Did you know that the judge ordered Trayvon's mother to take a lie detector test before allowing her to testify that she knew it was her son's voice? She passed the lie detector test saying she knew it was her son's voice. The judge didn't ask George Zimmerman's mother to take a lie detector test. I noticed her eyes kept shifting and she was turning her head when she said on the stand that she knew it was George's voice. Her body language screamed that she was lying. Trayvon's mother knew her son's voice. Trayvon's father was divorced from his mother and separated for along time, he wasn't familiar with his son's voice.
George Zimmerman arrested for assault on his new live-in girlfriend (not his wife)
- Thread starter David_1
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
L
lav
Guest
Thank You so much! this brings great peace to me.
i know justice will be served for Trayvon and his mother.
greater is He that is in the true believer in Christ than he who is in the world.
Love wins,
always.
S
ServantStrike
Guest
For the record, I don't like Zimmerman any more than you do, and I find his actions ethically bankrupt. I do not support vigilante justice. However, I must disagree with you on a few points. Please read though this post before dismissing it wholesale, it was well worded with no inflammatory words except those of some of the characters involved.
In the US, you have no legal right to hit any one. Zimmerman (the creepy *** cracker - Trayvon's words not mine) should not have been following Trayvon, but that did not give Martin the right to step it up to violence. We know there was at least some violence on Martin's part as there is evidence of it on his knuckles - just not a lot of it. Zimmerman shooting him put an early stop to the fight, or there would have been more damage to Martin's knuckles.
I really have trouble believing Zimmerman would start with a fist fight when he had a gun, and I doubt Martin was faster than a bullet. So, therefore, Martin probably did strike Zimmerman for following him. That was an illegal action, and the catalyst that led to his death. Hitting Zimmerman was a choice. He could have been the better man and not used his fists.
Now, the greater question was how the heck did this even happen. You aren't allowed to defend yourself at all (lethal force or otherwise) unless you feel as though you are in fear for your life. And the only reason Zimmerman could have been in fear for his life was that he pursued Martin and Martin attacked him.
It was a perfect storm - there were two hot heads. One who decided to give chase, and another who hit the man who gave chase. If the DA had gone for manslaughter instead of murder 2, you would have seen Zimmerman do jail time. Why the DA chose to go for murder 2 is a mystery to me.
ServantStrike, I am not a Zimmerman supporter either. But from everything I have read, he could indeed have been convicted of manslaughter. Here is a link: Zimmerman trial: Case bound for jury today - U.S. News
L
lav
Guest
was martin not justified in fearing his life and ' standing his ground ' while being followed by someone with a gun ?
also, how much ground is given to someone if they roam the whole neighborhood chasing you... is the whole neighborhood/and or city someone's 'ground' and not another's ?
where does one person's ground ( who is chasing another ) begin and end.. and the other's right to stand THEIR ground, and defend THEMSELVES begin and end ?
if martin was standing his ground, with fists...
and zimmerman chasing and accruing more ground, as he FOLLOWED him, used a gun-
where does one person or another's ground begin and end ?
where was trayvon martin's ground ?
was he not entitled to any safe space, or ground of his own ?
would he not be inclined to defend himself, and feel his own life was in danger... while being followed by someone with a gun ?
did trayvon not have/deserve any ground to stand on ?
also, how much ground is given to someone if they roam the whole neighborhood chasing you... is the whole neighborhood/and or city someone's 'ground' and not another's ?
where does one person's ground ( who is chasing another ) begin and end.. and the other's right to stand THEIR ground, and defend THEMSELVES begin and end ?
if martin was standing his ground, with fists...
and zimmerman chasing and accruing more ground, as he FOLLOWED him, used a gun-
where does one person or another's ground begin and end ?
where was trayvon martin's ground ?
was he not entitled to any safe space, or ground of his own ?
would he not be inclined to defend himself, and feel his own life was in danger... while being followed by someone with a gun ?
did trayvon not have/deserve any ground to stand on ?
Last edited:
L
lav
Guest
another question, if he was so innocent, why was zimmerman afraid and/or unwilling to stand trial for himself ?
also, martin had just had his birthday three weeks earlier. he had only turned 17 three weeks ago.
also, martin had just had his birthday three weeks earlier. he had only turned 17 three weeks ago.
Last edited:
S
ServantStrike
Guest
No way Martin had any idea Zimmerman had a gun, or he'd have run away. I'm pretty sure as far as Martin was concerned, he saw some jerk following him who he wanted to teach a lesson (hence the creepy *** cracker comment). The trouble is legally you are not allowed to do that. You cannot use force unless protecting yourself from serious bodily harm or death. Stand your ground gets thrown around a lot as a term, but all it means is you aren't legally obligated to flee from an area you are otherwise lawfully occupying.
Basically, if you're walking down the street and someone follows you, says rude comments, does whatever, you are not allowed to use force. You just aren't obligated to leave the area.
So, Martin had no legal grounds to hit Zimmerman that night. As it should be. No one has the right to strike another human being.
Because a jury of 12 of his peers might make an emotional decision - just look at all the emotions this has brought out here on CC, and we have the common tenents of Christianity. Juries can and do put innocent people behind bars, it happens all the time.
And 16 or 17, it really didn't matter. Martin could have completely beaten Zimmerman to a pulp. Zimmerman was overweight and out of shape. Martin was a young man full of piss and vinegar.
He was old enough to know better than to use fists instead of words, and if he had beaten Zimmerman to death that night, I promise you he would have been tried as an adult.
Two individuals made very grave errors in judgment that night and one of them ended up dead. Had either party acted differently the outcome wouldn't have even made the news. Why isn't anyone focusing on that?
Why doesn't any one focus on the school that had a habit of not filing charges when students broke the law? Martin was suspended two times - once for drug possession and another for possession of solen property. He also struck his bus driver at one point in time.
Why doesn't anyone focus on Martin's own comments. When told by a friend he was turning into a "lil hoodlum" he said "no, I'm a gangster."
Seriously, people need to be taught to use words instead of violence, or this kind of thing will become more and more prevalent.
L
lav
Guest
well you can't say that martin didn't consider the possibility that zimmerman may have had a gun..
after all, i don't think he would have been dull enough and lacked the street smarts to consider the possibility.
zimmerman also said " f****** punks, these a*******, they always get away " on record.
i think it was manslaughter, at the very least.
i think that you may not have the ' stand your ground ' law defined correctly.
there are a lot of legal terms that need clearing up, and i think we are all learning and considering different possibilities if we hold truth to the high standard it should be.
probably not many of us are experienced lawyers on this thread, and i think it is good to calm down and be respectful of one another- though i'm not confusing your comment as being disrespectful, ServantStrike.
i can't see ritter's since he wisely informed me to add him to my ignore list.. along with the other user i openly stated i had put on ignore.
i didn't find their contributions respectful or helpful.
after all, i don't think he would have been dull enough and lacked the street smarts to consider the possibility.
zimmerman also said " f****** punks, these a*******, they always get away " on record.
i think it was manslaughter, at the very least.
i think that you may not have the ' stand your ground ' law defined correctly.
there are a lot of legal terms that need clearing up, and i think we are all learning and considering different possibilities if we hold truth to the high standard it should be.
probably not many of us are experienced lawyers on this thread, and i think it is good to calm down and be respectful of one another- though i'm not confusing your comment as being disrespectful, ServantStrike.
i can't see ritter's since he wisely informed me to add him to my ignore list.. along with the other user i openly stated i had put on ignore.
i didn't find their contributions respectful or helpful.
Last edited:
This is the fairest and most even-handed account I have seen on this forum. Well said.
S
ServantStrike
Guest
That would be worse than bringing the proverbial knife to a gun fight. I can't see Martin fighting Zimmerman if he had any idea Zimmerman had a gun. Heck, a baseball bat probably would have been enough of a deterrent. I'm comfident Martin thought Zimmerman was a soft target, or he wouldn't have attacked him. As you said, Martin wasn't stupid.
And you just drove home my point further. Both Martin and Zimmerman pushed stand your ground too far. The DA had a good case for manslaughter, and the man's own words would have tarred and feathered him in the eyes of the jury. There was not a solid enough case for murder 2.
Thanks. I wanted to go with something more than just "they were both acting like hot heads." This whole thing has just been so mishandled. So many lost opportunities in the wake of this event, both to send a message that the rule of law still exists, and to educate people not to make these same mistakes. All of them have been completely ignored due to inflamed passions and inaccurate reporting.
There is no feel good vibe that can come from a man being shot. But it would be a good opportunity to learn from it.
L
lav
Guest
i also believe a thorough look into what these laws and terms ' stand your ground, ' actually mean in a court of law.
the degrees of murder and manslaughter and their legal definitions need to be cleared up in a simple, fair and accurate way... so we can see what they mean,
as i doubt many of us on this thread are seasoned lawyers.
i mean no disrespect, and i'm sorry if i've come off emotional... i would hope that we would put truth above belittling one another and hold it to the high standard it should be at.
i know God is in charge in determining true justice, for this i am thankful for.
if i have upset or offended anyone, it is not my intention- i am simply following my own heart and logic, as we all are...
and i think it's good to learn how to debate and communicate effectively and with respect, in order to come to a more fully non-biased and accurate representation of the facts that have been represented.
there is a need to discriminate and be thorough in testing which 'facts' presented by each individual are accurate and as balanced and truthful as we are able to discern.
thank you for being respectful in your responses, and again... i apologize if i have 'tipped anyone else over the edge,' so to speak, but it is my right, just as anyone else's to ignore someone, if their comments are abrasive to one's individual constitution.
in addition, zimmerman was in much better shape than he 'allowed himself' to slide into, months after the confrontation had occured... during the time he was in jail. he was much fitter at the initial encounter with martin.
the degrees of murder and manslaughter and their legal definitions need to be cleared up in a simple, fair and accurate way... so we can see what they mean,
as i doubt many of us on this thread are seasoned lawyers.
i mean no disrespect, and i'm sorry if i've come off emotional... i would hope that we would put truth above belittling one another and hold it to the high standard it should be at.
i know God is in charge in determining true justice, for this i am thankful for.
if i have upset or offended anyone, it is not my intention- i am simply following my own heart and logic, as we all are...
and i think it's good to learn how to debate and communicate effectively and with respect, in order to come to a more fully non-biased and accurate representation of the facts that have been represented.
there is a need to discriminate and be thorough in testing which 'facts' presented by each individual are accurate and as balanced and truthful as we are able to discern.
thank you for being respectful in your responses, and again... i apologize if i have 'tipped anyone else over the edge,' so to speak, but it is my right, just as anyone else's to ignore someone, if their comments are abrasive to one's individual constitution.
in addition, zimmerman was in much better shape than he 'allowed himself' to slide into, months after the confrontation had occured... during the time he was in jail. he was much fitter at the initial encounter with martin.
Last edited:
