The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I'll bet dad was thinking that Zimmerman is guilty and tried to get his daughter out of the house

It's her father's house. George is staying there. There was no gun. There is no pressing charges.

Much to do about nothing except that it's George Zimmerman.

A call to 911 is shenanigans? Your positions really are extreme.

^^^ I'll agree that this was a domestic situation that does not make the news usually but the participants are far from typical. I'm also not sure she recanted her story. She did not want to press charges.

The police were likely correct in not making an arrest because it was a very typical situation with atypical participants.

There was no turmping of the story. The story was the story. I did not see anything that embellished it at all, except for maybe one headline yesterday saying he was in custody but the article itself went on to clarify he was being questioned but not charged at the time.

A 911 call regarding domestic abuse in which the "victim" recants her story, and there is absolutely no physical injury, is not typically national news.

what about the gun reports? There was no gun. Just watched Lake Mary PD say it for the 3rd time. A gun was not involved.

The story is pretty much around a broken iPad and who broke it.

This whole situation reeks of abuse. But, no. George Zimmerman is a misunderstood saint. 

No, he's automatically guilty because you THINK he is. Keep listening to and basing your judgments on the media. Maybe you'll be 0-2 after all is said and done, lol. 

So, wait. What source are you basing your judgement on then? Do you have some inside scoop to EVERYTHING that no one else has?

He's not judging anything until all the facts come out.  You, on the other hand, seem to be the one passing judgment

SEMINOLE COUNTY, Fla. — The Lake Mary Police Department held a news conference Wednesday about the domestic incident between George Zimmerman and his wife, Shellie Zimmerman.
     
Police released the incident report Wednesday afternoon.

Police said that no domestic violence charges will be filed against George or Shellie Zimmerman anytime soon, if ever. They said the iPad evidence was nearly destroyed.

"The iPad is in really bad shape. Don't have tools to look at video on the iPad. It could take months or weeks to get video off iPad," said Zach Hudson of the Lake Mary Police Department.
The smashed iPad could hold clues into what really happened during the Zimmermans' domestic dispute, but police say they may never know.

According to a newly released police report, on Monday, Shellie Zimmerman and her father, David Dean, went to their Lake Mary home on Ridgewood Road to pick up belongings agreed upon during the split from her husband.

George Zimmerman reportedly came to the residence and snapped pictures before heading to the garage.

According to George Zimmerman, his father-in-law suddenly "threw his glasses on the down and charged him."

Dean told police that Zimmerman injured him, as documented in an evidence photo.
"As it stands now we don't see a crime," said Hudson.
According to the report, while filming the aftermath with the iPad, Shellie Zimmerman, allegedly hit her husband with it.

Home surveillance video caught George Zimmerman destroying it.

However, police said if there's no video, there are no charges.
"Without additional footage, there is no way we can come to that conclusion," Hudson said.
No injuries were reported, and no one is pressing charges, police said.

While there, all parties signed a document expressing their wish not to prosecute, though domestic-battery charges could still be filed against either George or Shellie Zimmerman, police said.

In the state of Florida, authorities have the right to prosecute if they believe married parties got physical.

But, he claims he doesn't believe the media. So where is he getting the "facts"? What alternative place does he use?
And, for the record judging people is my favorite pastime. 

And for the record, since you like judging people so much, you might want to take a walk to the bathroom and look in the mirror every so often. 

I do. I'm GORGEOUS.

And...as stated earlier I'm not some anonymous internet identity. I talk and interact with the people on here. Just saw a bunch of them a couple weeks ago at a BBQ. I am not some sort of basement dwelling troll.

Now, maybe I'm not asking the questions properly - what news outlets are pondwater approved? You say they're all "liberal media". What outlets are not according to you? I would like to expand my information gathering.

 It's called not jumping the gun and accusing and convicting someone without all of the facts. If you think that the media is "credible" for information, then by all means proceed. Just be prepared to look silly when you are wrong more times than not. Kind of like all of the "Justice for Trayvon" bandwagon jumping whack jobs.

You still did not answer the question. Where do you get your facts from if not the media?

No, he's automatically guilty because you THINK he is. Keep listening to and basing your judgments on the media. Maybe you'll be 0-2 after all is said and done, lol. 

Here we go with the spin. Yes most information comes from the media. However, in an attempt to "push an agenda" or "be the first to get a story out" they usually spin, lie, and outright make things up when stories first break. If you need proof of that, see some of the initial Sandy Hook stories or some of the initial Trayvon-Zimmerman stories. The point is that the media is rarely correct on the important facts on breaking stories. Eventually, all the real facts leak out and an informed opinion can be formed. But saying someone is guilty or abusive is irresponsible without having all of the information needed to make that determination.

"0-2"? "LOL"? A child lost his life at the hands of this guy, and you're trivializing it as if it were a baseball score? I might be the world's biggest ass and even I see that this is wrong. -EK

You obviously are not going to say where you get your info from, so whatever.

Zimmerman's wife said that he is verbally abusive, so I'm not sure what you're arguing here:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmermans-wife-selfish-feels-invincible/story?id=20174763

He had a restraining order from a domestic violence incident with a past girlfriend. Those are FACTS.  So, yes I wold call him abusive.

And as much as you want to play the sympathy card for Martin, you have to remember that he was shot while assaulting the person that shot him.

And when was Martin convicted of assault, exactly?

The fact that Zimmerman was acquitted of murder does not, in any way, prove that Martin assaulted Zimmerman.  That is, unless it is also equally "proven" that Caylee Anthony was kidnapped by some undetermined stranger.

And Zimmerman said that his wife hit him with an iPad. So he was verbally abusive and she was physically abusive? So to you, her word is better than his? After all she is the one that was convicted of lying not him. He was convicted of nothing. Plenty of unanswered questions.

While someone losing their life is tragic, everyone dies eventually. Innocent people die everyday in much worse ways, I don't hear you crying for them. Anyhow, I wouldn't classify a 6 foot tall 17 year old a child. And as much as you want to play the sympathy card for Martin, you have to remember that he was shot while assaulting the person that shot him. The jury found him "not guilty" and their opinion is the only one that matters.

Casey Anthony's defense was that someone else kidnapped and killed Caylee.
The jury found Casey Anthony not guilty.
By your logic, this proves that someone else kidnapped and killed Caylee Anthony.

Link stating who smashed the iPad, please?

Doesn't matter what YOU would call him. 17 is a minor. A minor is a child.

The jury found Zimmerman not guilty. Not once did he or anyone else claim he didn't kill Martin. Just because he was acquitted doesn't mean a human life wasn't lost or that that fact should be minimalized and laughed about like you did.  -EK

The man shot and killed a child. That is an absolute and undeniable FACT about what went on. Zimmerman himself didn't deny it. There's no place for the phrase "lol" in any commentary about a dead kid. -EK

Ohhhhh we got a tough guy here! You go right ahead and use it whenever you need to to make you feel better about your own inadequacies. If trivializing the death of a child makes you feel better about your lack of manhood, then go right ahead, but know that there will always be people who will speak out against it, whether it's me or someone else. -EK

I have already explained it as much as I'm going to. I will type "lol" when and where I want to. If you don't like it, that's your problem. Is that FACT enough for you? Go argue with MikeO or something

Ohhhhh we got a tough guy here! You go right ahead and use it whenever you need to to make you feel better about your own inadequacies. If trivializing the death of a child makes you feel better about your lack of manhood, then go right ahead, but know that there will always be people who will speak out against it, whether it's me or someone else. -EK

Is there something wrong with you? As noted, if you re read the post in question, Trayvon Martin was never mentioned or implied. So if you're butt hurt over the verdict, take it up with the courthouse in Sanford. Now go outside and play or something.

Were Zimmermans injuries caused by Martin?

Damn girl, go google it. Somewhere Zimmerman stated that his wife hit him with the iPad and that is how it got broken.

He had injuries consistent with being assaulted and Martin had none. Plus the little fact that his defense was self defense and he was found not guilty. The jury must have believed he was defending himself. Common sense.

Yes. But what Zimmerman fanboys keep forgetting is that there is no evidence who started the fight. Zimmerman could have easily confronted Martin, and perhaps grabbed him to detain him until the police arrived. This is an important detail the trolls like you purposely ignore when you keep mentioning the injuries. You also ignore the testimony from the medical experts that stated under oath that ZImmerman's head injuries could have come from moving his head on the ground.
He was found guilty because the jury could not find enough evidence to convict, even though their initial vote was to convict by five of the six jurors.
You really have a hard on for this case. You belong to Stormfront?

I have. Even the police chief(in emails released tonight) acknowledges that George broke the iPad and punched his father in law. Like you said, Google it.

even though their initial vote was to convict by five of the six jurors.

Buddha, you are going to have to show a link here. Every credible news source I know of says both parties claim the other broke the iPAD and the video has not been able to be retreived so the police do not know how it happened. This is why no charges have been filed. What you are stating is the exact evidence they are looking for in order to make charges.

Thanks Buddha. I'm not aware of the site so I don't know their reputation but if these are factual e-mails this is the first statement I have seen that mentions a definitive version of how the iPAD was broken.

I've read in multiple sources that she was not alone. The quote that seems to come to mind is something like, "we wanted to find him guilty of something but based on the law, we couldn't." That's certainly not an endorsement for innocence. -EK

Yea ... that's not how I remember it. One of the jurors who voted not guilty said "I have no doubt George feared for his life in the situation he was in at the time,"  while the one juror who initially voted guilty said "In our hearts we felt he was guilty,” right before she said she didn't even think it should have gone to trial. Publicity stunt she called it.

I don't remember anything from the other members so I would have to do some serious speculation in assuming if they thought he was guilty of murder.


Personally I think the jurors were in damage control at that point anyway as tensions were pretty high. I would be hard pressed to hold any of them accountable to what they said in the immediate weeks afterwards. I can't imagine the stress they were under trying to justify their votes one way or the other.

[...]the one juror who initially voted guilty said "In our hearts we felt he was guilty,” right before she said she didn't even think it should have gone to trial. Publicity stunt she called it.

As pro-Zimmerman posters have stated time and again, the jury is not supposed to vote on whether they personally believe Zimmerman committed murder, but rather on whether that has been proven by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yea ... that's not how I remember it. One of the jurors who voted not guilty said "I have no doubt George feared for his life in the situation he was in at the time,"  while the one juror who initially voted guilty said "In our hearts we felt he was guilty,” right before she said she didn't even think it should have gone to trial. Publicity stunt she called it.

I don't remember anything from the other members so I would have to do some serious speculation in assuming if they thought he was guilty of murder.


Personally I think the jurors were in damage control at that point anyway as tensions were pretty high. I would be hard pressed to hold any of them accountable to what they said in the immediate weeks afterwards. I can't imagine the stress they were under trying to justify their votes one way or the other.

3 not guilty, 2 manslaughter and 1 guilty of murder

Where do you guys get the jury thought he was guilty? The lady you quoted was the only one who originally voted him guilty but Maddy said she realized there wasn't enough proof to convict Zimmerman of murder or manslaughter under Florida law.

"I was the juror that was going to give them the hung jury. I fought to the end," she said.

Interestingly she also said this ... When asked by Roberts whether the case should have gone to trial, Maddy said, "I don't think so. I felt like this was a publicity stunt. This whole court service thing to me was publicity," she said.

Now you are saying manslaughter is the same as thinking murder to make it equal half. Never one to admit being wrong are you?

Both you and Spider have to rely on speculation.

I find it amusing that everyone discounts the thoughts of ghetto train wreck witness for the prosecution. Rachel Jeantel says Martin threw the first punch. After all, she knew him better than anyone here or on the jury. After all she was on the phone with him at the time. I'll take her word for it, Trayvon hit first. And if that's the case, then he was committing assault and Zimmerman was defending himself. Case closed.

Rachel Jeantel says Martin threw the first punch.

There is absolutely no testimony to this. If she has said something outside the courtroom I have not heard it either.

She never testified to this. Nowhere in the transcripts does it show she said he threw the first punch. If you have evidence from the trial where she said that as part of her testimony, I would love to see it.