17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?

[EvonRose]

Again, you can't claim 'self defense' if you are the one who provoked the confrontation.

If I follow you in the middle of the night in my car, get out and chase after you on foot and then YOU smack me in the face, afterwards I don't have the justification to claim 'self defense' and shoot you dead through the heart.

Eliminate race, pretend Trayvon is a close loved one in your family, then ask yourself was your loved one's death justified or fair because a stranger decided to follow them home because they looked 'suspicious'??

Does that make sense?

At the time of the murder, Zimmerman outweighed this kid by FORTY POUNDS, despite being roughly 4 inches shorter than Trayvon.

This was murder by a paranoid vigilante, plain and simple.

I have said this a few months back o this exact forum, and nobody seems to care unless it's done to them... people are biased because to them, the black kid was at fault because of how he represented himself with the hood and everything. But people fail to see the big picture. He was still a human child, who had a family who loved him, and a possible great future cut short. It's unfair, but people are unfair too. What can you really do?

[giovanni_hotel]

For those who had any doubt, George Zimmerman is a NUT.
It was 'God's plan' that led him to murder Trayvon.

[natina]

zimmerman exposed

notice that during the DA questioning of zimmerman ,he does not remmeber then when he is interviewed on the news he suddenly remmbers all these details.
see transcipts

IMPORTANT READ MORE;
http://wearytravelermusings.blogspot...ell-truth.html

witness # 9

Zimmerman accused of sexual abuse

A new round of evidence released reveals that a woman, identified only as Witness 9, tearfully told Florida authorities investigating Zimmerman that he molested her for 10 years.

The woman, a relative of Zimmerman, recounts incidents that she said began when she was 6 and he was 8.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...BIzDt1dQQf47lP

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimm...ry?id=16807202

the most damaging evidence to zimmerman is when he takes the stand

George Zimmerman Will Not Tell The Truth


George Zimmerman has no interest in expressing fidelity to His Honor, the Court, or the public. When Zimmerman took the witness stand at his 20 April 2012 bond hearing, he lied under oath in two forms: acts of omission and blatant falsehoods.


Zimmerman took the stand to make a self-serving statement in the cloak of an apology, but the message’s audience was for the media and a candid public, not the parents of the slain Trayvon Martin. It should be noted that O’Mara allowed this disrespectful action to be undertaken and His Honor did not stop it, either.

The faux apology given to turn the tide of negative media attention:

O'MARA: You advised me that you wanted to make a short statement, is that correct?
ZIMMERMAN: Correct.
ZIMMERMAN: I wanted to say I am sorry for the loss of your son. I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. And I did not know if he was armed or not.
O'MARA: Nothing further, your honor.

George Zimmerman took the stand and performed for the media. The narrative was starting to change and the fickle media started pretending as if both the dead, unarmed minor, Trayvon Martin, and his confessed killer, George Zimmerman, were victims. This is absolutely incorrect. Man profiled, stalked, chased, and ultimately killed the minor. Those are the facts. Furthermore, Zimmerman lied on the stand about how old he thought Trayvon Martin was. When the non-emergency dispatcher asked how old Zimmerman thought the supposedly “suspicious guy” was, Zimmerman said “late teens.” 17 would classify as late teens. Let’s let that percolate into our collective conscience for a moment. A 28-year-old adult male tells the dispatcher that he believes a minor is indeed a minor and he stills exits his vehicle, with gun holstered, to chase after the “fucking punk” who would not get away. I can’t speak for Angela B. Corey, but when I heard this, I thought for sure any doubt about her over-charging Zimmerman went away.

State’s Attorney asking what took so long for the faux apology:

DE LA RIONDA: I'm sorry, sir, you're not really addressing that to the court. You're doing it here to the victim's family, is that correct?
ZIMMERMAN: They are here in the court, yes.
DE LA RIONDA: I understand. But I thought you were going to address Your Honor, Judge Lester, not -- so that's really addressed to the family and where the media happens to be, correct, Mr. Zimmerman?
ZIMMERMAN: No, to the mother and the father.
DE LA RIONDA: Ok. And tell me, after you committed this crime and you spoke to the police, did you ever make that statement to the police, sir? That you were sorry for what you've done or their loss?
ZIMMERMAN: No sir.
DE LA RIONDA: You never stated that, did you?
ZIMMERMAN: I don't remember what I said. I believe I did say that.
DE LA RIONDA: You told that to the police?
ZIMMERMAN: In one of the statements, I said that I felt sorry for the family.
DE LA RIONDA: You did?
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.
DE LA RIONDA: So that would be recorded because all those conversations were recorded, right?
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.
DE LA RIONDA: And you're sure you said that?
ZIMMERMAN: I'm fairly certain.
DE LA RIONDA: And so which officer did you tell that to? You made five statements I believe, total.
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir, I'm sorry, all the names run together.
DE LA RIONDA: And do you remember if it was a male or a female?
ZIMMERMAN: There were both males and females.
DE LA RIONDA: At the time you made that statement that you were sorry?
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.
DE LA RIONDA: And let me make sure the record's clear, you stated exactly what to those detectives?
ZIMMERMAN: I don't remember exactly what -- verbatim.
DE LA RIONDA: But you're saying you expressed concern for the loss of Mr. Martin, or that you had shot Mr. Martin, that you actually felt sorry for him?
ZIMMERMAN: I felt sorry that they lost their child, yes.
DE LA RIONDA: And so you told detectives that you wanted them to convey that to the parents?
ZIMMERMAN: I don't know if they were detectives or not.
DE LA RIONDA: Officers, I apologize.
ZIMMERMAN: I didn't know if they were going to convey it or not. I just made the statement.
DE LA RIONDA: Ok. And then you said that you called them or you left a message for them to tell them that?
ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.
DE LA RIONDA: Why did you wait 50 something days to tell them -- that is, the parents?
ZIMMERMAN: I don't understand the question, sir.
DE LA RIONDA: Why did you wait so long to tell Mr. Martin and the victim's mother, the father and mother, why did you wait so long to tell them?
ZIMMERMAN: I was told not to communicate with them.
DE LA RIONDA: Ok. So even through your attorney, you didn't ask to do it right away? Your former attorneys or anything.
ZIMMERMAN: I did ask them to express that to them. And they said that they were going to.

Zimmerman isn’t a very good liar, or at least he isn’t a believable one. When De La Rionda asked if he expressed the same sentiment to the police that he was expressing 50+ days later in His Honor’s Court, he said, “no.” Then he says he did express the sentiment. When De La Rionda asked who he told that too, he resorts back to the tried and the true, “I don’t know/I can’t remember” line that he used when he was questioned by Serino. I’ll get to that in a moment. I’m sure it’s not going to come as a surprise, but I’ve listened to everything that was released by George Zimmerman Legal Case, and I can tell you all that he never expressed remorse, contrition, or anything resembling sorrow for killing an unarmed minor. Before the stress test, he does ask a female police officer if she slept well, and he does ask her if she has “ever had to kill anybody,” as if trying to draw some parallels between the murder of Trayvon Martin and her job as a trained law enforcement agent. She seemed a bit perplexed/annoyed to me and answered “no/nope.” Real law enforcement agents are trained to use deadly force as a last resort, not a first option. So this is lie #2 given by George Zimmerman at his 20 April 2012 bond hearing.

George Zimmerman perjuring himself under oath about what was said to Serino/others:

DE LA RIONDA: But before you committed this crime on February 26th, you were arrested -- I'm sorry, not arrested. You were questioned that day, right, February 26th?
ZIMMERMAN: That evening into the 27th.
DE LA RIONDA: And then the following morning. Is that correct?
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.
DE LA RIONDA: And the following evening, too. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.
DE LA RIONDA: Ok. Would it be fair to say you were questioned about four or five times?
ZIMMERMAN: I remember giving three statements, yes sir.
DE LA RIONDA: And isn't it true that in some of those statement when you were confronted about your inconsistencies, you started "I don't remember"?
O'MARA: Outside the scope of direct examination. I will object your honor.
JUDGE LESTER: We'll give you a little bit of leeway. Not a whole lot but a little bit here, ok.
DE LA RIONDA: Isn't it true that when you were questioned about the contradictions in your statements that the police didn't believe it, that you would say "I don't remember"?
JUDGE LESTER: I'm going to grant his motion at this time.
O'MARA: Thank you, your honor.
DE LA RIONDA: Would you agree you changed your story as it went along?
ZIMMERMAN: Absolutely not.

Zimmerman’s most egregious lie is above. De La Rionda asked Zimmerman about how many statements he gave. Zimmerman replies. De La Rionda asked Zimmerman if he said “I don’t remember?” when Serino/Singleton poked holes in his account of what happened, using the non-emergency phone call to do so, and Zimmerman replied matter-of-factly, “Absolutely not.” Folks, that is the third lie to His Honor’s Court. George Zimmerman Legal Case has the audio still up. It is up for anyone who wants to listen to it. Make no mistake, when asked about things that didn’t add up, Zimmerman would say “I don’t know/I don’t remember.” When it was clear that Serino/Singleton were playing bad cop or no longer believed him, Zimmerman got defensive, lied, and omitted facts. He told the dispatcher he was following Trayvon. On the February 29, 2012, part 3 of the interview with Serino/Singleton; he said he wasn’t following, but walking in the same direction. When asked what type of running Trayvon was doing, he said he couldn’t remember/didn’t know. When asked why he got out of his car, Singleton bluntly said, “That isn’t what you told me.”


George Zimmerman is going to assert an affirmative defense in his second-degree murder trial. If Zimmerman has no interest in expressing fidelity to the truth in His Honor’s Court, I wouldn’t be making any long term plans for the future unless they included a prison facility.
http://wearytravelermusings.blogspot...ell-truth.html

Zimmerman Defense Witnesses Undercut Defense On Cross-Examination At Second Bond Hearing
http://wearytravelermusings.blogspot...-undercut.html

Character & Credibility: The Zimmerman Family
http://wearytravelermusings.blogspot...an-family.html

George Zimmerman Will Not Tell The Truth

http://wearytravelermusings.blogspot...ell-truth.html

[natina]

Jerome Ersland Gets Life for Gunning Down 16-Year-Old Drug Store Robber

SEE VIDEO

On today's episode of Great Moral Dilemmas of the Day, we bring you the perplexing case of a vigilante pharmacist. The year was 2009, and Jerome Ersland was working at Reliable Pharmacy, the store he owned in Oklahoma City. It would not be a good day...

Two armed punks came in and tried to rob the store. Ersland, not a druggist to be trifled with, pulled out a gun and shot 16-year-old Antwun Parker in the head.

Video of the incident shows the second mope fleeing. Ersland follows him out of the store, but the bad guy is already gone.

It would seem an open and shut case of self-defense -- until security cameras depict what happened next.

Erland returned to the store and could be seen digging for something behind the counter. Then he retrieved another gun and methodically moved toward Parker, who was laying wounded on the floor. Just to make sure Parker lost his interest in robbery, Ersland pumped him full of five more bullets, killing him.

In Oklahoma City, he was hailed as a hero for taking out a bad guy. Parker's accomplices, Anthony Morrison and Emanuel Mitchell, were subsequently convicted of first-degree murder in the death of their friend, plus conspiracy for organizing the heist.

But jurors didn't seem so enthralled with Ersland once they learned the full breadth of the incident. In court, his defense was hoping to shoot for a manslaughter charge. The jury decided instead to convict him of murder.

He won't be sentenced till July 11, but he faces the possibility of life with parole.

So what do you think, dearest reader? Was this a case of a man simply protecting himself and his employees? Or was this merely a cold-blooded execution disguised as heroism?

SEE VIDEO

http://www.truecrimereport.com/2011/...life_for_g.php

[GroobySteven]

the black kid was at fault because of how he represented himself with the hood and everything.

Are you fucking kidding. It was raining. He wore his hood up. I do that.

[natina]

many people wear hoodies ,beenies and or ski mask in the rain.

zimmerman just has issues that rewuire 25 years to life in prison to help resolve.

HEY CHECK OUT THE ZIMMERMAN TRANSCRIPTS ABOVE OR BELOW!
HEAR THE DA EXAMINE ZIMMERMAN AND HE GETS CAUGHT IN A TANGLED WEB


http://wearytravelermusings.blogspot...ell-truth.html

[Stavros]

I don't understand how someone on bail for murder can be allowed to appear on TV to give his side of the story before the trial has even taken place. I am trying to think if it has happened in a criminal case in the UK but I can't recall one. Just today a policeman who was accused of causing the death of a man who was drunk in the middle of a demonstration, and, having been struck by the policeman fell to the ground and died shortly thereafter, was found not guilty by a jury. But the court was not given a history of the policeman's record prior to the incident, which shows that he had been disciplined for violent actions against suspects so many times some felt he should not even be on the force. The point being that a trial must be about the event regardless of the personal histories of the people involved before it.

If you want to read about it, its here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...n-Harwood.html

[Stavros]

I don't understand how someone on bail for murder can be allowed to appear on TV to give his side of the story before the trial has even taken place. I am trying to think if it has happened in a criminal case in the UK but I can't recall one. Just today a policeman who was accused of causing the death of a man who was drunk in the middle of a demonstration, and, having been struck by the policeman fell to the ground and died shortly thereafter, was found not guilty by a jury. But the court was not given a history of the policeman's record prior to the incident, which shows that he had been disciplined for violent actions against suspects so many times some felt he should not even be on the force. The point being that a trial must be about the event regardless of the personal histories of the people involved before it.

If you want to read about it, its here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...n-Harwood.html

I should add, found not guilty of manslaughter.

[Queens Guy]

I don't understand how someone on bail for murder can be allowed to appear on TV to give his side of the story before the trial has even taken place. I am trying to think if it has happened in a criminal case in the UK but I can't recall one. Just today a policeman who was accused of causing the death of a man who was drunk in the middle of a demonstration, and, having been struck by the policeman fell to the ground and died shortly thereafter, was found not guilty by a jury. But the court was not given a history of the policeman's record prior to the incident, which shows that he had been disciplined for violent actions against suspects so many times some felt he should not even be on the force. The point being that a trial must be about the event regardless of the personal histories of the people involved before it.

If you want to read about it, its here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...n-Harwood.html

Generally speaking, in the US the lawyer for the accused would strongly advise him to not discuss the case to anybody, much less to give an interview on TV. I think some lawyers have even asked judges for permission to drop a client because of them not following this advice.

I think the US has different rules than the UK does about what the media can report about a case before the verdict. Can the UK media report the kind of things that the US media has been reporting? Or are they not allowed to?

Even under US rules, this case is very different than the average case. This case is very much a trial by media, where the media has had to retract some of their reports, which were the result of their own technical analysis of audio and videotape, which they had complete control over, as opposed to an interview with a witness.

The chance of finding a juror who hasn't heard about this case is very slim. So, the defense is trying to let those potential jurors hear things that are favorable to the defense. Make Zimmerman less of 'a monster'.

Also, if he is seen as less of 'a monster', it decreases the chance of riots if he is eventually found not guilty.

[EvonRose]

Are you fucking kidding. It was raining. He wore his hood up. I do that.

Seanchai! I am on Trayvon's side please read the whole paragraph in this case maybe you wouldn't misunderstand.