George Zimmerman Arrested On Domestic Violence And Weapons Charge

[Nexus]

Every single situation, not including when he murdered Trayvon, Zimmerman was the aggressor and Zimmerman was the liar. Even if I did not know anything else about the Trayvon Martin case, the fact that Zimmerman had a history of being the aggressor and then lying about it after tells me he was the aggressor against Trayvon, and then lied about it.

And every situation the asshole has gotten himself into since then, he has been the aggressor and the liar.

Exactly, its about the probabilities. I don't have to have been there or read minds. The probability Zimmerman is a thug and starts shit is beyond very likely.

Dave Chapelle had a funny bit about the Incredible Hulk tv show. He joked that we were supposed to root for the Hulk because he always saved Bill Bixby from getting his ass kicked. But he asked the question what was Bill/David Banner doing to cause people every week to kick his ass. David Banner was the common denominator for all the ass kickings maybe he needed to evaluate his life and make some changes.

But Zimmerman isn't a super hero living his life to a script that forces him to defend himself from bad guys. And we don't need a Zimmerman PI or The Renegade tales from the Zimmerman Files. He needs to quit fucking with people even if he thinks he is a force for good.

 

[arkirk]

For the love of guns and our tattered constitution, why don't you people quit picking in this innocent law abiding killer? Black people and women are attacking him regularly. The guy is trouble. Letting him have guns is double trouble...I mean real trouble...like dead people that didn't need to be dead.

 

[Eldarion Lathria]

You know George Zimmerman is a Hispanic. Therefore any criticism of him is RACIST! RACIST! RACIST!

Eldarion Lathria

 

[EPresence2]

Now if we're going to start going down the road of character evaluation, why leave out all the other things going on with Zimmerman? Like the spat of robberies in his neighborhood and description of the suspects - maybe his paranoia was somewhat justified. For better or worse, he was also the neighborhood watch captain - yet he stepped over the line to follow a suspicious person. There were other things going on with this guy that a selective focus tends to leave out. Why don't we also go into details about TM's life that suggest a tendency to react violently? I reckon you expect the "other side" to do that - well fuck the "sides" (e.g. GZ or TM defenders). The facts of the case didn't support the charge. They still don't. What happened to Zimmerman after the case is really irrelevant to that case. If you keep telling someone they are a monster (e.g., death threats, lampooning), they may find it easier to become one.

My post was a direct response to what you wrote. You said you weren't all that sure the pre-TM history of GZ is all that damning. I gave a quick run-down of the damning parts. Zimmerman had a documented history of violence and domestic turmoil. Now you are suggesting we commit a Tu Quoque fallacy, but even if we ignore the obvious flaw that argument still doesn't work. There just isn't anything in Martin's history that compares with throwing a cop against a wall, or a woman to the pavement, or a fight so bad the courts handed down a Restraining Order. There's really no comparison.

You are one of many it seems making a case that Zimmerman was scum before the incident with TM. Who are you to decide he was more bad than good and only getting worse? Humans aren't cartoon heroes or villains. I am also not privy to your asserted comprehensive analysis. Nor do you know all the things I'm considering in not labeling either GZ or TM before the incident took place. It's rather pretentious from my point of view to claim "nothing compares." Maybe TM got pissed off because a fat little prick was following him and decided to teach him a lesson. Why isn't that more or less probable than GZ trying to detain a suspect? Martin looks a hell of a lot faster than Zimmerman - why didn't he just run? I've read nothing about any attempts to detain suspects prior to TM. And it is not clear that GZ was trying to detain TM from the phone call testimony. However multiple witnesses claimed to have seen Martin on top and pounding Zimmerman. The paranoid prick could have been lying about who started the physical altercation, but our justice system does not work based on what you feel he must have lied about.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Exactly. Zimmerman is scum. That doesn't remove the right of self defense, though.

Just a few days ago, i seem to recall a case in which a guy thought things were about to go sideways, so he went to his car to get his gun, and shot the guy who came at him. For some reason, there was widespread agreement that he had no right to self-defense. But Z did essentially the same thing, after being told not to by the police dispatcher, and somehow he magically did have the right to self-defense.

What is the difference? The fact that the victim of the shooting is still alive, and able to contradict the shooter's account? Or simply the skin color of the people involved? Because it sure as fuck isn't that the situations were radically different.

The case was presented here because some of us feel he did have a valid self-defense argument--and note that in that case the facts were uncontested. Everyone agreed about what went down, the only question was whether his actions were legal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Zimmerman defenders continuously discount the fact Martin had a legitimate fear for his life and safety. He was being followed by a creep from a car in a dark neighborhood. I and many others have shared our own experiences of being followed at night by a stranger with unknown intentions. I posted several times that in my case, as soon as I realized a guy was following me and my girlfriends I started looking for a nice big tree branch I might use to defend us if the guy attacked. I was preparing to whoop-ass, as Martin might have been. That does not mean I would have attacked or that Martin did attack. If it truly was the case that Martin was ready to defend himself, he had reason and he had the right.

Trayvon successfully broke contact--that basically invalidates any self-defense based on what came before. He chose to re-engage without any legal need to. (He did have a reason--while he had broken contact with Zimmerman the cops would have found him. To remain out of sight was to get busted.)

 

[Arctish]

My post was a direct response to what you wrote. You said you weren't all that sure the pre-TM history of GZ is all that damning. I gave a quick run-down of the damning parts. Zimmerman had a documented history of violence and domestic turmoil. Now you are suggesting we commit a Tu Quoque fallacy, but even if we ignore the obvious flaw that argument still doesn't work. There just isn't anything in Martin's history that compares with throwing a cop against a wall, or a woman to the pavement, or a fight so bad the courts handed down a Restraining Order. There's really no comparison.

You are one of many it seems making a case that Zimmerman was scum before the incident with TM. Who are you to decide he was more bad than good and only getting worse? Humans aren't cartoon heroes or villains.

I am not saying he was scum. I am saying he had a documented history of confrontations and violence that predates his encounter with Trayvon Martin. I said it because it's both true and relevant.

I am also not privy to your asserted comprehensive analysis. Nor do you know all the things I'm considering in not labeling either GZ or TM before the incident took place. It's rather pretentious from my point of view to claim "nothing compares."

It's not pretentious. It's true. There is nothing in Trayvon Martin's documented history that compares with being arrested for felony assault of a police officer and a plea deal to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor. There is nothing in his record that compares to a judge issuing a restraining order and telling him to keep away from someone for a year.

Maybe TM got pissed off because a fat little prick was following him and decided to teach him a lesson.

Maybe Zimmerman is a bi-sexual sadist who enjoys chaining up black teenaged boys in an abandoned storage unit and making them his sex slaves. And maybe I'm a Chinese jet pilot. But that's neither here nor there in a discussion of matters of public record.

Why isn't that more or less probable than GZ trying to detain a suspect?

If Zimmerman tried to detain Martin then he committed an assault. If he tried to physically restrain Martin then Zimmerman committed assault and battery and provided ample cause for Martin to fight back in self defense. It makes no difference whether Zimmerman thought of Martin as a suspect; he had no authority or right to interfere with Martin, or any other American citizen for that matter, who was minding his own business and walking on a public sidewalk.

Martin looks a hell of a lot faster than Zimmerman - why didn't he just run?

Google an image of Zimmerman the night he was arrested, before he packed on the pounds. And keep in mind Zimmerman was getting MMA training at a gym 3 times a week. He wasn't fat the night he chased after Martin, although I don't dispute your calling him a prick.

I've read nothing about any attempts to detain suspects prior to TM. And it is not clear that GZ was trying to detain TM from the phone call testimony. However multiple witnesses claimed to have seen Martin on top and pounding Zimmerman. The paranoid prick could have been lying about who started the physical altercation, but our justice system does not work based on what you feel he must have lied about.

It should have worked based on what the cops knew he lied about, and what everyone knows to be true based on public records and facts in evidence. But even if there was insufficient evidence to convict him at the trial, that's no reason to pretend there isn't a pattern to his troubles with the law.

ETA: only one witness said he saw Martin on top, and at trial he said all he saw were downward arm motions. He could not tell if they were offensive or defensive motions. Another witness said the guy on top stood up right after the shot was fired. Obviously she was referring to Zimmerman.

 

[laughing dog]

The paranoid prick could have been lying about who started the physical altercation, but our justice system does not work based on what you feel he must have lied about.

The fact Zimmerman evaded conviction contradicts your claim. You seem to miss the entire point. There were a number of posters who dragged Martin's life into the picture to somehow show he was a thug/thief/druggie who deserved what he got while simultaneously denying Zimmerman's history was relevant. BTW, the same posters have tried to do the same with Michael Brown while simultaneously denying that Wilson's history is relevant. At best, it is hypocrisy.

 

[Arctish]

Zimmerman defenders continuously discount the fact Martin had a legitimate fear for his life and safety. He was being followed by a creep from a car in a dark neighborhood. I and many others have shared our own experiences of being followed at night by a stranger with unknown intentions. I posted several times that in my case, as soon as I realized a guy was following me and my girlfriends I started looking for a nice big tree branch I might use to defend us if the guy attacked. I was preparing to whoop-ass, as Martin might have been. That does not mean I would have attacked or that Martin did attack. If it truly was the case that Martin was ready to defend himself, he had reason and he had the right.

Trayvon successfully broke contact--that basically invalidates any self-defense based on what came before. He chose to re-engage without any legal need to. (He did have a reason--while he had broken contact with Zimmerman the cops would have found him. To remain out of sight was to get busted.)

Trayvon Martin was unsuccessful in his attempt to avoid Zimmerman. Both Zimmerman and Jeantel stated that Martin was trying to get away, and we all know he failed.

I have no idea why you think Martin would have been "busted". He had a legal right to go to a 7-11, make a purchase, and walk home on that sidewalk. Or rather, I do have an idea but it requires you to still be peddling that stupid story about purple drank despite the fact Martin had none of the ingredients.

 

[Jayjay]

Trayvon successfully broke contact--that basically invalidates any self-defense based on what came before. He chose to re-engage without any legal need to. (He did have a reason--while he had broken contact with Zimmerman the cops would have found him. To remain out of sight was to get busted.)

Trayvon Martin was unsuccessful in his attempt to avoid Zimmerman. Both Zimmerman and Jeantel stated that Martin was trying to get away, and we all know he failed.

If by "failed" you mean, "turned back for some reason after Zimmerman lost him", then yes. We don't know what transpired between the two after they noticed each other but it seems that Martin did get away at first.

 

[Arctish]

Trayvon Martin was unsuccessful in his attempt to avoid Zimmerman. Both Zimmerman and Jeantel stated that Martin was trying to get away, and we all know he failed.

If by "failed" you mean, "turned back for some reason after Zimmerman lost him", then yes. We don't know what transpired between the two after they noticed each other but it seems that Martin did get away at first.

Then no. There is no evidence that Martin turned back. The only evidence we have regarding Martin's choice of action comes from what Zimmerman told the 911 dispatcher and what Jeantel told the police and the court. Both stated Martin was trying to avoid Zimmerman. There is no evidence whatsoever that Martin changed his mind.

There is evidence Martin resumed walking home after he thought Zimmerman was gone, but that's not the same thing as turning back to reengage.

 

[Jayjay]

If by "failed" you mean, "turned back for some reason after Zimmerman lost him", then yes. We don't know what transpired between the two after they noticed each other but it seems that Martin did get away at first.

Then no. There is no evidence that Martin turned back. The only evidence we have regarding Martin's choice of action comes from what Zimmerman told the 911 dispatcher and what Jeantel told the police and the court. Both stated Martin was trying to avoid Zimmerman. There is no evidence whatsoever that Martin changed his mind.

There is evidence Martin resumed walking home after he thought Zimmerman was gone, but that's not the same thing as turning back to reengage.

Eh, I might have missed some of the details at the time it was discussed. But I thought Martin's home was in the same direction where he moved to evade Zimmerman, i.e. the path between the houses?

 

[Mumbles]

Then no. There is no evidence that Martin turned back. The only evidence we have regarding Martin's choice of action comes from what Zimmerman told the 911 dispatcher and what Jeantel told the police and the court. Both stated Martin was trying to avoid Zimmerman. There is no evidence whatsoever that Martin changed his mind.

There is evidence Martin resumed walking home after he thought Zimmerman was gone, but that's not the same thing as turning back to reengage.

Eh, I might have missed some of the details at the time it was discussed. But I thought Martin's home was in the same direction where he moved to evade Zimmerman, i.e. the path between the houses?

We can't be sure, although it's possible. Jeantel can't really say where Martin fled, as she was only listening via phone, and Zimmerman's story contradicts his own 311 call so badly that it's completely impossible. At most, Martin stopped simply to be sure that he did not lead the strange man following him directly back to his house, only to have Zimmerman turn a corner and confront (and apparently push or grab) him.

But getting back to things, Zimmerman's had two complete strangers, three girlfriends, one spouse, one father in law, one policeman, and one coworker, who have all alleged that he became violent around them, as well as one person who we know that he was chasing, that he ended up shooting. And that's between the ages of 18 and 31.

That's...a lot of people. The guy needs real help, at best.

- - - Updated - - -

Why are people still Stanning for this violent dude George Zimmerman?

Because to do otherwise would mean those people were wrong, and more than that, they chose the immoral side.

Wrong and immoral is an admission that is not going to happen.

Fair enough. I do find it odd, myself, but...eh.

Learned a new word today. I thought it was a typo the first time. But the repeats made me look it up.

Stanning
The act of being overly obsessed with an artist/person/character/etc.

STalker + fAN = STAN

Eminem's song "Stan" embodied all the aspects of what it means to be a huge fanatic of a music artist, and the word has since been used to encompass all obsessive fan behavior.
My Xander love comes from my Buffy stanning.

I've been stanning Beyonce for so long I couldn't stop if I wanted to.

Learn something new every day.

Bows

 

[RavenSky]

The case was presented here because some of us feel he did have a valid self-defense argument--and note that in that case the facts were uncontested. Everyone agreed about what went down, the only question was whether his actions were legal.

Trayvon successfully broke contact--that basically invalidates any self-defense based on what came before. He chose to re-engage without any legal need to. (He did have a reason--while he had broken contact with Zimmerman the cops would have found him. To remain out of sight was to get busted.)

All of this is the most false revisionist history I've ever seen related to the murder of Trayvon Martin. No one agrees about "what went down" as your posts clearly show. Trayvon never "successfully broker contact" - he was shot dead trying to. Trayvon never "re-engaged" - that has zero basis in fact.

And you must be confusing Michael Brown with Trayvon Martin at this point. Easy to do. Trayvon was a relatively small skinny black teenager, while Michael Brown was a large tall black teenager - they looked totally alike... to you.

Nevertheless, Trayvon would not have been busted by the cops because he had not done anything wrong.

But you keep right on defending the violent thug Zimmerman as he continues to attack person after person after person.

 

[EPresence2]

You are one of many it seems making a case that Zimmerman was scum before the incident with TM. Who are you to decide he was more bad than good and only getting worse? Humans aren't cartoon heroes or villains.

I am not saying he was scum. I am saying he had a documented history of confrontations and violence that predates his encounter with Trayvon Martin. I said it because it's both true and relevant.

You have three incidents without anything else about his life at the time. This is biased.

I am also not privy to your asserted comprehensive analysis. Nor do you know all the things I'm considering in not labeling either GZ or TM before the incident took place. It's rather pretentious from my point of view to claim "nothing compares."

It's not pretentious. It's true. There is nothing in Trayvon Martin's documented history that compares with being arrested for felony assault of a police officer and a plea deal to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor. There is nothing in his record that compares to a judge issuing a restraining order and telling him to keep away from someone for a year.

Yet you say nothing about TM's history other than your characterization of it. Though I would tend to agree there is nothing like a conviction or restraining order in that history. I thought you were talking about Zimmerman and people that get themselves in similar situations.

Maybe TM got pissed off because a fat little prick was following him and decided to teach him a lesson.

Maybe Zimmerman is a bi-sexual sadist who enjoys chaining up black teenaged boys in an abandoned storage unit and making them his sex slaves. And maybe I'm a Chinese jet pilot. But that's neither here nor there in a discussion of matters of public record.

That is not a credible projection - what I said is plausible. It is also plausible that GZ was trying to restrain TM (if he could catch em). It's okay to own up to your own projections.

Why isn't that more or less probable than GZ trying to detain a suspect?

If Zimmerman tried to detain Martin then he committed an assault. If he tried to physically restrain Martin then Zimmerman committed assault and battery and provided ample cause for Martin to fight back in self defense. It makes no difference whether Zimmerman thought of Martin as a suspect; he had no authority or right to interfere with Martin, or any other American citizen for that matter, who was minding his own business and walking on a public sidewalk.

Court trials aren't decided based on IF-THEN statements without evidence.

Martin looks a hell of a lot faster than Zimmerman - why didn't he just run?

Google an image of Zimmerman the night he was arrested, before he packed on the pounds. And keep in mind Zimmerman was getting MMA training at a gym 3 times a week. He wasn't fat the night he chased after Martin, although I don't dispute your calling him a prick.

So Zimmerman chased him down? You might want to read the phone testimony again.

I've read nothing about any attempts to detain suspects prior to TM. And it is not clear that GZ was trying to detain TM from the phone call testimony. However multiple witnesses claimed to have seen Martin on top and pounding Zimmerman. The paranoid prick could have been lying about who started the physical altercation, but our justice system does not work based on what you feel he must have lied about.

It should have worked based on what the cops knew he lied about, and what everyone knows to be true based on public records and facts in evidence. But even if there was insufficient evidence to convict him at the trial, that's no reason to pretend there isn't a pattern to his troubles with the law.

ETA: only one witness said he saw Martin on top, and at trial he said all he saw were downward arm motions. He could not tell if they were offensive or defensive motions. Another witness said the guy on top stood up right after the shot was fired. Obviously she was referring to Zimmerman.

What did he lie about that pertained to the lack of a conviction? And more than one witness said TM was on top. How many credible witnesses indicated the opposite or couldn't say for sure? So you think that GZ not only tried to detain TM but was also on top and pounding followed by shooting the guy under him? Seriously? Maybe GZ was on the balance beam between falling into a pattern of criminal behavior and being the force for law enforcement he so desperately wanted. Many a felon looking to be rehabilitated are on that balance beam as well - are they hopeless? He's definitely FUBAR now, in any case. But at the time of the incident, he (and Martin) did not deserve some of the character assassination that was going on. For example, one shouldn't leave out the spat of robberies in his neighborhood and what the suspects looked like and expect to be considered impartial. Being the night watchman, he felt compelled to follow someone he (honestly?) thought was suspicious. You don't need to white-wash your case to make it more compelling.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Curious, why is it okay that GZ followed TM in the first place?

 

[Jayjay]

Curious, why is it okay that GZ followed TM in the first place?

Doesn't GZ have the same right to walk around in his neighbourhood as TM?

As for following TM in particular, he was member of the neighbourhood watch and saw a guy he thought was acting suspiciously. Simply following TM to see where he went seems reasonable and within his rights.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Trayvon successfully broke contact--that basically invalidates any self-defense based on what came before. He chose to re-engage without any legal need to. (He did have a reason--while he had broken contact with Zimmerman the cops would have found him. To remain out of sight was to get busted.)

Trayvon Martin was unsuccessful in his attempt to avoid Zimmerman. Both Zimmerman and Jeantel stated that Martin was trying to get away, and we all know he failed.

I have no idea why you think Martin would have been "busted". He had a legal right to go to a 7-11, make a purchase, and walk home on that sidewalk. Or rather, I do have an idea but it requires you to still be peddling that stupid story about purple drank despite the fact Martin had none of the ingredients.

Trayvon *had* broken contact--Zimmerman didn't know where he was and Trayvon had to be able to see that. Obviously, Trayvon was hiding somewhere nearby.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Curious, why is it okay that GZ followed TM in the first place?

Because GZ felt that TM was casing houses. They had a burglar in the neighborhood that had been described as black, GZ felt that TM was likely that burglar (and from what came out afterwards he was probably right) and he was calling in the cops on him.

 

[RavenSky]

Curious, why is it okay that GZ followed TM in the first place?

Doesn't GZ have the same right to walk around in his neighbourhood as TM?

As for following TM in particular, he was member of the neighbourhood watch and saw a guy he thought was acting suspiciously. Simply following TM to see where he went seems reasonable and within his rights.

Zimmerman was not just walking around his neighborhood like Trayvon was. Zimmerman was driving to the store (per his own testimony) and specifically stopped to follow Trayvon. No, Zimmerman did not have the "right" to stalk people.

As for following Trayvon in particular, no Zimmerman was not the neighborhood watch captain, unless you think just claiming to be one is sufficient. In that case, I am a royal princess.

As for his "suspicions" - I have my own suspicions as to why Zimmerman would be suspicious of a teenager JUST because he was walking through the neighborhood, but I will allow that if he was so suspicious then calling 911 was the appropriate action. But that should have been the ONLY action Zimmerman took. Following the teenager was NOT AT ALL reasonable, nor "well within his rights." It was an aggressive dangerous action that he was told not to do. If Trayvon really had been the thug some of you accuse him of being, Zimmerman could have ended up dead. As it was, Zimmerman stalked Trayvon, confronted Trayvon, and killed Trayvon. NONE of that was "well within his rights" to do.