Why does the media insist on convicting George Zimmerman...?

...when there is no evidence to prove he started the altercation?

He could have easily confronted him when he first saw him driving. Or when he was parked and Martin approached his vehicle. Instead he just remained in his car and asked the dispatcher how quickly an officer would be responding. There's nothing to suggest he even wanted to talk to Martin let alone engage him in a fight. When he approached with his hand in his waistband and then ran off, Zimmerman relayed this to the dispatcher who in turn asked "Which way is he running?" Zimmerman got out to simply answer this question because he lost sight of him and later admits he has no clue where Martin went.

By this alone we've already established: Zimmerman has no wish to confront him and calls police for their assistance. He becomes even more uncomfortable when Martin approaches him and wants the police to get there ASAP. We establish Martin has no fear of Zimmerman and walks straight up to his truck perhaps to intimidate him by gesturing he may have a weapon in his waistband. Finally we conclude Zimmerman leaves the SUV to answer the question of which way he was running which quickly leads to George losing sight and therefore unable to chase Martin down as he had admittedly lost visual of him.

Zimmerman had no motive to lie on the police call, the actual confrontation didn't happen until a minute or two after he hung the phone up right on the same path he walked from his truck to the opposite side of the street.

Nothing suggests a motive to confront him and nothing suggests an elaborate chase. Where's all the evidence?


@Shawn: This isn't a SYG case, and his lawyer isn't treating it as one. This is about conventional self defense. A few things to keep in mind, following someone you perceive as suspicious is not illegal or else he would have been arrested immediately. Second, following someone is not legal provocation to fracture their nose and assault them. Here's the state's statue on self defense as you seem to have no grasp on the legalities involved in this case...


4 Answers

  • 8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Try dealing with facts:

    "Dennis Baxley, a Republican state representative and co-author of the 2005 self-defense law, said Zimmerman negated his ability to claim immunity under the law by chasing Martin. Former Republican State Sen. Durell Peadon, another co-author of the law, said Zimmerman "has no protection under my law."

    Link - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21/george-zi...

    “This law does not apply to this particular circumstance. Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn’t mean chase after somebody who’s turned their back.”

    Link - http://globalgrind.com/news/george-zimmerman-no-st...

    Zimmerman's on a police audio recording admitting he was chasing Martin.

    Zimmerman freely admitted to police that he killed Martin and never once denied it.

    Zimmerman's on court video apologizing to the Martin family for killing their child.

    Since no law excuses or exonerates Zimmerman, he's going to prison for murder.

    Just like every other confessed murderer does.



    You think I have no grasp of the legalities? Guess what? You linked me to SYG

    That specific provision - § 776.012 - is one of its statutes.

    Here's a full version of SYG so you can see for yourself:

    Link - http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-stand-your...

    That Zimmerman's lawyers aren't going to make their case based on SYG doesn't stop the prosecution from nailing him using it.

    After all: It's the only way he can be found innocent of murder.

    And do to that, his defence will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the shooting was justified.

    Based on the known evidence, they can't.

    So to reiterate: Zimmerman's going to go to jail for murder.

  • ?
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    Every now and then some politicos feel they have to sacrifice a person on the alter of equality. TM had the "right" to be there (true) but non-black GZ evidently did not have the right to be there. {but I am not so sure of your sequence of events, since I did not read everything that was published.}

    However, I do believe TM violated the "last chance" doctrine [to save his own life by standing still] and took the physical fight to GZ, at which time GZ shot in self defense. Following someone is NOT a capital crime.

    Some day we will see which side has the better lawyer, and how different parts of society react to the verdict.

  • TK
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    The mainstream media which is convicting him are mostly modern liberals who think we all should be unarmed victims. They would rather see a Colorado movie theater shot up than an old man foil a team of armed thieves or a man defend himself on a street in Florida.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    He called it in to the police, he started the altrication when started stalking the kid.

    And the media doesn't like VIGILANTE KILLERS, they're a danger to society.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.