George Zimmerman Found Not Guilty; Believed It Was ‘God’s Plan’ For Him To Kill Trayvon Martin

George Zimmerman, who was found not guilty of the manslaughter of Trayvon Martin earlier tonight, said in an 2012 interview with Sean Hannity that killing Trayvon was part of God’s plan. He’s not going to argue with the Big Guy – and, apparently, neither did the jury:



About Terry Firma

Terry Firma, though born and Journalism-school-educated in Europe, has lived in the U.S. for the past 20-odd years. Stateside, his feature articles have been published in the New York Times, Reason, Rolling Stone, Playboy, and Wired. Terry is the founder and Main Mischief Maker of Moral Compass, a site that pokes fun at the delusional claim by people of faith that a belief in God equips them with superior moral standards.

  • Mr. Pantaloons

    “Someone died in a conflict that probably didn’t need to happen! Praise Jesus!”

    Personally, nothing is a greater confirmation of my atheism than the fact that, in almost every circumstance where the distinction matters most, the only change that faith produces is that its adherents stop saying, “The Devil made me do it!” and instead say “God lets me do it!” when referring to exactly the same circumstances and results.

    • brianmacker

      It would not have been unusual If Trayvon Martin’s mother had made the same kind of statement. It is the Christian version of coping when bad shit happens to you. Make no mistake, this was horrible for Zimmerman.

      • Mr. Pantaloons

        I can certainly understand that reasoning – although boiling down bad shit to simply “God works in mysterious ways” is, to me, the core of everything wrong with theism in general; the rest is just photoshop and war profiteering, with a heavy dose of stockholme syndrome on the part of everyone else lacking either. “Why do bad things happen to good people and vice versa? Well, only god knows, and he’s not talking! Better not question him just to be on the safe side of Pascal’s Wager!”

        I’m not interpreting this specifically as his belief that the whole thing was actively God’s will, so much as taking issue with the general idea that god finds it permissible at all, and running with it publicly. As far as Zimmerman wanting to make a statement to combo-breaker Hannity’s sensationalized interrogation, I think he could have pretty easily done better than to imply god’s approval of the proceedings. Obviously, I’m just an armchair critic here like anyone else, but bringing god into the equation at all seems careless no matter what the strain on him has been.

        • brianmacker

          Read Richard Wade’s comment on this. Look I think the catchall explanation “God did it” or “God’s plan” is stupid, but frankly this is not an incident you can blame on Christianity. The reason Zimmerman was a neighborhood watchman was crime (and likely for drugs) and the reason Martin got belligerent is because he was into the kind of thug culture that does such crimes. Smoking weed, doing cough syrup, participating in street fights, burglarizing and stealing jewllery, marking up the school, punching out bus drivers, being kicked out of school. If you saw the trial then you saw the kind of person his girlfriend was. Didn’t give enough of a shit about her friend to even be concerned about him not calling after she knew he was in a fight and dropped his phone. Not caring enough to want to testify for her friend. His parents knew he was kicked out of school and left him alone at home to wander the streets after midnight. PLus had so little contact with him they were totally unaware he was missing.

          • Noah Smith

            So a moody teenager deserves death.

            • brianmacker

              Straw ….. man, but you knew that right? Or are you stupid?

              • RobMcCune

                So then what is the point of your long tirades?

                • brianmacker

                  What is the point of your short moronic question?

                • RobMcCune

                  I was trying to write in sentences even you can understand.

                • brianmacker

                  So you admit I understood it correctly thanks, you are a moron.

              • Noah Smith

                Your replies are getting shorter and shorter, are you running out of steam?

          • 3lemenope

            Smoking weed, doing cough syrup…

            If you knew the first thing about these activities, you’d know at least that it is very difficult to be violent or threatening while under the influence of the first, and basically impossible under the second (dextromethorphan is a dissociative anaesthetic at recreational does; he wouldn’t be able to walk, much less throw a punch).

            • brianmacker

              As usually you make all sorts of stupid deductions on my behalf to come up with some really asinine conclusion, and a straw man argument. There was no evidence he was on cough syrup that night. There is evidence he abused the stuff, and it is not exactly the kind of habit that makes you more reasonable when you are not on the stuff. How about you look that up?

              You also make stupid assumptions about my own knowledge, and about what you take to be facts. How do you know what I know about drug abuse?

              What he was on that night was pot and that makes some people paranoid. It is not clear exactly how high he was but it was borderline. This could certainly effect his judgment.

              How do you address the fact that his THC levels were whatever they were (and judged by the forensic guy as actively under the influence), and the damage to Zimmerman’s face and head, plus the eyewitness, Good, 15 feet away observing Trayvon pounding the shit out of Zimmerman, and not stopping when asked to?

              I mean don’t you feel embarrassed for making claims about it being “very difficult to be violent or threatening” under the influence of pot when hard evidence was staring you in the face that you are wrong. I did a quick internet search and there are lots of stories of guys getting into and even starting fights while on pot. One guy claimed ot get high and then go into school and start a fight where he punched another kid right in the nose, and was proud he provoked it.

              I hate to break this too you but you can smoke marijuana and function pretty much normally.

              I also like how you ignored the point of the comments about pot and syrup. What do you suppose the real point was in context? Assume I’m smarter than you, and see what you can come up with. It wasn’t to claim he was doing purple drank that night, or even planned to make some. I think the idea he bought skittles to make purple drank also laughable. Look at the context.

              You see the fact you ignored all that other proven bad behavior (like punching bus drivers in the nose) and focused on what you thought was the weakest point (ignoring he very strong central point) shows could not address the argument. Especially because you had to invent a straw man to knock down.

          • C.L. Honeycutt

            Marijuana and cough syrup make people LESS violent.

            Trying to condemn the kid because you consider his girlfriend and parents bad people? Do I really have to spell out the problem there?

            Gosh, I don’t know WHAT sort of parents could POSSIBLY grant a seventeen-year old enough autonomy to let him police himself at home for an evening. What horrible people.

            Trayvon’s father WAS looking for him. He finally had to call the police and find out his son was dead because they were too busy not investigating to, you know, call someone about a kid being shot to death.

            • brianmacker

              “Marijuana and cough syrup make people LESS violent”
              Whoosh, right over your head. See my response to 3elmenope. You make the same mistake.

              “Trying to condemn the kid because you consider his girlfriend and parents bad people? Do I really have to spell out the problem there?”

              Straw man.

              “Gosh, I don’t know WHAT sort of parents could POSSIBLY grant a seventeen-year old enough autonomy to let him police himself at home for an evening. What horrible people.”

              You see no problem with giving autonomy to a kid to go out after midnight onto the streets when this is at least the third time he’s been suspended for seriously delinquent behavior.I’m not surprised. You don’t seem to have much sense, let alone common sense. You share that trait with lots of people these day.

              “Both of Trayvon’s suspensions during his junior year at Krop High involved crimes that could have led to his prosecution as a juvenile offender. However, Chief Charles Hurley of the Miami-Dade School Police Department (MDSPD) in 2010 had implemented a policy that reduced the number of criiminal reports, manipulating statistics to create the appearance of a reduction in crime within the school system.”

              http://spectator.org/blog/2013/07/15/trayvon-crime-school-miami

              Not only were his parents dropping the ball.

          • Bridgett Cash

            You are a liar brianmacker. You have no morals, no values, no worth as a human being.

            • brianmacker

              What did I lie about? I guess now that I have no worthe you think you can just kill me like the mobs of blacks out there attacking Hispanics and whites right now.

              • RobMcCune

                Well that destroys any illusion that any of your comments here aren’t motivated by racism.

                • brianmacker

                  There were two such incidents were mobs of blacks attacked innocent victims. One victim was hispanic and one white. Both to claims of “This is for Trayvon”.

                  As usual I’m talking facts.

                  Not only that, but there have been all sorts of violent threats made to random innocent people in this. Zimmerman family is in hiding, people mistaken for the family in hiding, etc.
                  Read the news once in a while.

                  I’ve just been dehumanized by Bridgett Cash, for disagreeing with rank ignorance. I’m wondering what the next logical step is.

                • brianmacker
                • brianmacker
                • brianmacker

                  Perhaps you can explain your exact reasoning in how someone saying I have “no worth as a human being” and my asking in reply if that is going to be used as justification for beating me like these other incidence is evidence of racism?

                  Several of the commenters here seem to think it is just fine to beat the crap out of someone merely because you think they are following you. I’m wondering what other high moral standards they have that I don’t share.

          • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

            Bullshit, and you know it.

          • http://alternet.com/ George Schmitt

            get help

          • Monika Jankun-Kelly

            Maybe the reason Martin got belligerent is because a strange man followed him at night and accosted him for no apparent reason. I’d be afraid if someone did that to me.

            • Jim Jones

              Martin accosted Zimmerman as the latter was returning to his car, following the CYA suggestion of the 911 operator.

              Martin then battered Zimmerman in a violent assault intended to cause great bodily harm.

              At least get the facts straight.

        • Terry Firma

          Who brought God into the equation? Zimmerman did. He’d kill all over again and has no regrets — it was “God’s plan.”

          • Mr. Pantaloons

            Yes, that’s pretty much exactly what I said. My comment was also meant to address Mr. Wade’s comment as well:

            “At this point, Zimmerman seemed to have felt it necessary to take more control against this manipulative tactic that Hannity often does in interviews, by making his own statement about the entire series of yes/no questions, and about the incident and its outcome as a whole.”

            My criticism in the comment you’re replying to is in regards to Zimmerman’s answer as a God-fearing person, on a strictly tactical basis as a representative of his theistic community, not on its doctrinal consistency. Mentioning God at all was a poor decision to protect himself from Hannity; that’s all that comment was supposed to convey. Regardless of whether or not a god actually exists, I’ve already been generally quite vocal about my contempt for using his theoretical omniscience as a smokescreen for crimes against humanity, thank you.

  • Larry Meredith

    So does that mean it’s legal now to chase people around and provoke a fight in order to shoot them dead?

    • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

      In Florida, yes. So long as the victim is a black male, anyways.

      • roz77

        Oh come on. The prosecution clearly did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not fear for his life and therefore did not act in self defense. While it’s a travesty that Travon Martin was killed, it also would have been a travesty for our legal system to convict someone of murder when it wasn’t proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he actually committed murder.

        • Whirlwitch

          Manslaughter was an option. He wasn’t convicted of that, either. He killed a person with a gun – manslaughter should be the least charge.

          • Lauren

            Yes! Thank you.

          • brianmacker

            You don’t understand the legality of it. Were he guilty of manslaughter then he would also have been guilty of the other charge. Self defense works against both charges or neither.

          • johnsawyer

            I think the problem might have been in the charge that the prosecution brought–second degree murder (with malice?), instead of a more likely charge like negligent homicide. From what I understand, the prosecution wanted to hit one out of the ballpark, instead of “settling” on a lesser charge from the start. But the lesser charge would have been more likely to stick, because by Zimmerman following Martin and not identifying himself, he created the conditions that led to him “having” to shoot Martin. All he had to do when Martin asked him what he was up to, was to identify himself and his former association with neighborhood watch, and what would have followed would probably have been just an angry conversation instead of a physical altercation. But since the prosecution brought the charge of second-degree murder instead, the judge and jury couldn’t make their own decision as to what to charge and convict him of.

            But the justice system also allows for the federal government to bring other charges, and for the Martin family to file a civil suit.

            • brianmacker

              Do you punch out and then viciously beat every person who happens to be following you at night? I don’t. Martin’s hypothetical behavior here is out of the realm of what a reasonable person would do and so Zimmerman could not be held negligent.

          • roz77

            Zimmerman still plead self-defense and the prosecution wasn’t able to overcome that. It’s a simple as that. I hate what happened and it’s a travesty that Travon Martin is dead, but the situation was basically a he-said he-said scenario, and when one of the people is dead, there’s not much to go on.

        • mikespeir

          Agreed. If he was guilty, I wanted him put away. On the other hand, I was afraid he might be convicted just to fulfill somebody’s social agenda.

          • brianmacker

            Not sure where this guy dreamed up this fist fight. Trayvon had zero blows. Zimmerman had followed people before and it never came to blows. Even with the black burglar he caught. Trayvon on the hpother hand was carrying a cell phone with his texts about punching some guy in the nose during a street fight. Plus his friends indicated in social media posts that he had punched a bus driver in the nose. Seems to be a pattern with him.

        • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

          Zimmerman may well have been in fear of his life at that moment. Nonetheless, he provoked the fight by following Martin. When you start a fight, you are (always ethically and usually legally) responsible for its outcome.

          I don’t think Zimmerman committed murder. I do think he committed manslaughter. He followed someone, which definitely evoked a reasonable fear, then escalated a fist fight into a gun fight. I also think a Murder 2 charge was reasonable, given that if you hit someone, ze hits you back, and then you pull out a gun and shoot hir, you will go to jail because what you did is not self-defense.

          • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

            That’s why I don’t understand the self-defense. If you are armed and start a fight with an unarmed person, then start getting your ass whipped so you shoot them in the chest…that’s self defense?

            • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

              In Florida, yes. In the sane world, no.

              • brianmacker

                Actually you are wrong. Had Zimmerman started the fight and then continued escalating to the point of shooting, then in Florida that is murder. Also in every other state Zimmerman was innocent of murder.

              • brianmacker

                California allows more leeway, you can pursue.

            • brianmacker

              There is zero evidence Zimmerman started a fight.

              • Marisa Totten

                Was following Trayvon an act of aggression?

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  YES. Stalking is an act of aggression!

                • brianmacker

                  No of course not.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  I’d be terrified if a large man in a car was following me, personally. Would it be aggressive for a man to follow a 5’3″, 110 lb, white woman who was walking alone at night?

                • brianmacker

                  No, that is not aggressive. Maybe you dropped your medication and he’s returning it to you.

                  In fact, I followed a woman who was alone along a dark street just the other night while walking to a philosophy meeting. She apparently is not a paranoid as you are.

                  Do you think it is aggressive for a black man to get on the elevator with you at a hotel in the evening too? Do you clutch your purse? Do you think it would be within your rights to kick him in the balls, spray him with mace, then beat him with your purse, for getting on?

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  You truly don’t understand the difference between going about one’s business and deliberately stalking someone while using (unconscious, perhaps) aggressive body language?

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Also, Zimmerman was on interesting medications, including Adderall, which can make people twitchy and violent. (Hint: It’s pretty much legal, controlled meth…)

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  Oy, yeah, Adderall can be bad news. It’s great for people with ADHD, but when neurotypical people take it all sorts of bad things can happen.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  I know. I was on it for years. I do have ADHD (and the attention span of a goldfish on crack), but I’m also highly sensitive to stimulants*, so the side effects were severely unpleasant, especially when you have anxiety “issues” as well.

                  …I do want my attention span back, though.

                  *As in the child’s dose of Sudafed is more than enough to keep me wired for a good long while.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  Do you think caffeine would help? It’s a much milder stimulant, but I know my husband uses caffeine to self-medicate for mild ADD. If you’re super-sensitive to stimulants, even the amount in a lot of teas might help.

                  You can, of course, also just tell me to mind my own business if you’ve tried that already :)

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Well… I also get hellacious migraines, so caffeine in any amount is right out. (And it’s so not worth having to pee every 45 minutes.)

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  Oh well that just sucks then. *Offers Internet hugs*

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  Well, while we’re handing out unsolicited medial advice, caffeine/aspirin/acetaminophen (and burring my head in a pillow in a dark/quiet room) is the only thing that will make my migraines go away. But if it’s a trigger for you, it’s a trigger for you.

                  But the peeing needn’t be a problem. It does come in suppository form…

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  There’s a reason I spent most of my teenage years holed up in my room with the lights off.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  *hugs back*

                  Yeah, I’d rather be like, off in space than deal with horrible stabby ice-pick-through-the-eyes pain. But I still miss being able to concentrate, especially because I could fucking DRAW. I still can, but it’s hard to churn out quality in five to ten minute bursts.

              • MarkSilverman

                I would say greater than zero. He ignored the police; he communicated to the police his own stated pre-conceptions about Martin (f-ing punks, a-holes always get away); he gets out to follow him with a gun. And ultimately shoots him. All of that amounts to a bit higher than “zero” evidence.

                If Martin has a feeling that he’s in danger, that’s not unreasonable. Seems clear that it’s Martin who was acting in self-defense here, not GZ. What’s ironic is that evidently GZ gets to use the “stand your ground” defense, but Trayvon does not.

                It’s especially bewildering that the jury did not even come back with manslaughter. If GZ’s behavior was not reckless, I don’t know what is.

                The verdict is completely Orwellian

                • John A. Anderson

                  “Stand Your Ground” was not used in this trial. It was simple self-defense. It worked because the prosecution failed to prove Zimmerman did not fear for his life. Get over it.

                • MarkSilverman

                  If you fear for your life after instigating an attack, it strikes me as a bit bizarre that that would count as “self-defense.” And, frankly, Zimmerman’s whole story seems terribly implausible in the first place.
                  Injustice is really not the sort of thing it makes sense to “get over”…. It’s the sort of thing that, you know, should be changed.

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  People who fear for their lives don’t follow suspected criminals around at night, armed, when nothing is at stake. Get over it.

                • brianmacker

                  He didn’t fear for his life when he was following at a distance. He was following because many break-ins were done by people who fit Martin’s description, and as he stated Maritn looked like he was on drugs and was acting suspicious. Merely, fearing for ones life is also not something you can act upon, it has to be a credible threat to a reasonable person. You may fear for your life (or being raped) when you walk down a dark alley in a bad neighborhood but that doesn’t mean you can shoot at random moving shadows in the dark.

                  The situation changed when Martin punched him in the nose, straddled him after he feel dazed, and started pounding on him. That is when he feared for his life.

                • John

                  http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/07/14/the-role-of-stand-your-ground-in-zimmerman-trial/

                  From the article:

                  Initially, police didn’t arrest Zimmerman as he asserted self-defense under the state’s Stand Your Ground law. While his attorneys never filed an official Stand Your Ground motion in the case, the claim would become Zimmerman’s central defense.

                  Last year, state Senator Dwight Bullard , D-39th District, led the charge against the Stand Your Ground law which the state’s legislature passed in 2005. While some say the law did not play a part in the trial, on CBS4′s “Facing South Florida” Bullard told Jim DeFede he disagrees.

                  “The reality is that from the very first steps taken by police in Sanford, in their inability to put Mr. Zimmerman in prison, it had everything to do with blow back from the Stand Your Ground law,” said Bullard. “When you look at the prosecution’s inability to give rules to the jurors in
                  regards to did Zimmerman retreat or could he have retreated, it had everything to do with that statute.”

                  Before the law, if a person had the opportunity to retreat from a potentially dangerous situation, they were obligated to do so. Under theStand Your Ground law, a person has no obligation to do so.

                • brianmacker

                  The person who wrote that article is a moron, not a lawyer, This is laughable, “the claim would become Zimmerman’s central defense.” He never invoked “stand your ground” every. In fact he would be fine even in a state that has a requirement to retreat. He couldn’t retreat while Martin was on top of him assaulting him. Also you can kill someone to prevent a serious assault. It isn’t restricted to fearing for your life.

                • KMR

                  Zimmerman didn’t ignore the police. He was talking to the police dispatcher. There is a difference. He also was outside of his vehicle before he was asked “Are you following him?” When he replied yes, the dispatcher replies, “OK we don’t need you to do that.” Zimmerman said, “ok”. He DID dither for a minute or so afterwards about where police should meet him finally saying they should call him when they arrive and he’ll “tell them where I’m at.” That implies he planned to keep moving and perhaps he did continue to follow Martin. He claimed however he was only looking for an address so he could figure out exactly where he was at. There is no evidence to tell either way for sure. My guess is that’s one of the reasons the jury didn’t come back with manslaughter. .

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  He was still told NOT TO FOLLOW.

                • KMR

                  And Zimmerman claimed he didn’t after being told not to by the 911 dispatcher . He claims instead he was only looking for an address so that he could figure out exactly where he was. He could be lying of course. But they didn’t have any conclusive evidence that he was.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Other than the fact that he lived in the neighborhood and patrolled it regularly, and thus would have been well aware of his location. Nope, nothing “conclusive” there… *eyeroll*

                • KMR

                  That’s a valid criticism. However, if you listen to Zimmerman’s 911 call he specifically is asked “what address are you parked in front of?” Zimmerman answers “I don’t know, it’s a cut through so I don’t have an address.” It’s not a stretch to think that he might have been out looking for that specific address when the fight started.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Oh, please. “Getting out to check the address” is no more than an excuse to corner, terrorize, and kill a defenseless child. He was already stalking Trayvon at that point.

                • brianmacker

                  LOL, you can’t be serious. You are a parody of your usually irrational self.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  God DAMN, you’re stupid. Anything to excuse the slaughter of an innocent child….

                • brianmacker

                  LOL, another down vote for stating the facts. I forgot about that fact. We have direct evidence he had no clue where he was, yet WMD is convinced by her assumption that everyone knows streets that she can deduce Zimmerman is lying.

                • brianmacker

                  The streets in that development are kinda convoluted. I’m not surprised he didn’t know exactly which street it was. I’ve had plenty of instances where I or another person got the name wrong on a street in our own neighborhood. Heck, if I turn right out of my driveway I don’t know the name of the first street on the left.

                • brianmacker

                  The phone operator who was on the phone in the recording testified hat that was not the case. A reasonable and intelligent person could deduce why used the phrase the way he did. He explained in detail his thinking. He assumed that when he asked Zimmerman to see where the suspect was and which way he was heading that Zimmerman acted on that question by opening the door and following. He was afraid Zimmerman took that as an order to follow and he wanted to correct that misinterpretation if it happened. Otherwise, if he gave a command, of any kind, the department could be sued. It is just plain stupid to think someone on the phone has the information needed to make those kind of judgement calls in a dangerous situation.

                • Tom

                  It occurs to me that if both of these people were afraid of the other, then both of them were entitled to “stand their ground” – and that illustrates perfectly how dangerous and stupid that law is. It basically all but requires that if two innocent people spook each other, one of them has to end up dead. This is exactly why “duty to retreat” laws are used instead – they attempt to defuse such situations instead of bringing them to a head.

                • brianmacker

                  Stand your ground was not even at play. Zimmerman didn’t even need to invoke it. Anybody can talk with anyone on the street if they want, no matter what time of day.

                • brianmacker

                  He said “OK” to the operator when the operator said “We don’t need you to do that”. That is not a command, and the operator testified to that fact. There was no command to “ignore”. I don’t need you to reply to this comment.

              • C.L. Honeycutt

                Stalking someone at night while armed and looking for trouble is provoking a fight.

                • brianmacker

                  That’s asinine.

            • Charles

              How could Zimmerman (or anyone else for that matter) have known Martin was unarmed? Also, if I’m being followed by someone and I have a phone I would call 911, not go and confront the person tailing me. They both made bad choices that night.

              • C.L. Honeycutt

                If he thought he was armed, he wouldn’t have played it that way… unless he was irrational, which also makes the case.

              • Anat

                If you are being followed by someone and you have a phone, but you happen to be member of a racial group that has a known history of being ill-treated and not believed by the police you do not call 911. You try to come out alive without involving authorities, because you don’t believe they are on your side.

            • David Mock

              The problem is Zimmerman didn’t start the fight. He initiated the confrontation, but Martin walked back to Zimmerman (when he had the opportunity to go home) and threw the first punch. Both guys were at fault.

              • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                BULLSHIT.

              • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

                Is there any evidence of that? I realize that’s what the defense claimed, but did anyone swear to that under oath and then cross examined about that testimony? No.

            • brianmacker

              There is no evidence that Zimmerman started a fight. He had been involved with watching other suspects and never laid a hand on them. This even resulted in catching one burglar. Plus there is his whole history of not only helping blacks but being 1/4 black.

              • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

                There’s also no evidence that Martin started the fight either. Which one makes more sense. That Zimmerman approached Martin or the other way around. Why did GZ even get out of his car. He’d called the police. They told him not to do anything. There’s also Zimmerman’s history. he assaulted a police officer. One of them has a history of violence while the other doesn’t. martin was walking down the street. How is that suspicious. Oh right. He was black in a gated community. That was his crime. obviously a capital offense. This is a sick society. Why was Zimmerman even armed? Why did he shoot to kill? This is fucked up and if you can’t see that I wonder what kind of sick fuck you must be.

                • brianmacker

                  “There’s also no evidence that Martin started the fight either. ”

                  Except for Zimmerman’s broken nose, and no marks on Trayvon except his knuckles. Plus the fact that Zimmerman was happy when he was told there was a video of the incident.

                  “That Zimmerman approached Martin or the other way around.”

                  We have the testimony of the girlfriend that Trayvon got to his house, 400′ from where the fight happened. Zimmerman was still around the location he lost Martin, near his vehicle.

                  Even if Zimmerman approached Martin that is no crime, and no justification for the beating Martin gave him.

                  “Why did GZ even get out of his car.”

                  Listen to the tape. He is asked by the phone operator the location and direction that the suspect went. You can here the car door beep after that question. He then reports on that info. He also indicates that he is confused as to the location, and later when asked what he was doing for the two minutes he said he was looking for a street sign. This is all well known.

                  “He’d called the police. They told him not to do anything.”

                  Not true. They asked him location and direction suspect was moving. There was never any order to do anything. This was testified to by the phone operator on the witness stand. Go find the video of that testamony and listen to it. You can find it on the legalinsurrection web site, for example.

                  “There’s also Zimmerman’s history. he assaulted a police officer.”

                  He was in a bar when an undercover officer started struggling with his friend without identifying himself as an officer. He mistook this for an unprovoked attack. He was thinking he was defending an innocent person against an attack. He did not have a guilty mind in this. So he was innocent.

                  “One of them has a history of violence while the other doesn’t.”

                  Not true. Martin had texts on his phone where he discussed a fight he was in, and there is also social media posts by friends discussing how he punched out a bus driver.

                  “martin was walking down the street. How is that suspicious.”

                  He wasn’t just walking down the street. Even his girlfriend testified to him moving erratically. He tested positive for pot, and Zimmerman stated that he looked like he was on drugs on the recorded police call. Martin fit the description of burglars in the area, was out in the rain with no apparent purpose staring at a house, he didn’t appear to be jogging, etc. Zimmerman covered all this in the interrogation. Become familiar with it. He stated exactly why he was suspicious of Martin. I believe some of this was verified by Martins girlfriend, the part about moving about off the paths.

                  “Oh right. He was black in a gated community.”

                  Zimmerman never mentioned that as a reason. In fact, there were many blacks that lived there. One of the kids caught for burglary was in fact black and lived in the neighborhood.

                  ” That was his crime. obviously a capital offense.”

                  No his crime was felony battery. An attack he didn’t stop even when Mr. Good came upon the scene and asked him to stop.

                  “This is a sick society.”

                  Unsupported opinion, unrelated to the facts.

                  “Why was Zimmerman even armed?”

                  For self defense. The police suggested he arm himself. He did. Didn’t know that, did you. Plus he doesn’t need anyone’s permission to carry a gun. It is a second amendment right.

                  “Why did he shoot to kill?”

                  Did he? We can’t tell if that is the case. Even if it were please take a course in self defense and find out why you should shoot towards the center of the body. You aren’t one of those idiots who believes that you can shoot a gun out of a bad guy’s hands are you. An attempt to shoot an arm might miss in a struggle, and that would be a wasted shot and give opportunity to wrestle the gun away or pin it.

                  How many ignorant questions do you plan to ask?

                  “This is fucked up and if you can’t see that I wonder what kind of sick fuck you must be.”

                  Sometimes the ignorant mistake wisdom for evil. Just look at how the communists killed millions because they couldn’t comprehend simple economics.

                  Yeah, I’m the sick fuck because I understand John Locke, the law, etc. Self defense is a core principle of morality. Locke called it the first law of nature. In fact, were Zimmerman guilty, self defense is the principle upon which his incarceration would need to be justified. If I don’t have the right to defend myself that gives you the license to kill me.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  He’s looking for any reason at all to justify the slaughter of an innocent young man. He’s a racist sonofabitch who thinks that walking home with a bag of Skittles is somehow “suspicious”.

          • brianmacker

            Following someone is not provoking a fight. What planet do you live on? Maybe he was returning a dropped item. Maybe he was lost and wanted to ask directions. In your world, apparently it is just fine to commit felony assault on someone, straddle them, and keep swinging blows, just because someone followed you. Why not use the cell phone in you hand to call police after you evaded the person following you? Zimmerman says to the operator on the call that he lost sight of Trayvon because he ran away. Trayvon’s “girlfriend” testified he made it back near his house while she was on the phone with him. That was far from where Zimmerman was when he got punched and fell to the ground dropping his flashlight. The location Martin got shot.

            • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

              Lies. No scratches or blood on Martin’s fists or hands says that Zimmerman lied about that.

              And lets pretend Zimmerman told the 100%, absolute truth about things. If I’m being followed, at night, by a guy in a car, I’m going to be terrified. If I run away from him, and he keeps following me? Even more scared. If I see a chance to sucker punch the person who is following me for no reason I can see, who hasn’t called out to me or said something like “hey, you dropped your wallet!”, I’m going to take it. I can’t win a fair fight (I’m a 5’3″, 110 lb. female with no martial arts training) and I can’t run away from a person in a car, so I’m going to try to drop the bastard fast. I’m going to get out my keys and go for his eyes. Note, my fear is perfectly reasonable. The man following me for no goddamned reason has provoked this fight.

              • brianmacker

                There was a scratch on Trayvon’s knuckle, not only that he tested positive for being high on pot, which the jury never heard. If you think fists get major damage during a punch to the nose you are sadly mistaken. A witness testified to heavy rain at the time of the screaming, and when you are laying on your back with a broken nose the blood isn’t going to flow uphill. They had expert testimony on this. They found no blood anywhere at the crime scene except all over Zimmerman., because he was on the bottom and it was raining.

              • Derrik Pates

                I’m a 6’2″, 200lb guy, and if I was out walking at night and someone was skulking around following me, I’d be damn worried too. It’s a reasonable response.

            • Randay

              Crap, have you seen pictures of the two? Zimmerman is a big husky adult and he couldn’t physically handle a slim teenage boy? That “fighting” defense is BS. Traynor “swinging blows”, if so, that guy Zimmerman is not only a murderer, he is a wimp. The police told Zimmerman to stop following Traynor, but Zimmerman was out to kill someone black because it was God’s plan. Why did God want Traynor dead?

              What do you think will happen now when Black’s organize their vigilantes and they shoot dead a “suspicious looking” White guy, maybe a boy? A black woman at her home in Florida was sentenced to 20 years because she fired warning shots with a shotgun to keep her abusive husband away. Funny it didn’t occur to Zimmerman to fire a warning shot. Florida “justice” is not color blind, it is Jim Crow, and now has re-introduced lynching.

              If Traynor was carrying a gun too, he wouldn’t have “fight” with Zimmerman, but just “stand his ground”, turn, and shoot the bastard. Do you think Traynor shooting an armed man would have been found not guilty? Not likely in Florida.

              • brianmacker

                Zimmeman is and was an overweight man of average height, aka fat. He’s 5’8″. The video of the convenience store that night shows he is much taller than the clerk who is taller than Zimmerman. Trayvon was a lean muscular football player at 175lbs, and over six feet. At 17 he was old enough to be shipped overseas to kill people hand to hand. That’s a man when it comes to a fight.

                Yeah he supposed to fire a warning shot with Trayvon on top and reaching for his gun. The only expert to testify in the case said he had no choice but to shoot. Shoot a round into the air in a struggle on the ground, Are you nuts?

                • Randay

                  You are nuts and racist. Pyscho-killer Zimmerman was told by 911 dispatcher to stop, but he didn’t. He was a racist looking for trouble and he found it. Martin was minding his own business. As he didn’t have a gun, he maybe was “standing his ground” as best he could. If he had killed Zimmerman, it would have been justified. But a Florida lynch court would have found him guilty of defending himself, er, no, of killing a white racist thug.

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  He’s extremely wrong. That doesn’t even vaguely translate to being a racist.

                • brianmacker

                  I guess you believe every single one of the jurors were also racists. You are diluting the power of the word. I didn’t read farther than that.

                • Monala

                  Trayvon was 5’11″ and 158 lbs at his autopsy. Zimmerman was 204 lbs when he went to the doctor (for a work note, not for treatment) the next day. So he was almost 50 lbs heavier, and only 3 inches shorter. Furthermore, Trayvon hadn’t played football since his early teens.

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  You’re greatly exaggerating Martin’s size. He was taller than I am and I could knock that beanpole down with one hand.

                  Again, you keep citing Zimmerman’s testimony as if it were magically proven fact. How about this? Unless Zimmerman had shown his weapon or indicated he had one by word or gesture, Martin had absolutely no reason to reach for it.

                • brianmacker

                  I’m off by an inch in height. Yep, I got the weight wrong, but 168 pounds of football player is more than adequate to deal with a guy who obviously doesn’t exercise. We have a picture from Trayvon’s cell phone and he isn’t chubby.

                  “He was taller than I am and I could knock that beanpole down with one hand.”

                  Apparently, you are one tough bastard compared to Zimmerman because he got his ass kicked.

                  “Again, you keep citing Zimmerman’s testimony as if it were magically proven fact.”

                  You guys keep claimiing that but not providing any evidence I have done it. I’m citing a witness, Mr. Good, and the physical evidence. Zimmerman was obviously badly beaten in that fight. You are the one living in a fantasy world.

                • Randay

                  No, you are. The Miami Herald says Zimmerman is 5’7 and 200 lbs. Trayvon(sorry for the earlier misspelling) 5’11 and 158 lbs. Maybe Zimmerman is fat, yes a fat head. The Miami Herald map http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/14/2748048/interactive-map-of-trayvon-martin.html shows that Zimmerman left his SUV several yards behind and had to walk and turn a corner to find Martin to confront him. He could have fired a warning shot during that time. George had several choices, the first staying in his SUV. I still think that George was out to kill a black person one day or another.

                • brianmacker

                  Ok, so I was off by one inch in Trayvon’s height. He was one inch under six feet. Off by 15 on his weight. His parents were actually claiming he was 6’2″ at some point (I don’t think they understood the narrative). One of the witnesses, I can’t recall her name but she was the cat owner, actually testified that she thought Martin was still the 12 year old from the pictures the media posted. The average height for a 12 year old is only 4’8″ and average weight is around 100 pounds.

                  Zimmerman was something like 60 feet from his car. The back entrance and the house Trayvon was staying at was another 400 feet from there. Zimmerman was four time closer to his car than where Trayvon’s girlfriend reported him, and Zimmerman himself said on the phone (recorded) that he had run away to.

                  “I still think that George was out to kill a black person one day or another.”

                  That is asinine.

              • guestpest

                Who’s Traynor? :-)

              • brianmacker

                That’s an idiotic response. So stupid that I don’t think you’d understand my response to you.

            • C.L. Honeycutt

              You don’t know much about America if you think that Trayvon Martin had reason to believe he’d be safe if he brought the police into that situation.

              It’s weird how you keep trying to use Zimmerman’s words as if they are magically utter fact.

        • Marisa Totten

          What about what Trayvon feared? Here’s 17 year old kid being followed by a much older man.

          • roz77

            Well Travon wasn’t on trial. I agree that it’s a shitty situation, but the prosecution could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman didn’t fear for his life. It’s a simple as that.

            • Marisa Totten

              I don’t think anyone can reasonably say Zimmerman didn’t fear for his life, but the question of what role Zimmerman’s own actions played into that fear is the one I am askng.

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          He could have been convicted of manslaughter as an alternative. Even if Zimmerman was telling the truth, by his own account he committed manslaughter. He stalked someone while armed, provoking a confrontation, and then shot them. That would be mansalughter even if Martin had had a gun. That’s where the jury failed.

          • Richard_Pietrasz

            Perhaps it was the prosecution that failed, and not the jury. That was certainly the case in the OJ Simpson criminal trial for murder. In this case, the prosecution was shamed by the public into pursuing this case, and may have bungled it because they didn’t care, or worse, because they wanted Zimmerman to get away with it.

            DAs are not always on the side of the public or the victims. Sometimes one decides to (secretly) be the defense attorney for the killer.

          • roz77

            The prosecution could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman didn’t fear for his life. It’s a simple as that. It doesn’t matter how it started, Zimmerman pled self-defense and the prosecution could not overcome it.

            • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

              Or, more likely, the trial was held in Florida and the jury was packed with Zimmerman’s fellow racists.

        • newavocation

          Looks like the defense did a great job with jury selection, since the jury seemed to need beyond no doubt to convict. Clearly there seems to be enough evidence and intent to have convicted him beyond reasonable doubt for charge of manslaughter.

          • roz77

            Glad to have your expert opinion. If you read any actual legal analysis and not stuff spewed on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, HuffPost, etc., most people expected this outcome. The simple fact is that it was a he-said he-said situation, and one of those people was dead. It’s hard to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt when that’s what you’re working with.

        • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

          You obviously weren’t watching the same trial as the SANE americans.

      • David Mock

        I have no problem if you think Zimmerman should be in jail. But this isn’t a race issue.

    • MattP111

      Not necessarily, but apparently God pulls all the stings. Perhaps he will have me kill someone tomorrow. Hope I’m acquited!

      • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ TBJ

        god does pull all the “stings.”

        • MattP111

          Ah touche!

    • brianmacker

      No because the guy who made it home according to his “girlfriends” testimony and then obviously when back to intercept Zimmerman and sucker punch him, is dead.

      • Larry Meredith

        sucker punch? According to who? The guy that was chasing a kid around with a loaded handgun?

        • brianmacker

          Obviously you haven’t been following this. There was not a scratch on Martin except the bullet wound and scratches on his knuckles.

          Zimmerman was not chasing him. He got out of the car to see which way he when after the operator ask him which way TM went, and followed him at a distance for a short while, then on the phone recording says that he lost him. The operator even testified he was not commanding Zimmerman to do anything, and that Zimmerman said “OK” when informed there was no need to follow.

          Zimmerman had a broken nose, and bashed up head. Witness have Trayvon on top. Zimmerman told story consistent with all evidence. When investigator tricked him into believing there was a video of the entire incident he said “Thank god”. Obviously he had no fear any tape would not show the sucker punch all the evidence showed happen.

          • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

            So I’m supposed to believe that martin was walking home and just went up to Zimmerman and starting bashing him? I find that a little difficult to believe.

            • brianmacker

              Fits with his prior behavior in texts, and social media. He has punched two other people in the nose in the recent past. Why wouldn’t he punch some “crazy ass cracker” in the nose? Obviously Martin had ill will because he was on top of Zimmerman as Zimmerman was yelling for help pounding on him. He continued pounding a helpless person even when someone approached and asked him to stop. Zimmerman was yelling for help for quite a while too. He didn’t just shoot the guy.

              • C.L. Honeycutt

                You don’t seem to know the difference between punching someone during an argument and chasing down and attacking a stranger in the dark.

                Zimmerman is now “helpless”? Some magical person was present during the fight? There’s some record of Zimmerman yelling for “quite a while”? Scratch what I just said. You don’t know the difference between fact and making shit up.

                • brianmacker

                  Mr. Good, the only direct eye witness that could identify who was who testified that it was ZImmerman yelling for help. Other witnesses testified that only one voice yelled for help. Do the math.

              • Daniel_JM

                Interesting that you just blindly accept just about everything the defense said. There was one witness who said Martin was on top, there were two who said Zimmerman was on top. In most fights positions change, and Zimmerman was a lot stronger and had been training in MMA. Also, I don’t know why you just assume the cries for help were from Zimmerman. Martins parents and a couple eyewitnesses said it was Martin crying for help in the recorded 911 tape. And a couple audio experts agreed, although the judge blocked their testimony.

                • brianmacker

                  Zimmerman was on top at the end, when there was a bullet hole in Martin. Exactly as he said to police. One of the witnesses that claimed he was on top also claimed that Trayvon was face down and that three shots were fired. Only one shot was fired, and Trayvon was shot in the front. So that witness was not at all credible. This isn’t “blindly” accepting anything. There is shitloads of physical and other evidence and all that which is credible fits Zimmerman’s story. The prosecutions witnesses were acting like defense witnesses.

              • baal

                Wasn’t there testimony from Martin’s mother that it was her son heard calling for help on the 911 call the witness in the house nearby made?

                • brianmacker

                  She was played the call with lots of other people there. I believe she is also the biological mother who doesn’t have much contact with her son. Trayvon’s brother could not identify his voice. Trayvon’s father said it wasn’t him and later changed his story. There were shitloads of defensive witnesses that claimed it was Zimmerman. The most compelling, of course, was Mr. Good, who was standing right next to them as Trayvon was pounding on Zimmerman. He identified Zimmerman as the one calling for help. So Trayvon’s mother was either lying or mistaken. The prosecutor didn’t exactly follow protocol when getting her statement.

          • Larry Meredith

            lol, again, that is according to a guy that was chasing a kid around with a loaded handgun. As Houndentenor said, it’s difficult to believe Zimmerman was just innocently wondering around when his target snuck up and beat the shit out of him for no apparent reason. According to you this is Trayvon Martin:
            Hey I’m home!
            Hi girlfriend.
            I’m going to go back out. Saw a guy wondering around. I’m going to go sucker punch him. I better take my snacks along with me. Always take snacks when you plan on jumping someone!

            • brianmacker

              Houndentenor invented a straw man, because he, like you, is probably unaware of exactly what was claimed by all parties. For instance you forgot the part where he told his girlfriend some “crazy ass cracker” was following him, some nigga. Also the part where he gets close to his house according to the girlfriend. No one is claiming Martin was walking home and just decided to punch someone. He was high on drugs, snooping around, and didn’t like being under surveillance.

              • C.L. Honeycutt

                “Close to his house according to the girlfriend” who testimony you already dismissed and who wasn’t AT the house. And now Trayvon was magically “snooping around”. You’re a shitty liar.

                • brianmacker

                  She is a witness for the prosecution. Yes, she is a liar. Perhaps you don’t understand this but liars don’t lie on every fact. Why exactly would she lie about Martin making it back to the house? See liars also have motives. Do you think she was trying to get Zimmerman off?

            • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ TBJ

              and a towel.

            • brianmacker

              No, according to witnesses, and physical evidence.

          • Daniel_JM

            A witness, not witnesses, has Martin on top. Other witnesses have Zimmerman on top and Martin calling for help. Interesting that your interpretation of the law seems to excuse Zimmerman for shooting a kid who was just walking through the neighborhood, but don’t consider that if Zimmerman can claim self defense then so could Martin. He was obviously worried for his safety, as I would be. And if some wannabe tough guy followed me and wouldn’t leave me alone and then confronted me I might get into a fight too. If anyone was acting suspicious and reckless it was Zimmerman, even just based on his side of the story.

            • brianmacker

              No, other witnesses did not have Zimmerman on top. One witness, crazy cat lady, who said three shots were fired, claimed that a larger person was on top. When pressed she admitted that she assumed it was the 12 year old kid she saw in the paper on the bottom. She also said she could only make out shadows. Plus it is consistent with Zimmerman’s account because he did in fact say he got on top of Martin after he shot him.

          • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

            Oh, yes, the “life-threatening injuries” that didn’t need any medical attention.

            Fuck you.

          • baal

            “He got out of the car to see which way he when”
            Maybe Zimmerman shouldn’t be following someone on foot while in a car. It would scare the shit out of me if someone did that. Also, if Zimmerman was unarmed the guy he was following would not now be dead.

            • brianmacker

              You shouldn’t be out at night.

              • RobMcCune

                Threats, not surpirsing. Stay classy Brian, stay classy.

              • baal

                Sun goes down hide at home? Doesn’t sound like a free country so much as hogwarts under the dementors.

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        Imagining elements of that night does not make them so.

    • Sarah-Sophia

      There is a woman in Florida who is facing 20 years for firing warning shots at her abusive husband.

      • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ TBJ

        Not facing, convicted.

    • DougI

      Just don’t be a Black woman shooting a ceiling, that’ll get you 20 years. You’re better off killing people, you’ll walk free.

      • Get Real

        The “stand your ground” laws simply do not apply in that case as the woman left, went to her car and retrieved her gun, and returned to the home and shot it into the ceiling.

        Once you leave a dangerous situation you have no right to claim anything under “stand your ground” if you return and violate the law.

        Which is what she did.

  • LesterBallard

    Why fuck did you remind of this interview?

    • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

      Can someone explain who’s holding the paper? I’m guessing there’s a cultural significance I’m just not getting.

      • LesterBallard

        “Dexter”, the serial killer who kills bad guys.

      • brianmacker

        Dexter is a mass murderer who acts a judge, jury, and executioner of other bad guys. Although he takes far more care in assessing guilt than the politicians In this case who pushed for prosecution, and fired and demoted so many honest people. Like that IT guy who whistle-blew on the prosecutions hiding of evidence from the defense. Lost his job for following the law.

        • jjramsey

          While Dexter is an interesting character, he’s not so much a hero as someone who has a compulsion to kill. Usually, he channels this compulsion into killing bad guys, but he’s slipped at times. He’s also misled police so that he can kill a bad guy before they arrest him. Not to spoil too much, but Season 7 in particular has reminded viewers that, yes, he really is a monster.

          • brianmacker

            Yep, that is what “judge, jury, and executioner” means. Even with judges and juries the executioner sometimes kills an innocent person, just like Dexter.

  • LesterBallard

    Fucking America.

    • brianmacker

      Yeah, a bunch of racists who wanted to lynch a Hispanic 1/4 black guy. Zimmerman could have been Tiger Wood’s dad’s son (aka Tiger Woods).

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        Oh, so now he’s conveniently “1/4 black”.

        BULL-FUCKING-SHIT.

        • brianmacker

          WMD, you are funny, and as ignorant as ever. I know, how could a guy named Zimmerman not be 100% jewish. This should be an extra shocker to someone as ignorant of genetics as you are:
          http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20011175-10391704.html

          • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

            You know FULL WELL that he’s WHITE.

            This bullshit about him being “hispanic” (and now “1/4 black”) is awfully convenient, though.

            • brianmacker

              LOL

      • Nancy Shrew

        Zimmerman passes as white and thus benefits from it and you know it.

        • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

          Ugh, correction — Zimmerman IS white. “Hispanic” is no more an ethnicity than being a washingtonian.

        • brianmacker

          Actually, I don’t “know it”. Roderick Scott, a guy even you can agree looks black, was just found not-guilty of manslaughter in a case that had far less evidence of self defense than this one. He killed a white guy.

          • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

            Lies.

    • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ TBJ

      If you don’t like us you can choose China.

      • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

        How about Sweden or Norway? They have rational justice systems.

        Why pick the countries we know are even more corrupt than ours, when there’s such better examples of better countries out there?

        • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ TBJ

          China is the second largest world economic power I just suggested them because United States is often blamed for our Imperialist Ideals and China doesn’t get it’s fair share of blame. Ethical standards are often attributed to the most powerful nation. For the last 75 years or so United States has been the apex of ethics, China is an up and coming world power and as such they will eventually hold sway over what is ethical, for a society or not.

          • smrnda

            I’m not always sure that being the world’s largest economy necessarily translated into being a livable country.

            On China, I don’t think I want to live somewhere where I can’t breath the air.

        • brianmacker

          Those tiny countries couldn’t contain all the bigots jumping to conclusions with no evidence in this case.

          • RobMcCune

            Right, but she’s not talking about the bigots leaving.

          • C.L. Honeycutt

            You mean the people making up things about the case and presenting them as fact, like you’ve been doing even after seeing the trial?

      • Tom

        Ah, the old “anything is justified as long as you can point to something worse” defence. Always a classic.

  • Norman G. Palmer III

    So if this news that I found floating around FB http://nationalreport.net/obama-files-federal-charges-against-george-zimmerman-following-acquittal-in-shooting-murder-of-trayvon-martin/ is also true than by his logic it would also be “gods plan” right?

    • brianmacker

      Well Obama is a Christian to, and he belives that God’s plan is for him to abuse the justice system any way he can. Like using DOJ funds to incite protests in this case. He’s a pig, but this article wasn’t true.

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        Citation about protests?

  • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

    Zimmerman did not say quote: “It was part of God’s plan for me to kill Trayvon Martin.” I think you should not put such words or such a meaning into his mouth.

    These are the exact words of the exchange:

    Hannity: “Is there anything you regret? Do you regret getting out of the car to follow Trayvon that night?”
    Zimmerman: “No sir.”
    Hannity: “Do you, regret that you, you had a gun that night?”
    Zimmerman: “No sir.”
    Hannity: “Do you feel that you wouldn’t be here for this interview if you didn’t have a gun?”
    Zimmerman: “No sir, I, I–”
    Hannity: “You feel that you would not be here.”
    Zimmerman: “I feel that it was all God’s plan, and for me to second guess it, or judge it, um…” (shakes head)
    Hannity: “Is there anything that you might do differently, in retrospect, now that time has passed a little bit?”
    Zimmerman: “No sir.”

    Hannity asked Zimmerman a rapid-fire series of yes/no questions. He asked the second question before Zimmerman could answer the first. The fourth question was phrased as a negative. Answering a negative-phrased yes/no question with either yes or no often confuses the meaning of the answer, and so Zimmerman was struggling to find a way to answer it clearly. Hannity interrupted Zimmerman’s response to that question with an answer of his own, putting words into Zimmerman’s mouth.

    At this point, Zimmerman seemed to have felt it necessary to take more control against this manipulative tactic that Hannity often does in interviews, by making his own statement about the entire series of yes/no questions, and about the incident and its outcome as a whole.

    I think that to state or imply that Zimmerman was categorically saying that he thinks God wanted him to kill Trayvon Martin is an unfair and inaccurate writing of an ugly and absurd meaning that I am not convinced he intended at all.

    • brianmacker

      Exactly. This was a morally repugnant tactic.

      • brianmacker

        “Terry” also implies in the title that the jury based their verdict on a Christian fatalism, and not the facts of the case. Where is the evidence for that? For all we know it was six female atheists.

        • Terry Firma

          I don’t see it, sorry. And I’m the only one who actually knows what I as “implying” or not!

          • brianmacker

            “He’s not going to argue with the Big Guy – and, apparently, neither did the jury”

            That is the sentence in which you imply the jury also make their decision based on the same basis you are claiming Zimmerman did. You just stated that it was apparent that the jury did “not argue with the Big Guy”.

            Scott McGreal also got that interpretation out of what you wrote.

      • Scott McGreal

        Hemant stated in one of his posts that atheists should be the ones who can be relied on to be truthful and accurate in their reporting of events. Terry states: “He’s not going to argue with the Big Guy – and, apparently, neither did the jury”
        Unless Terry has evidence that the jury was influenced by nebulous ideas about “the Big Guy” rather than making a decision on the facts of the case this is a pretty offensive statement. What relevance do Zimmerman’s religious sentiments – however misguided they might be – have to the jury’s decision?

        • Terry Firma

          I have no special information about the jury deliberations, and didn’t claim to. I was commenting on the “que sera sera” aspect, and on Zimmerman’s “God’s plan” comment … and indirectly on the fact that Florida is a particularly Christian state where the “God’s plan” theory overall is shared by a vast majority of residents, including possible members of a jury pool.

          • brianmacker

            So you admit it. You were claiming the jury was using “it was god’s plan” to find Zimmerman innocent. Except now you’ve dug the hole deeper and are claiming it was based on your assumption that the vast majority of Floridians think that way.

    • El Bastardo

      Are you really trying to give the impression the Hannity was badgering Zimmerman? Hannity is known for giving softball interviews and avoiding awkward questions to make conservative look good. He wasn’t pushing ZImmerman, he was feeding him.

      The only manipulating here was Fox trying to make a murdering vigilante look like a patriotic, godly, American who was defending himself and his rights.

      • Derrik Pates

        And it worked out exactly as they’d hoped.

      • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

        My point is not about Hannity and Co., nor am I opining on the merits of the case or the verdict. I am objecting to what I see is an unfair interpretation by Terry Firma of an individual’s words in an attempt to object to a concept in his religion in general. Please see my reply to Terry Firma below.

    • Terry Firma

      I’m puzzled that this is even under contention. George Zimmerman, being a good Christian, believes that everything is God’s plan. If it rains, God’s plan. If he had three bowel movements yesterday, God’s plan. But Hannity didn’t ask him about the weather, or about his regularity. They were specifically discussing the killing of Trayvon Martin (and Zimmerman says he wouldn’t have done anything different).

      Do you think that Mr. Z is somehow arguing that the whole thing wasn’t God’s plan? It’s a peculiar reading of Zimmerman’s words — and of one of the precepts of Christianity.

      • 3lemenope

        I think, rather, that if Zimmerman did have any nuance to his views about divine providence, it would not be revealed by a Hannity interview.

      • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

        Terry, I love your articles, and this is the first objection I’ve ever had to one. You are making statements about how all Christians think this and all Christians think that, and so you seem to think it’s correct and fair to spin an individual Christian’s words into the most revolting interpretation possible. No, not all Christians think that way. They don’t think as a block, which is why there are so many thousands of denominations. If they all do, then why aren’t Trayvon’s family and friends, who presumably are also Christians, accepting with peaceful resignation that God wanted Zimmerman to kill Trayvon?

        Yes, Christianity is filled with confused and contradictory concepts, and a few Christians have bizarre and even ugly interpretations of those concepts, but that does not mean that every single Christian is a walking indictment of every other Christian. If you want to object to the “It’s all part of God’s plan” trope of Christianity in general, then object to it and its possible implications in general terms.

        If you want to know if the individual named George Zimmerman meant that he thought he was on a mission sent by God to specifically kill Trayvon Martin, which is the craziest and scariest interpretation of his words possible, then you would have to ask him that yes/no question, and to be fair to him, give him enough time to carefully consider it. Then if he realized that his particular “God’s plan” idea had confused and contradictory implications in it, You would also need to give him time to reconsider that too, and hopefully come up with a thoughtful statement that goes beyond the narrow parameters of your yes/no question.

        Very often I get a “mysterious ways, just gotta have faith” kind of shrug of the shoulders from individual Christians in conversations like this, and it is an admission that they can’t resolve the conflict in their minds. BUT that does not at all mean that it is fair for me to then spin their words into the most ghastly and repugnant meaning I can think of, and then justify it by saying “You and all Christians think this way.”

        In our frustration with religion in general, we need to be mindful and careful to be fair to individual adherents, confused and conflicted as some might be, or else we are practicing the very same “they’re all evil and crazy” stereotyping that is so painful and harmful to atheists. We must not base our standard of ethical behavior on how we are poorly treated by a few others. A commitment to rationality means we must make demands on our own fairness before we can make such demands on others.

        • Terry Firma

          Richard:

          Thank you for the kind words.

          As for the not-so-complimentary ones:

          I’m married to a Christian — with a degree in theology, if you can believe that! We’ll celebrate our 20th anniversary next year.

          One of my best friends is a Christian preacher who would go through fire for me (and I for him)

          I’ll be taking my kids to a liberal-Christian (UCC) summer camp in a couple of weeks — run by other longtime friends who are — well, you guessed it.

          “Every single Christian is a walking indictment of every other Christian”? It’s odd that you’d put words in my mouth like that, or ascribe that kind of regressive nonsense to me. It’s simply not how I think, and it’s not how I live my life.

          • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

            Your choice for the headline:

            George Zimmerman Found Not Guilty; Believed It Was ‘God’s Plan’ For Him To Kill Trayvon Martin

            That’s not what he said, and I am not even remotely convinced that that’s what he meant. That is your spin, and I think it’s an unfair reach. “It’s all part of God’s plan” is an absurd throwaway that Christians often lamely say, especially when they’re in the midst of ungainly situations with conflicting ideas that they cannot clearly resolve. In the context of the interview, what Zimmerman actually said does not to me equal “God had a plan for me to kill Trayvon,” and it certainly does not equal the cold blooded emotions that such a focused, categorical statement might represent.

            Your words in reply to Scott McGreal: (emphasis mine)

            I have no special information about the jury deliberations, and didn’t claim to. I was commenting on the “que sera sera” aspect, and on Zimmerman’s “God’s plan” comment … and indirectly on the fact that Florida is a particularly Christian state where the “God’s plan” theory overall is shared by a vast majority of residents, including possible members of a jury pool.

            You are supporting your harsh interpretation of an individual Christian’s remark by appealing to what you claim is a majority opinion of Christians in that region. Given how very ugly your characterization of Zimmerman’s meaning is, I think you should not have used him as a target so you could take shots at the vague and confusing Christian “God’s plan” nonsense in general. If you want to shoot holes in the idea, go ahead, but think twice about using an individual as the bull’s eye, an individual who did not supply you with an unequivocal statement matching your characterization.

            Your words in reply to me:

            George Zimmerman, being a good Christian, believes that everything is God’s plan. If it rains, God’s plan. If he had three bowel movements yesterday, God’s plan.

            You seem to be saying that as a “good Christian,” Zimmerman must comply exactly with what you say all “good Christians” think. Again, that is you trying to force his actual words into an extremely unflattering interpretation based on what you contend is a blanket, universal attitude and belief of all Christians. A theologian might think something like that, but actual people who fall into the quite amorphous category called “Christians” don’t all fit neatly into such conceptual molds.

            Since you think that my remark about how individual Christians are not walking indictments of all other Christians is an unfair and inaccurate characterization of your position and attitude toward Christians, then I accept that I am wrong to imply that, and I sincerely apologize.

            Your degree in theology is irrelevant to my argument that your characterization of Zimmerman’s intended meaning is unfair. Your good relationship with your Christian spouse and friends is irrelevant to my argument that you should not slander an individual Christian with a very damaging interpretation of his actual words just so you can express your objection to the “God’s plan” idea that Christians in general use in fuzzy and highly varied ways.

            I still think you were unfair to Zimmerman. You cannot read his mind, and it is a leap to read into his words a meaning that you seem to say must be there because of a uniform belief and attitude that you say is present in Christianity in general.

            • Art_Vandelay

              “It’s all part of God’s plan” is an absurd throwaway that Christians often lamely say, especially when they’re in the midst of ungainly situations with conflicting ideas that they cannot clearly resolve.

              That’s true but it’s a throw away statement that allows them to deflect moral accountability constantly and one that provides them with a perceived virtue among a large majority of the country. If they’re going to reap all of the social advantages that come with spewing that nonsense, then they should own it when it makes them sound disgusting. The idea that we can’t judge people by their words is counterproductive when those very words grant them so much protection in the first place. It’s also placating them…treating them like children who are incapable of expressing their actual thoughts through language, which to be honest seems worse. There’s absolutely no other level of discourse where you’d call it a spin to say that a plan is supposed to yield a desired result.

              • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

                Art, please stop for a moment and listen to yourself, talking about “them, them, them.” You seem to be clinging to the justification that because some Christians are sloppy and even sneaky with the ambiguities of their words and the fuzziness of their logic, that any and all individual Christians deserve to have their remarks twisted into the most revolting portrayal of their attitudes possible. That is guilt by association and broad brush, mechanisms of bigotry. Let go of those. No, individuals don’t deserve that. They deserve the opportunity to be carefully and respectfully questioned so they can unambiguously confirm or refute if an extreme interpretation of their intended meaning accurately and fairly represents their views, and the more damaging the interpretation, the more carefully the interpreter should check it out before declaring that it’s true of that individual.

                You would want that opportunity afforded to you, wouldn’t you?

                Some atheists, being human, are sloppy with the ambiguities of their words, and some are fuzzy with their logic too. Some are even sneaky about it. This does not mean that any and all individual atheists deserve to have their remarks about a tangentially related topic twisted by a Christian into the most foul sounding characterization possible.

                Practice the golden rule consistently, even when your frustration with some people tempts you to paint all of their category with a broad brush. Give them the benefit of the doubt, the doubt that must be acknowledged because you cannot read their minds. You must talk to them. To be persuasive, you must be studiously, meticulously fair.

                The opportunity to be even slightly persuasive is much more valuable than the opportunity to be massively righteous, shaming, and condemning. Disregard the short term goal of a quick “win” at making someone look stupid or nasty. Aim for the long term goal of gradually coaxing many more people toward more rational ways of thinking and interacting. To practice the same behaviors of prejudice that is done to you and your friends is to be just another part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

                • Art_Vandelay

                  I’m not painting with a broad brush. I’m speaking specifically of Christians that deflect moral accountability from themselves by constantly interjecting the rather mundane “It was all part of God’s plan” garbage. I’m fully aware that this is not all or maybe not even a majority of Christians. What I’m not doing is treating them like children who are incapable of articulating their actual thoughts.

                • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

                  Ok good. Not painting with a broad brush would then require not assuming that Zimmerman’s intended meaning is the meaning that one might assume of the Christians you are describing who might be dodging personal responsibility with the “God’s plan” catch-all. I’ve witnessed that too, and it’s frustrating, but to know if Zimmerman or any other individual Christian who uses the phrase “God’s plan” is actually using that as a dodge, one would have to carefully and respectfully ask them about it, not assume.

                  When I am with children or adults who are inarticulate in expressing their thoughts, I don’t fill in the blanks for them with my own biased assumptions, putting words and meanings in their mouths. I gently coax their own meaning out of them with open-ended questions like, “Tell me more about that,” and I only finish up with one or two clarifying yes/no questions when I’m very sure that I’ve heard what they’re actually wanting to say, rather than what I assumed.

                • Art_Vandelay

                  Yes, but unfortunately we don’t have Zimmerman here to ask him what he really meant so until then, I have to accept his words by what they mean. You never gave Joe Klein the benefit of the doubt…you just accepted his words at face value. You never said, “Well maybe he just means it’s funny in an ironic way because he knows how much great work secular humanists do responding to tragedies but for some reason, he doesn’t see them.” You never considered for a second that maybe Joe Klein simply did a really bad job articulating that. Why not offer him the same benefit of the doubt that you offer Zimmerman?

                • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

                  Art, you said,

                  Yes, but unfortunately we don’t have Zimmerman here to ask him what he really meant so until then, I have to accept his words by what they mean.

                  But you don’t know what his words mean. You’re assuming that you know what his words mean, and the more damaging your assumption, the more you should be circumspect and willing to withhold your assumption until if and when Zimmerman can clarify his meaning for you. If that opportunity never arises, then the decent and honest thing to do is to say “I don’t know what he means,” and leave it at that.

                  When Joe Klein, who is extremely articulate and knows exactly what he’s doing around a keyboard, made his statement, I at first hoped he had just been sloppy, flippant and lazy, not having done any double checking. But when hundreds of people gave him the accurate information, and they gave him the opportunity to apologize for the presumptuous insult, he equivocated like a weasel and doubled down on the falsehood he had originally said. He confirmed that he thinks his negative attitude and assumptions against atheists was correct and justified. He erased all doubt.

                • Art_Vandelay

                  But you don’t know what his words mean.

                  1. A scheme, program, or method worked out beforehand for the accomplishment of an objective.

                  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/plan

                  If I can’t rely on definitions of words as a reliable basis to determine what they mean, then I may as well just give up on language. I don’t even know how I’ve gotten this far.

            • Terry Firma

              I don’t have a theology degree. My wife does. Sorry Richard, your reading is once more all over the place.

              • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

                Sorry, I read “I’m married to a Christian — with a degree in theology, if you can believe that!” as “I’m married to a Christian, and I have a theology degree.” My bad. Whether it’s yours or hers is still irrelevant to my argument. If you think that particular misreading somehow means that all of my reading of all of your post and all of your comments is “once more all over the place,” and therefore I have no valid argument to make about the unfairness of your characterization of Zimmerman’s words, then I give up. You have not addressed any of my arguments at all, you have only said you don’t see it that way, and so I guess we must just disagree.

                • Terry Firma

                  There is nothing to address. You are reading things into what I wrote, akin to constructing a strawman (more generously, you’re jumping to unwarranted conclusions). I don’t believe you did it on purpose, but if your takeaway honestly is that I think that “Every single Christian is a walking indictment of every other Christian,” I can only surmise that you seriously misunderstood both my post and what very little you know of my life.

                • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

                  My takeaway is not that statement about indictments. As I said, I accept your assertion that you don’t see Christians that way, and I apologized for implying so. Now you’re hanging onto that and still ignoring my central point. Your attitude toward Christians is irrelevant to the single objection that I made. What I know or don’t know of your private life is irrelevant to the single objection that I made.

                  The single objection that I made was that your very negative interpretation of Zimmerman’s actual words as expressed in your choice of headline is unwarranted and unfair, that you cannot know for certain his precise intended meaning during that interview, and that since your interpretation is so very negative, you should not have made it unless you could be certain. That is all there is to my single objection.

                  Your defense of it in your comments to me and to others was to refer to what you claim is the general meaning of the “God’s plan” concept of other Christians in general. Zimmerman does not necessarily share that, and it is a leap on your part to assume that he does, but you do not want to simply acknowledge that simple and even understandable error.

                  My takeaway is that you read things into what Zimmerman said, and you’re still convinced you’re right.

                • brianmacker

                  Nonsense. The title is a lie. Zimmerman did not say what you are claiming he said.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Liar.

                • brianmacker

                  Richard Wade already covered this. There are many kinds of lies. For example lies of omission. The title is a lie in that it implies that Zimmerman killed Trayvon because it was God’s plan. This was never his meaning and the person with the pseudonym “Terry Firma” slinging around these claims should know better.

                • brianmacker

                  This follows the general assumptions of most of those who are condemning Zimmerman. They take the very most extreme and uncharitable interpretation of any action, deed, or word. It is absolutely ridiculous.

        • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

          I think of “God’s plan” as “this doesn’t fit, so I’m just going to put it in this little box so I don’t have to deal with it”

          If anyone actually logically applied “God’s Plan”, they wouldn’t be whining, about Obama, since he being president must also be part of “God’s Plan”.

        • http://alternet.com/ George Schmitt

          Religion is the last refuge of a scroundrel.

          • garrafa10

            Humanism is the refuge of total and incomparable idiots.

    • Art_Vandelay

      Richard, you’re offering the Zimmerman the same type of protection that religious hypocrites offer each other constantly. In any other level of discourse, when speaking of someone having a plan, you’d interpret that as them wanting a desired result. Even if it was in a religious context but it wasn’t so vile, you’d interpret it that way. What if someone was being questioned on their pregnancy and they were getting questions on when, where, and how the baby was conceived and then they said “It was all part of God’s plan.” You would almost certainly interpret that as them saying that God wanted them to have that baby. Clearly, this line of questioning is over the killing of Trayvon Martin and Zimmerman said it was all part of God’s plan.

    • unclemike

      “I feel that it was all God’s plan…”

      I don’t see how that quote refutes Terry’s article at all.

    • http://danieltuttle.com/ Daniel

      Maybe he isn’t saying God wanted him to kill Martin, but it definitely sounds like he believes things happened according to God’s will. The distinction doesn’t hold a lot of value, in my opinion.

    • http://www.freethoughthistory.com/ Dan Allosso

      “I feel that it was all God’s plan, and for me to second guess it, or judge it, um…” (shakes head)

      What’s unclear about that?

    • Matt

      Seems pretty clear to me that he used the “God works in mysterious ways” as a way to disassociate from the event. The article implies he’s satisfied with murdering a human. I’m not convinced the interview shows that.

  • rg57

    I saw the statements by the prosecuting attorneys, and that was just the weirdest press briefing ever. The clown-faced one was acting as if she had won (and at one point, her face was juxtaposed with Zimmerman’s, and you’d swear that she had just sent him away for life, based on that image). Another of the state’s attorneys said “our prayers were answered”. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing from the losing side.

    If I was in the Martin family, I’d be extremely angry with that press briefing.

    As for the acquittal, I’m sure the jury applied the law. That’s the real problem here. The law apparently means that even if you’re unarmed, you can be shot dead by an unidentified man following you in your own community, and that’s that. Incredible.

    • KMR

      The law says you can be shot dead if said unarmed man is beating you to a pulp thus making you fearful for your life. Big difference.

      • KMR

        Oh and the unarmed man needs to be the one who starts the physical confrontation.

      • baal

        If you don’t want to get beaten to a pulp, don’t follow folks around in your car and then get out of your car and approach the person you’ve just harassed and made fearful.

    • baal

      I was underwhelmed by the prosecuting attorneys. I would have thought the local office would have put their best on the case since it is high profile.

  • brianmacker

    You obviously didn’t watch the actual attempt they made to lynch Zimmeman. They withheld evidence from the defense, appointed a biased judge, rushed the defense, even tried to spring felony child abuse as a new charge at the end of the trial (and thus the theory of third degree murder while committing a crime). Every single one of the prosecutions witnesses worked against them, precisely because every one of Zimmerman’s statements were consistent with the physical evidence and credible witnesses (and I’m not talking about crazy cat lady who claimed there were 3 shots fired).

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Fuck you, you racist piece of shit.

      Zimmerman stalked Trayvon through a neighborhood that he had every fucking right to be in. He was TOLD, quite clearly, NOT to pursue. AND the rules of the Neighborhood Watch program CLEARLY PROHIBITED THE CARRYING OF WEAPONS.

      After stalking Trayvon, he approached, and initiated the confrontation. If Trayvon responded violently, it was 100% in self-defense, because all he knew was this creepy dude in a van was fucking following him.

      Zimmerman DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE BECAUSE HE INITIATED THE CONTACT AND THE CONFRONTATION.

      • brianmacker

        LOL, you are so ignorant, as per usual. Disagreeing with morons does not constitute “racism”. The 911 operator testified that he was not telling Zimmerman to do anything. Zimmerman was not on “neighborhood watch” at the time so I don’t even need to address your claim about prohibitions.

        Your other crazy rants here are laughable.

        “After stalking Trayvon, he approached, and initiated the confrontation”

        No evidence that happened. As per usual you use a word that can be equivocated upon. Initiating a conversation is not the same as initiating a confrontation. Trayvon had not a single bruise on him. Even his girlfriend has only two sentences out before the altercation. Which involved a busted nose, and a head pounded into concrete, with a witness testifying it was Trayvon on top beating Zimmerman, and Zimmerman yelling for help. Funny thing, Trayvon didn’t stop beating Zimmerman when help arrived and asked him to stop.

        “If Trayvon responded violently, it was 100% in self-defense, because all he knew was this creepy dude in a van was fucking following him.”

        His girlfriend has said on Piers Morgan that Trayvon thought Zimmerman was a security guard or the police. She also said that she thought it was a gay rapist, LOL. In either case, responding violently is a crime. I very much doubt Zimmerman confirmed Trayvon’s hypothetical pot induced paranoia about gay rapists by asking Trayvon to drop his drawers and bend over for a good ass fucking. Whereas, if Trayvon thought it was a guard (as his “girlfriend” stated) that would be even more of a reason to condemn him for initiating an attack. There is all sorts of physical evidence that points to Trayvon as the aggressor.

        • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

          You’re a liar, and everybody here knows it.

          If Trayvon was the aggressor, it was because Zimmerman was fucking STALKING HIM.

          • brianmacker

            Yes, WMD, I know [in your mind] everyone knows I’m lying. Obvious proof is that stalkers always call the police before following their victims. Everybody knows that. Everyone also knows that Zimmerman is 100% certified white bread, with no hint of Hispanic, or black. I’m obviously lying about that too as you have so eloquently pointed out. Just look at him. How could anyone mistake him for a Hispanic? Plus with a name like Zimmerman, obviously he’s a Nazi.

  • Lauren

    Civilians should not own firearms. End of story.

    • Guest

      Please if you will post your address and the contents of your home so that criminals who agree with your statement and have guns can come by your place and steal your belongings and assault members of your family.

      • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

        Criminals are civilians. They shouldn’t have guns either. Note it can be done- Japan, Britain, and Germany all have very low rates of gun crimes or gun usage by anyone, including criminals.

        • brianmacker

          They always did, even when they didn’t have gun confiscation,and gun crime went up when they put it in place. They also have a different method for keeping statistics. Like not counting dead bodies in their crime statistics unless they have identified a suspect. We count them as they hit the floor. You have to be very naive to believe that you can do such simple comparisons.

        • Guest

          Except United States is not Britain and Germany, all of who have seen an increase of home invasions now that the civilian population has been disarmed, but that’s beside the fact, which is we are not them. And Japan is a whole different story, it’s less about defending one’s self verses a matter of national shame for WW2.

          • Noah Smith

            There’s been no increase in home invasions (which we in the UK call burglaries) or knife crimes. The crime rate is dropping like a stone in UK and the rest of Europe (and to be fair in the US as well, outside of gun crime). Facts should be your friend.

      • Baby_Raptor

        Because guns are totally the only way to protect oneself. There aren’t millions of homes in the world that don’t have guns in them and yet never get robbed.

        • Billy Bob

          I’m not even sure how to respond to a comment this stupid. So what’s your solution if your home does get robbed?

          If you were a criminal and you saw two houses, one with a sign that said “This is a gun free home” and another with a sign that said “This home is protected” and had a picture of a gun on it, which one would you be more likely yo try to break into?

          • Bdole

            The one where nobody is home, just like almost every single criminal.

            edit: I’m a gun owner myself but I have some strong doubts about how useful it would be if I were caught off guard in the middle of the night by a home invader.

            • Miss_Beara

              Exactly. For example, my uncle is a gun enthusiast. He is in the mindset of “i must protect my home from criminals.” He keeps his guns in the basement locked in a box. So… how is that going to stop a home invader if you are home?

              • Bdole

                Ha, yeah. I guess he could just tell the bad guys, “can ya’ll hold on a sec, I’ll go get the REAL valuable stuff I keep hidden in the cellar. I’ll be right baaack.”

          • C.L. Honeycutt

            I’m quite sure how to respond to a comment this stupid:

            Criminals typically commit burglaries when no one is home. Firearms are often a sign of relative wealth AND they are a windfall for a burglar, as they are in demand and have a high profit value compared to ease of acquisition. Houses with guns are sometimes specifically targeted for that reason.

          • Baby_Raptor

            I’m not even sure how to respond to a comment this stupid.

            Who puts signs in front of their houses announcing whether or not they have a gun in there?

            • Miss_Beara

              This is always my thought when I hear that sign comment. Who even does that? Oh, that’s right, nobody. You really think a criminal is going to give a crap if you might be armed?

          • baal

            ” yo try to break into”
            I’d break into the one with more and better stuff. Or I’d break into the home with guns so I could steal them. Most robbers prefer to steal from homes when the owners are out.

          • smrnda

            A gun is about the most valuable thing a criminal can possibly steal. Broadcasting that you own guns seems like a pretty good way to get robbed.

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        Please post an explanation of how that is not just a gibberish talking-point from talking heads.

        You can start by somehow reconciling it with the fact that the vast majority of burglaries are done during the day and/or when the criminals know that no one is home.

    • 3lemenope

      One thing that is usually the case: when someone says “end of story”, it isn’t.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      It’s a ridiculously moot point. There are more guns owned by civilians in the U.S. than there are civilians. That’s why the vast majority of the gun control debate is nothing but theater for the rubes. It can’t be significantly changed without changing the average person’s opinion of what s/he should do with the guns that s/he personally owns. And s/he can’t justifiably have much pressure put on him to get rid of them until we do such things as get poverty under control and change the paradigms so that people don’t have to be distrustful and even afraid of police, IF the police even come when called.

      A few years ago, I did Census work in an area where many people who answered the door wore a pistol on their belt. It was on the outskirts of Lexington, N.C., only a block away from a major local business area, but unless a crime happened one block further over and involved the corporate stores, the police hardly gave much of a shit. (I heard a lot about this because my sister taught kids from the same neighborhood for a few years and worked closely with their parents whenever possible.)

      On a tangent, funny thing about that job: The people in neighborhoods like that were all nice as hell. Many of them would come out to hang out on the porch or walk down to the street and talk about nothing in particular, even though I was a big white guy and very out of place. You know who the shifty, paranoid ones were? The middle and upper income whites in “good” neighborhoods. They were loaded with racist comments, random imprecations about Obama, and threats to shoot anyone who came to take their guns.

  • closetatheist

    Honestly it seemed like he was simply spewing out another popular Christian catch-phrase because he was confronted with a thought that he had never considered before and was on the spot. To me, the look on his face said that his mind went blank and he grasped for the first thing that could come to his mind. So, for what its worth I don’t think he actually meant it how it sounded.

  • http://www.graveyardofthegods.com/forum/ Brad Reddekopp

    If you’ve ever read the whole Bible, you’ve got to admit that the God
    described in that book doesn’t really seem to have a problem with kids
    being killed.

    • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ TBJ

      Yep, because when writing fiction one can do almost anything.

  • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ TBJ

    This is an appeal to the religious beliefs of the victim’s parents. Whether I believe, it was some deities plan, my answer is nope.

  • HollowGolem

    Whether or not you believe Zimmerman is legally innocent, this video shows him to be a little disgusting, as a person.

    You killed an unarmed man. Even if you believe you were acting in self defense, the act of killing an unarmed man should fill you with remorse.

    Zimmerman clearly states at the end, unambiguously, that he wouldn’t have done anything differently. That makes me sick.

    • Larry Meredith

      He pretty much says he doesn’t want to think about whether he would have done anything differently. It’s easier for him to just shrug his shoulders and assume his sky daddy planned it out. Thinking about it doesn’t make sense to him to even begin with. This is clearly a man that doesn’t think about his actions.

      • Jim Jones

        > “This is clearly a man that doesn’t think about his actions.”

        Like 98% of humans.

        • Larry Meredith

          huh?

    • brianmacker

      You make me sick.

      • RobMcCune

        Don’t forget to stick your tongue out.

      • Richard_Pietrasz

        brianmacker,you come across as having no respect for life, just like Zimmerman.

        • brianmacker

          That’s asinine, and shows what poor judgement you have. As Richard Wade has pointed out, Zimmerman’s response here is what you’d expect to a ambush interview, and HollowGolem’s assumption that Zimmerman disgusting or lacks remorse because of this interview makes me sick. There was nothing wrong with what Zimmerman did under the circumstances. Ever step of the way he was acting legally and with good intentions. Monday morning quarterbacking by people not having their heads bashed into concrete makes me sick.

    • Jim Jones

      Good god, get a clue. Like most people he merely spouts crap he’s heard elsewhere. What he tried to say was that he doesn’t know how he could have done anything differently since his actions were totally legal AND perfectly reasonable.

      Martin was the aggressor and the criminal here. This is the law in every state and most countries. Zimmerman had no choices – Martin did and chose crime.

      “The average man never really thinks from end to end of his life.
      The mental activity of such people is only a mouthing of cliches. What
      they mistake for thought is simply a repetition of what they have heard.
      My guess is that well over 80 percent of the human race goes through
      life without having a single original thought.”
      ― H.L. Mencken

      Except that IME the number is closer to 98%, this is truth all the way.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Remove an unwanted clump of cells from a woman’s uterus: You’re a murderer.

    Stalk and kill an unarmed 17 year old black man after being told not to: Hey, you were defending yourself.

    • KMR

      Stalking is an illegal activity. And since it’s an illegal activity it’s got a legal definition which is this – “a distinctive form of criminal activity composed of a series of actions that taken individually might constitute legal behavior.” Zimmerman didn’t do a series of activities over an extended period of time. He did one activity over a short period of time.
      He followed Trayvon Martin. It certainly was a bad idea. But it’s not illegal. If he had indeed stalked him as you said I would hope the jury would have come to a different conclusion.

      • Dave Littler

        Baby_Raptor plainly meant it in the way that a predatory animal stalks a prey animal it means to kill. I don’t know if you’re pretending to be stupid for the sake of antagonism or if it’s legitimate, but either way, give it a break.

        • KMR

          I don’t know what he plainly meant because I don’t believe in emotional conjecture. Obviously I’m not in great company today.

          • Hat Stealer

            You “don’t believe in emotional conjecture”? What does that even mean? That you’re Mr. Spock, who looks at things from a cold, rational, purely analytical worldview? I’m sorry to break it to ya, but painfully literal thinking is not actually a mark of great intellect.

          • Dave Littler

            Plainly you’re just being dishonest now.

      • Baby_Raptor

        The definition you provide does not mention “an extended time period.”

        • KMR

          You’re right of course. But since it’s a “series of actions”, it requires more than one time period to prove it’s occurrence.

          • onamission5

            The state of FL disagrees with your claim about the time period requirements.

            From item 1b: a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose.

            http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.048.html

            • KMR

              “pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose”.

              It can be a short time period yes. But it has to be a pattern and it has to be series of acts. A pattern is only a pattern if it’s been repeated. For it to have been repeated it’s going to involve more than one time period.
              And if the prosecution thought Zimmerman had been legally stalking Trayvon, they would have brought it up because that would have been a slam dunk case.

  • Hitchens’ Ghost

    In the face of unverifiable facts, is it not our very nature, our creed if you will, to be sceptical? So then how do some of us still remain sceptical once a fact has been established? Perhaps, before you cast your judgemental commentary, you should ask your self, “Am I basing my comments upon some biased, inner belief, that the facts of this case have not been resolved?”
    Is there a difference between scientific facts and criminal cases? Both are subject to peer reviews. Both require unbiased and indifferent opinions. Both require objective deduction. Yet when we mix our emotions into the fray facts become less theretical and more about faith.
    Mr. Zimmerman is innocent, that is now a fact, to believe otherwise is not being a sceptic but reacting upon false beliefs and emotions, i.e. faith. You can not now attempt to rewrite history by making a claim that “this piece of evidence or that piece evidence” is inconsistent with the facts. That is called revisionism and it is a very Christian-esque trait. You might disagree with the verdict but you can not deny the fact of his innocence. Anything else is just a self serving opinion that has zero basis in reality.

    • Bruce

      I don’t know if he is innocent. A trial doesn’t determine innocence. The burden of proof is on the prosecutors to prove guilt, just like it is on theists to prove the existence of god. What I learned today is that skepticism and atheism are not equivalent. So many atheists on here that just accepted the media narrative without question.

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        And a few who just decided that the kid must have done it in defiance of all logic.

      • RobMcCune

        Since when is using facts and logic to come to a conclusion not skepticism? Well, when it comes to a conclusion that Bruce doesn’t like, of course.

    • Baby_Raptor

      Putting aside all the plainly evident bias and racism, this trial did not declare him innocent. It declared that supposedly there wasn’t the evidence to convict.

      Zimmerman himself said he shot Trayvon. There’s no erasing that. He’s guilty of murder. He just got off because a bunch of people who didn’t want him convicted could use a law to hide behind.

      • Billy Bob

        The prosecution could not produce evidence of murder or manslaughter. If they could not convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, they cannot convict him. That’s how the US legal system works.

        • Baby_Raptor

          This…doesn’t counter what I said at all?

          • baal

            Bob’s wrong on the production of evidence. The prosecution did that. They failed to convince the jury OR the laws of Florida are so fucked that it’s not illegal to shoot pedestrians when you have follow them around in your car.

            Bob’s also being legalistic about the definition of ‘murder’ (legally adjudicated finding by a jury that the elements of the crime ‘murder’ were met. He then bootstraps that to mean Zimmerman is innocent.

            Normal human (not legal) meanings of murder and innocent come to the opposite conclusion.

    • Daniel_JM

      Are you seriously trying to compare the results of one jury trial to verifiable science? You obviously are not at all familiar with our justice system, which often goes wrong. You don’t know the difference between someone being really not guilty vs just not meeting the beyond a reasonable doubt criteria, or a jury making a mistake or being misled by lawyers or being constrained by poorly written laws.

      You are also very confused about science; reality is not declared with 100% certainty after 1 study. Those results are open to criticism and revision based on future evidence. Fact based criticisms of a scientific theory or hypothesis are not examples of “faith.” They are at the heart of the scientific process.

    • Shockna

      Even the most ardent defenders of trial-by-jury aren’t going to claim that a verdict is equivalent to empirical, scientific evidence.

      A change of pseudonym is advised. Christopher Hitchens was no great fool, and wouldn’t have made that absurd an error.

    • brianmacker

      They are atheists which does not entail skepticism or rationality.

  • Katotohanan

    I am glad that justice won out. Cause at the end of the day, the facts never meshed with the prosecution’s side of the story. Yes, he was not guilty. You can bitch and moan about guns and whites and the South, but you cannot change the facts. No jury could convict him, no prosecution could prove murder or manslaughter, it was a manufactured controversy from the start. You can whine about Florida laws, you can cry about vigilante justice, and rue the weird idea that people are allowed to defend themselves (even with guns!), but still Zimmerman was not shown to have acted in malice or wanton imprudence.

    Oh, and I am a small brown guy living in South East Asia. I have no horse in the race, only the desire that the truth should prevail. And it did.

    • Gordon Duffy

      He was guilty as hell.

      • Katotohanan

        Great, who needs an evidence-based judicial system when we can rely on ex cathedra pronouncements from the tl;dr crowd.

        • Noah Smith

          The problem isn’t the verdict but the US criminal system. Originally Zimmerman wasn’t even going to be charged.

          • brianmacker

            Which would have been the correct decision.

        • Gordon Duffy

          What evidence was presented that invalidates the fact that he gunned down a teen?

      • DougI

        Zimmerman is as innocent as OJ Simpson was. Somehow I don’t think Zimmerman’s defenders were shouting out about how Simpson is such a victim and is completely innocent. I wonder why that is….

    • Baby_Raptor

      I’m sorry, what part of him admitting that he shot Trayvon did you miss?

      That *should* have been evidence enough right there, after factoring in that he was *stalking an unarmed teenager.* He specifically went out of his way to start that fight. He ignored being told not to pursue Trayvon. And then when Trayvon defended himself, he shot him.

      You might be able to get “I shot for fear of my life out of that,” but no thinking person could.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      By ZImmerman’s own version of events, he’s guilty of manslaughter. You can whine about that all you want, and you will.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      That wasn’t justice. It was a fucking FARCE.

      Zimmerman MURDERED a 17 year old boy for nothing more than walking home in the dark with a can of iced tea.

      • stop2wonder

        Some people who have more facts than you seemed to disagree. And so does the dictionary. Zimmerman did shoot and kill a 17 year old boy, but that doesn’t make it murder, and the jury agreed.

        • Nancy Shrew

          He deserved manslaughter at least. People have gotten convicted for manslaughter for less.

        • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

          The jury was racist as fuck.

  • Theory_of_I

    Vigilantism — wrapped in a flag and carrying a bible — is now legitimized.

  • advancedatheist

    Of course, it doesn’t fit the mythology of White Racism (even though Zimmerman’s mom comes from Peru, and through her he has a black great-grandfather) to point out that young black men face far greater risks from their black peers than from whites:

    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/bvvc.pdf

    In 2005 most homicides involving one victim and one offender were intraracial. About 93% of black homicide victims and 85% of white victims in single victim and single offender homicides were murdered by someone of their race.

    And a lot of these black-on-black homicides go unsolved.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      And it doesn’t fit the Whites Are The REAL Victims Of Racism mythology to point out that you’re throwing out irrelevancies to feed said mythology.

  • Allen Jacobs

    Zimmerman is a wannabe cop. Every officer involved in the shooting of an unarmed civilian takes the same stance, i.e., I didn’t do anything wrong, I was following procedures, I was in fear for my life, etc. I don’t know if Zimmerman set out following Martin with the intention of killing him, but he clearly knew what he was going to say if he did.

    • brianmacker

      What’s wrong with wanting to be a cop? A witness testified that he was offered a position where he could ride in a government provided car with real flashing lights and everything. Just the opportunity you’d expect a “wanna be” cop to jump at. He turned it down.

  • David Mock

    Here’s the problem guys, the prosecution did nothing to prove Zimmerman’s guilt. That’s how the law works. It must be no reasonable doubt. And the case was so ambiguous, details so construed, that their would have been no legal way to convict Zimmerman. Now, I do think Zimmerman saying he wouldn’t do anything different is pretty fucked up.

  • Hat Stealer

    A white man shot a black man and got off Scott free? What a shocking turn of events.

    Not.

  • Ryan Hite

    I still can’t believe they found him not guilty. Faith in humanity lost.

  • stop2wonder

    I can’t believe so many people think this was a miscarriage of justice. Sure, I’ll agree it was a terrible tragedy, but miscarriage of justice, no.

    A miscarriage of justice would’ve been to find Zimmerman guilty based on the (lack of) evidence the prosecution provided. They didn’t prove the case.

    The system isn’t broken, it worked just like it was supposed to. If you don’t like it, then reread the part of the constitution where it talks about innocent til proven guilty.

  • Nancy Shrew

    I can’t believe some of the rancid horseshit in this thread (and yet I can). “This isn’t a race issue” my ass.

  • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

    Hey, Hemant, way to go, deleting my comment. What’s the matter, someone didn’t like the truth about Florida?

  • Michael Forbes

    Oooh I’m getting a vibe from God right now to go out and shoot someone. Its Gods plan. OK God I’ll fetch my guns. Yes God, shoot to kill , I understand.

  • Itsrealfunnythat

    There is no justice.

  • Owen

    Reading through these comments it is obvious that many liberals are reality challenged. To hell with forensic evidence, eyewitness accounts, and trial by jury because MUH FEELINGS!

  • Sk3ptec

    OJ Simpson did it and he walked (with 2 victims). What’s the difference? It’s called “reasonable doubt” for “premeditated intent to murder”. Justice was done. Any other conclusion is race motivated.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Justice was fucking ABORTED.

      Zimmerman ADMITTED TO STALKING AND KILLING MARTIN. There was no reasonable fear for his life, there was no threat to his life or safety, and his “injuries” were obviously self-inflicted.

      • Sk3ptec

        …which is why people like you aren’t allowed to be on the jury.

        • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

          What, you mean people who can see through the bullshit to the truth? Yeah, defense attorneys don’t like that, much…

          • Sk3ptec

            No, I mean people who have already convicted without hearing/understanding the evidence (or the law).

            • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

              I looked at the evidence, I watched the trial, and the fact is, Zimmerman got away with murder.

              His injuries? Self-inflicted. (Really easy to do, by the way.)

              His story had holes in it big enough to fly the Enterprise through.

              And he ADMITTED TO STALKING AND KILLING TRAYVON.

              • desiday

                Late to this article, but I still had to comment. What holes did his story have? What expertise do you have in self-inflicted injuries? I watched the trial as well, and the verdict is absolutely consistent with the applicable statutes. Those who are trying to make this a race issue are the same ones who are creating “bash” mobs in L.A. and using this verdict as an opportunity to loot and assault people.

      • brianmacker

        You know, a person like you is not at all reasonable. It would be ironic if someone accidentally dropped their credit card at night, you tried to return it, they punched you in the nose, got on top, and started beating your brains out on the pavement. Maybe then you’d understand how unreasonable Martin’s behavior was. Zimmerman was the guy who called police, not Martin, fer fucks sake.

  • The Inconsistent Atheist

    According to the evolutionary view, Zimmerman killing Martin was just a “natural process”. It wasn’t right or wrong. It wasn’t good or bad. It’s just something that happened, and from the end result obviously Zimmerman was better fit to survive.

    As Gary DeMar has written, “It’s time that evolutionists stand up and take credit for the result.”

    • RobMcCune

      Unhinged loons like Gary know nothing about evolution. They’re the special creations of religious fundamentalism and misanthropy.

  • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

    Have ya heard of the brutal slayings of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom?

  • Humanbeing

    This should never for any reason ever happen. Since when can you just blame god for something and avoid the fact that you killed another human being. He simply used god as a way to get out of trouble. Truly unhumane.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X