Support NeoGAF

[wsoxfan1214]

I don't find it reasonable to judge someone based off skewed viewpoints with little evidence. I understand that people hate the guy, but really? The guy has done nothing positive, true. But the foaming at the mouth, just hoping for something to go wrong with him, is ridiculous.



Where were these accusations when actually with him? And where is the PROOF? *That* is what I'm looking for. PROOF.

Is it really that unreasonable to want proof of someone's guilt?

What evidence or proof do you have that all of these women are lying? Or does the one who later withdrew her statements enough for you to dismiss all of them?

Did you ever consider that making these accusations when with him might be a bit intimidating if what they're saying is true?

 

[User 100115]

I don't find it reasonable to judge someone based off skewed viewpoints with little evidence. I understand that people hate the guy, but really? The guy has done nothing positive, true. But the foaming at the mouth, just hoping for something to go wrong with him, is ridiculous.

Guy has a history of violence, even resisted arrest. Guy is charming and soft spoken in public, seems to be able to convince people of stuff. Guy kills a young black man who was minding his own business. Guy gets accused of violence against his wife. Guy gets accused of violence against his girlfriend. Both are later convinced to drop charges.

"Guys, why are you saying Zimmerman is violent? Stop the witch hunt!"

 

[Enron]

So unless you believe that most women are spiteful enough to lie to police over an ex, there's only one common denominator here.

Most women aren't spiteful enough to lie to police about what an ex did, but we are talking about TWO women here.

You've got to have something wrong with you to want to hook up with this dude in the first place.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Most women aren't spiteful enough to lie to police about what an ex did, but we are talking about TWO women here.

Three. And a 4th said she was molested by him when she was younger.

 

[User 100115]

Most women aren't spiteful enough to lie to police about what an ex did, but we are talking about TWO women here.

You've got to have something wrong with you to want to hook up with this dude in the first place.

And the cousin, you forgot about her. So that's three.

Sorry four.

Edit: as for the something wrong part, it's not like he's not capable of playing a part, making up stories, or getting sympathy or anything.

 

[BeFlatLine]

What evidence or proof do you have that all of these women are lying? Or does the one who later withdrew her statements enough for you to dismiss all of them?

Did you ever consider that making these accusations when with him might be a bit intimidating if what they're saying is true?

The criminal justice system works off the idea of innocent until proven guilty. Accusations without backing are just that, accusations. I'm not assuming they are lying. I'm assuming he's innocent untill PROVEN guilty.

Most women aren't spiteful enough to do that, sure. But most guys aren't accused of killing an innocent person, and then found not guilty on all charges. You know, after the police found him not guilty off the bat, but then a witch hunt began.

All I'm saying is find actual proof. If he's been violent to a woman, shouldn't there be some physical evidence?

I'd like to point out that I'd love for them to find actual evidence of him doing wrong. And have him tried for it. But I'm not going to make assumptions on a person based off hearsay and circumstantial evidence. That's not how the system works.

 

[Enzom21]

The criminal justice system works off the idea of innocent until proven guilty. Accusations without backing are just that, accusations. I'm not assuming they are lying. I'm assuming he's innocent untill PROVEN guilty.

Most women aren't spiteful enough to do that, sure. But most guys aren't accused of killing an innocent person, and then found not guilty on all charges. You know, after the police found him not guilty off the bat, but then a witch hunt began.

All I'm saying is find actual proof. If he's been violent to a woman, shouldn't there be some physical evidence?

I'd like to point out that I'd love for them to find actual evidence of him doing wrong. And have him tried for it. But I'm not going to make assumptions on a person based off hearsay and circumstantial evidence. That's not how the system works.

How many incidents would it take for you to consider that maybe Zimmerman is the problem here?

Do you think there is some vast conspiracy to smear this man's "good name" or is it the fact that you don't want a fellow gun owner to be maligned?

Nothing is worse than a gun owner being discriminated against right?

 

[Enron]

Edit: as for the something wrong part, it's not like he's not capable of playing a part, making up stories, or getting sympathy or anything.

But as far as we've seen, at least, the last two which resulted in the police coming out turned up no evidence that what they claim happened, happened. Including no gun at all in the first one. And he apparently recorded the 2nd altercation on his phone which was turned over to police.

I think Zimmerman making up a story or getting sympathy has pretty much been thrown out the window after the Trayvon trial.

How many incidents would it take for you to consider that maybe Zimmerman is the problem here?

Oh, he definitely is a problem. However, he seems to be attracting other problem, broken people.

 

[BeFlatLine]

How many incidents would it take for you to consider that maybe Zimmerman is the problem here?

Do you think there is some vast conspiracy to smear this man's "good name" or is it the fact that you don't want a fellow gun owner to be maligned?

Nothing is worse than a gun owner being discriminated against right?

No. I want PROOF. EVIDENCE. It has nothing to do with him being a gun owner. There's plenty of gun owners that I despise. But I'm not going to throw them in jail for being dumb.

That's how the criminal justice system works, right? Without proof, it's accusations. What is so difficult to understand there? If this was about any other person, I'd be saying the same thing.

The police arrived at the scene of 2 cases he was accused of DV. In both cases, he hasn't been formally charged (as far as I know). How hard is it to get evidence at an ongoing scene?

 

[User 100115]

But as far as we've seen, at least, the last two which resulted in the police coming out turned up no evidence that what they claim happened, happened. Including no gun at all in the first one. And he apparently recorded the 2nd altercation on his phone which was turned over to police.

I think Zimmerman making up a story or getting sympathy has pretty much been thrown out the window after the Trayvon trial.




Oh, he definitely is a problem. However, he seems to be attracting other problem, broken people.

Oh, because there's not a huge group of people who've elevated him to hero status? Yes he still get sympathy.

 

[Big Baybee]

The only kind of proof that would satisfy you would be a video of him pointing the guns at the women.
Also, the incident before this with his ex wife, wasn't she recording the entire thing with her iPad and GZ smashed it on the ground? Police couldn't recover anything from it.

 

[Cipherr]

Wow man this guy has more lives than a cat. He is just going to skate on everything.

 

[commedieu]

The only kind of proof that would satisfy you would be a video of him pointing the guns at the women.

And even then... its ignoring the fact he shot a kid to death after following him.

Also.. that isn't how this contry works. See: Bankers.

 

[IrishNinja]

The only kind of proof that would satisfy you would be a video of him pointing the guns at the women.
Also, the incident before this with his ex wife, wasn't she recording the entire thing with her iPad and GZ smashed it on the ground? Police couldn't recover anything from it.

with two forms of gov't I.D. and his grandma sayin "that's my george, always shooin' at people"

 

[Enron]

Oh, because there's not a huge group of people who've elevated him to hero status? Yes he still get sympathy.

But those people don't matter. The only people who do in this instance are the police and prosecutors, and I doubt his charisma is enough to sway them over actual evidence.

 

[BeFlatLine]

But those people don't matter. The only people who do in this instance are the police and prosecutors, and I doubt his charisma is enough to sway them over actual evidence.

There's very few people who find him a hero at that. Most of the gun community hates him for putting it under the spotlight with his idiotic actions. Just saying, there's multiple tools to do a job. Most of the time, a gun isn't the right one. And a majority of gun owners agree on that. In self-defense, there's multiple ways to diffuse a situation that won't have you showing up in court.

 

[wsoxfan1214]

The criminal justice system works off the idea of innocent until proven guilty. Accusations without backing are just that, accusations. I'm not assuming they are lying. I'm assuming he's innocent untill PROVEN guilty.

Most women aren't spiteful enough to do that, sure. But most guys aren't accused of killing an innocent person, and then found not guilty on all charges. You know, after the police found him not guilty off the bat, but then a witch hunt began.

All I'm saying is find actual proof. If he's been violent to a woman, shouldn't there be some physical evidence?

I'd like to point out that I'd love for them to find actual evidence of him doing wrong. And have him tried for it. But I'm not going to make assumptions on a person based off hearsay and circumstantial evidence. That's not how the system works.

You're telling me you think that was the correct verdict?

 

[User 100115]

But those people don't matter. The only people who do in this instance are the police and prosecutors, and I doubt his charisma is enough to sway them over actual evidence.

Worked before.

There's very few people who find him a hero at that. Most of the gun community hates him for putting it under the spotlight with his idiotic actions. Just saying, there's multiple tools to do a job. Most of the time, a gun isn't the right one. And a majority of gun owners agree on that. In self-defense, there's multiple ways to diffuse a situation that won't have you showing up in court.

We have plenty of those type to see him as an innocent hero on this liberal slanted forum. 'very few' isn't anywhere near the truth.

 

[BeFlatLine]

You're telling me you think that was the correct verdict?

After watching the trial as it progressed, yes. The eyewitness testimony, re-enactment, evidence on scene as observed and documented by the responding officers seemed to follow the guidelines set.

Is he guilty of being an idiot? Damn right.
Should he of not followed him? Damn right.
If he followed him and was blindsided with fists, should he of had another tool such as pepper spray to end the situation? Damn right.

He should not of put himself into that situation. But there's not a law against that, so you can't charge him for that. I don't like it, but I don't make the laws.

 

[User 100115]

After watching the trial as it progressed, yes. The eyewitness testimony, re-enactment, evidence on scene as observed and documented by the responding officers seemed to follow the guidelines set.

Is he guilty of being an idiot? Damn right.
Should he of not followed him? Damn right.
If he followed him and was blindsided with fists, should he of had another tool such as pepper spray to end the situation? Damn right.

He should not of put himself into that situation. But there's not a law against that, so you can't charge him for that. I don't like it, but I don't make the laws.

I don't like the fact that it's apparently not against the law in this country to stalk a teenager, provoke a fight, and then murder them.

 

[Chie Satonaka]

At this point, I'm not even surprised that there are still Zimmerman defenders.

 

[BeFlatLine]

I don't like the fact that it's apparently not against the law in this country to stalk a teenager, provoke a fight, and then murder them.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again:

You can't assault someone for following you. You can't assault someone if they say something you don't like. You can't assault anyone for any reason other than self defense, and even then, it has to be just enough to end the threat or get away depending on the severity of the threat. Being "afraid" is not a good reason to attack someone.

 

[Enron]

Worked before.

There was enough to charge him and get to a jury with Trayvon and put it in the hands of regular joes. That doesn't seem to be the case with the latest two incidents. So I highly doubt Zimmerman is workin the magic on cops and prosecutors. The most likely explanation is that things went down closer to Zimmerman's statements, given the lack of evidence and the recants.

 

[IrishNinja]

At this point, I'm not even surprised that there are still Zimmerman defenders.

i know the feeling but i do wish there was some kinda filter before adding someone on FB or twitter so i'd know if i should just keep it movin

 

[vas_a_morir]

At this point, I'm not even surprised that there are still Zimmerman defenders.

Well, just because somebody thinks the jury reached the proper verdict given the evidence presented during the trial, that doesn't mean they are accurately defined as Zimmerman defenders. That implies some sort of irrational motivation behind an absolute refusal to voice disapproval of any of his future misdeeds. Which is not necessarily true.

 

[User 100115]

I've said it once, and I'll say it again:

You can't assault someone for following you. You can't assault someone if they say something you don't like. You can't assault anyone for any reason other than self defense, and even then, it has to be just enough to end the threat or get away depending on the severity of the threat. Being "afraid" is not a good reason to attack someone.

I find it interesting that you conviently ignore every single bit of evidence that Zimmerman confronted him and Martin tried to defend himself and solely believe the many different stories Zimmerman told. For someone who claims to dislike the man and is only defending him because it's 'reasonable', you sure seem a bit one sided.

Sorry, but if some strange guy with a gun came at me at night after following me, I'd fight for my life too.

 

[Big Baybee]

After these two incidents there is no doubt in my mind GZ had his gun in hand when he confronted TM. Him being able to get his gun from his holster and being pinned at the same time never made sense anyway.

 

[vas_a_morir]

After these two incidents there is no doubt in my mind GZ had his gun in hand when he confronted TM. Him being able to get his gun from his holster and being pinned at the same time never made sense anyway.

Seems less than likely, yeah. Even if he wasn't nuts before, the trial might have set him off the deep end. I feel like he might have a messiah complex with gun-rights.

 

[BeFlatLine]

I find it interesting that you conviently ignore every single bit of evidence that Zimmerman confronted him and Martin tried to defend himself and solely believe the many different stories Zimmerman told. For someone who claims to dislike the man and is only defending him because it's 'reasonable', you sure seem a bit one sided.

Did you actually follow the trial? Like, physically watch it?

The re-enactment fit. The timeframe fit with eye witness testimony (not just Zimmerman). The evidence cited in the responding police officer's reports fit, including their observations.

But hey, I must just like the guy. The jury was just a bunch of sympathizers.

So, I'll say it again: Find evidence and I'll agree with you. As someone who watched the trial closely, I agree that he was wrong, but NOT GUILTY. There's a vast difference.

 

[Yagharek]

I've said it once, and I'll say it again:

You can't assault someone for following you. You can't assault someone if they say something you don't like. You can't assault anyone for any reason other than self defense, and even then, it has to be just enough to end the threat or get away depending on the severity of the threat. Being "afraid" is not a good reason to attack someone.

Why dont you require the same level of proof that Martin "attacked" Zimmerman as you do when someone else claims Zimmerman is a killer and beats up women?

 

[GaimeGuy]

I find it interesting that you conviently ignore every single bit of evidence that Zimmerman confronted him and Martin tried to defend himself and solely believe the many different stories Zimmerman told. For someone who claims to dislike the man and is only defending him because it's 'reasonable', you sure seem a bit one sided.

Sorry, but if some strange guy with a gun came at me at night after following me, I'd fight for my life too.

Don't forget the fact that george initially followed trayvon in car, and then trayvon moved away from the roads in order to get away from zimmerman.... at which point, george parked his car and exited his vehicle in order to continue his pursuit.

Trayvon wasn't being followed. He was being chased down. That's how it would appear to a 3rd party and from trayvon's perspective. More than enough reason to fear for his personal safety. Not to mention the fact that trayvon was in this scenario demonstrating a decision to attempt rretreat before use of force. Something George never demonstrated.

 

[Big Baybee]

Don't forget the fact that george initially followed trayvon in car, and then trayvon moved away from the roads in order to get away from zimmerman.... at which point, george parked his car and exited his vehicle in order to continue his pursuit.

Trayvon wasn't being followed. He was being chased down. That's how it would appear to a 3rd party and from trayvon's perspective. More than enough reason to fear for his personal safety. Not to mention the fact that trayvon was in this scenario demonstrating a decision to attempt rretreat before use of force. Something George never demonstrated.

Naw, people would rather believe Trayvon jumped out of a random bush like a Zulu warrior.

 

[BeFlatLine]

Why dont you require the same level of proof that Martin "attacked" Zimmerman as you do when someone else claims Zimmerman is a killer and beats up women?

Eyewitness testimony corroborated the attack along with physical evidence. Responding officers notated his wounds, the fresh stains on his back, and collected eyewitness testimony. Do I think he was attacked? Most likely. Could he not of been? Yes.

Is there enough evidence there to cast REASONABLE DOUBT? Absolutely.

And once again, you can not attack someone because you're scared they're following you.

 

[commedieu]

Naw, people would rather believe Trayvon jumped out of a random bush like a Zulu warrior.

Jungle Dragon extra tendon Punch! !!!!!!!! €
@above.
Trayvons dna wasn't on gun.
Nor was zims blood on trayvons hands.

It was up to a jury. They ignored the evidence. Like you're dOing.

 

[vas_a_morir]

Jungle Dragon extra tendon Punch! !!!!!!!! €
@above.
Trayvons dna wasn't on gun.
Nor was zims blood on trayvons hands.

It was up to a jury. They ignored the evidence. Like you're dOing.

Are you suggesting that Trayvon didn't hit Zimmerman? I mean, I feel like even people who think Zimmerman is a murderer don't deny that Trayvon hit Zimmerman at some point.

The question, which we'll never know, is who started the fight with an illegal action. But, we know there was a fight.

 

[empty vessel]

And once again, you can not attack someone because you're scared they're following you.

Yes, you can. I don't know why you think one couldn't. The question is simply whether all of the circumstances would cause a reasonable person to fear imminent harm. An adult following a child at night could cause a reasonable child in Martin's position to be fearful. Of course, the only evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman at all comes from Zimmerman himself, who there is no good reason to believe. And there was evidence that, in fact, it was Zimmerman who initiated the confrontation, and every reason to believe it given that Zimmerman's desire to intervene in Martin's life that night was amply demonstrated.

There was unquestionably enough evidence to convict Zimmerman, although it would have helped if the trial judge had actually given the jury the correct law instead of law that misrepresented Florida's self-defense laws in Zimmerman's favor.

 

[User 100115]

Did you actually follow the trial? Like, physically watch it?

The re-enactment fit. The timeframe fit with eye witness testimony (not just Zimmerman). The evidence cited in the responding police officer's reports fit, including their observations.

But hey, I must just like the guy. The jury was just a bunch of sympathizers.

So, I'll say it again: Find evidence and I'll agree with you. As someone who watched the trial closely, I agree that he was wrong, but NOT GUILTY. There's a vast difference.

Yes I did. I am confused as to where all this evidence you are claiming was, as I must have missed it. Martin was shot before the cops arrived, btw. Zimmerman was standing, holding his gun when they showed up. Yup, totally means they could somehow magically agree with his story.

 

[YoungHav]

OJ was Arnold. George Z is that liquid Terminator.

 

[BeFlatLine]

Yes I did. I am confused as to where all this evidence you are claiming was, as I must have missed it. Martin was shot before the cops arrived, btw. Zimmerman was standing, holding his gun when they showed up. Yup, totally means they could somehow magically agree with his story.

Eyewitness testimony claiming to of witnessed someone who looked like Trayvon on top, repeatedly striking someone screaming below them. Zimmerman, with obvious injuries from a fight, and stains on the back of his shirt that showed he was on his back at the time period of the incident. Martin not having wounds consistant with being on the bottom (mentioned because a 2nd eyewitness thought they saw it the opposite way, with Martin on the bottom).

Either Zimmerman is a genius at faking a crime scene, or that evidence was actually there.

 

[Big Baybee]

Eyewitness testimony claiming to of witnessed someone who looked like Trayvon on top, repeatedly striking someone screaming below them. Zimmerman, with obvious injuries from a fight, and stains on the back of his shirt that showed he was on his back at the time period of the incident. Martin not having wounds consistant with being on the bottom (mentioned because a 2nd eyewitness thought they saw it the opposite way, with Martin on the bottom).

Either Zimmerman is a genius at faking a crime scene, or that evidence was actually there.

Zimmerman got his ass kicked in a fight he provoked. You are suggesting that Zimmerman is allowed to terrorize this kid, even chase and confront him, but that Trayvon is wrong for seeing him as a threat after attempting to flee and seeing GZ still chasing behind him? Who do you know that sees a random dude chasing him on a rainy night that wouldn't fight back?

 

[BeFlatLine]

Zimmerman got his ass kicked in a fight he provoked. You are suggesting that Zimmerman is allowed to terrorize this kid, even chase and confront him, but that Trayvon is wrong for seeing him as a threat after attempting to flee and seeing GZ still chasing behind him? Who do you know that sees a random dude chasing him on a rainy night that wouldn't fight back?

What evidence do you have of the terrorizing and baiting? Him following him? The eyewitnesses claimed the only time they heard screaming was when they witnessed one person on top of another, pummeling them.

The timeframe and security camera footage line up with him being at home if he was truly attempting to flee. It aligned with Zimmerman's story that Trayvon actually backtracked. Was he blindsided? Maybe. Maybe not.

Either way, self defense is a hit and run. It's not a hit, get on top of, pummel their face in situation. That makes you an aggressor. EVEN if someone calls you names. Unless Zimmerman pulled out the gun, got pummeled, and then shot him (. . . all while somehow keeping the master grip on his gun without shooting Martin first). Then that's self defense.

Reasonable doubt. That's why Zimmerman is free. As I said before, I think he's guilty of being stupid, but not guilty of what he was charged. Reckless? Yeah, probably that too. But he's not guilty of what he was charged with.

 

[Spira]

It's funny Zimmerman gets the blame, but what kind of fucking idiot would date this guy after everything he's done.

 

[Big Baybee]

What evidence do you have of the terrorizing and baiting? Him following him? The eyewitnesses claimed the only time they heard screaming was when they witnessed one person on top of another, pummeling them.

The timeframe and security camera footage line up with him being at home if he was truly attempting to flee. It aligned with Zimmerman's story that Trayvon actually backtracked. Was he blindsided? Maybe. Maybe not.

Either way, self defense is a hit and run. It's not a hit, get on top of, pummel their face in situation. That makes you an aggressor. EVEN if someone calls you names. Unless Zimmerman pulled out the gun, got pummeled, and then shot him (. . . all while somehow keeping the master grip on his gun without shooting Martin first). Then that's self defense.

Reasonable doubt. That's why Zimmerman is free. As I said before, I think he's guilty of being stupid, but not guilty of what he was charged. Reckless? Yeah, probably that too. But he's not guilty of what he was charged with.

But with floridas stand your ground laws Trayvon did not have to flee. He could have beat Zimmerman to death if he felt his life was threatened. Or are you saying Trayvon did not have the right to defend himself from a perceived threat? Why doesn't he have that right in your eyes?

 

[BeFlatLine]

But with floridas stand your ground laws Trayvon did not have to flee. He could have beat Zimmerman to death if he felt his life was threatened. Or are you saying Trayvon did not have the right to defend himself from a perceived threat? Why doesn't he have that right in your eyes?

It's not a perceived threat. Quoted from another site, but linking to the case law:

Use of force in defense of person.—


A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:


(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

 

[Big Baybee]

So how do you think a kid feels if he is being followed in a car and being chased on foot? What do you think he would perceive?

 

[BeFlatLine]

So how do you think a kid feels if he is being followed in a car and being chased on foot? What do you think he would perceive?

"Shit, I'm being followed."

And then, maybe, I don't know, go home. Lock the door. Call the police.

He had a cell phone on him. He was talking to a girl before the encounter. He hung up without there being any conflict with Zimmerman, but he noted that was being followed. Wouldn't that of been a good time to call the police? Maybe run in the *opposite* direction of Zimmerman?

In what world is it alright to just punch someone based off a perceived threat that the person is following you? It happens all the time when I'm on my way to work. Should I just punch everyone that is taking the same exact route to work? Sheesh.

 

[biggersmaller]

Where's the conservative radio/FOX News Zimmerman defense force now?

 

[JDSN]

Where's the conservative radio/FOX News Zimmerman defense force now?

Eh...above your post?

 

[ElFly]

I am shocked that the guy who thought the bakers had all the right to discriminate against the homosexual couple, but it is wrong to discriminate against people carrying weapons, is in favor of Zimmerman.

Shocked.

 

[BeFlatLine]

I am shocked that the guy who thought the bakers had all the right to discriminate against the homosexual couple, but it is wrong to discriminate against people carrying weapons, is in favor of Zimmerman.

Shocked.

Your interpretation was horribly off. What I had said is that it wasn't the government's place to tell the baker's that they were wrong, it was society's for the reason that being fined by the government doesn't make someone just go "Gee, I was dumb to discriminate against gays. I see why I was wrong." Society pointing out your ignorance and showing support to the couple *does*.

Then I continued to say that discrimination, no matter against who, is dumb. Including against concealed weapon holders.

If you actually read this thread, you'd also of picked up on the fact that I am not in favor of Zimmerman. I just see reasonable doubt in the fact that he should've been charged in that case.

But hey, I must just be a redneck racist gun toting republican/libertarian!