The Student Room Group

George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin Who's guilty?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 140
Original post by dgeorge
He was walking, MINDING HIS OWN BUSINESS, before being pursued by a strange guy in a strange neighbourhood. I give Trayvon ALL RIGHT to hit him before he got attacked. This kid was UNARMED - he obviously had NOT intention of doing anything! How can you possibly try to justify that?


How do you know he was unarmed? if so, whats he doing walking around with a hood over his face for? who's he hiding from? the police maybe, exactly. a man who hides his face is hiding something beggining with C and ending in T. Criminal Intent.

those skittles were nothing but a coverup. he attacked Zimmerman says witnesses and i have no reason to disbelieve. nobody is shot for no reason, at any time of the season. srping, summer, winte,r autumn and the others.
Original post by Steevee
Bull****

A young man has been killed because he assaulted a man in a State in a country where the self-defence laws actually favour the victim and not the criminal. Stand your ground should be the standard everywhere.


How do you know that Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman in a criminal manner?

Just to clarify. I mean that how do you know that Zimmerman was not on the floor getting his face hit because he was losing a fight he started?
Reply 142
Original post by DorianGrayism
How do you know that Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman in a criminal manner?

Just to clarify. I mean that how do you know that Zimmerman was not on the floor getting his face hit because he was losing a fight he started?


It doesn't logically tie up with any of the evidence.
Reply 143
Original post by Steevee
Perhaps you should read the details of the case. Trayvon was not 'pursued', but followed, at a distance. Followed because he was acting suspiciously in Zimmerman's neigherhood. Trayvon then decides to confront, and attack this man, walking out of his way to do so. Infact, walking back the way he came to confront Zimmerman, at which point Trayvon assaults Zimmerman, knocks him to the ground and begins to punch him in the head. Zimmerman at this points pulls his gun, Trayvon moves for the gun and Zimmerman fires.

If Trayvon had just kept walking, everything would have been fine. If Trayvon had not assaulted Zimmerman everything would have been fine. Don't be so naive. Trayvon was not some innocent kid and Zimmerman is not a racist monster.


well said. Bravo.

if i hadn't just blowed my load of my keyborad i'd swear i'd do it over you.
Reply 144
what a grotesque spectacle the race baiting left wing media have made out of this incident.
Original post by MrJon
lol LOndon riOTS?


Yes and obviously the riots were perfectly legal weren't they? Your trolling isn't even funny tbh...
Reply 146
Original post by Steevee
Perhaps you should read the details of the case. Trayvon was not 'pursued', but followed, at a distance. Followed because he was acting suspiciously in Zimmerman's neigherhood. Trayvon then decides to confront, and attack this man, walking out of his way to do so. Infact, walking back the way he came to confront Zimmerman, at which point Trayvon assaults Zimmerman, knocks him to the ground and begins to punch him in the head. Zimmerman at this points pulls his gun, Trayvon moves for the gun and Zimmerman fires.

If Trayvon had just kept walking, everything would have been fine. If Trayvon had not assaulted Zimmerman everything would have been fine. Don't be so naive. Trayvon was not some innocent kid and Zimmerman is not a racist monster.


....This is George Zimmerman's account

Do you really think that HE is going to say anything that will incriminate him? And how was Martin acting "suspiciously"?

The facts of the case are, Zimmerman left his car, followed Martin, there was a confrontation, and then there was a shot.

If Zimmerman hadn't tried to be a vigilante, then this wouldn't have happened.

PS - I personally don't think it was a "race" issue per say, but I do think Zimmerman seemed to have been quite paranoid about neighbourhood security, which was compounded by the fact that
Reply 147
Original post by Steevee
Well I'm sorry to disagree with you AJ, but although Zimmerman went against advice, he certainly wasn't emperically in the wrong. And the assault that followed gave him due justification to use the force he did.

OT. In my opinion and from what I know of the story, it's a case of a wannabe gangster jumping a guy with a bit of a complex who seems like he was a wannabe cop. As it is, the wannabe gangster came off worse, and I can't say I feel bad about that.


He was told by a 9/11 operator to stay in his car yet left it to pursue a kid who was not actually doing anything, why not just wait for the police? I don't see how that can be justified.

We don't even know the nature of the assault. Different witnesses are saying different things right now. Picking sides is just stupid.
Reply 148
Original post by Steevee
It doesn't logically tie up with any of the evidence.


How so? What "evidence" is there to the contrary except Zimmerman's account
Reply 149
Original post by Aj12
He was told by a 9/11 operator to stay in his car yet left it to pursue a kid who was not actually doing anything, why not just wait for the police? I don't see how that can be justified.

We don't even know the nature of the assault. Different witnesses are saying different things right now. Picking sides is just stupid.


I agree. Which is why I believe that there should be a criminal investigation. Personally I believe that both parties might have been responsible for the escalation of this whole event.

I don't believe that Zimmerman is some evil person

Paranoid? Probably

Likewise, I detest people who try to turn Trayvon into some sort of thug when he was WALKING and MINDING HIS OWN BUSINESS before being pursued
Reply 150
Original post by Aj12
Why?


He just looks shifty.
Original post by Steevee
Perhaps you should read the details of the case. Trayvon was not 'pursued', but followed, at a distance. Followed because he was acting suspiciously in Zimmerman's neigherhood. Trayvon then decides to confront, and attack this man, walking out of his way to do so. Infact, walking back the way he came to confront Zimmerman, at which point Trayvon assaults Zimmerman, knocks him to the ground and begins to punch him in the head. Zimmerman at this points pulls his gun, Trayvon moves for the gun and Zimmerman fires.

If Trayvon had just kept walking, everything would have been fine. If Trayvon had not assaulted Zimmerman everything would have been fine. Don't be so naive. Trayvon was not some innocent kid and Zimmerman is not a racist monster.


If Zimmerman didn't follow him everything would have been fine.

Lethal force wasn't required in this case.
Reply 152
Original post by Aj12
He was told by a 9/11 operator to stay in his car yet left it to pursue a kid who was not actually doing anything, why not just wait for the police? I don't see how that can be justified.

We don't even know the nature of the assault. Different witnesses are saying different things right now. Picking sides is just stupid.


People keep saying pursued. He followed a shifty looking kid, who was looking shifty in his neighberhood. What he did was no crime. The assault from Trayvon certainly was a crime. And you're right, picking sides is silly, but going with what seems to be the logical conclusion is not. Going on Zimmerman's injuries, and charatcer profiles of the both of them, the lead up to the events and the various descriptions of what happened, I have come to the conclusion that the explanation I go with is the most plausible.

Original post by dgeorge
How so? What "evidence" is there to the contrary except Zimmerman's account



And Zimmerman's injuries, and eyewitness testimony. :rolleyes:

Original post by original_username
If Zimmerman didn't follow him everything would have been fine.

Lethal force wasn't required in this case.


So, let's get this straight then. Who is to blame for Trayvon getting himself shot?

The guy who followed a kid looking shifty in his neighberhood.

Or the kid who intentionally doubled back, confronted and violently assaulted a man?
Reply 153
Original post by Steevee
People keep saying pursued. He followed a shifty looking kid, who was looking shifty in his neighberhood. What he did was no crime. The assault from Trayvon certainly was a crime. And you're right, picking sides is silly, but going with what seems to be the logical conclusion is not. Going on Zimmerman's injuries, and charatcer profiles of the both of them, the lead up to the events and the various descriptions of what happened, I have come to the conclusion that the explanation I go with is the most plausible.




And Zimmerman's injuries, and eyewitness testimony. :rolleyes:



So, let's get this straight then. Who is to blame for Trayvon getting himself shot?

The guy who followed a kid looking shifty in his neighberhood.

Or the kid who intentionally doubled back, confronted and violently assaulted a man?


eyewitness testimony


Eyewitness testimony says there is a scuffle - nothing more! Unless you have inside information?

Who is to blame for Trayvon getting himself shot?
I dunno, maybe THE PERSON WHO SHOT HIM?
Reply 154
Original post by Steevee
People keep saying pursued. He followed a shifty looking kid, who was looking shifty in his neighberhood. What he did was no crime. The assault from Trayvon certainly was a crime. And you're right, picking sides is silly, but going with what seems to be the logical conclusion is not. Going on Zimmerman's injuries, and charatcer profiles of the both of them, the lead up to the events and the various descriptions of what happened, I have come to the conclusion that the explanation I go with is the most plausible.




And Zimmerman's injuries, and eyewitness testimony. :rolleyes:



So, let's get this straight then. Who is to blame for Trayvon getting himself shot?

The guy who followed a kid looking shifty in his neighberhood.

Or the kid who intentionally doubled back, confronted and violently assaulted a man?


But there is even debate over if he actually had injuries or not. A couple of witnesses pointed out that he looked absolutely fine and there was no sign of blood on him. Considering that he had a broken nose and had his face smashed into a pavement that's quite odd.

As I keep pointing out you seem to take the fact that Travyon assaulted him first as fact. You really should't has there are differing witness accounts over what happened.
Reply 155
Original post by dgeorge
Eyewitness testimony says there is a scuffle - nothing more! Unless you have inside information?

I dunno, maybe THE PERSON WHO SHOT HIM?


And Police video shows the injuries Zimmerman sustained, when we put that into the context of the narrative, there is a sensible conclusion. And it's not that Zimmerman just decided to shoot this kid, whom he'd already called the Police about, and then break his own nose, smash the back of his head against a pavement and fake a fight :facepalm2:


Original post by Aj12
But there is even debate over if he actually had injuries or not. A couple of witnesses pointed out that he looked absolutely fine and there was no sign of blood on him. Considering that he had a broken nose and had his face smashed into a pavement that's quite odd.

As I keep pointing out you seem to take the fact that Travyon assaulted him first as fact. You really should't has there are differing witness accounts over what happened.


And other eye witness testimony says he did have injuries, and Police video shows him with injuries.

In the context of the narrative it seems the most plausible explanation, looking at the character of the two people involved, the calls both made, the testimony and outcome.

Does it not seem odd to you that Zimmerman would go ahead and commit a crime after he's made Police aware of where he is, where Trayvon was, the fact that'd he'd been following him etc? Add that to the fact that the media have sought to crucify Zimmerman by totally misrepresenting the case, and well, I'm inclined to believe Zimmerman over them.
Reply 156
Original post by Steevee
And Police video shows the injuries Zimmerman sustained, when we put that into the context of the narrative, there is a sensible conclusion. And it's not that Zimmerman just decided to shoot this kid, whom he'd already called the Police about, and then break his own nose, smash the back of his head against a pavement and fake a fight :facepalm2:




And other eye witness testimony says he did have injuries, and Police video shows him with injuries.

In the context of the narrative it seems the most plausible explanation, looking at the character of the two people involved, the calls both made, the testimony and outcome.

Does it not seem odd to you that Zimmerman would go ahead and commit a crime after he's made Police aware of where he is, where Trayvon was, the fact that'd he'd been following him etc? Add that to the fact that the media have sought to crucify Zimmerman by totally misrepresenting the case, and well, I'm inclined to believe Zimmerman over them.


I doubt Zimmerman had any intention of committing a crime, I doubt he followed Trayvon with the intention of shooting him but, he went into the situation looking for a confrontation. I think there needs to be a trial. I am disinclined to believe that Zimmerman just walked up to Trayvon and Trayvon just turned around and attacked him.

The reaction has been stupid though. Obama getting involved was completely wrong. Same with the civil rights groups rushing in and screaming for justice, holding Trayvon up as some sort of Paragon. That and the fact that various Black groups actually want to hunt down Zimmerman and hand him to police. Can't imagine that will end well.
Reply 157
Original post by Steevee
And Police video shows the injuries Zimmerman sustained, when we put that into the context of the narrative, there is a sensible conclusion. And it's not that Zimmerman just decided to shoot this kid, whom he'd already called the Police about, and then break his own nose, smash the back of his head against a pavement and fake a fight :facepalm2:




And other eye witness testimony says he did have injuries, and Police video shows him with injuries.

In the context of the narrative it seems the most plausible explanation, looking at the character of the two people involved, the calls both made, the testimony and outcome.

I fail to see how you showing that there was a fight somehow makes Martin the aggressor/instigator. Thats the important point
Does it not seem odd to you that Zimmerman would go ahead and commit a crime after he's made Police aware of where he is, where Trayvon was, the fact that'd he'd been following him etc? Add that to the fact that the media have sought to crucify Zimmerman by totally misrepresenting the case, and well, I'm inclined to believe Zimmerman over them.


And Police video shows the injuries Zimmerman sustained, when we put that into the context of the narrative, there is a sensible conclusion.


You haven't answered the question. We know there was a fight/scuffle. There is absolutely no evidence/testimony about how the fight came about, who started it etc except from Zimmermans testimony, which of course would be biased towards himself.
Reply 158
Original post by Aj12
I doubt Zimmerman had any intention of committing a crime, I doubt he followed Trayvon with the intention of shooting him but, he went into the situation looking for a confrontation. I think there needs to be a trial. I am disinclined to believe that Zimmerman just walked up to Trayvon and Trayvon just turned around and attacked him.

The reaction has been stupid though. Obama getting involved was completely wrong. Same with the civil rights groups rushing in and screaming for justice, holding Trayvon up as some sort of Paragon. That and the fact that various Black groups actually want to hunt down Zimmerman and hand him to police. Can't imagine that will end well.


I disagree, I believe Zimmerman went into the situation with the intent stop any crime Trayvon might commit, not to confront him. As evidenced by the fact that it was Trayvon that went out of his way to confront Zimmerman and not the other way around. I can believe Trayvon attacked him, bearing in mind his character, I am inclined to believe that words were exchanged that Trayvon took offence to and thus attacked Zimmerman. To me this seems the most logical conclusion.

And yes, the media coverage of this has been utterly digusting. Especially the publishing of photos of Trayvon from years ago to make him look like an innocent child, the doctoring of the tape on which Zimmerman talks to the Police.

Original post by dgeorge
You haven't answered the question. We know there was a fight/scuffle. There is absolutely no evidence/testimony about how the fight came about, who started it etc except from Zimmermans testimony, which of course would be biased towards himself.


Except that we have eyewitness testimony saying that Trayvon was atop Zimmerman. We have a phone record in which Trayvon implies he is going to confront Zimmerman aswell. Add that to the fact that Zimmerman had already been o the phone to the Police, do you honestly think he would commit a crime, an assault when he has moments before told the Police where he is, whom he is following and that he is going after them? :lolwut:
Reply 159
Original post by Steevee
I disagree, I believe Zimmerman went into the situation with the intent stop any crime Trayvon might commit, not to confront him. As evidenced by the fact that it was Trayvon that went out of his way to confront Zimmerman and not the other way around. I can believe Trayvon attacked him, bearing in mind his character, I am inclined to believe that words were exchanged that Trayvon took offence to and thus attacked Zimmerman. To me this seems the most logical conclusion.

And yes, the media coverage of this has been utterly digusting. Especially the publishing of photos of Trayvon from years ago to make him look like an innocent child, the doctoring of the tape on which Zimmerman talks to the Police.



Except that we have eyewitness testimony saying that Trayvon was atop Zimmerman. We have a phone record in which Trayvon implies he is going to confront Zimmerman aswell. Add that to the fact that Zimmerman had already been o the phone to the Police, do you honestly think he would commit a crime, an assault when he has moments before told the Police where he is, whom he is following and that he is going after them? :lolwut:


Since when does being on top of someone mean that you are responsible for the fight?

Again, I obviously don't think that he went there with the intention to kill him - so don't make lame jokes about things I never said. He could have taken other actions which would not have led to the confrontation in the first place, LIKE SIMPLY SITTING AND WAITING FOR HELP.

As YOU said ( but are not doing) I would wait until more facts come to light before making a definitive judgement

Quick Reply