense, they might have actually been successful.

          …and we will never know what Martin was doing or intended to do when peering in some windows.

          What Martin was doing or intending to do when peering in some windows is utterly and completely irrelevant.

        4. avatar Excedrine says:

          cisco kid, you are every bit as disgusting as you like to think Chip is. And then some. You ignore both the facts and the morality of the matter. Yes, juries are human, and that’s why they rightly acquitted Zimmerman. They knew damn well that Martin’s actions were not warranted and that Zimmerman was not playing “cops and robbers.” Martin started the confrontation and it resulted in Martin’s unfortunately very necessary death. Even a moron can see the truth, provided that you are the blatant racist that you (don’t) see in others — which you very much are. There are no technicalities to exonerate Zimmerman. Only facts. Most all normal people will actually agree, and surveys have shown, that the fault lay on the shoulders of Martin. Martin was the hot head, Martin was the sadist, Martin was prejudiced, and Martin was out to destroy Zimmerman. One got lucky, initially, and still died for his troubles.

          Martin was not just peering into windows. He was consistently found to have stolen property and burglary tools in his backpack at sk00l. Before he was expelled for violence. He was also well-known to law enforcement as a gang member: street fighting, specifically. There were no threats from Zimmerman, and he only visited violence on Martin after Martin attacked him. He wasn’t chasing anyone, either, and since you’re not a lawyer (or even a reasonable person for that matter) you should be aware of this — and yes, it is indeed illegal if a black child does it, too. (Fun fact: Zimmerman is Hispanic, not white, no matter how badly race-hustling bigots like you desperately want him to be.) That is what the jury knew except for the lone voice in the wilderness who falsely claimed that they all tried to convict Zimmerman. But, the evidence beat out her solitary feelings by a long country mile.

          The whole Zimmerman story never passed the “smell test”. The entire Zimmerman story passed the “smell test.” It was the prosecutor’s story that never did. Martin thought he could just ground-and-pound his smaller victim whom he clearly was not frightened of since he freely attacked a an on his way back to his car to let the police handle it. I rather think that you’re a liar who conveniently ignores every single solitary piece of forensic and eye-witness evidence presented at trial. The fact that Martin attacked Zimmerman from behind actually proves that Martin was a coward, and was tired of people like Zimmerman getting in the way of his business of robbing houses and street fighting. And no, Martin never reached for Zimmerman’s gun at all, either. There is no evidence to say that there was. No GSR or other wounds on his hands to even indicate a foiled gun-grab. Nothing. We are sure of all of the details as there were in fact witnesses, and Zimmerman didn’t need to fool anyone, especially not the jury who overwhelmingly acquitted him based on the evidence. The jury actually knew all that there was to know at that time, and rejected the bullshit red-herrings that you and the media continue to cling to like Holy Gospel.

          What actually saved Zimmerman’s bacon was that the evidence does not now and has never supported any of the baseless assertions you and other pathological liars and projectionists like you levy against those that don’t agree with you. Zimmeran was attacked by Martin and that brought on the fight that ultimately got Martin killed. The only thing that the conversation with the dispatcher proves is that Zimmerman was Hell-bent on finding out who the culprit of the break-ins was. Apparently, he did. The break-ins stop for over a year across the neighborhood after Martin died. Martin was out for a fight that night, like he was most nights being a gang member, and that’s what the jury actually knew. Zimmerman never tried to take the law into his own hands, either, and the prosecutor did try to make that paramount in this case. No, the jury knew better than that. Again, if Martin had lived, he would have went to jail and rightly so.

          Lets face facts racism continues to play a paramount role in the story of Martin’s death. The Far Right Cheers whenever a Black man is killed and makes no pretense about it. To the Far Right Zimmerman is a hero who had every right to play judge, jury and executioner because he was gunning down a Black Man which in their eyes is Sub-human and always considered guilty even when in Martin’s case all of the facts will never be known and we will never know what Martin was doing or intended to do when peering in some windows.

          Let’s face actual facts: racism continues to play a huge role in the story of Martin’s death, and it favors Martin, not Zimmerman. The Far Left cheers whenever a black man or child is killed and makes no pretense about it. To the Far Left, Zimmerman is a boogeyman who had no right to defend himself under any circumstance whatsoever. In Far Left’s eyes, the black man is still sub-human and incapable of having any agency, which is why they are right to act on pure impulse and believe that they should be allowed to do so with impunity. All the facts are known and have been known for years, and we know that Martin was casing houses to rob from when he was peering in some windows. You’re just refusing delivery of these facts. Yet another hallmark of the Far Left and of Liberalism.

      2. avatar cisco kid says:

        Oh and by the way you arrogant Moron Wikipedia does indeed check the accuracy of its facts especially in high profile controversial cases like the Martin Case. I am afraid that when you walk around with your nose up in the air you end up tripping over your own feet. Please put brain in gear next time before you make a fool out of yourself.

      3. avatar cisco kid says:

        And by the way flashing a gun in someone’s face and threatening them is also illegal but because Martin is dead and no witnesses have come forward Zimmerman again was able to beat the law. No we cannot prove Zimmerman did this but circumstantial evidence and a good lawyer and testimony by Martin if he had lived again would probably have doomed Zimmerman to jail.

        1. avatar Excedrine says:

          Oh, and cisco kid, you arrogant projectionist moron, Wikipedia does not check the accuracy of its articles. It’s edited by volunteers, only. The only thing “controversial” about the Martin case was how ridiculously wrong the media, and mealy-mouthed little sycophants like you, got it. I’m afraid when you walk around with your nose up the ass of your favored State functionaries and media talking-heads, you end up tripping over your own feet. Please, take your own advice and put your brain in gear the next time you make a fool of yourself before people that already well know better than you.

          Also, Zimmerman didn’t flash a gun at Martin nor threaten him, either. But, because Martin is dead and there were in fact witnesses, race-hustling bigots like you and in the media couldn’t flout the law and imprison Zimmerman for being the victim of a vicious attack by a street urchin. Yes, we have already proven that Zimmerman didn’t do this, and circumstantial evidence does not even exist to support this knowingly baseless assertion from you. If Martin had lived, he would have been in jail because he attacked Zimmerman wholly unprovoked.

  38. avatar cisco kid says:

    Another point not yet discussed was the month and time of the attack which further proves Zimmerman was lying about his encounter with Martin. The Month was February and the time of the encounter was after 7 pm. By that time of night it would have been very difficult to see anyone sitting in a car because of the darkness. Which means that Martin most likely never even knew Zimmerman was there. Something drew Martin to Zimmerman and since Martin could not tell us what did happen one wonders if it was Zimmerman who may have yelled something at Martin, (Zimmerman again trips himself up when he admitted the window was down) or Zimmerman could have exited the car and had a confrontation with Martin which then caused Zimmerman to get back into his car to escape Martin.

    In other words many things could have provoked Martin to get into a fight with Zimmerman and the fact that Martin who was much bigger than Zimmerman and then suddenly took off running leads to further suspicion that Martin became frightened when he probably saw Zimmerman’s gun or Zimmerman threatened him with it. This makes far more sense than the cock and bull story Zimmerman told of himself innocently sitting in his car and then having Martin swoop down on him and then for no reason ever given suddenly running away. The whole Zimmerman story stinks to high heaven and makes not one iota of sense.

    The Jury again knew that they did not have the true story of what actually took place. They did know that Zimmerman initiated a contact with Martin and Zimmerman admitted to chasing Martin. All this could be construed as harassment and a possible attack by Zimmerman against Martin. Without Zimmerman’s intervention against Martin after the Police were called Martin would never have been killed or harmed and the Police could then have made a search and possibly then questioned Martin as to what he was doing there.

    Zimmerman also had made over 50 calls to the Police in the past and it was apparent he was an obsessed man as many of the calls were not even of a serious nature, such as loud parties etc and when Zimmerman did report on a possible suspicious person he often did not give a description of the men he reported on other than that they were black which further puts a racist tint on his mentality and no descriptions of the suspects leads one to question if some of the complaints were more of Zimmerman’s fantasies and obsessions being totally out of control.

    Zimmerman’s past behavior in the neighborhood simply points to the fact that he was not playing with a full deck. He was obsessed with wanting to be a want a be cop and was constantly calling police on every complaint imaginable. It was only a matter of time before he confronted someone over absolutely nothing and either killed someone or someone retaliated and killed him. And all this certainly came to pass one night in February when he finally got to play cop for real with tragic results.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Martin is dead, Zimmerman is not. The court and jury ruled. QED. End of story.

      No amount of jabber will change the fact. Move on.

      1. avatar cisco kid says:

        The only babbling jabber is coming out of your mouth. I know the truth hurts because its not according to the Right Wing philosophy of “the only good black man is a dead black man”. Sorry civilized people do not agree with that.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          You have a video cam in my house? You have no idea who I am. You have no idea if I hate blacks, am one, or am married to one. The racist mind see racists everywhere because that is the only frame of reference for the racist mind.

          Martin attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman won the challenge match. Martin earned his reward for his actions. That is all that matters.

          Move on. You are in desperate need of getting a life. Victimization, negativity, constantly complaining. The life on the Left. There can be no joy, there can be no unplanned insult, there can be no commentary that is not a personal insult. What do you have to contribute? What do you have to live for.

          Move on.

          10, 2, and over.

        2. avatar Excedrine says:

          The only babbling-gabber is coming of your mouth, cisco kid. You don’t know what the truth is because you so roundly reject it and supplant it in your own twisted mind with absolutely nothing but rank speculation and racism. It’s not according to the Left Wing philosophy of “the only good black child is a dead black child.” Sorry, civilized people don’t agree with you.

          Civilized people don’t project their bigotry onto others like you do.

          Civilized people don’t stand on the corpses of dead children to spout poison like you do.

          Civilized people don’t stand for Left Wing policies that produce said corpses like you do.

          Civilized people don’t reject reason and evidence like you do.

          Civilized people don’t think you do.

          Civilized people don’t talk like you do.

          Civilized people don’t act like you do.

          Civilized people don’t do what you do.

          Civilized people don’t include you.

          You are not civilized, as much as you like to clothe yourself in civilization.

    2. avatar Excedrine says:

      cisco kid, that point point has already been discussed and rightly written off as bullshit, as the month and time of the attack actually further proves that you’re lying about Martin’s encounter with Zimmerman. Martin clearly knew someone was there, otherwise he would not have been able to get out of Zimmerman’s sight like he did and reach safety. Hatred drew Martin to Zimmerman, and he acted on this rage by attacking Zimmerman fro behind as he was on his way back to his car (because he had lost sight of Martin and the dispatcher told him that they didn’t need him to follow anyway). Oh, and where is any of your evidence for any of these wild guesses? Oh, that’s right. There isn’t any because they never happened.

      In other words, you don’t know jack shit about this case because you’ve thus far absolutely refused delivery of all of the relevant facts and testimony and instead supplanted it with rank speculation based solely on your own bigotry, projection, and unearned sense of moral superiority. Martin didn’t run anywhere. He simply out-paced the older, slower Zimmerman by walking over 100 yards to safety, then circled back to attack him for no reason whatsoever. That makes far more sense than the cock-and-bull story you and other race-hustling sycophants have continued to tell us, knowing full well that none of what you say is even remotely true at all. Your whole Martin story stinks to high Heaven and makes not one iota of sense.

      The jury actually knew that they did have the true story of what took place. They actually knew that Martin initiated contact and Martin chased Zimmerman. Nothing could be construed as harassment as no harassment took place, as there was only an unprovoked attack on Zimmerman by Martin. Without Zimmerman’s intervention against Martin, Zimmerman would be dead and Martin would have gone to jail for murder, and rightly so. What’s actually apparent is your obsession with seeing racism where there is none, and projecting your own thinly-veiled racism onto others. Zimmerman’s 9-1-1 call was deceptively edited by ABC to make it look like he’s a racist, which conveniently comports to your own beliefs projected onto everyone else. Maybe he didn’t like to give descriptions because anti-white bigots like you would inevitably twist his words against him to try (and fail) to make into something that you damn well know he’s not. The only obsessions and fantasies here are yours and those of the Far Left, and they are most certainly out of control.

      Your past and present behavior simply points to the fact that you’re not playing with a full deck. You are obsessed with being an arm-chair judge, jury, and executioner and projecting your own world-view onto everyone else. It was only a matter of time before he was confronted by someone over absolutely nothing and tried to kill him. This indeed came to a head one night, when he wasn’t playing cop and had to kill someone to save his own life.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email