Yeah.

Its not like he shot and killed an unarmed man, or anything.

Oh, wait .... he did.

So appropriate that I saw this image just before coming into this thread.

His website is still up and collecting money. Send him some.

An unarmed man who was banging his head off of pavement. I've always held that Zimmerman is entitled to presumption of innocence, but that's not a popular position.

The only person who claims that Zimmerman's head was pounded against the pavement is Zimmerman. And he is now a proven lier and manipulator.

If I had 30 seconds to pound Zim's head into the pavement, he would have had a fractured skull, concussion, and he would never have been able to fire a gun.

Why do you believe him?

...

Smh.

Why shouldn't I? Isn't the accused entitled to the benefit of doubt and presumption of innocence?

I have no idea what happened in that alley that night, no one does. Everyone's working under the assumption that they know what happened after Zimmerman ended that 911 call when in fact, no one knows for sure what happened.

Personally, I'm put off by mob mentality and rush to judgment, and this case is awash in it.

I put myself in Zimmerman's shoes: Here I am, one of the most hated men in America, living under constant death threats, looking at years in prison, doubtful that I'll get a fair trial. Making provisions to skip town might seem like a good idea.

I'm not saying Trayvon Martin deserved to be killed, I'm not Zimmerman should face absolutely no legal scrutiny. But the case should be allowed to proceed through the legal system carefully and without outside influence. Every time a celebrity posts a youtube video about this, every time protesters gather, every time a mob attacks an innocent person and yells 'For Trayvon!' the possibility of Zimmerman getting a fair trial is diminished that much more, and a fair trial something every citizen is entitled to.

Legally speaking, that's a VERY popular position.

I base my opinion on prevailing public "evidence" that I have seen and making conclusions based on personal worldview, blah blah blah.  I am not a court of law.  And even with my personal bias, if I was a juror for his cased, I'd be open-minded about the evidence presented in court and follow the law.

I think he wanted to be a hero.  I think he was frustrated by things that had been happening in the neighborhood.  I think he went looking for a fight and got it. I think he was losing that fight and did defend himself.  I do not, however, feel one should have the right to start a fight and defend themselves with lethal force when losing that fight.  But it depends.  Do I expect someone to allow themselves to be beaten to death?  no. But that doesn't excuse the shooting.

He is presumed innocent. Who said anything different? However, that does not man I am not entitled to an opinion.

You said Trayvon was "banging his head off of pavement." Is that a fact? Were you there? Oh, I see it's your opinion. Yet when I have an opinion I am presuming Zimmerman guilty.

The basis of my post is that Zimmerman's character is at issue. BTW, he also lied when he turned in his passport and said he did not have another one.

Zimmerman lies. His wife lies. That goes to character.

Uh, huh. Rush to judgement, but you appear to be finding him innocent -- without a trial.

Indeed, the accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence, a presumption that must be overcome beyond a reasonable doubt in order to maintain a conviction.

However, the accused is not entitled to a presumption of credibility. That's for him to establish, or not.

Maybe Martin didn't have 30 seconds. If my head was being bashed, and I had a gun, I would try to shoot my attacker while I still could and before I suffered a fractured skull and concussion.  I would try not to let 30 seconds go by.

Hmmm...that's kinda like what Zimmerman claimed he did.

According to the law, the defendant is innocent unless and until he's proven guilty.

The jury does not establish guilt or innocence. The jury establishes whether the prosecution met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Until that burden is met, or there's a guilty plea, the defendant is innocent.

When you conspire to break the law on a prison phone you are in fact dumb.

Nonetheless, I encourage people who believe him just to be an innocent man who got jumped by a thug of a black teen to keeps sending money to him.

Wonder how Zimmerman's lawyer feels knowing that Zimmerman was hiding his fee from him?

Nicely written. Presumption of credibility.

There is no doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin. There is no doubt that Martin was unarmed. There is no doubt that Zim had a loaded gun as he went out in search of Martin.

There is no doubt that Zim is a liar and a manipulator.

I submit that Zim has blown his credibility.

If you accept that, you must believe that there is no credible evidence that Zim killed in self defence.

Zimmerman went looking for trouble and he found it. Now the defense appears to be he went looking for trouble, found it and therefor had the right to kill Trayvon?

Who said Zimmerman's head was being "bashed" against anything? That's what Zimmerman said, but you weren't there so you don't know?

Here's what I know: Trayvon was walking home, Skittles and Tea in hand, to finish watching a basketball game with his Dad. There is nothing, zero, nada, zilch evidence to suggest that on his stroll home Trayvon decided to just go and attack somebody. He was, in fact, talking to his GF on the phone as he walked home. Dems da facts. Anything else is conjecture -- in the extreme.

Listen to the phone calls between Zimmerman and the police. They specifically told him not to get out of his vehicle and pursue Trayvon. Had he stayed in his car Trayvon, unless he was struck by lightning, would be alive today.

True dat.

It's true, and they are equivalent. History is rife with injustices where mobs with torches stormed a jailhouse yelling, 'Let him free! It's entirely possible his story is plausible!'

Yes, and history is replete with stories of people, with torches, stormed a jail and took and lynched a prisoner.

I can tell you a story. Here's one: I got up this morning and saw a Pelican fly over my house.

Sure it's possibly true, but a reasonable man would have serious doubts.

you are accepting as fact what Zimmerman says and discounting the real facts. I'll say it again: Trayvon was walking home from the store to finish watching the basketball game with his Dad. He was eating Skittles and talking on the phone with his GF during the walk home.

Accepting these facts does it sound like Trayvon was looking for trouble?

If you see any mobs with torches storming Zimmerman's jailhouse, let us know.

The jury cannot accept the opinion of a third party on credibility. That's strictly for the jury to decide based on the admissible evidence it has to evaluate. "I don't believe him so you shouldn't either" isn't a valid criterion.

I am an old fart, 55 years of age. My marshal arts training was in my teens.

I have no doubt that if I had one punch on Zim that would pound his head into the pavement, he would not be able to fire a gun.

Martin was a teenage athlete.

Zim claims Martin pounded his head into the pavement, and later Zim shot and killed Martin.

That is just too incredible to believe.

Actually those are counts toward his prison term.

Structuring - the act of avoiding reporting requirements - is also illegal. But these are peculiar transfers anyway as the Currency Transaction Report is only required for CASH deposits over $10,000.  You can wire big amounts all you want to anywhere, you can write checks all you want to anywhere, you can ACH transfer any amount to anywhere without triggering a regulatory "report". (side note: despite all these currency controls that can imprison citizens, the 9/11 terrorist wire to suntrust bank still would not trigger any reports today)

If the donations were the money from his website, then it is already digitized money, in which case it was a pointless thing to do.

Any his idea of avoiding regulatory reports would simply be counts against his character, because his lawyer definitely didn't tell him to do that

The key for the prosecution right now, is to damage Zim's credibility enough to get this to trial. The "stand your ground" law must be overcome.

I think Zim has destroyed his credibility enough to ensure that that happens.

Paraphrasing, here's what Zimmerman said initially: Trayvon was on top of him and had his arms pinned with his knees and was pounding his head against the pavement.

Stop. Visualize yourself pinned as described above. Got that picture? Now try and reach for and pull your gun from your waistband.

The "third person" who is damaging Zimmerman's credibility is Zimmerman.Whe you lie to a judge that tends to happen.

And I've said this before, and I'll say it again:  Why would Trayvon, with no history of violence, suddenly decide to jump Zim and pound his head into the ground, Skittles and iced tea flying everywhere, while his father is in a house nearby, awaiting his return to watch the rest of the basketball game?

Zimmerman's story just defies reason.

A "presumption of innocence."

Is that what you call this?

There is a presumption of innocence but that doesn't mean that he ought not be arrested.

It's not your fault....but you've fallen victim to the the way some people "spin" this. 

Actually, that's NOT what the 911 tapes say. Zimmerman never received any directive by the 911 dispatcher. He was NOT specifically told to "stay in his car", He was NOT told "not get out of his vehicle" and he was NOT told not to pursue Martin.   In fact, (on the tape from 3:40-4:02) Zimmerman told the dispatcher that the police should call him when they arrived, so that he could inform them as to where he was...which pretty clearly indicates that he wouldn't be in his car since he already told them where that was parked at the 3:10 mark on the recording.

Since reading Zimmerman's claim of having his head against the pavement, I haven't been able to figure out how he has anyone who believes his account of the incident.

I don't doubt that his head made contact with the pavement, but not from being "pounded."  He would have likely had a concussion, or at the very least, a fractured skull.

That little cut without any significant swelling didn't appear to jive with someone who'd had their head pounded against hard pavement.  And as you mentioned, by someone with considerable strength.  Not to mention the likely increase of adrenaline and emotions due to being stalked, which might cause someone to go a little "overboard" in that situation.

That claim has never made sense to me.

Here we go again.

1 - You can pretend all you want but you know as well as everyone else that instructions are not always specifically stated. You know EXACTLY what "We don't need you to do that" meant. George knew it. And a jury will certainly know it. This point is even more critical considering the deceptive attempts through the coded talk between George and his wife. It's not spin at all. What it is - is the pretentious nature of killer defenders trying to make the dialogue seem 'innocent'.

2 - (a) later in that conversation Zimmerman did actually say where he would meet them but that in NO WAY  should be taken that he "clearly ... wouldn't be in his car" or even in his own home far removed from the suspect for that matter.

(b) ironically, this point you brought up actually suggest that George had no intention from the onset to let the police handle this matter. You left out George's words right before. Don't worry though, I'll provide them.

Notice how George cut the dispatcher off. What was he thinking? Why was the mailboxes no longer good enough?

Couple that with the notion that, "These assholes. They always get away." It looks pretty bad for the killer.

Do you have PROOF his head wasn't bashed in? That is WASN'T self defense? That he IS lying? No, the only one that can PROVE that is Zimmerman. You can say you THINK he is lying, and some THINK he is. Maybe you should be prosecuted for thinking.

I "think" the prosecutor will have a hard time "PROVING" Martin DIDN'T bash Zimmerman's head in - or that the prosecution had a PROVABLE reason to arrest Zimmerman in the first place. Lynch mob mentality - - or would you like to call this "affirmative" action?

Yes but my response was to Signature Image's incorrect claim that he was specifically told something by the police. He claimed... "They specifically told him not to get out of his vehicle and pursue Trayvon." He was not specifically told that....and it's a incorrect to say that he was.

Yes. I agree. To be more accurate, I should have stated that the 911 tapes indicated that it was clear that Zimmerman may not be in his car.

00siris wrote:
(b) ironically, this point you brought up actually suggest that George had no intention from the onset to let the police handle this matter. You left out George's words right before. Don't worry though, I'll provide them.

I guess you could argue that Zimmerman wanted to shoot Martin all by himself and didn't need the police to help. That seems to be what you are suggesting. That however, would cause me to wonder why he bothered to call the police in the first place. Stupidity maybe. Perhaps he was just a neighborhood volunteer who wanted to reduce crime and wanted to keep an eye on Martin until the police arrived so he could direct them to his whereabouts once they arrived. Any scenario concerning his intentions is pure conjecture.

If Zimmerman wanted to keep an eye on Martin until the police arrived so he could direct them to his whereabouts once they arrived, he really couldn't "stay put" in one location...like his car...or the mailboxes, nobody but Zimmerman knows what he was thinking. It seems however, that even Zimmerman didn't know where he'd be when police arrived, which seems to indicate that he might be moving around. Perhaps his intended movement was to track down, stalk, and pursue Martin so he could steal his Skittles after shooting him...we really don't know. It's possible that he simply intended to keep Martin in sight...and during the 911 call...he lost sight of him. Perhaps he intended to move to regain sight of him.

This whole thing started because to Zimmerman, Martin appeared "suspicious". Suspicious? WTF is "Suspicious?"  Well..I can't define what "suspicious" looks like....but it's interesting to note that it wasn't the first time that Martin looked "suspicious".

In October, a school police investigator said he saw Trayvon on the school surveillance camera in an unauthorized area “hiding and being suspicious.”

Isn't it ironic that Zimmerman and a cop, who likely didn't know each other, in unrelated incidents, months apart, both chose the same exact word (suspicious), to describe Martin's behavior?

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2 … rylink=cpy