IMG_7969

A Sanford Florida jury has ruled that George Zimmerman is not guilty of the homicide of teenager Trayvon Martin. Six women unanimously affirmed Zimmerman’s claim that he acted in self-defense. They also declined to convict him of the lesser crime of manslaughter. Martin’s family was not present in the courtroom when the verdict was read. George Zimmerman is now a free man. There are no reports of rioting—but the night is still young. Updates and reaction to follow.

Recommended For You

244 Responses to BREAKING: George Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

      • +1!!
        When the death toll and property damage that is about to ensue is tallied, I want Angela Corey held liable. Thanks for ruining a man’s life in a failed attempt to further your political career. Bitch.

    • I disagree. The fact that Zimmerman was charged and subjected to this media circus is a gross perversion of justice.

      He is broke. He is 100 lbs heavier. He is a marked man. His life is ruined.

      The race baiting hacks and the political cockroaches that channel their wishes ought to be chased out of town with pitchforks.

      • He’ll get his back in the civil suit against CNN and MSNBC. The hack jobs they did on those tapes are worth millions. Toss in the prosecutorial misconduct and his own civil immunity. He’s going to be a very rich man. His life will suck for a few years, but when you have a nine digit bank account balance, there is a lot your can do to mitigate the suckage.

    • For justice to truly be served, Spike Lee, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Barack Obama, et. al should be held liable for the damage they’ve done to Zimmerman’s life.

    • I want to live in the same neighborhood that Zimmerman will be in, it will be a target rich environment. There will be a lot of blacks looking to make a name for themselves by taking him out!

      If I were George, I would immediately request the return of my handgun, and lock and load!

      • In response to your first paragraph: Avoid stupid people in stupid places doing stupid things.

        Unless you want to kill people, in which case, you’re an idiot and a loon, and I hope to never meet you.

      • Handguns are a compromise for daily convenience.

        If you’re expecting trouble, get somewhere where as few people are likely to find you as possible…and bring a rifle.

      • So we are to assume that six white-and-mixed-race middle-class women with children of their own listened to weeks of evidence and then summarily, after 12-plus hours of deliberation, decided to acquit out of, what, racism? Support for the 2nd Amendment? Sheer spite? Zimmerman’s manly good looks?

        ‘Justice’ can be relative. The Relatives, Racists, and Race Hustlers, for example, wanted a guilty verdict followed by a summary street execution shown on BET. For others, ‘justice’ is the rule of law being followed to the letter by unbiased jurors who come to a reasoned and rational decision based on fact, not on emotion.

  1. To be more precise:

    He was found Not Guilty. He was not found Innocent. Our system does not find a defendant innocent.

    There is a difference.

    Not that I disagree with the verdict in the slightest.

    • Yes. I wish the newsies would get this right. On fox it says that jurors found him not guilty, then sub title says he was acquitted. Bit of a difference between the two!

    • Our system, by its very nature, cannot find a defendant “innocent”, since it is presumed from the start that he IS innocent and the burden on the state is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

    • Similarly, the jury did not affirm that he acted in self-defense. They merely did not have enough evidence to refute it or convict.

      I would argue there wasn’t even probable cause to begin with, but what do I know…?

    • They are innocent until proven guilty. To find them not guilty means making that innocent status permanent. It is technically not called being “found innocent”, that part you are correct. But the part where you say “There is a difference.” is not correct. There is not a difference.

    • I did appreciate the fact that the Judge said all evidence will be returned, i.e here’s your Kel-Tec back. Now – go buy a real gun.

        • It would have been better if Martin survived the gunshot IMO. Self defense would have been served, and a life not lost, a life potentially redeemable.

        • Bob, if you think there would have been no civil suit or any other legal battles just because Martin survived the shot you are sadly deluded. Martin took his chances when he initiated physical combat with an unknown oppenent. GZ took the action he had available to stop the attack. Martin could have walked away, he didn’t, his death is the result of his own actions.

        • Cliff,
          You’re putting words in my mouth, stop it.

          Why do you want Martin dead? What is served by that? Are you really that blood thirsty? You seem blinded by your own emotions and opinions.

        • Well, I do want Martin dead. Anybody who jumps a man like that and attempts to indroduce his brain to the sidewalk, deserves to be put down like a rabid dog.

      • It was real enough to save Zim’s life. But I hope he can afford some sweet upgrades when he wins his suit against the State..

        • I hope Z can do something against the state, but I’m not sure. Absolute immunity, etc. At any rate, there ought to be a price to pay for politicians who use their power to ruin peoples’ lives. Other than just the voters’ boots on their backsides.

        • Bob asked: “Does FL law provide civil immunity for justified self-defense shootings?”

          Only if you’re not subject to criminal prosecution, which includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

          Being acquitted does not restore immunity. However, should he be sued in civil court, he can have a civil immunity hearing, and if he is adjudged immune, any money he’s spent defending himself from the civil suit(s) is the responsibility of the plaintiff.

          See Fl. Stat. 776.032 here.

        • were i him, i’d be much more interested in getting the hell out of Dodge than sticking around for a lawsuit.

        • In Oregon you can’t sue the DA.
          Matt in FL may be able to provide info on whether Florida does?

      • Zimmerman should have used a 45 ACP.

        Martin would have disappeared into a shower of sparks and a puff of white smoke, no body to examine.

      • One round instantly stopping the fight, fired from pistol almost small enough for pocket carry and light enough for just about anything.

        Seems pretty “real” to me. I carry a 92FS, but I wouldn’t feel any less safe with a kel-tec.

  2. Boom baby. +2a victory. Stand your ground and maybe the punks will wise up and realize they cant act like asses and expect society to put up with it. Act like a punk get treated like a punk.

  3. I wish people a safe night ahead.

    Things could get dicey. If you live in a major metropolitan area, you might want to spend the night in your business to make sure it doesn’t get burned to the ground. I encourage you to speak to nearby business owners and family members.

    about the verdict: just as I have predicted. and good!

  4. I wonder what happens when a young black man sees someone following him, “stands his ground”, and guns that person down. Will that young man also be declared “not guilty” – or does wearing a hoody remove one’s Second Amendment rights?

    • Repud, you just made a fuss about people wearing hoodies and carrying guns on the very recent IGOTD. Now suddenly you’re defending hoodie wearers and their rights. I call BS. You’re nothing but a tr0ll.

      • No, I’m trying to interject an opposing view in the echo chamber. All I see in these comments is that a young black man walking home from the store is a “thug” – because he wore a hoodie.

        Pop quiz: Say you’re walking home from the store, and a black man starts following you and confronts you. You feel threatened, and defend yourself – using your concealed weapon to shoot him. It turns out that the black man was a local neighborhood watch captain, and was concerned that you might be a burglar.

        Were you standing your ground and exercising your Second Amendment rights, or not?

        • If you watched the trial and observe the evidence, then you would not be drawing such off-base hypotheticals. The case is not about race, despite Patriot’s bit below. The case was a straight-forward application of FL self-defense law. The evidence presented at trial was not the ‘evidence’ as grotesquely distorted by the networks and race hustlers. As Ralph communicated a day or two ago, the statistics in Florida so far indicate that the SYG law (not a factor in this trial, BTW) have been applied very evenly in multi-race FL cases, regardless of whether the self-defense was enacted by a dark or light-skinned person.

        • A young black man walking back from the store in a hoodie is not a ‘thug.’

          A young black man in a hoodie walking back from the store who turns to confront someone following him and, instead of reasonably explaining himself or simply continuing on his way, feels compelled to knock that man down, straddle him, and bash his head into the concrete is a ‘thug.’

          See the difference? Gosh, maybe it’s not the hoodie’s fault at all!

        • John in AK: Your description of what happened does not accord with the evidence at trial. The evidence shows that GZ did turn back toward his car at the time the “we don’t need you to do that” comment was made. On his way back he ended up in physical contact with Martin, who had already become well clear of GZ, and was close to his father’s back door, minutes before. There are other SD issues too, but those basic facts, proven in court, are fairly overwhelming.

        • No he’s not a THUG because he wore a hoodie. He’s a THUG because he like to beat up homeless guys for sport. He’s a thug because he got suspended from school for possession of stolen property and burglary tools. He’s a thug for being a criminal, not because of his choice of dress.

        • Can you clarify…does this man jump out of the bushes, over power me, then straddle me and start pounding my head into the pavement…stating that I am going to die tonight?

    • Well, if he is in a place he is otherwise allowed to be in, attacked, and in *reasonable* fear for his life, then he should be found not guilty.

      What if it was a Hispanic guy who was atta… oh… wait…

    • I believe Ralph provided some statistics on that on an early post.

      Here is what he found:

      In mixed-race cases involving fatalities, the outcomes were similar. Four of the five blacks who killed a white went free; five of the six whites who killed a black went free.

      So it appears that the answer is if the black person met the conditions of the stand your ground or general self defense laws then he would go free.

    • Wearing a hoody has nothing to do with Second Amendment rights. Hoodies don’t (necessarily) have anything to do with attacking someone, sitting on his chest, pounding his face with your fists, and trying to bash his head into the sidewalk. But doing the latter can certainly invite a Second Amendment response.

        • To get to your conclusion you have to reverse the facts. If Zimmerman had been trespassing on other peoples property, acting strangely, and Martin had followed him, and called the police to report it. If Zimmerman beat Martin with his fists after a fashion that would have left Martin a vegetable if allowed to continue, and Martin then shot Zimmerman, you would be right. Otherwise, you’re talking about something that never happened and your equivalence is exactly false.

      • So, if I pick a fight with you in a bar, and you start winning – I can shoot you? Under Florida law, that seems to be the result.

        • No. Florida law specifically would not approve the result you conjecture. However, if you started a fight with me and I then started to beat you to a pulp AND blocked you from breaking off the fight by blocking the only exit or holding you down, or if you made obvious physical and verbal efforts to withdraw from the fight and I ignored them while continuing to crush you, then you would regain your right to lethal self-defense. It’s in the statutes. Why not read them first?

        • I can’t speak for FL, but in NC, they go over just that issue extensively in the videos you have to watch during a CHP class, with the exact same conclusion as Ropingdown.

      • Personally, i find that big assed front pocket to be great for concealed carry if you can keep from printing.

      • You must not fire warning shots. You must not fire a shot before the use of lethal force is justified. But if you are basically averse to killing the perp, apparently bad aim is hard to blame. Of course, if you are justified at that moment, missing on purpose seems to me a very high-risk action.

    • You might be surprised. People are going crazy about Florida’s “Stand your Ground” law because of the Zimmerman trial, but this case wasn’t even really about “Stand your Ground”. Zimmerman contends he was pinned; he could not have retreated, making any duty to do so moot.

      There have been some much stranger applications of “stand your ground”, Earlier this year, Aaron A. Little had his conviction overturned on appeal based on the “Stand your ground” law, despite the fact he was a convicted felon carrying a firearm at the time. The court found the statute is worded such that you must either not be committing a crime at the time or perceive the threat as imminent. Hardly anybody has heard of this case, despite its actual bearing on the “Stand your Ground” law and its exposure of a worrisome defect in the wording of Florida’s self-defense statutes. Little, in case you haven’t guessed it, is black.

    • If the dude following him starts beating his head into the pavement…

      Then yeah, he’d ABSOLUTELY be declared not guilty.

      If you don’t want to get shot by CCW holders in legally valid self defense, then it’s really easy: don’t attack people. Martin attacked a guy, that’s why he was legally shot.

        • Florida is shall issue. As long as he is not legally prohibited from possessing a firearm (and his prohibition disappeared with the acquittal), they cannot revoke it.

    • I wonder if it would be a good idea to not carry the same gun as Zimmerman’s. We live in a very biased land, it could certainly (most probably WOULD) be used against a defendant in a self-defense case.

      • This is, sadly, very true.

        There is now no way in hell I’d carry a PF9, even though it’s a great pistol. Too much for a prosecutor to work with.

        92FS with Rem. Golden Sabre is my average carry day. A gun/ammo combo used for many years by police is hard for a prosecutor to find fault with.

  5. He’s going to get smashed at the civil trial. Better than spending years in jail, mind you, but he’s still in a hell of a lot of trouble.

    • Depends on the location and the jury. There are different standard of evidence in civil trials. Martin’s past, text and videos would all be admissible. I don’t see any additional damaging evidence that the plaintiffs could raise. There was reason that the prosecution didn’t delve into Zimmerman past. On net the negative information on Martin would outweigh anything they had on Zimmerman. Unless they sue in Dade County I don’t see a win for Martin’s family in a civil trial.

      • I’m waiting to see if Holder’s DOJ manages to dream up some way of charging him with a civil rights violation.

        • It would be very difficult since Civil Rights laws are based on a finding of racial animus. The FBI has already cleared him on that score.

        • There were a lot of ambiguities in what was known in the original investigation. There are none in the FBI’s report on racial animus. They found no evidence to support a finding of racial animus and indeed found evidence that affirms that he sought racial justice in at least one case.

    • 776.032. Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force: The use of force was found justifiable, clearly. GZ should not be liable to civil suit.

    • Facts that speak for justified self-defense don’t hurt, either. They had them all at the start, yet they prosecuted anyway. This is a shining day for the jury system, but the stain of egregious prosecution will not soon fade.

      • It almost makes me sick to defend a prosecutor (many, if not most, are the most vile and despicable people on the planet), but it may have been a good thing to bring it to trial based on the social reaction to the incident. Kind of a “let’s get all the facts out in the open” and hope that it brings closure. I’m not necessarily saying the DA had this motivation, but the trial may bring a sense of closure that otherwise may not have been possible.

        • “many, if not most, are the most vile and despicable people on the planet”

          +1000

          Despite the good they do, yes they mostly are despicable. After collapse proceeds, they will be the second least unpopular person behind a banker.

          Count on pogrom sized bon fires

        • If that were the intention, Corey would not have been at the presser slandering GZ.

  6. I bet he still regrets playing wanna be cop and following Trayvon. What a crappy situation…and could have been avoided is my guess.

      • It is a tragedy. Trayvon was moved to an environment he did not understand. George was reacting much too casually to a person whose behavior he apparently could not interpret wisely. Learning is long and life is short, as they say. Sad.

    • A forensic psychologist told me that many blacks fear whites in this kind of scenario. She said that as a defense of TM, but if GZ didn’t threaten him, TM’s attack was not justified.

      Here’s one irrefutable fact: Only George Zimmerman knows what happened that night.

      • My thoughts exactly. Zimmerman made some very stupid mistakes, but last I checked, being stupid is not illegal in this country.

        I feel bad for the families on both sides; their lives will never be the same. But I am glad that the jury saw fit to issue the only possible correct verdict based on the facts presented in this case.

  7. Sounds like the 6 jurors were very thoughtful thorough . I was fairly certain that they asked the manslaughter question because they were going in that direction and the best possible outcome for Zimmerman at that point was a hung jury.

    So I have to questions for Ralph:

    Does this jury reduce your cynicism a bit or are they the exception that proves the rule?

    Second question: Given that the prosecution’s behavior during this entire affair do you think that if Zimmerman and his attorneys filed an ethics charge against Angela Corey that they would be successful in getting her sanctioned?

    • Prosecutors have pretty much total immunity from prosecution. They can (and often do) commit the most egregious crimes while performing their jobs and they routinely get away with it.

    • I am not talking about criminal prosecution. They are not immune from sanctions imposed by those responsible for legal ethics. The prosecutor in the Senator Ted Stevens corruption trial got sanctioned for misconduct after the Appeals Court tossed the conviction. A prosecutor can be sanctioned all the way up to disbarment. (See M. Nifong)

  8. In the end.
    A person is dead. The other has to live with that. If there is doubt there can be no conviction. To the families on both sides NORMAL will never come again.

  9. So if my sons who wear hoodies are seen out @ nite & mite tell some called ‘do-gooder’ to leave them alone-the chance are that they mite get shot! Zimmerman just got away with murder! My heart goes out to the young man’s family! Jury-shame on u!

    • Bullshit. Did you watch the trial? There was no concrete evidence other than a body and some bullets. There was a lot of conflicting circumstantial evidence. It was a mush. There was nothing definitive. It was a gigantic Charlie Foxtrot, but that does not meet the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

      • I must have seen a different trial and read different statutes. The phone records (their time indicators and content) made it clear that GZ headed back to his car after the ‘we don’t need you to do that’ bit. The phone records and testimony, combined, also made it clear that Martin was well clear of GZ minutes before the physical confrontation broke out and had reached a point near his father’s back door. And notwithstanding all that, the testimony of J. Good, together with the distribution of injuries (and lack of), made clear what happened. The evidence base only looks like mush because you’ve heard the evidence misstated so many times by the press and networks.

    • They can wear their hoodies but I suggest if they are in a strange neighborhood and someone is following them and they feel threaten that they should head for a place of safety and call 911 instead of seeking out a confrontation. That’s my strategy and I carry a gun.

      • One shld be allowed to walk in any suburb,wearing hoodie or not without the fear of someone deciding that they look like a ‘punk’ & get shot! Fact is-Zimmerman murdered a young man,a son,a brother! He shldve listened to the authorities and keep his pathetic self and gun home! I live off a main road & many young folks walk-by after partying & can be obnoxious,loud etc! No,I don’t go out there with a gun & shoot them!

        • It is natural to feel that the case means more than it does, because the press/networks have so shamelessly misrepresented it. The verdict does not mean that, short of being beaten and prevented from withdrawing, you can shoot someone. It means the opposite, that just because you find someone irritating you cannot decide to fight them, and that if you get in a fight, holding the person down is a very bad idea from the law’s point of view. With an eye-witness it is an even worse idea. If your concern for reasonableness and prudence is conveyed to your sons, they have a good life ahead of them, I would think.

        • I see that not only didn’t you follow the actual trial but you don’t know how to read either. I was sarcastic. If you think there is threat you move toward safety and call the police. You don’t move toward the potential threat and start a fight.

        • Why is it that everybody I’ve spoken to who thinks Zimmerman should have been convicted completely glosses over the assault on Zimmerman by Martin, attested to by the fomer’s injuries, witness John Good, and the locations of wet grass on both of their bodies?

          I mean every. single. one.

    • I think it would be good advice to your sons not to smash someone’s head onto a concrete sidewalk.

      Now slink away troll.

    • Please remind your hoodie-wearing sons to avoid holding other people down on the ground and pounding their heads into the concrete. If they remember this one simple rule, they should be perfectly safe, even while wearing hoodies.

      TM could’ve been wearing a tutu and ballet slippers with a ‘Go NRA!’ T-shirt that night; His clothing made no difference. He failed to heed the ‘don’t hold people down and pound their heads’ rule–nothing more.

      • So if my sons who wear hoodies are seen out @ nite & mite tell some called ‘do-gooder’ to leave them alone-the chance are that they mite get shot! Zimmerman just got away with murder! My heart goes out to the young man’s family! Jury-shame on u!

        • OK, you’ve said the same stupid thing twice. You must be in need if a different answer.

          Here it is: OK! We’ll make an exception. just for your sons. Please send them out wearing hoodies, and we’ll do the best we can to fulfill your wishes. Have them wear some kind of badge or sign, though. Otherwise, we won’t know who to senselessly gun down for no particular reason, and they may make it back home unscathed.

    • Oh grow up.

      Tell your sons to not be dumbasses and they wont need to worry about being shot by a concealed handgun carrier.

    • Answered my other question, Mary. I can see you are too blinded by this issue to accept logic, so I’ll expound for my own and others’ benefit:

      It’s all about attitude. George Zimmerman was legally on the street and doing what he thought was a valuable service for his community. Martin was an unknown quantity and anyone, not just GZ, would have been justified, considering the recent criminal activity in the neighborhood, to question his presence there. Had Martin simply replied, “Hey, man, I’m stayin’ over there with familiy and I just had to run over to the Quicky Mart,” then went about his business, he would probably still be alive today and that would be that. For whatever reason Martin found that measured response impossible, that was the reason that ended with him being shot.

      • Im not sure how exactly I feel about the verdict but I’m going to throw my hat in the ring.

        1. Cliff you state that “It’s all about attitude. George Zimmerman was legally on the street and doing what he thought was a valuable service for his community.” An important key you overlooked was TM was also on the street legally . As pro 2A guys we hope to live our lives in a society where we are free from prejudice and violations of our civil rights due to the fact we hold our great constitution in high esteem and choose to exercise the RKBA. How many OC & CC horror stories have we read describing the profiling and discrimination we endure as gun owners. We abhor the tactics used by LEO and fellow citizens alike who disrupt our day to day lives and impede our right as citizens of this great nation to move about freely. How is it that we rally behind these issues that we hold dearly to us but not sympathize with the fact that TM was initially trying to move about freely without hindrance. To GZ TM seemed out of place and didn’t belong the same as to some me and the G32 on my hip are out of place and dont belong.This is case has more parallels to our struggle as gun owners for civil liberties than some might see at first glance. We cant on one end pioneer for freedom as gun owners and not admonish GZ actions for trailing someone just because he perceived it was incorrect. That’s no different than a cop perceiving a non existing threat and giving you a hard time because you were OC’ing at the local Walt-Mart.

        2. I will now speak on frame of mind and “attitude” as you put it Cliff. I will start first with my back story, I’m a black 25 y/o father and Army Medic, but 8 years ago I was much like TM or maybe even worse. I was young, rebellious, liked getting high, impulsive, a fighter, and careless. To some I would have checked all the boxes for being a “thug”. If that were me back then I probably would have been the one lying dead on the pavement. I have since matured and put away childish things, but I do understand the mentality TM and many other black males have. For the record I don’t want to turn this into a racial issue but I think that there are some factors and cultural differences that some are overlooking at no fault of there own. At 17 years old and i notice a white man following me the first thing that would come to my mind is the possible threat of a hate crime.
        The fear of racism is a very real thing in black society especially when with the males. At a very young age we are taught be cautious of prejudice and discrimination, it has been passed down from generation to generation that there are some people that will try to hurt you simply because of the color of your skin. To a white teenager GZ would have been viewed as some creepy guy following them, when it comes to blacks the images of the terrible acts of violence and bigotry are ingrained into our thought process, these are inherited traits as opposed to learned behavior. There are still lingering psychological effects of the broad spread racism that was prevalent in our country in the not so distant past. I say all this to illustrate the mindset and heightened alert level of TM. Being that there is only an 8 year age difference TM an my generations intersect. In our generations there is this attitude that you have to be unafraid, stand up for yourself at all cost and go head on in all situations. In his mind confronting GZ with violence was his only option, on a side note we have to remember that no matter what the race we are dealing with a 17 y/o teenager. Teenagers have never been known to make the best decisions and are quite impulsive. I am in know way condoning TM’s actions but lest not forget kids start kids makes stupid moves all the time. In conclusion I think both parties are at fault, GM’s capacity as a town watchman was only to observe and report TM clearly didn’t follow the proper protocol for escalation of force. I do believe the state over shot it by pushing for murder 2, manslaughter was the more appropriate charge. I think this ruling may have negative implications by giving those so called “wannabees” more ground to go above and beyond there scope, the fact of the matter is there are folks out there who are just itching to be the super hero and will go looking for trouble in the shadows.

        • Perhaps I’ve misunderstood, but do you mean to day that young black men cannot respond other than in a criminal manner? One would think the average 17 yo would, when frightened, flee to safety if available. I don’t want to put words in your mouth but it seems to me that you’re saying that for black teens this isn’t a possible response and instead it’s unavoidable that they commit aggravated assault at the slightest perceived provocation?
          If that is what you’re saying it is shockingly racist. It sounds more like the ideas of the men who formed the Klan at the end of the civil war than a self identified black man.
          If what you seem to be saying is true, then racial profiling is right and necessary, and still would not absolve Martin for assaulting GZ or make the latters response any less justifiable.
          Please tell me I’m confused about your meaning.

    • If one of your sons jumps that person and beats his head into the pavement…then yes, he may get legally shot.

      The only way to not get legally shot is to not attack people. Period. Teach that to your children.

  10. I dont anticipate nationwide rioting. I hope Im right because I have to freakin work tomorow and am usually in some rough neighborhoods. On the plus side even in the bad areas most people respect me as I do them and we mind our business.

      • Chuck,

        That ain’t no shit either…

        If I was in a…oh what the devil do they call it these days? “diverse” neighborhood, you can bet my shotgun would be loaded and a fresh set of batteries placed in my surefire.

  11. im just watching the CNN comment number ticker on this. not actually reading….just watching the numbers….and by the looks of it folks aint happy -=)

    • Of course they’re not happy. They get their information from the mainstream media, and the mainstream media has done its best for almost two years now to paint George Zimmerman as a racist murderer who was just itching to lynch some blacks, and couldn’t wait to gun one down for the crime of visiting a convenience store. Your average brainwashed liberal type will certainly see this as a gross miscarriage of justice -facts seldom get in the way of emotion.

  12. So was it ruled self defense? (or just not guilty) and in that case is he not free from civil liability?

      • Yeah alright I thought I rembered from the instructions post that it gave options of…

        murder 2
        man slaughter
        self defense (immunity)
        not guilty (no immunity)

        but in reality it was
        “If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.”

        So yeah he seems immune thanks

    • True, his life is still complicated, but Zimmerman has a few civil trials of his own. Against NBC for one, for defamation. Probably against some community organizers for slander. Then he’ll write his bestseller.

      • I would suspect that there won’t be a book. He probably wants to put this behind his as best he can.

        • There will be an Angela Corey book: “Why I’m right and the jury is wrong, really!”

  13. And another thing, the race hustlers just lost bigger than anybody. One of these days, someday, hopefully soon, they’ll just stop trying to run that sick, dying horse.

    • Not until people start to shout the race baiters down instead of sticking cameras in their faces and listening with rapt attention. And with the current press, I don’t see that happening any time soon.

  14. This show trail was not about Zimmerman nor was it about Martin. This show trail was brought about by pseudoliberals who want “social justice.”

    Think about these words:

    Gay Rights
    Women’s Rights
    Minority Rights
    Workers’ Rights
    African-Americans
    Latin-Americans
    Asian-Americans
    Senior-Americans
    Urban-Americans
    Rural-Americans

    We’re no longer a nation of Americans with individual rights. We have become a divided and polarized nation of hypenated-Americans with collective rights. Pseudoliberals get to decide which group of hypenated-Americans have rights and which group does not.

    There is no room in this country for a hypenated-American. There is only American. There is no room in this country for special rights for special groups. There is only individual rights.

    I’ve had enough and I’m not the only one.

    • “I think that all good, right thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am.”

  15. I’m amazed, really I am. The all female jury (insert Aharon’s comment on neo-feminism here), the relentless propagandizing of the media to make Trayvon Martin look like a 13 year old saint, and the nation-wide attention in general made me think GZ would be found guilty, even with the pictures of his bashed up head released later.

    I still don’t predict any sort of major riots outside of Florida, if at all, but I’ll hold my breath for the next 48 hours. If sh!t gets hairy for any fellow TTAG readers, stay safe out there.

    • Half the jurors had guns in the home. Another prosecution mistake. They let people who believe in armed self defense sit on the jury.

      • Well I’m glad the prosecution shot itself in the foot then. But is it a definite that he won’t face a civil suit because of Florida law? The waters seem to be a bit muddy on that one.

  16. Can’t believe all the celebrating going on here. Zimmerman’s victory is NOT a victory for 2A, he was still a dumbass that instigated a needless conflict and a kid died over it for no good reason. No, Treyvon wasn’t a saint and took the stupidest, most thuggish action possible but by all rights this should’ve still been a manslaughter verdict.

    Now every time Stand Your Ground is brought up it’s going to be wrongly associated with Zimmerman’s asshattery and continue to fuel the antis, you have to be delusional to think this supports us in any way.

    • Your point that this is not a victory and Zimmerman wasn’t a hero is well taken, though I don’t think as a matter of law that manslaughter would be appropriate.

      One thing that should be remembered is that this is a tragic story, no matter how you slice it.

    • I disagree. The only ones who’ve publicly stated that Zimmerman
      instigated the conflict has been the press. There is ZERO proof
      that Zimmerman is the one who forced an encounter. All we have
      is conjecture.

      As far as 2A support goes, I’m hopeful that you’re wrong. The
      public has seen the press blatantly condemn this man and
      massive political pressure brought to bare. All without fact or
      reason. If anything, I think that some of the public has become
      more distrustful of the press (and government to some degree).
      This may result in more people giving benefit-of-a-doubt
      to the shooter during stand your ground cases.

      • And I believe you’re a f–kwit. I have no truck with the idiots trying to get Stand Your Ground or other self defense laws repealed. I’m just saying, this does not look good for us and is not something that should be upheld as a prime example. It was tragic and avoidable.

        • Two things, S_J,
          1. It was very clearly and frequently pointed out that this was not a “Stand yor ground” issue. Once Martin had GZ in the “ground and pound” position his options for standing or leaving were gone and his only option was to use whatever force he had at hand to stop the attack.

          2. The only reason this does not look good for 2A supporters has nothing to do with Zimmerman or the facts on trial and has everything to do with the MSM using the incident to beat the drum for gun control and against licensed carry. If anything this case has shown that concealed carry works.

        • None of that changes the fact that Zimmerman deliberately ignored the 911 dispatcher. The minute she said “You don’t have to do that,” it should have been taken as an order to stand down and let the police handle it. Instead Zimmerman decided to play hero and now a kid is dead and his own life is ruined. It’s not that he drew on Treyvon and shot him dead in the heat of the moment after punches were thrown, it’s everything leading up to it that makes Zimmerman culpable in my eyes.

        • S_J, you’re a tard. There’s no other word for it.

          First, the NEN operator is a he, not a she. It’s not even an ambiguous voice, which shows you didn’t actually listen to the call tape.

          Second, it should not have been taken as an order, because neither NEN nor 911 operators have the authority to order you do anything. They don’t have the authority to order you to continue to breathe.

          Third, when GZ was advised that “We don’t need you to do that,” he responded with, “OK,” and was headed back toward his truck. There is no evidence (that’s zip, zero, nada, dryhump, squat) to controvert his statement to that effect.

          Fourth, he can be “culpable in your eyes” all you want, but the fact remains that nothing, not one god damn thing that GZ did that night was illegal, so if you elected to punish him, you would be doing it in direct contravention of the law.

        • Your points are noted, I listened to the call tape a while back when the incident was fresh and didn’t remember offhand if the operator was male or female. Listening to it again, it’s clearly a guy. Derp.

        • BTW, I retract my tard comment. Those things don’t usually make it past my final edit before I hit Post. Unless I really mean them, in which case they’re a whole lot meaner than that. My apologies.

    • You’re right. Zimmerman’s victory is NOT a victory for the 2A. The 2A has nothing to do with it. Both Mark O’Mara and Angela Corey said so. This was a victory over a bad prosecution, nothing more. Not civil rights, not racism, not 2A, not Stand Your Ground. Malicious prosecution. Period. Full stop.

      • We celebrate because it is a victory for justice. Plain and simple. 2A proponents are celebrating even more, simply because we can all readily imagine ourselves in the immediate situation Zimmerman faced -getting jumped by someone, being obliged to use the lethal force of our sidearm in self-defense, and then being accused by the media and half the country of murder, and being hauled off to jail and a criminal trial.

        I’m happy that justice, common sense, and decency prevailed, and I am happy that Zimmerman is a free man. I hope all goes well for him, and that somehow, some good can come out of this whole mess, in terms of making the mass media less eager to engage in race-baiting and similar buffoonery for the sake of ratings and political correctness.

    • Its not a “victory” for the 2nd amendment per se, and I certainly do not perceive Zimmerman as “blameless”, although I am satisfied with the outcome for a number of reasons.

      1.) He wasn’t convicted on the basis of popular opinion (news media), therefore, mob rule.

      2.) His lack of conviction, like it or not, is a counter to the anti-gun/anti-defense protectionist momentum going on right now

      3.) The Jury actually weighed the facts, rather than caving to outside forces. I’m sure it was a unpopular decision.

  17. How about all that black on white violence that does not get reported. Oh wait…that does not happen.

  18. In the post-verdict presser, Don West confirmed that the stupid knock-knock joke was, as many had guessed, a “mental break” for the jury following the State’s opener.

    • I was impressed by West’s risk taking: The joke did get the jury to stop hanging on the emotional load of the prosecution’s opening statement. It got them thinking “huh? what’s this guy saying?” Apparently they listened.

      • Yeah, I was hoping we would eventually find out what he was thinking when he did it. It worked, that’s what matters.

  19. Well I hope my prediction I made a couple days ago doesn’t come true. I told my wife that a half white, half hispanic/part black guy with a German/Jewish sounding name gets jumped by a black teenager and in fear for his life shoots and kills the teenager. In response to the half white, half hispanic/part black guy with a German/Jewish sounding name’s acquittal the black community will commence looting all the Korean shopkeepers stores.

    Race in America, ain’t it beautiful?

  20. Thank God. If he had been found guilty of this show farce, many would have felt it unsafe to carry for defense, or to look in on their neighbor. Peoples property is a little bit safer tonight.
    CARRY on.
    P.S. Suck it, Libtards.

  21. Well I for one, am sitting with the rest of the Keyboard Commandos, just hoping for a reason/justification/excuse to use my firearm on a 2 legged predator. Sadly I don’t think the major urban center I live in is going to make my day in that regard.

    I feel as if my team won the superbowl, yet I have to miss out on the victory parade.

    • I think that’s sarcasm, right? Sarcasm is hard to deliver on the ‘net. If it isn’t, then I think you need to get a grip and try to analyze why you have this internal desire to kill and have it be justified. Most of the rest of us here want no part of violence, and I should think this trial serves as an example of the consequences of justifiably defending yourself.

      If it is sarcasm, please improve your delivery.

  22. I would like to point out that all the reverse race-card playing is not very becoming. I saw a rather moving interview with an African American gentleman, possibly well-positioned for CNN crews, who said that he and others had prayed for both families and wouldn’t say whether he thought justice had been served – just that the Martin family almost certainly didn’t agree and felt the system had failed. I think that’s a reasonable thing to say. There’s been a brawl between “process” and “outcomes” for the mantle of “what makes justice” since ancient times, and while I think you can’t really separate having a process from “getting the right verdict,” it always is painful to hear an imperfect process defended as “the only thing we can do.” It’s like democracy – you can talk about it in generalities but this does not invalidate specific criticisms of its implementation.

    There is some talk about the possibility of rioting but frankly I don’t see it happening. I personally think that the extent race played into this situation was in forming the germ of George’s opinion and his subsequent mistaken decision to force a needless confrontation with Martin (who was 70 yards from the place he was staying at the time he was shot), because of the race of the two men whose break-in of a community residence Zimmerman was emotionally involved in preventing from happening again. I feel that even if George Zimmerman was sympathetic it does not excuse provoking a confrontation, of which death should have been a foreseeable outcome to him. At the same time I recognize that he was trying for some good aims.

    Now – one long argument to follow. I apologize for its length! I am most worried about what this means for the average self-defense case – that it takes the spotlight off our reasonable expectations a self-defense shooter exercise restraint, and also the very real potential for such a self-defense case to be abused. Before I am accused of playing with hypotheticals against Zimmerman, let me make clear that I mean most of what follows as a strict hypothetical for Florida cases. I personally think some of it applies to Zimmerman but my understanding of the case is not complete – nor will it ever be. Rather what motivates me is having the law set up in a way so that if you can reasonably find that somebody acted in an unreasonable way – call it acting negligently – there should be something in the law to allow an appropriate penalty to be exacted.

    It is also my surmise based on what kind of standard appears to be needed in Florida for a jury to find a homicide is not self-defense. We can imagine two people: Frank and Tom, who each shoot a person (who I will not name in the interests of a streamlined discussion). Frank and Tom both have handguns and, in separate incidents, they both confront people, they are attacked, and they shoot the attacker.

    Frank thinks the first shooting victim was acting suspicious; he wants to confront them about it. Frank’s suspicion, along with his inexperience with confronting people, causes the confrontation to escalate. It’s important to recognize that the victim also naturally has some of the same reactions as Frank. The moment one person has the other in fear for their life – or at least the ability to convince a jury that was on their mind at the time – either party here could burn a hole through the other and then say it was self defense, with some rationale to it.

    It will quickly become problematic to say that a person who is in fear for their life should not use whatever means available to them to get out of that situation – it’s just a natural reaction. So we need to back up a bit and look at how we get into this situation. If Frank provokes the altercation – perhaps by foolishly brandishing his weapon, or even just causing the other person to fear them – then we need to ask whether he should have done that in the first place, and whether he had done enough work to try and foresee the consequences of his actions. There naturally will be some cases where a person might be attacked and could not have foreseen it – but I would argue that there are still many cases where you should know – for example, if you are brandishing a gun, and possibly even just stalking after somebody and angrily confronting them should put in your mind the possibility they will retaliate, as a matter of common sense.

    By the time Frank needs to make a decision about using his firearm it is too late. I hope that the reasonable gun owner will recognize that there are many cases that should provoke caution. Police don’t have handguns so people can commit “suicide by cop;” and the same goes for private individuals. I submit that a person should not act as if they have absolute freedom to harass other people to an extent that might provoke a violent reaction.

    In Frank’s case, I would say that Frank certainly bears some responsibility – how much is unclear – for being aggressive and foolhardy, and getting into a situation where his only recourse is a violent reprisal. If Frank was tailing the shooting suspect in a SUV, for example, why did he not stay in it and just drive by the suspicious person? If a person runs, why should Frank follow them on foot, when Frank’s only defense is a handgun?

    This isn’t just about the victim; it’s about keeping the potential self-defense shooter safe.

    The other case is more straightforward. In terms of the physical evidence, Tom’s shooting looks identical to the other case. However what’s different is the intent. Tom was hoping that the victim would strike back because Tom knows Florida will probably get him off the murder rap. There’s no security cameras in the area. We don’t have any way of knowing if Tom threatened the victim’s life verbally, concealing that he had a handgun. Or perhaps Tom roughs himself up after the shooting to conform to his story.

    The problem with the law – and perhaps it’s not one with an easy fix – is that these two cases are treated identically with each other – and they’re also apparently treated identically with a truly justifiable self-defense shooting. I have no problem with a person shooting an assailant when the shooter has reason to believe they might suffer some great harm – because you obviously don’t know what’s in somebody else’s mind. (Maybe you should carve out an exception for some cream pie assaults and all street noogies.) I think that’s a fairly respectable opinion, *pace* Jesus Christ who suggested turning the other cheek, and other nonviolent activists.

    One issue which makes these cases really tricky to decipher, both for juries and interested people in general, is that other age-old problem – how do you know what other people are thinking? Having good evidence of that mindset is naturally needed to convict a person of intentionally murdering somebody else. However I also think that there should be some pressure from the law to make people conform to taking reasonable precautions when they may. While it might seem good to have prospective ne’er-to-wells on alert that they should not punch people, I think it’s clear from the Martin case that innocent victims can be caught up in this ‘policing effort’ and they should not be, especially if the would-be hero in the case has the means to end the other person’s life.

    A final thought about exacting penalties – in many places throughout the U.S., when two guys rob a convenience store, and one of them is shot to death by the clerk, the other may be charged with his cohort’s murder. Why? Because of the legal theory that the surviving thug is responsible for putting in motion a chain of events which directly led to his compatriot’s death. What is obviously different in that case from the cases above (and the Zimmerman / Martin case) is that there is some other crime – robbing a store and whatever charges are filed – which springs out of the case. There is more pressure on us to find a case in the same way where the only question of right and wrong is in the shooting itself – it may be harder to see a chain of events, especially if they are just the claimed self-defense shooter’s thoughts, to demonstrate that the person acted wrongly. Another even more obvious case is the Ezekiel Gilbert / Lenora Frago case: Some people would say she stole his money, but I think the reasonable read of that is that Mr. Gilbert shot up the car Frago was leaving in because he wanted something that he could not get legally (sex) and which had not been promised. Amazingly, in that case the jury – with the help of an apparently bonkers law – had to find that Mr. Gilbert had indeed been stolen from and that he was justified in using deadly force to get his property back. Clearly, cases like these show the tendency of the system to use the commission of some obvious “crime” to sidestep asking whether a person is right or wrong to pull the trigger – considering the act in of itself, and not saddling or benefiting the defendant with any assumptions based on that.

    • I am not too concerned about the effect of this case on “the average self defense case.” What many people forget is that the law almost worked exactly as designed. It almost always does. This case is a fluke, an outlier. A perfect storm, if you will. Basing decisions on outliers is never a good idea. Basing decisions on outliers got us the Patriot Act and the TSA.

    • I did not watch this trial and so may have missed some facts, but I think I got most of the important details.

      Whatever GZ did that night, he did not detain or assualt Martin or threaten him with bodily harm, to the best of our knowledge. That would have been a crime and GZ does not seem like the sort of person who wanders the streets at night looking for reasons to get arrested.

      Martin had every opportunity to respond in a reasonable manner to any conforntation with GZ and/or to break off contact and walk the rest of the short distance to his residence. He chose the alternative of violent confontation.

      Sorry, whatever mistakes GZ may have made that night, Martin had the option of walking away and he didn’t. He gambled that he could “beat down” GZ and get away with it, and he lost. Let’s hope (but I doubt) that other overly aggressive young men will take a lesson from this.

      • If anything the laws regarding self defense are already onerous. As far as muddying the waters goes, there are none. This case is pretty straight forward. If you attack someone who was not engaged in a criminal act, then prevent them from leaving while inflicting harm on them such as to engender a fear of great harm or death, they are then justified to use lethal force in defense. No confusion, no grey area. There is nothing to see here but publicity and politics driving a prosecution that should never have been. The verdict does nothing but vindicate the law as written. Now we’re clear that you can’t beat people up and that if you’re being beaten and pinned you can defend yourself. Again. Still.

  23. good outcome of a very sad/bad trial.

    today i was hanging out with a black and a hispanic friend today. i was glad to be with both.

  24. Maybe some things to come out of all this:
    1. Zman gets a couple of endorsement contracts out of this.
    2. He comes out with a diet book.
    3. Gets to Open a boxing gym.
    4. George heads to Gunsite for a couple of classes.
    5. Zman will carry on an intense love affair with Rachel Jentel and move to Haiti.
    6. RF will add Selma Mora to his photo rotation.

  25. Why did Martin not call 911? A question never asked (as far as I know) and don’t give me any of that crap about blacks don’t call the police cause they do.

  26. Im not sure how exactly I feel about the verdict but I’m going to throw my hat in the ring.

    1. Cliff you state that “It’s all about attitude. George Zimmerman was legally on the street and doing what he thought was a valuable service for his community.” An important key you overlooked was TM was also on the street legally . As pro 2A guys we hope to live our lives in a society where we are free from prejudice and violations of our civil rights due to the fact we hold our great constitution in high esteem and choose to exercise the RKBA. How many OC & CC horror stories have we read describing the profiling and discrimination we endure as gun owners. We abhor the tactics used by LEO and fellow citizens alike who disrupt our day to day lives and impede our right as citizens of this great nation to move about freely. How is it that we rally behind these issues that we hold dearly to us but not sympathize with the fact that TM was initially trying to move about freely without hindrance. To GZ TM seemed out of place and didn’t belong the same as to some me and the G32 on my hip are out of place and dont belong.This is case has more parallels to our struggle as gun owners for civil liberties than some might see at first glance. We cant on one end pioneer for freedom as gun owners and not admonish GZ actions for trailing someone just because he perceived it was incorrect. That’s no different than a cop perceiving a non existing threat and giving you a hard time because you were OC’ing at the local Walt-Mart.

    2. I will now speak on frame of mind and “attitude” as you put it Cliff. I will start first with my back story, I’m a black 25 y/o father and Army Medic, but 8 years ago I was much like TM or maybe even worse. I was young, rebellious, liked getting high, impulsive, a fighter, and careless. To some I would have checked all the boxes for being a “thug”. If that were me back then I probably would have been the one lying dead on the pavement. I have since matured and put away childish things, but I do understand the mentality TM and many other black males have. For the record I don’t want to turn this into a racial issue but I think that there are some factors and cultural differences that some are overlooking at no fault of there own. At 17 years old and i notice a white man following me the first thing that would come to my mind is the possible threat of a hate crime.
    The fear of racism is a very real thing in black society especially when with the males. At a very young age we are taught be cautious of prejudice and discrimination, it has been passed down from generation to generation that there are some people that will try to hurt you simply because of the color of your skin. To a white teenager GZ would have been viewed as some creepy guy following them, when it comes to blacks the images of the terrible acts of violence and bigotry are ingrained into our thought process, these are inherited traits as opposed to learned behavior. There are still lingering psychological effects of the broad spread racism that was prevalent in our country in the not so distant past. I say all this to illustrate the mindset and heightened alert level of TM. Being that there is only an 8 year age difference TM an my generations intersect. In our generations there is this attitude that you have to be unafraid, stand up for yourself at all cost and go head on in all situations. In his mind confronting GZ with violence was his only option, on a side note we have to remember that no matter what the race we are dealing with a 17 y/o teenager. Teenagers have never been known to make the best decisions and are quite impulsive. I am in know way condoning TM’s actions but lest not forget kids start kids makes stupid moves all the time. In conclusion I think both parties are at fault, GM’s capacity as a town watchman was only to observe and report TM clearly didn’t follow the proper protocol for escalation of force. I do believe the state over shot it by pushing for murder 2, manslaughter was the more appropriate charge. I think this ruling may have negative implications by giving those so called “wannabees” more ground to go above and beyond there scope, the fact of the matter is there are folks out there who are just itching to be the super hero and will go looking for trouble in the shadows.

Leave a Reply

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