American Injustice: Zimmerman Killed a Boy in ‘Self Defense’

Posted on by

CNN reports-

A jury has found George Zimmerman not guilty in the death of Trayvon Martin.

The panel of six women acquitted him of charges of second-degree murder and manslaughter in the death of Martin, who was killed by a single gunshot.

The neighborhood watch volunteer called 911 when he saw Martin, then 17, walking in the rain in a Sanford, Florida, gated community in February 2012.

Zimmerman’s attorneys argued that it was Martin who attacked Zimmerman, who then fired his gun in self-defense.

The moral of the story- say you feel threatened and you can kill anyone. An epic fail for America’s judicial system and a triumph for racism.

16 thoughts on “American Injustice: Zimmerman Killed a Boy in ‘Self Defense’”

  1. To have your nose broken by a soccer punch; to have your head banged in the pavement is beyond being threatened, away beyond. A threat is to say; I will kill you, I will hurt you. But breaking your bones and banging your head is a threat executed.
    Zimmerman showed restraint by not drawing his gun even before he was punched, straddled and only when, as the facts were demonstrated at trial, he had his head banged in the pavement, he drew his gun and rightfully protected his physical integrity and ultimately his life. This case was brought because the race peddlers, race mongers and race baiters demanded it to be brought, but as per the performance of the prosecution, a disastrous ones, the testimony of witnesses who were in favor of the prosecution, who turned out to be a help for Zimmerman’s case, this case should never have been brought and would never had been brought would it not be for the race baiters shaking down the prosecutor’s offices and the police. Many similar cases happened during this last 15 months in Florida of blacks on blacks and blacks on whites and they were not brought to the forefront of the news.

    Like

  2. Jim, unless you have some information and you failed to go forward with this information, then in your blog you pre-judged Zimmerman as guilty on the basis of whatever you saw in the media and you got it wrong.

    Will you apologise to Zimmerman for slander?

    Like

    • not a chance. here are the admitted facts. 1- zimmerman got out of his car and followed a kid. 2- zimmerman shot the kid. 3- the kid is dead. i’m not going to apologize for saying that zimmerman is a murderer. the jury failed martin. the jury failed to do justice. they are the ones who should apologize.

      Like

      • Jim, why bother with a jury, or a trial, or that little thing they call evidence, if there is any chance they will disagree with you. Zimmerman was white and had a gun and Martin was black – that is all you and too many others needed to decide guilt and innocence – and that is racism

        Like

        • nonsense. your attempt to stack the deck won’t fly for one simple reason- if the shooter were black and the victim were white i would still be as unhappy with the facts and the outcome. period. on the other hand you seem hell bent to defend zimmerman, a KILLER. evidently only because he’s white, right? because you don’t seem to be defending OJ.

          Like

    • All three of your facts are true. I agree Zimmerman should have stayed in his car. He did shoot. Martin is dead. However, None of that spells murder. Actual evidence provided at the trial made a shambles of the racist claims touted by the media and affirmed by our own President.

      Like

          • Thou shalt NOT kill. who gave zimmerman the right to usurp that commandment? who gave him the right to follow a kid after the cops told him to stop? who gave him the right to get out of his car after the cops told him not to? who told him he should confront the kid? who appointed him lord high executioner? do tell.

            Like

  4. ‘he drew his gun and rightfully protected …’ That makes no sense in a just world. It’s oxymoronic. “Only in America can a dead black boy go on trial for his own murder.” -Syreeta McFadden

    Like

    • What has the race of either person got to do with anything – unless you and the media choose to inject it into the trial. Unless you have actual evidence that race was a factor – and if so why didn’t you present it to the authorities – then you are just a race baiter

      Like

      • see most recent post on florida;s racist judicial system for the answer to your question. a black woman fires a warning shot because she felt threatened and she’s given 20 years. zimmernan, a white guy, kills a black kid and he’s off scot free. you tell me that isn’t entrenched racism.

        Like

  5. Is it not illegal to follow anyone! Show me anything, any law that says that it is illegal to follow someone! Now, it is illegal for the followed person to engage in the kind of reaction that Trayon did when he and Zimmerman had an opportunity to talk (when Zimmerman was walking back to his truck). The self defense standard was met when Trayon disabled Zimmerman with a punch to the nose then, as Zimmerman fell, he went for a straddling move and banged his head on the pavement. We have to look at facts so as not to draw an emotional conclusion. If I fell that someone who does not live in my complex is suspicious as often it happens I am not breaking any law. If the person approaches me and I explain why I am following, the person has no right to commit a criminal act of breaking my bones, stating that he was going to kill me and then proceed to doing things that prove that he has the intent to kill me such as banging my head, with whatever force, weak or strong, in the pavement.

    Like

  7. Jim, do you know for a FACT that had Alexander been white that she would have been found not guilty? Do you know for a FACT that had Zimmerman been black that he would have been found guilty?

    The contrast between the two cases is interesting in how they are portrayed in the media and discussed in blogs.

    In one case “white” Zimmerman shoots “black” Martin, and the emphasis is on race, with media images of Zimmerman changing the tone of his skin [early media images I saw have him with very white skin, in some more recent ones his skin tone has been more “brown” – which is the correct tone I don’t know]. Whether or not Martin was violent is usually not mentioned as he is portrayed as a “victim” and any attempts to mention this are met with claims that it is wrong to blame the victim.

    In the other case Alexander is a “mom” – how her parental status is relevant to the case is never stated but presumably it is meant to portray her in a sympathetic light – and she is “black” – and no mention is made of the colour of skin of her husband. Her husband, who is in the trial technically the “victim”, is never portrayed in the media as a victim, and there is frequent mention of him as violent. Perhaps I’m being cynical but had the husband been white, or a Republican, or a member of the NRA then these features of him would have been mentioned, whereas if the husband is black, or a Democrat, or a member of the NAACP no mention is made as this doesn’t fit the narrative.

    As for OJ – he may have been found innocent, but there is a pattern in his life that indicates the jury was wrong whereas I see no similar pattern in Zimmerman’s life to indicate the jury was wrong

    Like

Comments are closed.