not guilty

[Mcgyver]

The basic fact is an innocent young man was killed and the corrupt laws and corrupt judicial system in this country allowed a guilty man to go free.

 

 

So from this I gather that you were sitting in the court room from start to finish, and heard and saw every bit of evidence that was presented to the jury?

[WalkTheWay]

Firstly, I'd ask why Jesus said:

 

Luk 22:36  Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. 

Luk 22:37  For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH THE TRANSGRESSORS.' For the things concerning Me have an end." 

Luk 22:38  So they said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough." 

 

Secondly, I'd say, you're absolutely wrong about an apostle not lifting a hand against aggressors:

 

Joh 18:10  Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. 

Joh 18:11  So Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?" 

 

Also notable here is that Jesus didn't say that peter shouldn't have defended him, just that He was going to drink the cup which His Father had given Him (i.e. he was going to be crucified).

 

 

Yes, if you understand what is written in Luke, it was to fulfill the prophecy about Jesus Christ being numbered with the transgressors.  He did not tell his apostles to go kill anyone.  And yes I am correct about the apostles never lifting a hand against their aggressors.  In the instance you mentioned, Peter was trying to protect Jesus Christ.  After the apostles saw how Christ willingly gave his life, they followed his example and never lifted a hand against any of their aggressors.

 

Secondly, if you read the account of Peter drawing the sword as written in Matthew 26:52, Jesus rebuked Peter,  "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."  This is an obvious rebuke and warning against violence.

Edited July 16, 2013 by WalkTheWay

[WalkTheWay]

So from this I gather that you were sitting in the court room from start to finish, and heard and saw every bit of evidence that was presented to the jury?

 

Basic facts shouldn't be ignored regardless of embellishments.

[JDavis]

 

 

 

I am as well,  JDavis.  I believe Zimmerman, while not guilty of murder, is guilty of provoking a confrontation.  Even if the Martin kid was being a typical mouthy teenager he didn't deserve to die for it.  Lives have been devastated and one lost forever here.  But the jury has spoken and we have to respect their verdict.

 

Zimmerman was jumped and beaten by the kid.  How, exactly, does that translate into provoking a confrontation?  If Zimmerman had been black, and the kid killed was white or Hispanic, the case never would have gone to trial and he probably wouldn't have been charged at all. So your concept of "justice" and my concept of justice are not the same.  You are advocating that an innocent man be held responsible and punished for something that he didn't do.  Would that work for you, if the shoe were on your foot?

 

 

I would say that getting out of your car and following Martin could be construed as provoking a confrontation.

 

Not necessarily.  Mr. Zimmerman was the neighborhood watchman at the time, and it was reported there were alot of break ins in the neighborhood.  It was also reported to 911 dispatcher by Mr. Zimmerman  that Martin was acting suspicious. I think Mr. Zimmerman was only trying to prevent another possible break-in in the community.  It was also reported that the  dispatcher told Mr. Zimmerman after the call that Mr. Zimmerman did not have to follow Martin.  Mr. Zimmerman, according to my understanding and his testimony was headed back to his car when Martin jumped him from behind and pinned him down.  Had Martin not done this, he would still be alive more.

 

 

actually, Mr Zimmerman was not a neighborhood watchman officially, he was a self-appointed neighborhood watchman.   I have been part of an official, police approved neighborhood watch and the Golden Rule of neighborhood watchmen is "you do not carry".      The second rule that you are taught is "do not pursue".  Had Mr Zimmerman been part of an actual neighborhood watch program he would have known these two rules.

 

we do not know if Martin jumped him or not, that is what Zimmerman says happened.

 

And you are correct, had Martin not fought with Zimmerman he would still be alive.  And just as true is that had Zimmerman not left his car, Martin would still be alive.

[Floatingaxe]

The basic fact, without any embellishments, is an innocent young man was killed and the corrupt laws and corrupt judicial system in this country allowed a guilty man to go free.

 

 

What makes you say that Trayvon was innocent? And George guilty?

[Steve_S]

 

 

 

 

I am as well,  JDavis.  I believe Zimmerman, while not guilty of murder, is guilty of provoking a confrontation.  Even if the Martin kid was being a typical mouthy teenager he didn't deserve to die for it.  Lives have been devastated and one lost forever here.  But the jury has spoken and we have to respect their verdict.

 

Zimmerman was jumped and beaten by the kid.  How, exactly, does that translate into provoking a confrontation?  If Zimmerman had been black, and the kid killed was white or Hispanic, the case never would have gone to trial and he probably wouldn't have been charged at all. So your concept of "justice" and my concept of justice are not the same.  You are advocating that an innocent man be held responsible and punished for something that he didn't do.  Would that work for you, if the shoe were on your foot?

 

 

I would say that getting out of your car and following Martin could be construed as provoking a confrontation.

 

Not necessarily.  Mr. Zimmerman was the neighborhood watchman at the time, and it was reported there were alot of break ins in the neighborhood.  It was also reported to 911 dispatcher by Mr. Zimmerman  that Martin was acting suspicious. I think Mr. Zimmerman was only trying to prevent another possible break-in in the community.  It was also reported that the  dispatcher told Mr. Zimmerman after the call that Mr. Zimmerman did not have to follow Martin.  Mr. Zimmerman, according to my understanding and his testimony was headed back to his car when Martin jumped him from behind and pinned him down.  Had Martin not done this, he would still be alive more.

 

 

actually, Mr Zimmerman was not a neighborhood watchman officially, he was a self-appointed neighborhood watchman.   I have been part of an official, police approved neighborhood watch and the Golden Rule of neighborhood watchmen is "you do not carry".      The second rule that you are taught is "do not pursue".  Had Mr Zimmerman been part of an actual neighborhood watch program he would have known these two rules.

 

we do not know if Martin jumped him or not, that is what Zimmerman says happened.

 

And you are correct, had Martin not fought with Zimmerman he would still be alive.  And just as true is that had Zimmerman not left his car, Martin would still be alive.

 

 

The police don't have to approve a neighborhood watch. Also, being a part of a neighborhood watch doesn't mean sacrificing a constitutional right nor the legal right of self defense, so this post doesn't seem relevant as far as that goes.

[Floatingaxe]

FWIW, it has been told that Zimmerman bought a gun at the advice of a police officer when his wife was cornered by a snarling dog. He asked the police officer what else could he do as well as calling the authorities if something like this happens again, and time is of the essence. The officer's answer: "Get yourself a gun."

 

So, Zimmerman, on his way to the grocery store, doing a mundane regular chore, was wearing his gun concealed according to his permit and his right. He wasn't out on some sort of rounds as a member of the neighbourhood watch.

[nebula]

I am going to ask again:

 

 

Was Martin walking down sidewalks are walking in people's yards?

 

 

What do you make of the all-female jurors who had to ask for clarification on what "manslaughter" meant before coming to a decision?

[JDavis]

 

 

 

 

 

I am as well,  JDavis.  I believe Zimmerman, while not guilty of murder, is guilty of provoking a confrontation.  Even if the Martin kid was being a typical mouthy teenager he didn't deserve to die for it.  Lives have been devastated and one lost forever here.  But the jury has spoken and we have to respect their verdict.

 

Zimmerman was jumped and beaten by the kid.  How, exactly, does that translate into provoking a confrontation?  If Zimmerman had been black, and the kid killed was white or Hispanic, the case never would have gone to trial and he probably wouldn't have been charged at all. So your concept of "justice" and my concept of justice are not the same.  You are advocating that an innocent man be held responsible and punished for something that he didn't do.  Would that work for you, if the shoe were on your foot?

 

 

I would say that getting out of your car and following Martin could be construed as provoking a confrontation.

 

Not necessarily.  Mr. Zimmerman was the neighborhood watchman at the time, and it was reported there were alot of break ins in the neighborhood.  It was also reported to 911 dispatcher by Mr. Zimmerman  that Martin was acting suspicious. I think Mr. Zimmerman was only trying to prevent another possible break-in in the community.  It was also reported that the  dispatcher told Mr. Zimmerman after the call that Mr. Zimmerman did not have to follow Martin.  Mr. Zimmerman, according to my understanding and his testimony was headed back to his car when Martin jumped him from behind and pinned him down.  Had Martin not done this, he would still be alive more.

 

 

actually, Mr Zimmerman was not a neighborhood watchman officially, he was a self-appointed neighborhood watchman.   I have been part of an official, police approved neighborhood watch and the Golden Rule of neighborhood watchmen is "you do not carry".      The second rule that you are taught is "do not pursue".  Had Mr Zimmerman been part of an actual neighborhood watch program he would have known these two rules.

 

we do not know if Martin jumped him or not, that is what Zimmerman says happened.

 

And you are correct, had Martin not fought with Zimmerman he would still be alive.  And just as true is that had Zimmerman not left his car, Martin would still be alive.

 

 

The police don't have to approve a neighborhood watch. Also, being a part of a neighborhood watch doesn't mean sacrificing a constitutional right nor the legal right of self defense, so this post doesn't seem relevant as far as that goes.

 

 

 

The Neighborhood Watch is an actual thing, it is not just someone sitting in their car with their sidearm at the ready.   They are actual organized groups of people that have received police training and have police support.   Anybody can say they are a "neighborhood watch"  but that does not make them one.

[JDavis]

FWIW, it has been told that Zimmerman bought a gun at the advice of a police officer when his wife was cornered by a snarling dog. He asked the police officer what else could he do as well as calling the authorities if something like this happens again, and time is of the essence. The officer's answer: "Get yourself a gun."

 

So, Zimmerman, on his way to the grocery store, doing a mundane regular chore, was wearing his gun concealed according to his permit and his right. He wasn't out on some sort of rounds as a member of the neighbourhood watch.

 

and had he just continued on to Target Martin would still be alive and his life would not be ruined.