George Zimmerman: it was god’s plan.

In America, if you really want to get away with a crime, you’d better hold up that cross and pay it lip service til you choke.

Fucking slimeball.  Add one more entry to the long list of people who’ve done something terrible and blamed god’s plan for what they did.  It’s funny how similar god’s perfection is to humans being shitty.  And by “funny” I mean disgusting and maximally humiliating for anybody buying into that load of shit.

You’re not going to second-guess god’s plan?  If god planned for the death of a kid who only wanted a god damn bag of Skittles and not the pious man who was stalking him with a loaded gun, and you’re not willing to second guess it, then fuck you and that god.  No good man accepts a wicked master.

It seems there’s no atrocity, no injustice, no needless pain and loss of life that cannot be ascribed to god’s plan that will make Christians say “Huh, maybe god’s plan ain’t so loving or so perfect” or “Huh, maybe this guy’s throwing out references to my god so I’ll be more likely to think he’s innocent”.

Just…fuck.  That kid didn’t have to die.  And to suggest that a child dying for no reason isn’t so bad because it’s “god’s plan”?  Fucking evil.  Not moral, not irrelevant: fucking evil.  It’s a pity there’s no justice in the universe beyond what humans do.  But even if their god existed to give us justice, I wouldn’t want him.  At least a human can realize the travesty of a child’s death without associating it with a plan they consider to be loving, perfect, or even fucking good.

There’s your sweet, moralizing religion.  You have a god who planned for a kid to die.  Not just one kid, but lots of them all over the world.  Keep worshiping that god and telling atheists that we’re the immoral ones for being grateful that such a wicked story was never true.

About JT Eberhard

When not defending the planet from inevitable apocalypse at the rotting hands of the undead, JT is a writer and public speaker about atheism, gay rights, and more. He spent two and a half years with the Secular Student Alliance as their first high school organizer. During that time he built the SSA’s high school program and oversaw the development of groups nationwide. JT is also the co-founder of the popular Skepticon conference and served as the events lead organizer during its first three years.

  • Zinc Avenger

    “Huh, maybe this guy’s throwing out references to my god so I’ll be more likely to think he’s innocent”.

    That’s the one that always gets me. It couldn’t be any more transparent if he was simultaneously parping a clown horn behind his back.

  • Natalie Clausson

    Great heated debates over Zimmerman, hopefully people are learning a thing or two and not just getting mad over it.

    I don’t have to like the guy to think that they got the right judgement. Our emotion get the better of us and bring out a defensive side of us that just won’t stand for this kind of injustice. If you were to see it thought most peoples eye’s, they were in a fight and Zimmerman killed him. It’s simpler that way and most people will believe an injustice has been done. But that’s not the extent of what happened, for the facts are:

    His life was in danger (skull being bashed into the concrete)

    He had the right to defend himself against such danger.

    Only defense he had was a gun and he knew you had to shoot to kill and he felt his life was in that much danger to bring out the gun and shoot.

    The law see’s it starting at that moment he felt his life was in danger.

    (Most importantly:) Gun laws in our country are not well enough understood,
    case in point, when a bunch of people protest against something that was such a clear cut case of self-defense.

    Is the law screwed up, for believing, that this is a clear cut case of self defense? Just ask yourself, when your life is in danger does all the crap leading up to it
    really matter, right then, and there?

    • Zinc Avenger

      If “all the crap leading up to it” doesn’t matter, then you can step into the path of any speeding car and execute the driver.
      “He was about to run me down, Your Honor, so I shot him.”

      • Natalie Clausson

        Wow, okay, so there are a lot of people that don’t understand the law, first check out this link: http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-case-the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense/

        In it you will find the following: “It is, however, possible for the initial aggressor of a conflict to regain his “innocence” under certain circumstances., and thereby regain his right to justifiably use force in self defense”

        As well as an answer to your silly scenario you proposed.
        “A condition to “recovering innocence” is that you have “exhausted every reasonable means to escape” or that you “withdraw from physical contact with the assailant.”

        • unbound55

          Unfortunately, many people are actually arguing morals, not law. Keep in mind that the law was not written 10,000+ years ago, and hasn’t changed since. As we come to understand circumstances (and consequences) better, the laws should evolve to handle the various scenarios. That said, just because the law allows for the aggressor to become “innocent” again doesn’t mean it was applied correctly.

          However, in this case, it was less about the law and more about having better lawyers that won the argument about regaining his innocence. The lawyers successfully diverted the jury away from the fact that Zimmerman entered the aggressor with superior weaponry. Under such a scenario, that defense (becoming innocent again) was actually pretty laughable. If Martin was aware that Zimmerman had a gun, he was almost certainly fighting out of fear for his own life and was actually justified in his response. The defense lawyers managed to twist this a full 180 degrees around. Had Martin killed Zimmerman with Zimmerman holding the gun in his hands still, Martin would be free to go (maybe, being a black kid I would bet there would be a lot of extra examination of the case) since it was clearly a case of self-defense. Twisting this to be the opposite was clearly good work by the defense team…nothing more.

          Zinc Avenger is completely correct. “All the crap leading up to it” is immensely important. Context is everything.

          • Natalie Clausson

            I agree with you, I am arguing this on a legal standing so people might understand why in the eye of the law he was not convicted. You need to know what your fighting and why, not just because it feels right. Nothing gets changed when people don’t have a clear cut intention of changing one part of a law. Otherwise this just all fizzles out and is lost to history like too many other cases like it.

            I just want to point out though speaking in legal context, if Zimmerman entered into this showing Martin his gun he would be guilty of another law, brandishing a firearm. So with that in mind and Zimmerman obviously knowing the law when it comes to firearms, was again in the right not letting him know about the gun. He did the right thing in the eye’s of the law.

            Oh, when is it not about having the right lawyer? This is an area of law that needs to change. It should have changed once we knew about bias and how our biases effect our decisions.

          • invivoMark

            Actually, from a legal standing, the verdict is arguably the correct one because it’s a verdict of “not guilty” rather than one of “innocent”.

            The law does not “start” at the moment when one person feels threatened. The law does not ignore “all the crap leading up to” an incident. Otherwise a bank robber could say his murder of a cop was justified because he felt threatened by the cop.

            The fact is that we cannot prove what actually happened in the moments leading up to the murder, so we cannot prove to a jury (at least, not this jury) that the situation wasn’t exactly as Zimmerman described it. Of course, there was one other witness who could have countered Zimmerman’s descriptions – a 17-year-old black kid with candy in his pocket – but I hear that someone shot him.

            Now, if you had come out the gate making the distinction of “not guilty” vs. “innocent”, you would have had a point. But your posts aren’t being well received because you instead chose to come right out saying ridiculous things like “his life was in danger” (YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT), “he knew he had to shoot to kill” (YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT), “The law see’s [sic] it starting at that moment he felt his life was in danger” (PATENTLY UNTRUE). So don’t go chastising others for not understanding the law when you clearly don’t understand it much either.

          • Natalie Clausson

            Okay, first of all I never said innocent or no guilty, your getting that part from a quote I put in from an actual law paper written on the subject of Zimmerman and the 5 laws of self defense.

            Alright lest look at your other points:

            No, it’s not ridiculous saying his life was in danger, FACT: forensic reports back up his accounts of what happened. and say that the brain damage is unknown at this point (don’t need to site the papers do I?), His head was being smashed into the cement, when is smashing someone’s head against the cement not threatening someone’s life? Notice I didn’t use his words that the kid was reaching for his gun and that is why and when he decided to use is, because that’s unknown if he said it or not.

            Yes, “he knew he had to shoot to kill” is a bit of conjecture on my part, I admit, but he followed all of the laws leading up to the encounter to a T in regards to the gun. He was paranoid and had law in his family background so on these grounds I made a leap of logic I didn’t think was too much. But apparently I was wrong.

            “The law see’s it starting at that moment he felt his life was in danger”Yes, I did spell see’s wrong, it is sees, it’s not the candy company, sorry for the spelling faux pas. Okay I should have better explained this one. So here’s the correction: The law sees his stance of self defense in the following way…”It is, however, possible for the initial aggressor of a conflict to
            regain his “innocence” under certain circumstances., and thereby regain
            his right to justifiably use force in self defense”.

            Please do correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t yell at me in Caps. If this is anything other then a civil conversation/debate please let me know so I can stop responding.

          • invivoMark

            Yes, I know you never mentioned “innocent vs. not guilty”. That’s my point. That’s the only legitimate argument one can make, without having all the facts of the case (something which no one but Zimmerman has), in defense of the verdict. And you didn’t make it.

            Instead, you’re both pretending to know things that you don’t know, and you’re pretending that the law says something that it doesn’t, and then you’re chastising people for disagreeing.

            Forensic reports may back up what Zimmerman claimed to have happened, but that doesn’t mean that Zimmerman was telling the truth. Forensic reports also back up a million alternative situations.

            And since you don’t know what actually happened (NO ONE does), you do not know that Zimmerman followed the law leading up to the murder. At the very least, it is arguable that he was stalking the kid. Imagine for a second that this kid was a 12-year-old girl. Would Zimmerman’s actions have been considered stalking? You bet your ass they would’ve! The fact that the kid was instead a 17-year-old black male doesn’t change that fact, unless you don’t really believe that all are equal under the law.

          • Namakaokona

            Bottom line: an unarmed black kid was killed, so move along–nothing to see here. Got it.

          • David Peterson

            Oh no, he was armed with a lethal soda and a deadly bag of Skittles!

          • Dez

            Yup. And now people have even more excuses to gun black men and boys.

      • Billy Bob

        Damn, how much straw did you buy to erect that?

    • Dirty_Nerdy

      When my life is in danger, what happened to put my life in danger right then and there doesn’t matter much to me. When facing the consequences for how I *might* have put myself in that situation (say by unnecessarily following somebody around the neighborhood), I would expect those circumstances to matter a little bit.

      • Natalie Clausson

        When a gun enters into the conversation laws change in reaction to it. That’s part of what people are not getting about this case.
        The circumstances matter, but only to the extent of proving that it was indeed self defense. I’m going by the law, not personal feeling here.

        • smrnda

          In that case, the laws of the US are an absurd farce deserving of no more respect than the laws of a nation that makes it a crime for educating girls.

          • Billy Bob

            Yeah, it’s an absurd farce that people are allowed to defend themselves against some thug beating the shit out of them.

          • smrnda

            So any random person can drive around in a car with a gun appropriating the functions of law enforcement?

          • invivoMark

            Wait a fucking minute. You have evidence that Trayvon Martin was a thug!? Present that evidence, please.

          • Billy Bob

            Well, the fact that he beat up GZ might have something to do with it.

          • invivoMark

            But wait, didn’t you just say that murder in self-defense is not murder? You’re a hypocrite.

          • Namakaokona

            ‘A thug’ based on what evidence? Oh that’s right, he was black and wearing a hoodie. Did I miss something? Got any evidence of any criminal wrongdoing?

        • Namakaokona

          Its obvious that you have no personal feelings over an unarmed black kid being shot through the heart. Probably had it coming….right Natalie?

    • Peter Callan

      He chased an unarmed kid after he was told by the police not to. He had a gun. The kid was unarmed. Zimmerman escalated the situation to the point of killing the kid. He could at any time have walked away. He didn’t. He is responsible in any way of looking at the situation. He initiated the situation. He pursued the situation. And in his self righteous stupidity, he shot an unarmed boy. The only person who needed to fear for his life was the kid. Where does that fit in with your idiot law?

      • Billy Bob

        GZ escalated the situation? Got evidence of that or are you like the rest of the pseudo skeptics who know, without any evidence, what happened that night? The phone call with the police dispatcher suggests he lost Martin at one point since he said “I don’t know where this kid is” after telling the dispatcher TM was running. He even sounded afraid. He wasn’t stalking him or chasing him. That’s just more liberal spin put on this case. Following a suspicious individual is not illegal. I wonder why all the liberal sites talking about this never mention that.

        GZ is not responsible for Martin assaulting him. Slamming someone’s head into the ground is not reasonable self defense. It’s assault and possibly an attempt to kill. GZ had reason to fear for his life and reacted accordingly.

        And stop with the “he was unarmed” bullshit. Fists can kill, and so can concrete. Put yourself in GZ’s situation. If there was a guy on top of you beating the shit out of you, and you had access to a gun and could shoot, would you?

        • Peter Callan

          If some clown was after me with a gun, after the police told him not to (something you conveniently forget, and something the ki would not have known so I’m not surprised he ran) I would use whatever I could to prevent him using that gun against me. To equate a powerful handgun to fists as potential lethal weapons seems to underline your ignorance. Zimmerman escalated the situation. no matter what he says and no matter what you say. He could have let it go, when the police told him to.
          And why was he considered “suspicious”, Billy Bob? Because he wasn’t white? And apparently the only person who considered him “suspicious” was Zimmerman, the only guy of the two of them carrying a concealed handgun in that vicinity at the time.
          Put yourself in the kid’s position, Billy Bob. If a guy came at you with a gun, when all you were doing was working from the corner store to your home with candy in your pocket, what would you do? And please use the “liberal” label on me again, I beg you. I’m proud that I actually use my brain.

          • Billy Bob

            There’s no evidence GZ went after him with a gun. In fact, at one point, GZ lost him, and sounded afraid while he was on the phone. The evidence clearly shows TM assaulted GZ. His injuries after the incident show that. Unless you have proof that GZ was lying when he said TM jumped him from behind, you have no case.

            And the police did not order him not to follow. The dispatcher did and it is not illegal to ignore their suggestions. Quit with the lying about “he was ordered by police to stop following” that I hear so much. Yes, it was a stupid move to get out of his vehicle, but that is not a reason to assault someone.

            Go listen to GZ why he thought he was suspicious. There had been several break ins in the neighborhood, and GZ said on the phone that TM was behaving strangely. Go find the unedited call if you don’t believe me. The race thing was brought up by the media. The only person who make any racial comments was TM who called GZ a “creepy ass cracker”. GZ made no racial comments and there’s no reason to suggest he was motivated by race. He didn’t even mention it until the dispatcher asked specifically about race then again when he got a better look at TM. Something you guys conveniently never mention when wanting to blame race.

            Being on top of someone is not reasonable defense. It’s assault. GZ defended himself from a thug trying to kill him. If you have evidence that contradicts this, by all means bring it forward. If you don’t, then shut up and stop making that statement.

            If you think you have evidence that the prosecution missed that could prove murder, by all means bring it forward. I’m sure the police would love to have it. If not, then shut up and stop pretending you know what happened. Don’t you guys usually demand evidence before someone else makes absolute statements? Stating “Zimmerman escalated the situation no matter what he said or what you said” is an absolute statement. Show the evidence of it or shut up.

            By the way, I’m also liberal. I just can’t stand most others who constantly want to spin this story to be about racial violence in the country. Yes, it exists, but it didn’t in this case. You aren’t using your brain if you really think you know what happened or if you really think this is a racial issue. You’re just another mindless drone spouting off about something you don’t know.

          • Peter Callan

            American justice, American justification.

          • Namakaokona

            Besides–its just an unarmed black kid who died, so why all the fuss. GZ has his gun back–good for him. My guess is he will be looking over his shoulder for a long time.

          • Rob

            ” In fact, at one point, GZ lost him”

            So there was no immediate threat then?

        • Namakaokona

          The State Medical Examiner Dr. Valerie Rao stated that GZ’s injuries were ‘very minor’ and ‘not consistent’ with being repeatedly slammed into concrete. Of course, you and Rush and GZ know better, because ….why? Oh that’s right, the only other witness GZ made sure would never be able to present his side of the story. How convenient. Let’s not shed any tears for an unarmed black kid–I’m sure he got what he had coming for not minding his place.

        • ahermit

          How do you know Martin assaulted him? Because Zimmerman says so? Which version of Zimmerman’s self serving story are we supposed to believe…he gave several conflicting accounts.There’s no chance Martin was defending himself against Zimmerman?

          You say that ” Slamming someone’s head into the ground is not reasonable self defense…”

          But shooting someone in the heart is? How does that work?

        • David Peterson

          Certainly not! He was an unarmed boy with a Soda and a bag of Skittles and I would not pursue a kid based on Z’s accounts that he was “suspicious. Why was he suspicious? Have you seen this guys myspace yet since we are talking about the facts, character reference is a good point to start, it’s full of racist slurs and this gem, “Im still free! The ex hoe tried her hardest, but the judge saw through
          it! Big Mike, reppin the Dverse security makin me look a million bucks,
          broke her down! Thanks to everyone for checkin up on me! Stay tuned for
          the A.T.F. charges……” and this one “2 felonies dropped to 1 misdemeanor!!!!!!!!!!! The man knows he was
          wrong but still got this hump, Thanks to everyone friends and fam, G
          baby you know your my rock!”

    • Billy Bob

      At least there’s one rational person here.

    • wfenza

      The problem here is that even if the shooting was self-defense, “all that crap leading up to it” was also illegal. Zimmerman may not be a murderer, but he certainly acted negligently, and it resulted in someone’s death. In almost every state, that’s negligent homicide. Even before the shooting, Zimmerman was almost certainly guilty of aggravated assault or some kind of crime.

    • tafa

      So if I continually poke the dog until he retaliates I have the right to shoot it in self defense? Seriously, no holes in that argument. If I were being followed by someone in an unpopulated area I would probably become aggressive if they confronted me. I believe the justice system normally does consider provocation as a factor, Zimmerman being the initiator by his actions alone. Unfortunately the jury was comprised of individuals like you who were willing to select segments of the event rather than the whole.

  • Art_Vandelay

    I’m being told on Hemant’s blog that it’s unfair to suggest that Zimmerman thinks that God wanted this to happen because Christians say that all the time so we shouldn’t spin their words to make it sound worse. This is mind-numbing to me. Since when does the word “plan” not have a precise meaning?

    • Zinc Avenger

      plan
      /plan/

      Noun (general usage)
      A scheme or method of acting, doing, proceeding, making, etc., developed in advance: battle plans.
      Noun (specific Christian usage)
      Unchangeable fact from the past.

      • randomfactor

        To paraphrase a famous general, not so much a plan as a “horrible spasm.” Just like the rest of life.

        Zimmerman is as much God’s Plan as is ebola and syphillis.

  • rovinrockhound

    Add one more entry to the long list of people who’ve done something terrible and blamed god’s plan for what they did

    Credited. I think you mean credited, not blamed.

  • smrnda

    On the law.

    In some countries you can be executed or thrown in jail for disparaging religion. If you stood up, said ‘such and such holy book is nothing but bullshit’ from a legal perspective, you performed and illegal action which comes with certain penalties. In some places, a man might be permitted to kill his daughter if she’s compromised the family ‘honor.’ Now, despite the fact that these things are legal, we would be totally outraged by them. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if people started petitions demanding that *totally legally defensible verdicts be overturned* in a case like that.

    On Zimmerman, the guy was already a menace to public safety as gun nut and self-appointment vigilante. The fact that his behavior was legal just shows you that the US hardly deserves to be called a civilized country.

    As far as his life being in danger, if you start a totally unprovoked fight you can’t finish, getting your skull smashed in is exactly what you deserve.

    If he has a ‘right’ to self defense in that case, then I have a right to chase people and shoot them when they fight back or run.

    • Billy Bob

      No evidence suggests that GZ provoked TM. GZ is the only one who knows for sure what happened and I’m sick of people pretending they know. Plus, look up how self defense works. If someone is slamming your head into the ground, regardless of who started the fight, that is threatening someone’s life. If that’s what happened, GZ acted in self defense and was fully justified in shooting.

      • smrnda

        He was following him in a car. I’d argue that following someone is pretty threatening. In a situation like that, I’d probably call the cops and supply the plate number. The difference is, being a white female as opposed to a Black male, the cops would probably take me seriously.

        • Hibernia86

          You both are assuming that if Zimmerman acted rightly in self defense then Trayvon acted wrongly and visa versa. Couldn’t it be that Trayvon was right to be scared that someone was following him and acted in self defense and Zimmerman was right to be scared about his head being beaten into the sidewalk and acted in self defense. What if they BOTH acted in self defense and it was a tragic misunderstanding.

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

            Then it is a tragedy and Zimmerman should be legally guilty of manslaughter but not murder.

            That’s not the legal outcome, though.

      • Namakaokona

        So how do you then know that TM was ‘slamming his head into the ground’. Were you there?

      • Namakaokona

        Since Zimmerman has his gun back and has killed an unarmed child, then someone who was afraid for their life because of Zimmerman’s history can be justified in shooting him? Is that how it works?

    • Billy Bob

      And where’s your evidence that GZ was a “menace to public safety”? Or are you just talking out your ass like all the other pseudo skeptics on the internet?

      Your last sentence is just another straw man that’s been used by everyone else on the internet.

      • smrnda

        Civilized countries have organized, official law enforcement which is supposed to be bound by proper protocols, properly identified, and legally bound to follow due process in assessing potential criminal activity. You think just permitting anybody who wants to to patrol the streets with a gun is a great idea?

        • Billy Bob

          Nice straw man. I never said anything like that.

      • invivoMark

        “And where’s your evidence that GZ was a “menace to public safety”?”

        How about the part where he murdered a 17-year-old unarmed kid?

        • Billy Bob

          I guess we can leave out the fact that he shot TM while TM was on top of him beating the shit out of him. GZ’s injuries indicate he was assaulted. That’s called self defense. Not murder.

          GZ was an idiot for getting out of his car, but to say that justifies TM beating his head into the ground is absurd.

          • Namakaokona

            And that is based on what evidence? Oh that’s right….TM is black. Nuff said.

          • invivoMark

            However you parse it, Zimmerman’s actions resulted in one less among the living by the end of the day. If you want to split hairs and discuss the specific definitions of words used to describe that, then I don’t think you get it.

          • Whirlwitch

            TM may have been foolish for having tried to defend himself against the man with a gun who was following him, but to say that justifies GZ shooting him in the chest is absurd.

  • Peter Callan

    American justice and American justification, And Hannity didn’t even question this low-life’s “God’s plan” defence. Justice isn’t just blind in America, it’s morally indefensible and mentally challenged. Zimmerman certainly got a jury of his peers.

  • Billy Bob

    Isn’t it amazing how all the “skeptics” know exactly what happened that night?

  • Billy Bob

    JT, I have to commend you for not making absolute statements about what happened that night. Also, thank you for not trying to bring up the race issue. Seems like all the other “skeptic” sites I’ve been to just know exactly what happened that night.

    I also agree with your comments on GZ’s moronic statements in the video. I was shocked when I first saw that. I mean, seriously? He would do the same thing even if the first time, it almost cost him his life and the aftermath nearly cost his freedom? Not exactly a smart man.

    • Dez

      It most definitely a race issue and to dismiss that is insulting. We expect treatment like this in the black community. Killing black men is nothing apparently to you. He was suspicious just for being black. To say otherwise to is to be an outright liar.

  • David Peterson

    Scummbag!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X