<p>In a ‘he said, she said’ assault case the parties have to have credibility. Don’t see GZ getting convicted with this new girlfriend’s story.</p>
<p>“The first time someone shows you who they are, believe them.” -Maya Angelou</p>
<p>If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.</p>
<p>First, people wanted him arrested even though the police who actually investigated the incident and knew the facts were leaning against it. Next, they brought in a sleazy prosecution team who clearly had nothing to work with since you need evidence to convict someone of murder. Yelling child and Skittles won’t cut it. Then, as expected the jury found him not guilty. And, now people are desperately waiting to say I told you so. Very strange.</p>
<p>I agree that there may well not be enough her to convict because, as you said, it comes down to he said/she said. Legally, that’s appropriate, if it turns out there is no other evidence. You don’t convict someone because you think he is a bad guy and it seems like the kind of thing he might have done.</p>
<p>I’m curious, though actingmt and others: how many incidents would it take before you started thinking that maybe GZ was to blame? Maybe he is simply the unluckiest person in the world, with women just chomping at the bit to level completely fabricated claims against him - but that doesn’t strike me as the most reasonable conclusion to draw from the available information. Rather, the most logical inference when we have a case of someone who has been a party to numerous disputes and altercations that have ended in police involvement is that this is a person with poor impulse control and/or questionable judgment.</p>
<p>That may not be enough for a conviction, but it certainly works against the “poor, victimized George” narrative some people are still buying into, apparently.</p>
<p>“I’m curious, though actingmt and others: how many incidents would it take before you started thinking that maybe GZ was to blame?”</p>
<p>Hmmm. Well, I suppose if he hunted down kids and shot them for no reason that would raise questions. That would be a pattern. Right now, we have a situational shooting where according to the evidence he was jumped and was being bashed into the concrete when he shot in self defense. People act as though he shot this kid in the back as he was running away. That didn’t happen. I don’t know what speeding tickets and disgruntled women with no credibility and no injuries whatsoever have to do with the angry racist killer scenario. Again, I think he’s a bit of a dimwit wanna-be who has a tendency to get himself in trouble which is now escalated obviously by his high profile. I am not a fan.</p>
<p>People get this confused for some reason. It is possible to be both a nutjob and not guilty of murder. Not surprisingly, the new girlfriend also sounds like a nutjob.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A pattern doesn’t have to involve the same situation each time. The pattern here (at least four or five times) is that a hot-headed man initiates a confrontation resulting in violence, then claims that someone else started it or made him do it.</p>
<p>Yes. That is actually called a character disorder. The inability to take responsibility. </p>
<p>What is frightening is that a guy like this just gets to keep walking around with a gun. Nobody sees the issue with this ?</p>
<p>I think many of us do, poet girl. But he has a cult of defenders.</p>
<p>So, no-one is defending him. I’ve read most of this thread and see no GZ supporters. Rather people watched the trial and agreed with the jury. Personally, I’m not thrilled about anyone walking around with a gun.</p>
<p>^ I didn’t mean on this thread, per se.</p>
<p>I don’t think most reasonable people would think that GZ was any prize. He was a “Whahoeey” type of guy who wanted to be a hero, stalking a neighborhood with gun in pocket, hell bent of finding a criminal and catching him. There is that gray area of vigilanteism that he had crossed over, way over. There are types of people who cross that line who may not have other issues in their lives, and some who do. That GZ has some other questionable behavior has nothing to do with the precise sequence of events that occurred that day he killed TM. Legally, it could not be proven what exactly happened, or disproven either, and what he was prior to that day or afterwards has no bearing on whether that was legally a murder or not. A jury has ruled on that.</p>
<p>To me, it would be surprising that he does not have a lot of problems after what happened. I’d be a wreck if something of that sort happened, even if it were a total accident. To kill a child? I’d be in really terrible shape regardless of whether it was an accident, even if it were something totally clear that there was no intent there. Even if there were no national coverage and panning. So, no surprise that he is going to be even further off after his ordeal. Yes, it was an ordeal and one I would not wish on any family, just as I would not wish TM’s fate on any.</p>
<p>I mean it just seems like there ought to be a law against a guy like that still having a gun.</p>
<p>I don’t disagree but since he has no convictions that’s a tough one. I imagine there are a lot of unstable people out there who probably shouldn’t have guns.</p>
<p>Charles Manson is supposed to be getting married soon according to some news reports. If Manson can find a girl to marry, George Zimmerman should be able to find a girlfriend.</p>
<p>I’d rather have George Zimmerman living next door to me with his guns than Charles Manson living next door to me with no guns.</p>
<p>I don’t know if it’s a federal law, but I’ve heard that convicted felons can’t own guns. However, Zimmerman wasn’t convicted of a felony, or not yet.</p>
<p>Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that he’s 100% guilty of everything that he’s been accused of since he was acquitted of murdering Trayvon Martin. Why, exactly, should it be national news? Without doing any investigation, I’m pretty confident in wildly guessing that every single act he’s been accused of is being done in dozens of other places in the US every day. In fact, I’d be surprised if a day went by when worse crimes weren’t being committed.</p>
<p>I hypothesize that the reason we keep hearing about him is the same reason that we kept hearing about OJ Simpson for so long, as another poster pointed out: it’s a media feeding frenzy, anything to increase ratings and stir up emotions. It’s a disgusting and inexcusable horror of modern society and it’s one that we’re all too apathetic to do anything about. Our society is bad and we should feel bad.</p>
<p>I think it’s a sense of the injustice of a young man being dead and his still walking around threatening people with a gun that makes this news. </p>
<p>I’m not a fan of the media, but I’m even less of a fan of SYG laws.</p>
<p>Yes, it’s an inability to accept the verdict that keeps people looking for ways to prove him guilty of something. The OJ comparison works with the possible exception of the domestic violence comparisons since no-one was beaten by GZ. I’m not a fan of either.</p>