Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
docyabut2

Zimmerman trial

1,450 posts in this topic

Not to be dismissive of spouce abuse, but what is the statistic? Like 1 in 3 women are the victim of domestic violence. When you're on the street, or at work, or the bank, look around and realize that one in 3 of the men there are abusive to their partner.

I can't say I agree with your reasoning here, but I have to respect the balls it took to try and make this sell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm... actually not sure what you're getting at, diechecker. i know about the statistics. they depress me.

i should say, i don't think he's a monster either. (don't like him, though) i don't agree with the idea of labeling people who may have done awful things as monsters, because in reality, most awful things are done by perfectly ordinary or even "good" people. making them out as monsters is a way of ignoring the reality of just how common this sort of thing is. is that what you were talking about?

i just... when i started reading about this, i thought i saw an undertone of people who had supported zimmerman trying to excuse the possible abuse, for no other reason i could see other than that support. maybe i was mistaken, maybe not.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm... actually not sure what you're getting at, diechecker. i know about the statistics. they depress me.

i should say, i don't think he's a monster either. (don't like him, though) i don't agree with the idea of labeling people who may have done awful things as monsters, because in reality, most awful things are done by perfectly ordinary or even "good" people. making them out as monsters is a way of ignoring the reality of just how common this sort of thing is. is that what you were talking about?

i just... when i started reading about this, i thought i saw an undertone of people who had supported zimmerman trying to excuse the possible abuse, for no other reason i could see other than that support. maybe i was mistaken, maybe not.

Yeah that is basically what I was trying to get at. :tu:

He's definately not a saint, and he might be violent, but that is what sadly passes for average these days.

I think people feel a desire to support Zimmermand regardless of what he might have done, because they feel he got such bad treatment last year and the beginning of this year.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm glad i understood you right, then. sometimes it's so hard to make things clear over the internet. (for me, at least)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George needs to learn when to walk away. Hopefully before his temper gets the better of him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's definately not a saint, and he might be violent, but that is what sadly passes for average these days.

I think people feel a desire to support Zimmermand regardless of what he might have done, because they feel he got such bad treatment last year and the beginning of this year.

With all due respect, Die, I think you need to think about the statement, " he might be violent."

Let's review his history. He had a domestic abuse charge with his first wife and was found guilty. He then went on to shoot and kill another person, within months after the trial for that he was accused of assaulting his second wife and her father, which brings us to arming himself again, breaking furniture and ordering a person out of their own home.

No, even in the messed up world we live in today, this is not average. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect, Die, I think you need to think about the statement, " he might be violent."

Let's review his history. .

"Let's review the history." Hello? Right?!

There are patterns of behavior which can't be denied but either aren't recognized or acknowledged so apparently, there are those who are gonna make excuses for that man no matter what! :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Let's review the history." Hello? Right?!

There are patterns of behavior which can't be denied but either aren't recognized or acknowledged so apparently, there are those who are gonna make excuses for that man no matter what! :no:

Thank you, Regi ! :tu: I think all of those that are on the "I'm Backing Good Old George" train need to not only assess these patterns of behavior that you and I are recognizing but all so the speed at which these

incidents have occurred. Even OJ managed to maintain himself a little longer than this. Add to that the fact that he was again setting up his defense by calling 911 and it becomes just evil.

I know his "girl friend" incurred a terrible scare and a lot of broken furniture but she needs to realize what a cheap price that was. She, his ex and the ex's father are all lucky to be alive. Trayvon was not so lucky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect, Die, I think you need to think about the statement, " he might be violent."

Let's review his history. He had a domestic abuse charge with his first wife and was found guilty. He then went on to shoot and kill another person, within months after the trial for that he was accused of assaulting his second wife and her father, which brings us to arming himself again, breaking furniture and ordering a person out of their own home.

No, even in the messed up world we live in today, this is not average. :no:

If I had said, "George definately is violent.", then I'd have posters posting about that too. "Might" is a hedge word.

I think to consider someone "violent" would require a longer list of known events. Multiple domestic abuse over years, or multiple fighting/assault convictions would also be good. I hardly known anyone who has not gotten Angry and smacked the wall, or a table top. Is that then proof a person is enharently violent?

I think "might" is the right word for this situation.

Edited by DieChecker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also read that Zimmerman's girlfriend, Samantha Scheibe, may be a DOJ plant. Here, I'll see if I can put in the link:

http://www.globalclarity.info/2013/11/21/breaking-george-zimmermans-girlfriend-is-an-eric-holder-and-d-o-j-plant/

I'm not familiar at all with "Global Clarity", so I don't know how reliable it is, but given the other underhanded things done under this administration, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if this turned out to be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had said, "George definately is violent.", then I'd have posters posting about that too. "Might" is a hedge word.

I think to consider someone "violent" would require a longer list of known events. Multiple domestic abuse over years, or multiple fighting/assault convictions would also be good.

Really good train of thought there. However, if you carry that same thought on and apply it to the Zimmerman / Trayvon situation one would have to wonder how/why George immediately considered the kid "violent" enough that George armed himself, pursued him and then shot him.

I hardly known anyone who has not gotten Angry and smacked the wall, or a table top. Is that then proof a person is inherently violent?

Well, I would have to say yes to that when that angry person has again armed himself less than six months after he had stood trial for murder and was "smacking the wall" and table top with his GUN BUTT !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also read that Zimmerman's girlfriend, Samantha Scheibe, may be a DOJ plant. Here, I'll see if I can put in the link:

http://www.globalcla...nd-d-o-j-plant/

I'm not familiar at all with "Global Clarity", so I don't know how reliable it is, but given the other underhanded things done under this administration, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if this turned out to be true.

If there is even a possibility that this administration "planted" someone whose goal was to bring out the "monster" in George and succeeded in doing so it is pitiful and would certainly be a waste of our tax dollars.

Why just look Zimmerman's wife and ex-father in law were capable of the same thing without any government involvement at all. Have you listened to Shelly Zimmerman's comments regarding this latest arrest ?

Do you think she might be a plant too ?????

I don't think much of this administration myself but I do think they are just wily enough to realize straight up they don't have to do a thing to assist this idiot in making a dangerous ass out of himself.

Edited by Vincennes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I had said, "George definately is violent.", then I'd have posters posting about that too. "Might" is a hedge word.

I think to consider someone "violent" would require a longer list of known events. Multiple domestic abuse over years, or multiple fighting/assault convictions would also be good.

Really good train of thought there. However, if you carry that same thought on and apply it to the Zimmerman / Trayvon situation one would have to wonder how/why George immediately considered the kid "violent" enough that George armed himself, pursued him and then shot him.

Except your using an example that is unproven. There is no evidence George thought Trayvon was dangerous, or violent. There is no evidence George armed himself, or drew his weapon preemptively. There is no evidence George pursued Trayvon other then for about 30 yards. Which was followed by several minutes of standing around before there was a fight, where Trayvon's own friend on the phone clearly suggests that Trayvon threw the first punch. Simply put there is no evidence to support your theory. That is why George went free.

George considered Trayvon to be a burglery suspect, or perhaps a drug addict/dealer. George though aggressive, seemed somewhat a coward. He carried his gun with him continually. And he had a history of running off when an individual looked dangerous. I suspect that if Trayvon had appeared violent George would have never left his car.

I hardly known anyone who has not gotten Angry and smacked the wall, or a table top. Is that then proof a person is inherently violent?

Well, I would have to say yes to that when that angry person has again armed himself less than six months after he had stood trial for murder and was "smacking the wall" and table top with his GUN BUTT

I suppose the only response to that would be to show me the gun. From what I heard the day of his arrest, no gun was found in the house. I could be wrong here, and a gun has since been found, but if no gun can be produced, how can he be charged with using one to threaten his GF?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also read that Zimmerman's girlfriend, Samantha Scheibe, may be a DOJ plant. Here, I'll see if I can put in the link:

http://www.globalcla...nd-d-o-j-plant/

I'm not familiar at all with "Global Clarity", so I don't know how reliable it is, but given the other underhanded things done under this administration, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if this turned out to be true.

They didn't put any evidence of Scheibe being a government plant in that article. It appears to be someone's opinion. It could be true, but it could also be true she's working for Elvis.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An old friend comes to help George...

http://thinkprogress...ublic-defender/

A few weeks ago, Dowdy left his private practice to become the Chief Assistant Public Defender for Seminole County. According to Trettis, Dowdy does not normally handle individual cases because he has to manage the entire county. When Dowdy does get involved, it would typically be in very serious cases like first degree murder. But, Trettis said, Dowdy has the “discretion” to assign himself as the attorney in any case. And that is exactly what he did in the case of George Zimmerman, assigning himself as an additional lawyer.

EDIT: But it appears he's dropped the Public Defenders all together and hired another lawyer.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-new-lawyer-20131125,0,5351979.story

However, Zimmerman has now elected to drop the Public Defender's Office and hire a south Florida private criminal defense attorney, Jayne Weintraub, to represent him, said his former public defender, Jeff Dowdy.

.......

Dowdy also entered a written not-guilty plea on Zimmerman's behalf, and waived his appearance at an arraignment scheduled for January. Zimmerman faces aggravated assault with a weapon and two other charges.

Damn, that's kind of cold. His friend makes time to help him out and he drops him. I thought Z didn't have any money? Probably he's looking to pay the lawyer through the Damages he hopes to collect in a civil trial.

Edited by DieChecker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is even a possibility that this administration "planted" someone whose goal was to bring out the "monster" in George and succeeded in doing so it is pitiful and would certainly be a waste of our tax dollars.

Why just look Zimmerman's wife and ex-father in law were capable of the same thing without any government involvement at all. Have you listened to Shelly Zimmerman's comments regarding this latest arrest ?

Do you think she might be a plant too ?????

I don't think much of this administration myself but I do think they are just wily enough to realize straight up they don't have to do a thing to assist this idiot in making a dangerous ass out of himself.

I tried to find Shellie's comments but couldn't find much (admittedly I didn't look too long) other than she has doubts about his innocence in the T. Martin case. As far as the quarrel between him and Scheibe, looks like it's mainly his word against hers. But the bottom line for me is, I don't trust the media....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George Zimmerman just needs to accept the fact that he needs to change his name and appearance, get out Florida, and move to someplace like Costa Rica or Northern Alaska for the rest of his life. He will never have any peace until he does that.

He's clearly not that bright and continually puts himself in situations where his volatility gets the best of him. Add to that, he seems to surround himself with volatile individuals who know that they simply have to call the police, say "gun", and the circus begins.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George Zimmerman just needs to accept the fact that he needs to change his name and appearance, get out Florida, and move to someplace like Costa Rica or Northern Alaska for the rest of his life. He will never have any peace until he does that.

He's clearly not that bright and continually puts himself in situations where his volatility gets the best of him. Add to that, he seems to surround himself with volatile individuals who know that they simply have to call the police, say "gun", and the circus begins.

If he moves to Washington DC he probably would not even be noticed if he WAS still shooting people. DC = gun Ban = Crazy Homocide rates

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except your using an example that is unproven. There is no evidence George thought Trayvon was dangerous, or violent. There is no evidence George armed himself, or drew his weapon preemptively.

Oh contraire, "George thought Trayvon was dangerous, or violent," . He did not think Trayvon was dangerous ~~~ Say that to yourself really slowly ~~~ Should one be ready to accept that rather unique thought, then we would have to add a charge to George for his frivolous use of 911. Why was he bothering 911 if there was no t even a threat ?

What is unproven is when the little coward drew his gun. Note: The coward part you did get right .

"There is no evidence George pursued Trayvon other then for about 30 yards."

Your definitions have very fine lines that I don't think others realize when they use those words. Just how far would he have had to move behind someone to be following him? Would 35 ft. do it or 40 ft. ? Where is that line of definition so clearly drawn for you ? What dictionary ?

"Which was followed by several minutes of standing around before there was a fight, where Trayvon's own friend on the phone clearly suggests that Trayvon threw the first punch. Simply put there is no evidence to support your theory. That is why George went free."

No way! Rachel did not say that Trayvon threw the first punch and I listened to every minute of that testimony. The problem was people were so busy criticizing that girl, they didn't listen to her. Now what you and everyone else are facing is that she was telling the truth. Everyone does not have to look like you or talk like you in order to tell the truth. I hope that the stinking jury realizes that now.

"George considered Trayvon to be a burglary suspect, or perhaps a drug addict/dealer."

Now we need to go back here to your initial comment and reaffirm that's not perceiving a threat or danger.

"George though aggressive, seemed somewhat a coward. He carried his gun with him continually. And he had a history of running off when an individual looked dangerous. I suspect that if Trayvon had appeared violent George would have never left his car."

Oh, that is such a sad and true statement !

"I suppose the only response to that would be to show me the gun. From what I heard the day of his arrest, no gun was found in the house. I could be wrong here, and a gun I do agree with you on this. George had his big old "equalizer" with him. In spite of directions from the police, stalked him and killed him and never really thought Trayvon was a violent threat. There you go."

There were guns in the house that was in the initial report regarding his girlfriend. The only issue was since George ordered the woman out of her own home while brandishing it, it gave him time to replace it in the cabinet while he was dialing 911...His practiced MO... It worked once, it'll work again until he kills someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to find Shellie's comments but couldn't find much (admittedly I didn't look too long) other than she has doubts about his innocence in the T. Martin case. As far as the quarrel between him and Scheibe, looks like it's mainly his word against hers. But the bottom line for me is, I don't trust the media....

You need to spend as much time looking for what is going on as you do looking for ways to defend him.

Yes, it is his word against hers. So George wins in your book ? I don't think she has ever been charged with murder before or has another assault case pending ? So who you going to give the weight of belief to ???

Here is a link to make it easier for you. http://da.feedsportal.com/c/34256/f/623117/s/33f478a9/l/0L0Sorlandosentinel0N0Cos0Egeorge0Ezimmerman0Esomething0Esnapped0Ewife0Etheorizes0E20A1311210H0A0H1322360Bpost0Dtrack0Frss/ia1.htm

Edited by Vincennes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George Zimmerman just needs to accept the fact that he needs to change his name and appearance, get out Florida, and move to someplace like Costa Rica or Northern Alaska for the rest of his life. He will never have any peace until he does that.

He's clearly not that bright and continually puts himself in situations where his volatility gets the best of him. Add to that, he seems to surround himself with volatile individuals who know that they simply have to call the police, say "gun", and the circus begins.

Now we have the "everyone is picking on good ol George" defense. I'm afraid that won't fly. Even George's mother and father are not buying into that one.

Get out of Florida....the US..... Good idea !! Great idea but he won't go. You see he knows our court system here and how to play it.

Before this is done you will see that George is the ringmaster of his own circus just like OJ. I hope he doesn't injure another innocent person in doing so.

Edited by Vincennes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to spend as much time looking for what is going on as you do looking for ways to defend him.

And as so many people were extremely adamant about T Martin's past having no bearing on the possible actions of the night he was killed, neither should George Z's.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as so many people were extremely adamant about T Martin's past having no bearing on the possible actions of the night he was killed, neither should George Z's.

That is so interesting Michelle. I would love to hear comments from some of the people who knew him in high school. However, since his father was military, they are probably hard to track down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Except your using an example that is unproven. There is no evidence George thought Trayvon was dangerous, or violent. There is no evidence George armed himself, or drew his weapon preemptively.

Oh contraire, "George thought Trayvon was dangerous, or violent,". He did not think Trayvon was dangerous ~~~ Say that to yourself really slowly ~~~ Should one be ready to accept that rather unique thought, then we would have to add a charge to George for his frivolous use of 911. Why was he bothering 911 if there was no t even a threat ?

What is unproven is when the little coward drew his gun. Note: The coward part you did get right .

Why George called 911 is right there in the 911 transcript. He saw a guy that he thought was on drugs or who otherwise might be looking for a place to rob. There had been many burgleries (and some arrests) in the neighborhood, by... wait for it.. young black men wearing hoodies.

"There is no evidence George pursued Trayvon other then for about 30 yards."

Your definitions have very fine lines that I don't think others realize when they use those words. Just how far would he have had to move behind someone to be following him? Would 35 ft. do it or 40 ft. ? Where is that line of definition so clearly drawn for you ? What dictionary ?

Fine lines are what determine guilt or innocence, I am afraid. Technically it is 1 foot, I think to be considered following. I know a guy that picked up his girlfriend against her will, turned around and set her down, and the moving of her from one place to the other was technically kidnapping. And he went to jail.

If you go look at the crime scene, you can see that Trayvon ran off, and disappeared between the buildings. And George moved to a location where he might be able to see where he had gone. Talking to 911 the whole time. Technically he followed him, but it can't be shown that there was malice in his following. And Trayvon disappeared for several minutes, because George lost (because he was not actually chasing him) him and then was going back to his car, when Trayvon returned/appeared and sought to confront him.

George obviously was not "right on Trayvon's tail" and chasing him, otherwise he would not have lost him between the buildings.

"Which was followed by several minutes of standing around before there was a fight, where Trayvon's own friend on the phone clearly suggests that Trayvon threw the first punch. Simply put there is no evidence to support your theory. That is why George went free."

No way! Rachel did not say that Trayvon threw the first punch and I listened to every minute of that testimony. The problem was people were so busy criticizing that girl, they didn't listen to her. Now what you and everyone else are facing is that she was telling the truth. Everyone does not have to look like you or talk like you in order to tell the truth. I hope that the stinking jury realizes that now.

She did not say Trayvon threw a punch, but her testimony leaves little doubt that is exactly what Trayvon did. She said that Trayvon talked to George and George talked back, and then George mysteriously got a bloody nose and was on his back in the grass. If George had thrown the punch, I think Trayvon would be the one with a bruises and Trayvon would have been the one the witnesses saw on the bottom yelling for help. but that is not what witnesses and the bruising showed.

"George considered Trayvon to be a burglary suspect, or perhaps a drug addict/dealer."

Now we need to go back here to your initial comment and reaffirm that's not perceiving a threat or danger.

A drug dealer, drug user, or burgler are not intrinsically threatening, dangerous or aggressive.

Actually, when George was still in his car, according to his testimony, Trayvon stopped and made a threat display toward him, reaching into his pants, as if for a gun. And then he decided to run, because George was not threatened. Someone running is hardly an source of aggressiveness.

"George though aggressive, seemed somewhat a coward. He carried his gun with him continually. And he had a history of running off when an individual looked dangerous. I suspect that if Trayvon had appeared violent George would have never left his car."

Oh, that is such a sad and true statement !

Then you should agree with me that George was trying to get the police to interview this kid, and not out to purposefully kill a random kid.

"I suppose the only response to that would be to show me the gun. From what I heard the day of his arrest, no gun was found in the house. I could be wrong here, and a gun I do agree with you on this. George had his big old "equalizer" with him. In spite of directions from the police, stalked him and killed him and never really thought Trayvon was a violent threat. There you go."

There were guns in the house that was in the initial report regarding his girlfriend. The only issue was since George ordered the woman out of her own home while brandishing it, it gave him time to replace it in the cabinet while he was dialing 911...His practiced MO... It worked once, it'll work again until he kills someone.

He doesn't have an MO. Trayvon was a completely different situation. It is not like he went home and tried to hide the gun that shot Trayvon.

Since you did not provide a link to your side of the story, I guess I have to go look it up myself.

Edited by DieChecker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-george-zimmerman-guns-search-warrant-20131126,0,1278264.story#axzz2lo6aAEFg

He did have guns. 5 of them.

On Nov. 18, Zimmernan's girlfriend, Samantha Scheibe, called 911, saying that he had threatened her with a gun after "a verbal altercation turned physical," according to a police search warrant. After police arrested Zimmerman, they found a 12-gauge shotgun, an AR-15 assault rifle and three handguns in his house, according to the warrant made public this week.
According to the search warrant, when Zimmerman was arrested, he told police that he and Scheibe got into a fight that day because they had agreed to break up and he was moving to Texas. He said she got angry and started throwing his belongings around, and at one point picked up a handgun and a shotgun and threw them on the living room floor. He said neither of them physically touched each other.

This is what I like to see. Evidence presented before the Howls of "Guilty!" come flying from the peanut gallery.

If investigators can show that George had the shotgun out, then they can show his guilt. If they can't then like was said earlier, it is his word against the girlfriend's word.

It seems the fight was started because the GF did not want him to leave, and now ironically due to her, he's never going back anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.