Justice wins: George Zimmerman found Not Guilty

In a case which made national headlines for the sole reason that the shooter and victim were two different colors, justice has been done.  The jury of all women rendered a verdict of not guilty on all charges against defendant George Zimmerman for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

From the beginning the national media has made every effort to convict Zimmerman using a false narrative that the unarmed teen was hunted down by a wanna be police officer in the middle of the night for no other reason than he was black.

The real travesty of it all is the way the media has handled the reporting on this case.  From the moment the incident made news, reputable agencies skewed the facts to create a monster.  In fact, NBC news was forced to admit they edited the 911 call made by Zimmerman to make it sound as if he thought Martin was suspicious because he was black, while others misreported and misrepresented known facts.

Key facts which were only reported locally went unreported to national audiences; buried in deep within the papers; or given little air time.  This led many people to believe a fictional account of what happened the night the Florida teen lost his life.

In fact, every one of the State’s witnesses and all the physical evidence corroborated Zimmerman’s account of the evening which basically went like this:

George Zimmerman noticed someone wearing a baggy hooded sweatshirt with the hood up walking through the neighborhood late in the evening.  This seemed suspicious because of a multitude of break-ins in the homes in the area.  Zimmerman called the police to report the incident.  He only exited his vehicle when asked by the dispacher his location.  Zimmerman sees Martin and begins to follow him because he didn’t want him to get away before the police arrived.  When the dispacher asked if Zimmerman was following the person, he answered “yes”.  The dispacher said “we don’t need you to do that” to which Zimmerman answered, “OK” and began to return to his vehicle.  On his way back to his vehicle, Martin confronted him and asked why he was being followed.  A struggle ensued which escalated into a fight between the two.  Eventually Martin gained the upper hand and was straddled on top of Zimmerman reigning blows onto his face and body.  At some point Zimmerman’s jack rode up his body exposing his holstered firearm.  Martin said to Zimmerman “you’re going to die tonight”.  It was at this point Zimmerman believed Martin was reaching for, or was about to reach for his firearm.  Zimmerman drew his weapon and fired once into Martin’s body.

What hasn’t been widely reported is that no witness testimony, nor any physical evidence contradicts any of Zimmerman’s account.  But more than that, the physical evidence and witnesses who saw the altercation support his account.  For some, the only relevant detail of the case is that someone who isn’t black shot someone who is.

Whether you support Zimmerman or believe he acted criminally, if you followed the trial, listened to the witnesses, and checked on the widely unreported facts of the case, you could not reasonably find this man guilty of any crime.  Poor judgement is not illegal and neither is defending yourself.

Comments

  1. I’m gonna blog about this. Group A thinks that Zimmerman should’ve been convicted because he is a raging racist monster who had no right to suspect Martin to be a threat and killed him in cold blood.Group B thought that Zimmerman should not be convicted and that he had a right to protect himself and his neighborhood because Martin clearly was a credible threat and it’s better to be safe than sorry. I don’t belong to either group. I belong to group C that thinks that intent and accountability are two different things that should always be reflected in law. What the popular concept found in the first 2 groups does is argue Zimmerman’s intent. I can honestly say that I don’t know his intent. I don’t think He is a monster but at the same time I know “threat” is subjective and a result of your worldview and experiences. Accountability means that whether we meant to do something or not the outcome is on us. Whatever his intent was, Zimmerman killed an unarmed human. I believe there must be some consequence that isn’t balled up in emotions and racism. In the Bible the patriarchs like Abraham and David were flawed, Yet Hebrews uses them as examples of great faith. Though God is merciful and there is eternal salvation He is also just and He did not spare even his chosen people earthly consequences for their actions. I ask all of you on the board to put aside your debate on intent and ask what earthly consequences that Zimmerman deserves? And let us not forget that Zimmerman deserves forgiveness and salvation as well.

    • I am more inclined to believe Zimmerman had no violent intentions.

      • But the intent approach isn’t fair and makes me cringe in either direction. I cringe to think Zimmerman is a hateful person and I cringe to think that our law shouldn’t hold those accountable who end another’s life.

        • But all the evidence points toward Zimmerman not being hateful or racist. I have yet to be persuaded to think Zimmerman’s accounting is not accurate especially in light of other witnesses and the physical evidence.

          I don’t think defending yourself or another with lethal force if it is warranted by the situation should be punished.

          • I don’t think he needs a racist intent to merit a consequence. That’s my whole point. It doesn’t matter his intent. I don’t care about the intent. I really can’t conclude his intent and I don’t know him personally. The fact is he was wrong in assessing Trayvon as a threat and killing him. He’s accountable for ending his life. I’m not taking sides on his character I’m taking as stand on his actions.

            • But he didnt shoot him because he perceived him as a threat. Martin was on top of him beating him about the face and smashing his head into the pavement. Even then Zimmerman didnt draw his gun. It wasnt until Martin said “youre gonna die tonight” that Zimmerman thought Martin was reaching for his gun so he drew it and fired one shot.

  2. paynehollow says:

    Do you think that, if Zimmerman hadn’t been following this young man, that there is ANY evidence that Martin would have done anything wrong at all? Do you think that, if Zimmerman hadn’t followed him around, that Martin might still be alive and back in his home, where he was apparently heading that night?

    Zimmerman appears to be guilty of at least manslaughter, if you look at the evidence and don’t start from a place of presuming a killer of an unarmed man is likely innocent and the kid is likely a punk.

    And how do we know that Martin said “you’re going to die tonight?” Was that in the police transcript of what Martin said? Or is that the testimony of the man who shot the unarmed man he had been following for looking “very suspicious…”?

    For what it’s worth, I’m out at night walking around all the time, even in the rain, even in my neighborhood where break-ins occur (walking around is how some of us get around, you know). I guess that makes me “very suspicious” someone needs to follow me so I don’t “get away” (“get away” from WHAT? of course, is the question) and keep their pistol ready in case I don’t like being followed by a stranger.

    ~Dan Trabue

  3. Why, Dan, do people like you insist on starting with what Zimmerman was doing? Do you think that if Martin had walked straight home, a distance said to have been no more than about five to ten minutes away at the most, dressed in a manner not suggestive of the kids known to have been victimizing the community, that Zimmerman would have been attracted to his presence in the same way?

    Do you realize that the time frame for the entire incident makes the use of phrases such as “following him around” absolutely absurd?

    Zimmerman appears to have been guilty of defending his own life against someone trying to beat the crap out of him. (That is, if you look at the evidence and don’t start from a place of presuming the dead was just a sweet little boy stalked by a crazed racist.) You want to call that manslaughter? You obviously don’t understand the term.

    We don’t have to know anything about what was said between the two of them. Witnesses saw Martin straddling Zimmerman beating on him “MMA style”. How many shots to the face could you take, how many times could you endure your head being smacked against the pavement, before you felt perhaps you might die?

    For what it’s worth, your personal experience isn’t worth anything here. Do you dress like a punk and walk about in a manner that would be deemed suspicious by anyone at all? Or do you stay on the sidewalks (or commonly used walkways or paths)?

    “get away from WHAT?” Get away from his monitoring of his movements before the cops can arrive to determine that he actually DOES belong in the neighborhood.

    The problem I find of most people who take Martin’s side, or believe Zimmerman is deserving of punishment for the crime of defending his own life, is that these same people would whine and scream about victims of criminals finding no one to help them. They would rail about people doing nothing in their neighborhoods to stand against criminal activity. Now we have George Zimmerman who has taken it upon himself to be one of those who WILL look out for his neighbors and when circumstances result in a killing (and a righteous killing at that), they want him crucified. I’ll take a slightly overzealous George Zimmerman over the rest who just close the windows when screams are heard any freakin’ day of the week.

    And just to keep this thought alive, SHAME on those who suggest that Zimmerman was looking or hoping for an opportunity to use his gun. The stupidity of this is without measure. If this was in any way the case, Zimmerman would not have called the police, he would only have TRULY stalked Martin until he had the chance to pop him without taking a single punch. What idiocy!

  4. MA,

    The bigger problem is that so many on the left believe that Zimmerman should not have had the option to defend himself with a firearm. There are too many non violent types who believe that Zimmerman should have reasoned with Travon as his head was being slammed into the concrete or that he should have turned the other cheek. Or left Travon to his own devices.

    As an aside. While we’re in fantasy land and speculating about what people were thinking. How about this as a possibility. Travon was casing the home of a 90 year old woman who he planned to rob. What if, in the course of this imaginary robbery he killed the woman to keep her quiet? The further we get from the facts of the case, the more absurd options and motives we can ascribe to either party.

    Back to the point. When you are dealing with a group of folks who are committed to the “official narrative” and to the premise that there are virtually no circumstances where defending yourself with a firearm is appropriate, is it any wonder we’re seeing what we’re seeing.

    I’ve actually heard people seriously suggest that this means we have a need for a separate panel to review jury verdicts to determine if they are “correct”. We’ve seen Jesse Jackson suggest that Zimmerman’s jury should have been comprised of teenaged black males. Not to mention the people who are quite seriously saying that if/when Zimmerman gets lynched, its exactly what he deserves.

    Let’s face it. The system worked. I guess for too many of “us” it’s only OK if the black guy “beats the rap”. Shouldn’t we (if not trust) accept that the members of the jury who saw everything first hand are the only ones who really saw everything just might be in a position to correctly asses the facts?

  5. Well, Jackson’s a confirmed idiot. He obviously doesn’t get what “a jury of your peers” means. Such a jury would be part Hispanic, part white, pudgy, a Democrat and a neighborhood watch dude.

  6. For the Trabue’s and other liberals of the world who think Zimmerman was wrong and Trayvon was just an innocent kid, think about these FACTS:

    1. Zimmerman, while exercising poor judgment by getting out of his car, was doing nothing wrong. It is NOT illegal to follow someone.

    2. Martin had reached his father’s abode (as reported by his girlfriend) and yet went back to get Zimmerman – an intentional move towards confrontation with someone who was doing nothing wrong or illegal.

    3. Martin began the altercation – He is who instituted the assault.

    4. Zimmerman was being sat upon and savagely beaten and resorted to the gun for defense of life and limb.

    5. Take a look at this article, especially the last two points:
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/17/10-Facts-the-media-Arent-telling-you-about-the-zimmerman-case

    Zimmerman was not guilty of racism, nor of intent to harm, nor of anything illegal. He defended himself appropriately when he was assaulted for no reason other than the paranoia of Martin

    Martin was guilty of assault and battery. He had demonstrated intent to harm from the very first moment he decided to confront Zimmerman.

    Now quit your liberal, anti-gun, racist rants! Justice was done.

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: