FBI audio expert testifies in Zimmerman trial

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    July 2, 2013 10:07 a.m.

    I remind those playing the race card against Zimmerman, that Martin was the one using racial slurs, per his own girlfriend's testimony.

    Race based confrontation is equally egregious when provoked by people of any race. No race is excluded from being racist.

    Without any evidence for support, assuming Zimmerman acted out of racism is, in and of itself, a racist assumption.

    Look at the evidence. If it doesn't match your preconceived ideas, reconsider, as Joe Blow did. Don't just plug your ears and retreat into your racist pre-convictions.

    By the evidence, Martin's language and Zimmerman's injuries, it is more likely that Martin was the one acting out of racist hate, pounding on Zimmerman's cracker head.

  • 4word thinker Murray, UT
    July 2, 2013 9:29 a.m.

    "...if he were not armed, we would have had a fistfight instead of a death."

    More likely the death of Zimmerman by head trauma from having his head pounded on the street repeatedly.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 1, 2013 4:19 p.m.

    JoeBlow and There You Go Again,

    Zimmerman could have kept this from becoming what it became (by not having a gun or not following Martin). But Martin could also have kept this from becoming what it became (by answering the neighborhood watch guy's question, or asking him why he's following you, instead of punching him out and beating his head into the concrete). Both men could have kept this from becoming what it became.

    We don't have a concept of "He's MOSTLY to blame" or "He's MOSTLY guilty" in a murder trial. You are either "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", or you are "NOT Guilty". There's nothing in between like MOSTLY guilty.

    They may be able to PROVE a lesser charge, but I don't think a jury would find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of Murder.

    If OJ Simpson was not guilty because there was a little doubt... Zimmerman is WAY not guilty.

    Remember... there's no "Mostly in the wrong" in a murder trial.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    July 1, 2013 3:28 p.m.

    I watched some of the trial today. In it, there was audio of questioning of Zimmerman the night of the incident.

    Prior to that, I felt that Zimmerman was mostly in the wrong. I have now changed my mind based on this audio. I feel that while Zimmerman was not completely guiltless, he will be acquitted.

    That said, if he were not armed, we would have had a fistfight instead of a death.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    July 1, 2013 2:26 p.m.

    Trayvon was a pot smoking, hoodie wearing, teenager who had trouble at school...

    What did I forget to include...

    Oh yeah...

    He was black.

    Zimmerman could observe that Trayvon was a black person wearing a hoodie...


    Zimmerman then launched into an expletive laced rant about his perception of those kind of people.

    We, as well, all know that a black person wearing a hoodie is up to no good...


    So, the ONLY thing Zimmerman could do was stalk, confront and murder this teenager...


  • The Skeptical Chymist SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    July 1, 2013 1:25 p.m.

    The question of whether Trayvon was a pot smoker or not is irrelevant to this case! Are we to conclude that it is OK to shoot a person because he is a drug user?

    I don't know what happened in the moments when the fatal confrontation took place, but I do fault Zimmerman for his vigilante approach. When untrained, armed individuals take it on themselves to patrol a neighborhood and track and pursue a person they consider "suspicious" (yet who belonged in the area quite legitimately), and a confrontation occurs, the person who initiated the tracking has a lot to explain.

    With luck, this case will at least discourage other self-styled vigilantes from this sort of activity.

  • Mr.Glass Salt Lake City, UT
    July 1, 2013 12:50 p.m.

    Chris B wrote, "Dishonest people will try and say that Zimmerman was told not to follow the suspicious person, who turned out to be a drug abuser."

    OK, so we learned later that Treyvon smoked pot. How can you justify carrying a gun and following "suspicious person" , and then imply that he was suspicious person because he had a history of smoking pot? Ludicrous.

    Also ludicrous is the notion that people are dishonest for interpreting, "OK, we don't need you to do that" as a request not to follow that person. What else could it mean?

  • PG #1 FAN Lindon, UT
    July 1, 2013 12:24 p.m.

    Wrong,Zimmerman is the entire reason that the confrontation took place. He should have stayed in his truck and not followed the kid. Zimmerman is a coward. If he didn't have a gun with him he wouldn't have had the guts to confront the kid. I believe every word Zimmerman has told the police and the media and I believe he is guilty of manslaughter. He is a textbook example of why we need gun control. This is a guy who was emboldened by the gun he was carrying but not intelligent enough to know when to use it.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    July 1, 2013 10:39 a.m.

    Dishonest people will try and say that Zimmerman was told not to follow the suspicious person, who turned out to be a drug abuser.

    The exact words from the dispatcher was, after asking if Zimmerman was following him were:

    "Ok, we don't need you to do that"

    It was NOT illegal for Zimmerman to carry
    It was NOT illegal to watch a suspicious person
    It was NOT illegal for Zimmerman to follow this suspicious person

    Treyvon had a cell phone with him. If he truly was worried about someone following him, he should have called police. He CHOSE not to.

    He also had plenty of time to go home, and again call the police if he felt he was in danger.

    He CHOSE to hide and jump and attack Zimmerman.

    It IS illegal to attack someone, as Treyvon did.

    Zimmerman obeyed the law completely.

    Treyvon did not

    Zimmerman protected himself appropriately.