Will George Zimmerman be innocent or guilty for the death of Treyvon Martin?

Wow you really don't get it.

It's obvious to a blind man that O'Mara knew that the State would key in on the fact that George had some type training in martial arts previous to the night he murdered Trayvon so that is why there has been a year-long campaign to paint Trayvon as some violent thug as to neutralize this recent revelation about Trayvon.

O'Mara even admitted that he had six interns whose job it was to 'correct' misinformation on the internet. More likely to spread lies about Trayvon.

Now with this information we know that George had an alternative means of self-defense short of using deadly force that night.

This is why O'Mara was so anxious to make those pictures and texts public even though he knew that the judge would rule them inadmissible at trial.

As for neither being trained professional that such hyperbolic nonsense.

George didn't have to be a trained professional to have an advantage over Trayvon that night since George was already much heavier than Trayvon.

All George would need to know were a few restraining techniques since Trayvon knew anything.

 

Oh Gawd!

I see this thread has now been taken over by the "Internet Tough Guy" contingent.

 

A few points. First of all the "defense" addressing the public has zero meaning related to the trial. Next is that Zimmerman had an "advantage" because he had a gun and was obviously willing to use it. Finally the whole problem is that Zimmerman followed Martin and that lead to a confrontation where Zimmerman killed Martin. We don't know if the prosecution will be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed a criminal act but we do know that Zimmerman, through his actions, is responsible for Martin's death.

If Zimmerman would have simply remained in his vehicle then no confrontation would have occurred and Martin would not have been shot to death that night. That is an indisputable fact.

 

The fact that defense is addressing the 'public' indicates that the defense has no evidence to counter the State's evidence and O'Mara and West have been taking advantage of the judge's refusal to issue a gag order by tainting the jury pool with untrue statements and attempts tp smear Trayvon's reputation.

The State will use the fact that George's kickboxing training would have given George would have had an advantage in a fight against Trayvon therefore he didn't need to use deadly force.

Also the defense doesn't want the jury to hear the 911 call because it's obvious that a younger person is crying out in pain and for help.

O'Mara has given up all pretence that it's George yelling for help because he hasn't introduced one expert who has stated that it's George.

 

I think he was a kid who enjoyed fighting.

He wouldnnt have gotten it from kickboxing. if you knew anything about combat you would be aware of this. Being a bouncer is pretty irrelevant they just often recruit guys who look big.

He is listed as Obese. It doesn't say 'has a high bmi but obese. Doctors don;t write obese about body builders. If you don;t want to feel insulted then don;t try and justify nonsense like Obese can mean high muslce-low fat or that Kickboxing uses 'holds'.

 

Which restraining techniques do you use in kickboxing?





I think it is clear that martin was a rather violent individual who enjoyed fighting. He clearly chose to fight rather than remove himself from threat

No we don't, we have no evidence at all that Zimmerman was competent at any sort of unarmed combat. None. I took a few spanish lessons once and can;t even make a single sentence.

Since it isn;t a 'fact' it won''t wash because the defence will bring experts who actually know about such things to show it up as the utter nonsense that it is.

 

That was not illegal.

No we don't.

If Martin double backed and attacked Zimmerman then martin is responsible for Martins death


If Zimmerman would have simply remained in his vehicle then no confrontation would have occurred and Martin would not have been shot to death that night. That is an indisputable fact

If Martin had not gone out to buy candy and a soft drink he wouldn't have died either.'Neither getting out of your car and following someone from a distance or Buying candy and soft drinks are against the law.

Making a perfectly legal action that sets in motion a chain of events that leads to someone's death is not grounds for Murder 2. They key is the first person who committed an illegal act and you know very well you have no evidence to show that it was zimmerman.

It is impossible that Martin attempted to go straight home. Whatever his intentions he clearly decided to confront Zimmerman. What happened after the onfrontation is unprovable. I think it likely that Martin hit first, I won;t pretend its provable but it is demonstrably possible.

 

Yep, it's documented that some pig abused his oinky power.

 

Will he walk? Don't know.

Should he walk? Definitely.

At this point it depends on the mad whims of an easily manipulated collective. Justice has very little to do with it at this point.

 

Sure . . .by releasing Zimmerman to a drug rehab program instead of sending him to jail with a felony on his record!

Thanks to daddy and to his friends, as Zimmerman bragged on his media site!

 

You mean that a bouncer doesn't need to know the rudimentary art of fighting or at least to neutralize drunk or aggressive people?

And that Zimmerman's membership to Kokopelli, "the best fighting gym in the world" was just so he could go take a shower?

And that he felt strong and big enough to assault a policeman without knowing ANYTHING about the art of fighting?

And that he applied (TWICE) to become a police officer without having ANY IDEA of how to deal with difficult, aggressive people?. . .well, that may explain why he was REJECTED!

Okay... if you REALLY believe that, I have a bridge to sell you!

 

Don't try to lie. Both you and I know that it was George screaming for help after he was ambushed by NLN.

 

None of the above actually has any relevance to the event that took place. It is what it is man.

 

You are stating that Martin was a "violent individual who enjoyed fighting" based on WHAT exactly?

And why would THIS (even if it was true. . .which has not been demonstrated in ANY credible way) be relevant to what happened on February 26th, 2012, if the REAL, DOCUMENTED history of Zimmerman and HIS interest in fighting, aggressing people and . . .MOST OF ALL, his desperate, obsessive attempts to be IN CONTROL of situations are NOT relevant?

I would say that, at the least, the two histories should BOTH be relevant, or neither should be.

But actually, this is not even accurate, since we ALL KNOW that it is Zimmerman's "suspicions" and his failure to "step down" even when advised to do so by the dispatcher, and his failure to IDENTIFY himself as the neighborhood watch captain that created the whole situation. . .it sure wasn't Martin going to buy skittles and Arizona Ice tea that triggered the whole chain of events!

Please be real!

 

WRONG! NO ONE knows that. ..in fact, there are MORE expert testimonies that state that TRAYVON was the one crying for help since NO EXPERT says it was Zimmerman screaming for help. . .and the other experts who say the voices cannot be identified without a doubt, still say that it is certainly NOT Zimmerman.

So. . .where are you coming from saying that Roderick "lies?"

Sounds more like you are desperately trying to make dummies believe in the Zimmerman's supporter's lies!

 

I have known of many that have no idea at all.

WHo says its the 'best fighting gym in the world? SO he joins a gym and takes a couple of lessons and goes no further.

Lots of women attack police officers without knowing anything. Its called losing your temper.

They normally teach you that in training

Epic fail as usual from you.

 

lets start with him being ,at the time, suspended from school for guess what....?

It shows that Martin was a likley person to initiate a fight.

The words "step down" were never used. Stop lying

It was a violentlittle (*)(*)(*)(*) that was angry that a white guy dared to look at him.

 

Show me where I said this.

Simply because they are not, no matter how much you want them to be.

Bingo. The gold star. Their prior histories should play zero role in the trial, but have great influence on sentencing.

As has been pointed out countless times, he broke no laws in doing what he did, nor did he breach contract. Been over this many times with you and Margot.

Say this in the mirror and you will be aiming at the right target for once.

 

Actually, it was nine month Anger Management program Zimmerman was ordered to attend for assaulting a Law Enforcement Officer.

Looks like the lessons he learned at that class didn't stick.

 

Maybe he should have taken the one Jack Nicholson teaches,

[video=youtube;Kmv3WlKa6U8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmv3WlKa6U8[/video]

 

Nonsense. The thug double backed and attacked him. Then got killed. too bad.

 

You are correct that without a proven case by the prosecution, no conviction should occur. I dispute your assertion however that a neighborhood watch SOP should somehow be a basic guideline for behavior of someone doing security. Neighborhood watch groups typically carry very wrong guidelines, mostly because they wrongly consult with police depts (who are not security professionals), instead of consulting with professionals in the security industry.

What you describe as a violation of "fundamental guidelines of all neighborhood watches" >>> "placing himself in a situation where a physical confrontation would occur"is actually a standard procedure of security called "Challenging". It is required as part of proper security methodology, and guards are often reprimanded and even fired for not adhering to it. It is also part of the sate of Florida's standard procedure for security as prescribed in the Florida Security Officer Class D license 40 hour course. ie.Challenging and to Observe & Report (necessitating pursuing a suspect so as to continue to observe him).

http://liberalforum.org/liberalforu...70-it-doesnt-matter-what-the-dispatcher-said/

 

The "neighborhood watch" program was never created to act in the capacity of a "private security" group. Private security relates to private law enforcement such as what Brinks does in transporting money. The guards are armed to both deter and enforce the laws against robbery and they are, or are supposed to be, highly trained in this regard. Brinks guards are employed to actively engage a criminal in the act of violating the law but a neighborhood watch member is not. The neighborhood watch member is supposed to identify people in the neighborhood that represent a potential threat because they are "strangers" and for no other reason. If that person violates the law then local law enforcement is to deal with it an not the neighborhood watch member.

When I received my neighborhood watch training we were told that 99% of the strangers in the neighborhood were there for completely legal reasons but we should still report them. The basic assumption of a neighborhood watch member is that the "stranger" they identify is not in the neighborhood for a criminal purpose but we were to record information that would identify them if they did commit a criminal act. Our role was predominately as a potential "witness" if a crime did occur because we could identify a possible suspect.

We were never trained in law enforcement or even the laws. Not a single neighborhood watch advocates carrying firearms or provides firearms training that would relate to a private security firm. Not a single neighborhood watch advocates that a watch member attempt to stop a crime in progress or attempt detain a person suspected of committing a crime. All of them leave this to the local law enforcement agency.

 

Did he sign a contract obligating him to such codes of behavior? If not, then it is moot. He broke no laws in doing what he did.

 

A very astute post. Thank you.