Monday, July 15, 2013

Some Thoughts on the Zimmerman Trial

The George Zimmerman Trial became one of the biggest trials in U. S. History so far, and I say "so far" because at this rate there might be many more of these spectacles.  In light of all the murder and mayhem across the country and world, this one should not have been rated so important, which is why I say it "became" big.  A first thought is one you've already heard with which I agree, that is, this non-crime shouldn't have gone to trial in the first place.  There was no evidence of either second degree murder or manslaughter.  There was only evidence of self-defense.  It only went trial because of race baiting opportunists, who exploited this tragedy for personal or political gain.  This country is already in steep decline, but if we continue to allow this type of circumstance to continue, we'll slide even faster to total demise.

It's got to be really tough to lose a child like the Martin's did, no matter what their personal condition, and I thought about being in their shoes.  I have one son.  If I were in their shoes, I know how I would react to it.  If it were reverse, and Zimmerman was black and my son was the one who died, I'm saying I know how I would be.  First, I would understand that I had totally blown it as a parent.  I would have seen it as mainly my fault.  I would have seen it as my fault that I had a child that was just allowed to run in a way that he was far too unaccountable.  I would have seen it as my fault that I didn't even know where my child was at.  I would know that I did not bring him up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord for whatever reason.  The parents weren't together and perhaps it would be because of the condition of my marriage.  There were many bad decisions these parents made that resulted in their child's death.  I would have already seen myself as largely at fault for that.

At this point, the country has seen the pictures of Trayvon proudly puffing on the marijuana and posing in all sorts of rebellious ways.  We know about his filthy mouth.  We know about the kind of people with whom he kept company.  All of those were a recipe for disaster.  I know that not doing enough about those or not doing anything about them would have been enough for me to understand why this happened to my son.  I would know that.  I would understand that.  I would blame that on no one else.  I would be sad, but I would point the finger straight at myself for that.  Sure, I would wish that Zimmerman had done better at the gym in getting in shape and learning out to defend himself that he didn't need a gun, but I would completely understand his use of the gun.  People can carry a handgun.  You know that in Florida.  If you know that, then you stay out of the kind of trouble that could get you shot.

Second, I would accept why my son died.  I wouldn't like it, but I could accept it.  You can't get away with all foolish behavior.  All of us get away with a certain amount in our lives, where we could have or even should have been killed.  Our lives could have ended suddenly.  The more of that type of behavior, the greater the opportunity to have our lives terminate sooner than what we would like.  We have a responsibility to train our children in that.  Eli didn't warn his sons Hophni and Phinehas enough, so they both died, and he knew it was because of him.  This was a case when the wrong decisions resulted in his death.  Really one different decision out of several different decisions that night could have been enough for him to still be living.  I would have wished for a different outcome, like I have wished for a different outcome when I'm caught speeding, but I know I deserve it, so I accept it.  I'm hoping for mercy, but I understand when I don't get it.  I could hope for mercy for my son, but I would understand why that didn't happen.  We don't deserve mercy.  If you can't learn to walk away from certain situations, or just run away from someone you are twice as fast as, then you are going to get in trouble.

What I'm saying is that if my son died that way, and at the hands of a black Zimmerman, I would believe my son deserved it.  I wish he didn't have to pay such a price for a few bad decisions, but I would have understood why he died.  I wouldn't feel bitter about Zimmerman.  I wouldn't expect the justice system to do anything.  I would fully conceive of why it shouldn't and wouldn't go to trial.  I would not try to force the justice system to give me a trial.  It would be very apparent why the event transpired.

Trayvon Martin didn't die because he was walking through a neighborhood at night in the rain.  He didn't die because he bought Skittles and an Arizona ice tea.  He didn't get killed because he was black.  He didn't lose his life when he didn't do anything wrong or when he was just going about his own business.  He didn't pass away because of his hoodie.  Every single one of those could have happened and he still easily would have made it back to his dad's house safe and sound with no possibility of dying that night.  This was not a complicated case.  Anyone that had just certain basics of the case knows that everything I'm saying is true.  I believe the main race baiters of the left know this to be true.  They are either lying or they are of such destitute minds that they are able to convince themselves that their lies are true.

If someone were taught just basic civilized human behavior, he would have known how to have survived that night in that neighborhood with George Zimmerman.  One, learn how not to look suspicious.  You look suspicious when you take a shortcut through a neighborhood in the dark in the rain with a hoodie covering your face and talking on a cell phone.  That's just common sense.  If you don't think so, then get some common sense. Get.  Some.  Maybe you don't have that ability.  Your average lifespan is probably going to be shorter then.  Don't be surprised at an early demise.  You say, "He was just a kid."  True, which is why he shouldn't have been out at all after dark until he was taught some common sense.  If the parent doesn't have common sense, then it's easy to understand how the child doesn't have it.  This has nothing to do with being black, white, Asian, or Hispanic.  Common sense is, well, common.

I know what it's like to be young, athletic, fast, and scared.  When I felt that way, I ran.  If there was a potential threat, I ran.  I ran until I was in a safe place.  I remember running through a dark woods on my walk home after late away sporting activities.  We lived near the school, and I walked across a field, a woods, a railroad track, and then to home.  I often ran when I got to the woods and there wasn't even moonlight.  When you are scared, you run.  If I looked at a Zimmerman looking guy, and I wasn't sure about him, I would run home.   I would train my kids not to have been there in the first place, but at that point, they would have known that it was time to run.  Run home.  If you are really scared, use the cell phone and call 911.  Why aren't we hearing this type of instruction coming from the folks related to Trayvon?  It might be your right to walk through the neighborhood, but that doesn't mean that there aren't dangerous people around.  Don't risk it.  Run.  Trayvon Martin was so much faster than George Zimmerman, and as the evidence showed, he didn't need to get close to him.  How could he have ever gotten close enough to Zimmerman to break Zimmerman's nose and cut and bruise the back of his head, and put abrasions on every side of his head, if he was trying to avoid Zimmerman before he got shot?

The prosecutor started his closing argument with, "He didn't do anything wrong!"  I understand he was trying to win the case by saying something other people have also now said.  You shouldn't be able to win a jury, and I don't think you do, by lying and insulting its intelligence.  Of course Martin did something wrong.  He punched Zimmerman in the nose.  That should have never happened if Trayvon Martin was minding his own business, was afraid, and just wanted to get home.  Please.  Don't insult our intelligence with that.  Others have said, the injuries on Zimmerman weren't that bad.  Right.  He had a broken nose, lacerations on the back of his head, abrasions all over his head, and Martin had no injuries before the gunshot wound.  Using only a little available intelligence tells you that the injuries to Zimmerman could have been worse had Martin lived in order to keep going.  When you are taking a beating, and the beating stops because you shot your assailant, you can't say how bad the beating would have been.  What degree and length of beating are you required to take before you stop it with your gun?  Do you have to go unconscious?  At the moment it is happening, do you really think that Zimmerman can judge what is the correct amount of assault to endure before he stops it with his gun?

You don't carry a handgun for self-defense only in case someone else has a handgun, so you can win a gun fight.  You carry a handgun too in case you could get mugged or beat up by a more skilled or stronger or more athletic fighter.  In those cases, you shoot an unarmed man.  Landing a fist in your face and slamming your head on the ground is a physical threat.  It is a reason someone carries a handgun.  If I'm walking in New York City at night, and I am confronted by someone, who throws me against the wall, punches me, knocks me to the ground, and then starts slamming my head against the ground, and I have a gun, what do you think I should do?  Really.

If someone took the best case scenario for Trayvon Martin, there still wasn't evidence of a murder.  The best case for Martin would be that we don't know who was screaming on the 911 tape, we don't know who started the fight, that Zimmerman was in fact following him, and that Zimmerman had "profiled" him.  The problem with his best case scenario is that there is much better evidence that it was Zimmerman who was screaming, that Martin punched Zimmerman first in the nose, that Zimmerman wasn't following him in the manner that the prosecution tried to persuade the jury, and that there wasn't anything illegal for a private citizen to profile someone.  Who is a neighborhood watchman supposed to be watching for?  This goes back to common sense.  He watches for suspicious people.  If he sees anyone, and I mean anyone, he thinks is suspicious, he has now profiled someone.  Everyone profiles other people all the time.  If you hire someone, you've profiled that person.  If you don't hire someone, he's been profiled too.

I feel very little sympathy for George Zimmerman.  If I had a son, he wouldn't look like George Zimmerman, is what I'm saying.  I'm not even utilizing any kind of unique Christian experience or leadership or wisdom that I might have with this.  What I'm writing here relates to basic common sense.  Is that missing much more because of a lack of true conversions in the United States?  Absolutely.  But it doesn't take supernatural discernment to come to the same conclusions that I'm stating here.

Some said that they thought it was at least manslaughter, if not second degree murder.  Anyone who says that doesn't know what he's talking about. Stephen Curry, the guard for the Golden State Warriors, tweeted that.  He said he watched it closely and thought at least manslaughter.  Watching it closely doesn't explain a manslaughter possibility.  It wasn't easier in this case to get a manslaughter charge than a second degree murder charge.  The defense for both was self-defense.  If you decide it was self-defense, neither of those charges would stick.  Saying it was manslaughter doesn't understand manslaughter.  The only reason for manslaughter here would be if the jury wanted Zimmerman to be punished in some way because Martin was killed.  I think that's where most people are today who want Zimmerman in jail.  It's not justice they want.  They want revenge.  When they say there wasn't justice, they don't understand justice or a just system.  In our system, to be guilty, that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.  For those who question this jury, they wanted the jury to come back with a verdict based upon a low degree of probability.  The idea is that if it was even possible that Zimmerman was guilty, then he should be punished, and that's what a manslaughter charge should be for.  The existence of manslaughter was in case that the prosecution could convince the jury purely on emotional grounds.  If there was no proof for second degree they could split the difference with a manslaughter.  In this case, the jury followed the law, which disappointed people who have little respect for the law.

Some are saying that the reason for the injustice here is because it was 5 white women and 1 Hispanic woman.  Those people are not racists, right?  They aren't sexists either, right?  When the experts said the prosecution was trying to sway the jury with emotion because they were six women, where was the outcry?  That's discriminatory, right?  Women aren't more emotional then men, or at least you can't say that, or you're sexist, I've been told.

Al Sharpton said they always had "plan B," if this didn't work.  Plan B is a federal civil rights suit brought against Zimmerman.  You get your trial, but you don't get your guilty verdict, and so you have another alternative.  Al Sharpton is twisted.  He's got some kind of outlook or attitude that disallows him from seeing  the world accurately.  Zimmerman never even mentioned whether Trayvon Martin was black, until he was asked whether the suspicious person was black, white, or hispanic, and he said he thought he was black.  If it's illegal for a citizen to profile, then why is that racial question asked?  Isn't everyone profiled then when there is a question about race on even government applications?

You reader might think this is insensitive to black people, that black people are far less likely to get justice and this Zimmerman trial only reinforces that conception.  Everyone -- red or yellow, black or white -- needs to know what and why this happened.  The instinct to blame these situations on others is against what is necessary to prevent more unnecessary deaths.

This country should not put up with the riots and the misbehavior stemming from this jury decision.  All criminal reaction should be dealt with according to the full force of the law.  No one should be excused.  If our country does not, it's only going to get worse.  Finally, the solution always comes back to the true gospel.  The only answer for America is a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Here's an article on this that adds the tell-tale statement by the main detective investigating the case when he interviewed Zimmerman, feigning that the whole incident was caught on surveillance tape, and Zimmerman replied, "Thank God." Zimmerman had said that he was being straddled and beaten by Martin, and he was confident that a surveillance tape would back his story.

We also now get an interview of prosecution witness Rachel Jeantel on CNN by Piers Morgan in which she says that Martin didn't think he was being followed by a racist, but he profiled Zimmerman as a predatory gay cop who wanted to rape him and then his little brother.  If this is true, and Jeantel is actually credible, then Martin attacked Zimmerman because he was gay.  If this scenario is correct, then the media is defending Martin's attempt at brutally beating someone for showing a gay interest in him.  According to Jeantel, Martin beat Zimmerman out of homophobia in the truest definition of that term.


The Preacher said...

Great article, but why did you say the following?

"You reader might think this is insensitive to black people, that black people are far less likely to get justice and this Zimmerman trial only reinforces that conception."

You analysis was absolutely just and simple concerning not only the law, but the common sense application of the law.

Only an idiot, fool or a racist himself would think that you were insensitive and I do not believe there any on this blog, but in this corrupt society, I would not be surprised.

Anonymous said...

WOW, I would expect this from Facebook or a random social media site, but to see this displayed on a Christian site plagued my heart. It is my duty as a logical thinker and a Christian to respond to this post so that this idiotic and blasphemous way of thinking ceases. At least amongst fellow Christians.

First of all, the justice of God and the justice of man are NOT comparable. Man from time to time, gets it wrong and commits acts of corruption in its system of justice. God's justice is the true justice and is never wrong. God knows all, sees all, and is righteous, therefore God would get it right 100% of the time without a jury. Also, the laws of God are not the same as the laws of man. For example, internal hate is unlawful in the court of God; making God's courtroom a bit harsher than the courtroom of man. Keep that in mind as I walk you through my logic.

I will approach this first from the laws of man, and I will keep race out of it… You are 100% wrong when you say that this case shouldn't have gotten a trial. When a person is DEAD and there is no undoubtable evidence that proves self-defense of the killer, like a video tape, it goes to trial. Zimmerman COULD have killed the kid in cold blood and used unreasonable and unnecessary force. It's not impossible, that's why there was a trial.

Although the Martins could have been better parents, you can't solely blame them. You are too far from their situation to make a proper assessment. There are better parents with worse kids, and worst parents with better kids. Despite trayvon’s upbringing and behavior, Trayvon's Mom was trying to change things by sending him to his Dad. They didn't give up and let him run amuck, they were trying to succeed where they had previously failed as parents. They were hoping a better neighborhood, (how ironic) a more present father figure and a fresh start would straighten Trayvon out. So don't be too quick to crucify the parents.

We all know that Trayvon was no angel and had been involved in mischievous activities in the past, including fighting. But does that mean that he "deserves to die"? Does that mean that he is solely at fault for the events that happened that night? NO. Even if Trayvon made a bad decision of deciding to fight instead of running away, which I believe he may have since he wasn't the type to run from a fight. It still doesn't make his shooting death acceptable or OK. And it doesn't mean that Zimmerman could not have committed a crime. If a person makes the wrong decision to let their keys in the car while getting a coffee at the shop, the thief that steals the car is STILL GUILTY! The words "deserve to die" should never come out of ANY CHRISTIAN'S mouth. I ask God to forgive you for that horrible comment.

Why does Trayvon have to make the wise decisions? Why does he have to walk away? Why not Zimmerman? Zimmerman followed him for an extended period of time. If anything, Trayvon closed the gap. He opened the closet instead of hiding under the bed from the boogeyman. I'm sure Zimmerman had a chance to diffuse the situation as well but didn't. His records show that he wasn't one to back away from a fight either. But isn’t he the GROWN UP here? Shouldn’t he have made the wiser decisions that could have kept him safe and Trayvon alive? Your analysis is faulty because it is ONE SIDED. You put the responsibility of sound decision making on Trayvon. The possibility of bad decisions being made is present on BOTH SIDES, as matter of fact, there is more evidence showing Zimmerman’s mistakes before the incident than Trayvon's. But I'll get to that later.

Anonymous said...

From reading your post, it seems like you know everything that happened on that night. News-flash: YOU DON'T! Zimmerman's story could be a lie! He was found NOT GUILTY in the court of law, He was NOT FOUND INNOCENT. There is a difference. They couldn't prove that he didn't rightfully act in self-defense. That doesn't mean that he did.

I got a sense of how lost your mind is when I read the paragraph that said one should "learn not to look suspicious." I'm not going to lie, I got a good laugh, which was a change from the hopelessness that I felt for your Christian mind while reading the rest of your stuff. But I will entertain your faulty logic in hopes of correcting it, for you are my brother or sister and I owe it to you… You are correct. One should try not to look suspicious. But I'm not sure that taking a shortcut through a gated community that you live in because it was starting to rain, while wearing a hoodie because it was a bit chilly, while talking on the phone with a friend is "looking suspicious" via COMMON SENSE. And it definitely DID NOT ALONE WARRANT HIS DEATH! Next time I go out to get some snacks to make it back for the game, I'll make sure I don't take a shortcut, cover my head with a hoodie even if it's raining, or pick up my phone. I don't want to look suspicious and deserve to GET SHOT! I figured if I said it in the first person sarcastically you would see how weak your logic is. I said I will keep race out of it so I will. But I'm sure if Zimmerman saw a 4'11" girl wearing a hoody, taking a shortcut, and talking on the phone, Zimmerman wouldn't have called the cops.

Did Trayvon do something wrong? YOU DON’T KNOW THAT! Although the evidence shows that he did punch Zimmerman, that doesn’t mean that he unreasonably did so. Zimmerman could have attacked him and Trayvon was the one standing his ground. Zimmermann called Trayvon a “punk” and profiled him as a thief as heard on the tapes. But when in a confrontation with this “punk” he ends up getting the crap beat out of him and “needed” his gun. You don’t bring a gun to a fist fight. Even IF Trayvon did punch first using a gun is not reasonable force. Even IF he did get on to hit Zimmerman and bang his head, a prosecution can argue that brandishing a gun would have sufficed to get the unarmed perpetrator away. That is why the part in Zimmerman’s story about Trayvon reaching for the gun was crucial to his defense; it showed a clear threat to his life. (how convenient) We don’t know whether that happened or not so Zimmerman gets the reasonable doubt going his way. If that part was not part of the defense maybe the result may have been different. If you were in a fight and you were getting beat up and used a gun to kill the unarmed person like you said you would just because you were sour and vengeful, you would be guilty, not only in the eyes man, but also in the eyes God. What kind of Christian are you? Self-defense is when you have NO OTHER CHOICE, it is not a vengeful act but an act of survival. If he pulled out the gun and Trayvon surrendered and he still shot, (Which also could have happened) ITS MURDER.

Zimmerman’s “thank god” moment is not proof of his innocence, but maybe his knowledge of his gated community and the fact that he knew there are no cameras where he and Trayvon were fighting; on a path between the rear of houses. And Jeantel joked about Zimmerman being a gay rapist, which is not what Trayvon believed. Saying it could have been a hate crime means that Trayvon would have to have believed that Zimmerman was gay and that he attacked Zimmerman, neither are proven. There is no conclusive evidence proving who is screaming on the tape. Getting hit can make someone to scream but if someone pulls out a gun on you, you might scream too.

Anonymous said...

Since this is a Christian Blog, I will now approach this case with the laws of God. I am not the most knowledgeable of the Bible or of God, but I know enough to put up an analysis that debunks yours. People are going to subconsciously profile others like you said, we can’t help it. But where the SIN against God is committed is when you believe it and prejudge a person based on your impression. To act on it is another sin. God said let him be the judge, don’t judge one another or bare false witness. Zimmerman approached the situation with hate and disdain. He saw the kid and called the cops, and on the tape you can hear his hatred and disgust towards someone he didn’t even know. That my friend is a SIN against God. God told us that we should love one another, not have a hateful heart. With that in mind, how do you think he approached and communicated with Trayvon when he confronted him? I very much doubt that it was Christian-like. Do you then think Trayvon’s defensiveness was sensible? These acts aforementioned do not break the laws of man but do break the laws of God. Trayvon in turn may have been in wrong with God when he threw the first punch or decided to fight back, but it is not known, maybe he had no choice. But for Zimmerman to take someone’s life is a deadly SIN, he may have been acting in self-defense, but if it was to be vengeful or as in act of retaliation and his life wasn’t in danger, he violated a MAJOR commandment of God. Zimmerman’s story changed a bit over time as well, and if his modifications were untrue, he also violated another Commandment by lying. That is the TRUE GOSPEL.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Hi Anonymous,

I have a general policy here not to post inflammatory anonymous comments. I sometimes don't even publish ones with names on them, but I included yours because I wanted it to be known that I would welcome another opinion. And I do say opinion. You started your rant with calling this idiotic and blasphemous. That is not a good way to win a hearing immediately because it does in fact affect your credibility immediately.

I will say this only right now. You know a whole lot for someone who thinks I don't know much about the case. Everything that I commented about I looked at personally. This was nationally televised in the courtroom. People outside of the courtroom actually knew more than the jury, because we also watched the lawyers argue for admissibility of evidence that the jury did not see. And yet you know all about the parenting job of the Martins. I was saying what I would say about myself if I were in the Martins's position. I said that because a common point is asked, how would you be if you were the Martins? I was answering that typical question. I have a son. If this happened, this is what I would think. With everything in evidence, I would understand why it happened to my son. Maybe that is blaming the Martins, but it's not how I think about it. It's how I relate with the question of how I think I would be. Very sad, but I would understand why it happened, and I would see it as my fault. Would it be all my fault? No. But I would see it as my fault mainly. You never, ever hear anyone saying that. The parents should be taking some responsibility for this.

You said you don't the Bible much. That shows. Especially calling this post blasphemous. I would be interested in hearing what other people have to say (with their names attached).

Here would be a good video to add to your knowledge base.

Kent Brandenburg said...

One more thing. It's true that some of what I'm saying can not be concluded from the evidence. However, what you wrote can't be concluded from the evidence either. What I'm saying is that from the evidence, Zimmerman should have been acquitted. Bill Cosby, Charles Barkley, and Jimmy Carter all said the same. I've heard no one say he didn't get a fair trial. If anything, it was biased against Zimmerman, the judge purposefully acting on behalf of the prosecution. And he still was acquitted. Whatever conclusions you make from what you think happened, what you think could have happened, there are other speculations that better fit the evidence. You call this blasphemy. That's interesting.

The Preacher said...

Kent said,
"If this happened, this is what I would think. With everything in evidence, I would understand why it happened to my son. Maybe that is blaming the Martins, but it's not how I think about it. It's how I relate with the question of how I think I would be. Very sad, but I would understand why it happened, and I would see it as my fault. Would it be all my fault? No. But I would see it as my fault mainly. You never, ever hear anyone saying that. The parents should be taking some responsibility for this."

This has always been the way that I have thought concerning my son and I took my biblical responsibility SERIOUSLY as you have. If my son failed, it is a reflection on the "head of the household" and no one else. My son is twenty-four and getting married, yet I still have a sense of responsibility before the Lord, to extend the body of Christ, I pray even unto my grandchildren.

Anonymous is the one that showed a lack of Christian character and discernment by assuming the worse of a Christian brother. What he should have surmised is that evil circumstances surrounding a corrupted young man and that "time and chance happeneth to them all"
caused the end of his life, and sadly one who more than likely ended up as an unrepentant sinner in hell.

Greg said...

Hey Kent,

The name is Greg... Thank you for posting my comments...I thought that my comments wouldn't be inflammatory enough to not get a post from you... and a response. I seemed to have been right. Losers of debates usually change their tune and stray away from the majority of their aforementioned debunked points when they respond to their opponents. They also usually counter debating points that were not asserted by their opponent, making the response moot and weak. This is what I see here in your response to my response.

My response challenged many ideas that you asserted in your original post. I presented a counter argument for each idea that I disagreed with and used two different lenses to assess the situation.

Here are the points I didn't make, that you felt the need to rebut:

I didn't say that you don't know much about the case, I said that you don't know EVERYTHING that happened on the night in question, referring to the altercation. I am right because no one except for Zimmerman, Trayvon and God knows the truth. Since we are none of the three, You and I are one of the know-nots. I do believed that you do know the case pretty well. I never said that I don't [know] the Bible much. I am knowledgeable about the Bible; I claimed not to be the MOST knowledgeable about the Bible but knew enough to show that your points were not congruent with it as you make them to be. I never said that my speculations could be conclusively proven from evidence, I stated their POSSIBLE occurrence and the fact that this makes Zimmerman story not made of gold. As in it could have happened another way, and he could be lying. And finally, I never once said that Zimmerman's trial wasn't fair. He got the fairest trail that the judicial system of man can produce. I never said that He shouldn't have been acquitted, I said twice in my response that there was reasonable doubt making his acquittal understandable.

Now, I will highlight points that I DID make. I'll even number them for you, just in case you want to form a better response. And I’ll point out where the blasphemy comes in.

But first I must say that I understand why YOU would blame yourself in that situation if you were Trayvon's parent, I lot of parents would. I would blame myself too. Maybe I could have instilled something in him that would have made him react better in certain situations. But does that mean that what occurred that night would be my fault? That his death was understandable? OK? Does that mean that foul play was impossible? NO. Which was one of my points. It's nice to see you change your tune when you acknowledged that they weren't fully at fault.

1. Blaming the parent's would mean that Trayvon was fully in control of his situation. We don't know that. I don't claim to know all about the Martin's parenting, but I do know his parents were TRYING to make things better.

2. The case should not have been thrown out because someone is DEAD and there isn't clear cut evidence of REASONABLE self-defense. Just because you got a broken nose and scars on your head does not mean that you were being reasonable when you pulled the trigger. Again, at that point, Trayvon may have had surrendered. You were WRONG when you made that statement. Reasonable doubt is for the courtroom.

3. Just because Trayvon was a trouble maker in the past and may have made unwise decisions that night, that doesn't mean that he "deserved to die." Those words SHOULD NEVER COME OUT OF THE MOUTH OF A CHRISTIAN. Especially if you don't know what actually happened during the altercation. You said that in the name of GOD, that is BLASPHEMOUS.

Greg said...

4. You put the responsibility of making wise decisions ONLY on the 17 year old and not the 34 year old. That is WRONG.
5. The actions and attire of Trayvon did not make him suspicious via common sense. AND DID NOT WARRANT HIS DEATH. Talking on the phone? Really? That assessment of yours was WRONG.
6. There is no clear evidence that Trayvon did anything wrong. There is evidence that he did punch Zimmerman and may have banged Zimmerman's head on the pavement. But he may have been the one acting in self-defense here, defending himself from someone with a gun. He certainly was doing nothing wrong before the altercation. Your assessment that he was in fact doing something wrong is... well, WRONG.
From a religious standpoint:
7. Zimmerman sinned when he BELIEVED his negative prejudging of Trayvon and Acted on it.
8. Zimmerman sinned when he felt and showed hate and disdain towards someone he didn't even know.
The rest is just speculation. But Zimmerman may have unjustly violated GOD's commandments not to kill and also not to lie.
Those were the main points of my response. You addressed very little of it. For your response to have weight, you must address the points that I challenged, and the points that I made. If you don’t, then you have conceded.

Greg said...

Thank you for sharing the video. I have not seen this particular video, BUT I was already aware of all the facts that it presented. Our Media sucks, you don't have to tell me twice. NONE of the facts that he presented proved Zimmerman’s story of REASONABLE self-defense. The facts that Trayvon was involved in fights, and experimented with drugs do not prove that he was a killer, or tried to kill Zimmerman that night with his fist or by reaching for Zimmerman's gun. The possibility that Zimmerman is not a racist does not mean that skin color did not play a part in the profile of Trayvon or that he couldn't commit a crime against a black kid.

Greg said...

@ George Calvas I agree that the parents should take some responsibility for the troubles that the kid had. BUT not necessarily for what happened that night. A lot of different things may have happened that night for them not to be SURE that they are at fault. Would you be OK with the killer of your son being free ONLY with the knowledge of HIS STORY? Trayvon's family only knows ZIMMERMAN's truth, maybe it is the truth, but other possibilities have to plague their mind.
I do not show lack of Christian character by assuming the worse of a Christian brother as you ironically did with Trayvon Martin. I challenged the faulty and non-Christian statement that he made. And it is so Christian of you to say that Trayvon ended up in hell (forget judgment day right?) instead of praying for his soul. Because you know what God will do right? God said to LEAVE THE JUDGING TO HIM. Please do so.

Kent Brandenburg said...


Hi Greg,

Your first name, true or not, narrows you down to thousands. I don’t think you’ll be traced. You won the debate because I went personal. No. There was no debate. I didn’t even start debating anything. I made an observation, not because you made irrefutable points.

No one knows everything that happened that night, but from what we know, no one can prove the guilt of Zimmerman beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence best supports Zimmerman, the neighbor John Good, the timeline, the 911 calls, the injuries to Zimmerman, as to his innocence, let alone proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. There was never evidence to prove this was 1st degree murder or manslaughter in part because he called the police and kept in touch with them. You do have to judge whether someone is lying, and the chief investigator for the case said Zimmerman wasn’t lying. The jury thought Zimmerman was truthful.

I wasn’t changing my tune when I said the parents weren’t fully at fault. No person is completely responsible for someone else. We will all stand before God alone without parents. As a parent, it’s how I would react. Adding that it was not all their fault, but mainly their fault was always my position. I’m fine changing a position because of something you wrote, but I didn’t. I haven’t heard the Martins take responsibility ever in anything I’ve read or heard. Maybe they do in person, but they need to in public. They blame George Zimmerman. From all the evidence we do in fact know, they shouldn’t have been trusting their son to be by himself and going out at night. They have a totally different standard than what they should require of themselves.

You say you know the Martin’s were trying to make things better. You know that as much as you know other parts of the case. Reasonably, we should conclude that Trayvon could have made into his house, locked the door, and called the police. He had the time to do that. We know why Zimmerman was looking, because he called the police. Martin looked suspicious.

The case should have gone to a grand jury. Many people’s opinion is that it should have been thrown out. There was not evidence to prove it was not self-defense. Self-defense was reasonable based on the evidence. It was far more than reasonable. We know now that this is why they weren’t going to try the case. They even looked into the racism aspect, and found none. The injuries were part of the evidence. John Good’s testimony was there as evidence. The evidence backed George’s story.

You have a low bar for blasphemy, because all of us deserve to die, but in fact I didn’t say Trayvon deserved to die in this particular situation. I said I would know that my son deserved “it.” “It” is that he deserved to get whatever came out of a man defending himself. It’s too bad he died. It would have been nice if it had been short of that, but all things considered, I said my son would deserve it. That’s what I would think about it if it were my son. For it to be blasphemy against God, you would have to show how that God is blasphemed by saying that sinners deserve death and that they will get that penalty if they keep going down that path. That’s a repeated message in the Bible I don’t mind laying out to you. Theologically, it’s especially true.

We do know enough of what happened in the altercation to know that George Zimmerman was defending himself. That’s also what the jury concluded, we know now by their testimony. The facts of the case, what we could know, is that Martin punched Zimmerman, broke his nose, mounted him and pummeled him. Zimmerman cried out for 45 seconds and then shot Martin. We also know that Martin could have easily made it home.

Kent Brandenburg said...


There is nothing that I know that Zimmerman did that I wouldn’t have done, if I were him. I don’t carry a gun, but I believe I have the right to do that. I’m also bigger and stronger and more athletic than Zimmerman, so it would not likely to have come to that. However, if I was neighborhood watch, there were burglaries in the area, and I saw a suspicious person, I would follow him too in order to be sure the police knew where he was. That all made complete sense to me, and we have that all on the police dispatch tape. I wouldn’t have used foul language, but I would have thought of the same frustrations in different words.

I’ve been in the exact situation of Zimmerman. I’ve followed people to give police information. Yes, it makes sense that Martin looked suspicious.

The evidence doesn’t back your version of the story, that Martin was threatened by a gun, because he was being chased and caught by Zimmerman, and under the fear of being shot, pummeled him. What I’m saying is reasonable, and what you are saying is unreasonable. What is reasonable is that in the middle of committing a crime, felony battery of Zimmerman, Martin was shot in self-defense. That’s what John Good saw as an eyewitness. It is what the gun shot evidence shows. It is what the physical injuries to Martin and Zimmerman show. Nothing shows your position. You can cast doubt on the defense position, but that’s not the job of the prosecution. The prosecution is to show evidence of a credible account of the case. At best, because it did not have evidence, the prosecution tried to cast doubt on the defense presentation.

I’m not saying nor have I said that Zimmerman himself never sinned. He’s a sinner too. However, the evidence shows Zimmerman to be on the side of ‘right.’ There is no evidence that Zimmerman hated Martin. He was angry at crimes in the neighborhood, which is righteous indignation that is completely reasonable and a reason for a neighborhood watch.

I don’t believe there is any evidence of Zimmerman lying. His story didn’t always agree in every detail, but that is usually evidence that someone is telling the truth. The big accusation of the prosecution was that he lied about not knowing the stand-your-ground law. There is no evidence of that.

Again, there is far more evidence that Zimmerman was not racially profiling, based on the definition of that. He never offered the race until he was asked by the police dispatch, and he said, I think he’s black. What you are intimating is that we can’t follow someone to watch them who is suspicious in our neighborhood. Martin was visiting his father. Zimmerman didn’t know who he was.

I’ve answered your points. Your overall point that my post was blasphemous was outlandish and incredible. And you made that horrible conclusion based on something I didn’t say. I said my son would deserve “it.” That’s not the same as writing that Martin deserved to die that night. I don’t believe in the death penalty for battery. It was an unfortunate event we all wish could have been different, but, I believe, understandable in the context of what we know from evidence.

The Preacher said...

"Would you be OK with the killer of your son being free ONLY with the knowledge of HIS STORY? Trayvon's family only knows ZIMMERMAN's truth, maybe it is the truth, but other possibilities have to plague their mind."

No, I would not be OK with a "one-sided story", but that is not what happened in this case. There was EVIDENCE from many sources to prove without reasonable doubt that he acted "righteously" by defending himself from a vicious attack.

Possibilities?? Why not rather be plagued by there own sin and folly of life that added confusion to the corrupted life of this young man that caused his demise? Why not the possibility that he had every intention of killing Zimmerman? Why not the possibility that Martin hated Zimmerman and that is why he did not run? The last two are mere emotional "possibilities" that I made up without one shred of evidence to back them up. What is clear is that he is DEAD and they had some blame in part that attributed to his death, for "none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself".

"And it is so Christian of you to say that Trayvon ended up in hell (forget judgment day right?) instead of praying for his soul."

What do you mean "praying for his soul"? You speak as a lost man that understands not the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, for "it is appointed unto man ONCE to die, but after this the judgment".

So, are you saying that this man still has a chance to be born-again?

The rest of your diatribe only proves that you are biblical ignorant of the righteous judgments that all believers must make since they are called unto the ministry of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:17-21). Since I am called to do that, then as a spiritual man that judgeth all things, I must be able to discern a lost man from a saved man (as far as the evidence suggest from a biblical perspective, both are lost) so that one can be taught the way to salvation in Jesus Christ, while another be taught as a disciple of Jesus Christ.

Greg said...

Kent, call it a debate, call it a discussion, I didn’t name it. I said you were using a bad debtor’s tactics and you were. You are transforming before my eyes little by little. At least you aren't saying that CRAP about don't take shortcuts and talk on the phone or you should expect to die.
Zimmerman deemed Travon to be suspicious, followed him, as he said on the 911 tapes and as revealed in the Trayvon's texts to Jeantel. There was an altercation, Zimmerman got hurt pretty bad, as shown in the pictures, Jon Good said he saw Trayvon on top of Z throwing punches. (BUT THAT’S ALL HE SAW, he did NOT get out there to help Z nor did he see the WHOLE altercation, so you are WRONG about that) and Trayvon got shot. The screams on the 911 call were never 100% identified, you can't say it was either person for sure. THIS NEXT STATEMENT I NEED YOU TO UNDERSTAND. There was evidence of self-defense, but IS THAT ALL THAT CAN BE CONCLUDED FROM THE EVIDENCE? ABDOLUTELY NO OTHER POSSIBILITIES? REASONABLE SELF DEFENSE IS THE 100% ONLY EVENT THAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED? NOOOOOOO! That's why it went to trail. That’s all you need for a trial: THE POSSIBILITY of foul play. They couldn't prove it was murder, yes, I know, IT WAS POSSIBILY rightful self-defense so he got off. The Jury never said he was "truthful", they just couldn't prove he was lying. HUGE DIFFERENCE. Before you open your mouth and start judging or blaming at least have the decency to acknowledge that there is a POSSIBILITY that what you think happened CAN be wrong. LIKE I DID. Do you not think that since Zimmerman is the only person ALIVE who knows what happened, knew what the evidence would be, thus TAYLORED HIS STORY TO MATCH THE EVIDENCE? Is that IMPOSSIBLE to you? He had some good Lawyers that could MAKE his story “fit” the evidence, and make people like you believe that it was the evidence that “fits” his story. Like he wouldn’t know what the evidence would be. Gimme a break.
Zimmerman COULD have been defending himself reasonably. But it is POSSIBLE that He didn't have to shoot. AGAIN, there is NO evidence to disprove the POSSIBILITY that Trayvon Surrendered after Zimmerman pulled out the gun. Shooting at that point would be UNREASONABLE self-defense. That is why the defense needed the part about Trayvon reaching for it first. I guess you forgot about that. That was the ultimate part that said he had NO OTHER CHOICE. It can't be proven or disproven but we just have to take Zimmerman's word for it right? Well, his lawyer’s, because he didn't take the stand. (maybe I'm just making all of this up since I don't know about this case ?)

As a Watchmen, Z was allowed to follow a suspect at a distance and was NOT allowed to confront them. That's why in his story Trayvon attacked him. Do we know that? No, but we just have to take Zimmerman's word for it. There IS NO EVIDENCE proving that Martin started the fight. Just because Z had his nose broken, that DOESN’T mean that he could not have initiated physical contact that required Trayvon to respond. Good did NOT see how the fight started and did NOT see how the fight started.

Greg said...

The Martins probably are partially blaming themselves. But they do not have the duty to do it publically. And I will ask you the same thing I asked George. Would you be OK with the killer of your son being free ONLY with the knowledge of HIS STORY? A story that is not 100% the only possibility.

I didn't know that giving permission to go the store for 5 minutes at 7 oclock was a big no-no for parents of a troubled kid. He was looking for trouble? If Z didn't feel like a guy with a hoody talking on the phone was suspicious would something bad have happened that night? Was that troubled kid who shouldn't be trusted trying to commit any crime? Was he not just trying to get back home? Someone had to come and make him uncomfortable for him to make the bad decisions that he POSSIBLY made that night. He had enough time to make it home... a random creepy looking guy is following you, you want to run home? You want him knowing where you and your family live? Trayvon was probably trying to lose him first. But no one thinks about that.

Greg said...


Oh WOW, You are a psychic??? I don't remember disclosing MY VERSION of this story. I remember bringing up other POSSIBILITIES that could have REASONABLY occurred GIVEN THE LIMITED EVIDENCE. I didn't say that Zimmerman "chased" or "caught" Trayvon or he pulled out a gun before the confrontation and that the shooting was unreasonable. There you go again creating an argument for me and taking it down... The "gun evidence" does not show REASONABLE self-defense. It shows that someone got shot. The injuries do not show REASONABLE self-defense, it shows that someone got hurt. Does that mean that killing was REASONABLE? My version (WHICH YOU DON'T KNOW) doesn't doubt Zimmerman's self-defense. REASONABLE self-defense is something totally different though. You can UNREASONABLY defend yourself. It is not UNREASONABLE given the evidence, to say that it is POSSIBLE that Zimmerman provoked Trayvon (since there is no evidence proving how the fight started). It is not UNREASONABLE to say that it is POSSIBLE that Z pulled out a gun after being beaten and Trayvon surrendered and Z chose to shoot him anyway. You are a horrible psychic, my version is not important here. If you want to know I can tell you, but the important thing is that if I was going to create a blog with my version, I would acknowledge that it is not the "TRUTH", but rather what I believed happened. Any judgments or observations that I made from there would come from that. “IF my version is true then I think... blah blah blah.” That's ONLY fair.
Now you are defining "it". Trayvon died. That is "whatever he got from the man defending himself." So you did in fact refer to death when you said he deserved "it." If not, BE MORE SPECIFIC. People may deserve to die, BUT THAT IS FOR GOD TO SAY, NOT YOU. THAT is repeated in the Bible.

I understand you would follow somebody if you thought they were suspicious. I agree with defending yourself. Not a big fan of killing but I would if my life was in clear danger. That is not my problem here. My problem is you assuming that the self-defense was reasonable and that there is no other POSSIBILITY, Trayvon is in the wrong and deserved “it”, Z is in the "Right".

The evidence does not PROVE that Zimmerman's life was in danger when he pulled the trigger. Trayvon was not a killer. If you were getting beat up in a fight and you pulled out a gun and the perpetrator backed off and surrendered, would you shoot? ... Is this is what happened? I don’t know, but is it impossible? No.

Greg said...

Again, Zimmerman was wrong for believing his stereotype as truth instead of a possibility. And wrong for having the hate in his heart for a person he didn’t even know. It is obvious from the tapes. That is not illegal, but in the eyes of GOD, is WRONG.

"If I'm walking in New York City at night, and I am confronted by someone, who throws me against the wall, punches me, knocks me to the ground, and then starts slamming my head against the ground, and I have a gun, what do you think I should do? Really."

"I don’t believe in the death penalty for battery." I like the remix better. Before, you were saying how Martin should have expected to die because of what he was wearing and the shortcut he took. Now you are making a bit more sense. Perhaps if you said things like people don't deserve to die for their appearance and it is not fully the parents fault before, I may not have responded. But you still have a way to go. You must acknowledge other POSSIBILITIES that could still “fit” the LIMITED evidence. You must acknowledge Zimmerman’s inner wrong doing. I never said he shouldn't follow, but he should have approached the situation with a lighter heart. Would you channel all the frustration on someone you THOUGHT POSSIBLY was committing crimes in your neighborhood? You followed someone to give police information, did you see them committing a crime or did you THINK they did? I’m a bit curious, were they wearing a hoody too? Or talking on the phone? Were they guilty of the absolute number 1 “it”-deserving action: taking a shortcut? Did you think of them as the scums of the Earth without knowing if they DID anything or not?

I will finish with this. Whether Zimmerman’s self-defense was REASONABLE or not, WE DONT KNOW. I’m tired of people who ASSUME the worst from any side. Had this post been a bout Zimmerman snipping Trayvon for being black, I would have disagreed and responded too. You should not say certain negative things or make illogical observations in the name of God. Zimmerman may have escaped the just judgment of man. BUT HE WILL NOT ESCAPE THE JUST JUDGMENT OF GOD.

Greg said...

@ George. The evidence that you talk of from "many" sources DO NOT PROVE that Zimmerman acted "righteously." Without a Reasonable doubt?? Are you high? There is no evidence of how the fight started, nor what exactly happened towards the end of the altercation. Please read what I wrote above on what the evidence proves and doesn't prove. There is a lot of reasonable doubt in Zimmerman's story. But in court, reasonable doubt only aids the defendant.

Other possibilities are plausible, wether you recognize them or not. Even the possibility that Trayvon hated his follower, and tried to kill him. Even though those are outrageous and unlikely, they are possible. But not running is a choice, not proof of hatred.

Because there ARE other possibilities where Trayvon was the one defending himself, you CAN'T say with certainty that he was at fault,hence his parents were at fault. He may have been troubled, His parents may have made some mistakes. But it is NOT "clear" that they had some blame since it is no clear exactly how he died. You do not know the Martins to judge them so harshly, you do not know their efforts nor their plights. like I said before, there are better parents with worse kids, and worse parents with better kids. What about Zimmerman's parents?

“Judge not, that you be not judged."- Matthew 7:1

"There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?"- James 4:12

Praying for the soul of a brother so that he rests in peace. And that his HEART may have gotten right with God as he took his last breath. "It is appointed unto man ONCE to die, but after this the judgement." When is the judgement? You and I don't know(Matthew 24:36), according to Revelations, we will all be judged together at the end of times. And by Whom? NOT George Calvas, but by GOD.

"Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God."- Corinthians 4:5

I am not saying that he can be "born again" but that the "purpose of his heart" is know by God and not by you.

What Paul was trying to say in 2 Corinthians is that he must judge in order to HELP PEOPLE towards righteousness. You Must show someone the bad in order to teach them good. And it takes some judgement to do that. You shouldn't judge for the sake of judging, nor to slander, put blame or put down someone else. It serves no purpose.

"Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear."-ephesians 4:29

I rather be biblically ignorant, than misinterpret and misrepresent the Bible.

You did it to yourself. God bless you.

Greg said...

Here is a link with the testimony from the eyewitness. Kent, add this to your knowledge base.

Kent Brandenburg said...


Some ways someone can show their weakness is in the use of capitals (as if you're shouting), words like "crap," and in overstating their case, all of which you use. If the mortar is thin, you have to fling it hard.

I'm going to point our errors. Assume we agree on everything else. To start, however, I'm not creeping your way. Everything I've said has been consistent with everything else I've said. This isn't a research paper on the case.

First, it's not 'taking shortcuts' and 'talking on the phone,' but a combination of a lot of things that make one suspicious, all of which someone with some common sense knows. You don't deserve to die for being suspicious, but it is why someone might be followed as a potential criminal. I'm at the airport and when I go through security, there are flags for suspicious people, and if you don't want a pat down, you avoid those. I would say a large majority of Americans would understand what I'm talking about, but some, like yourself, either just doesn't want to try to understand or is feigning ignorance. The only alternative if you're ignorant. It's dark out, you're walking through other people's yards, slowing down to look into their windows. Much more oculd be said here.

Second, Zimmerman didn't call 911. He called the police on a non-emergency channel.

Third, Jon Good said the guy on the bottom was wearing the colors of Zimmerman and the guy on top was wearing the colors of Martin. The guy on top was pummeling someone, and only one person was pummeled. That, my friend, is evidence. Sure, take out the voice, but don't ask us to neatly shove our common sense into the back of the drawer.

Fourth, you don't need just the possibility of foul play for a trial. It's ironic here, because you don't want Zimmerman judging Martin for the possibility of foul play, but you want Zimmerman to go to trial for what you call a possibility. Maybe you can see that contradiction. This is why we have grand juries, which the prosecution chose to bypass because of politics.

Kent Brandenburg said...

I continue, Greg, mainly because if I don't, you'll claim victory. Or come to some other conclusion from my silence.

Fifth, the evidence is what makes self-defense reasonable. You say no one knows but Zimmerman, but actually the forensics also tell a story -- the absence of injury on Martin, the bloody back of Zimmerman's head, his nose....I'll be back later maybe, I'm getting on the plane.

Greg said...


I put the capitals there to higlight an important phrase or word that probably didn't hit home before. That doesn't show weakness and I'm not shouting... I used the word crap because that was what the statement I was refering to was... A load of CRAP. I call it like I see it. Suspicion is objective, it is not common sense. Even though most people would agree that a particular action is suspicious, other actions are not as clear cut. Definitely not the actions you Originally said. Trayvon walking and looking around was not a point that you originally brought up, you are just now saying that. Trayvon was not walking through peoples yards, he was taking public paths between houses. Some gated Communities have those, I've been to one. These paths are convenient to anyone who is walking. I'm not saying that he did not look suspicious, maybe I would have thought so. But it was one person's opinion: Zimmerman, not the state of Florida, not America, no one else, just Zimmerman. To blindly say you agree with his opinion without seeing what he saw is stupid. What's even worse is saying that the kid deserved harm even after we find out the suspicions were wrong.

911 or police non-emergency line, so far from the point.

Jon said he saw Trayvon on top, Zimmerman on the bottom. And Trayvon moving his hand in a downward motion. NOT repeatedly banging Z's head on the floor. Then he went inside to call the cops. Anything could have happened after that point. So it's not OBVIOUS that the shooting was neccessary from that testimony. Just because that is what Jon saw, it doesn't mean that it remained that way when he wasn't there anymore, therefore it is not common sense, better yet, it is not correct sense to assume that Zimmerman remained the controlled person in the fight.

I'm not debating the evidence. I am debating what the evidence proves. I make valid points, and it's as if you didn't read them. The fact that Zimmerman was the only ne injured does not prove that Trayvon started the fight. If I push you and you fight back, I swing and miss and you swing and connect, then proceed to beat me up. Who stated the fight? What does the "evidence" show? One can assume that you started it because you don't have a scratch on you. They would be wrong. Just because you was on top of me at one point, does not mean that that couldn't have changed. If you get shot, in the altercation which peice of evidence PROVES the reasonability of that shooting? None. There actually was very little to be proven from the forensic evidence in this case.

Cases go to trial because of the possibility that someone may have killed someone else. We know Zimmerman killed Trayvon, reasonable self-defense was the question. And you think there should have been no trial? No video, and non life-threatning injuries won't cut it. Grand jury would have sent it to trial. I said Zimmerman shouldn't have prejudged and believed his suspisions, making Trayvon guilty without a shred of evidence. In the eyes of the law, Zimmerman was "innocent" (only by name) until proven guilty, he was not judged before the trial, he was judged after the trial. And he was deemed not guilty. (he was not proven innocent)So it is not ironic.

There is evidence, and there is what the evidence proves. I need you to please read all my previous comments carefully. You don't fully understand them. We can't have a discussion if you are misunderstanding and fabricating my comments. Read, understand, answer all the questions, and think. Only then you can answer.