The Zimmerman / Martin Case

(Reuters) - The Florida man who shot and killed black teenager Trayvon Martin - triggering nationwide civil rights protests - planned to sell the gun he used in an auction on Thursday and to spend some of the proceeds to challenge gun control policies, the auction website said.

The one-day auction was to begin at 11 a.m. EST (1500 GMT), with bids to start at $5,000. But the listing disappeared from the site soon after its scheduled start.

Representatives for the website offering the handgun for sale, Gunbroker.com, did not immediately respond to questions about why the listing came down and whether the gun had been sold.

The shooter, George Zimmerman, had described the gun as "a piece of American history," according to the website.

U.S. Department of Justice recently returned to Zimmerman the Kel Tec 9mm pistol that he had used to kill the unarmed Martin on Feb. 26, 2012.

Daryl Parks, a lawyer for Martin's family, called the potential gun sale offensive in a phone interview but said the family remain focused on their work advocating against gun violence.

"It's a distraction, and it shouldn't be a distraction to what we're doing," said Parks, who also serves as chairman of the Trayvon Martin Foundation.

Zimmerman was acquitted of second-degree murder and manslaughter charges in the incident, which sparked civil rights rallies and brought scrutiny of Florida's controversial "stand your ground" law.

The law allows a potential crime victim who is "in fear of great bodily injury" to use deadly force in public places.

Zimmerman, who was a neighborhood watch volunteer at the time, has maintained that the shooting was in self-defense. Martin's family said the teenager was simply passing through the residential area on his way home from a convenience store.

President Barack Obama said after Zimmerman's acquittal that Martin "could have been me, 35 years ago" and urged Americans to understand the pain African Americans felt over the case.

'SOCIOPATH'

"George Zimmerman" quickly became the top trending term on Twitter in the United States on Thursday, with many users on the social media site expressing shock and revulsion.

"The only people worse than George Zimmerman are the people who bid on that gun," tweeted journalist and columnist Lyz Lenz.

National Review columnist Charles C. W. Cooke said Zimmerman "may have acted legally, but the man is a sociopath."

On the auction website, Zimmerman had said he planned to use part of the proceeds to fight Black Lives Matter, a movement that grew out of the incident, as well as to counter "violence against law enforcement officers."

Proceeds would also go towards fighting Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton's "anti-firearm rhetoric," he said.

"I am honored and humbled to announce the sale of an American firearm icon. The firearm for sale is the firearm that was used to defend my life and end the brutal attack from Trayvon Martin," he said on the site.

The number from the Martin case is written on the pistol in silver permanent marker. The auction listing included a photo of the gun being held up in court by a law enforcement officer during Zimmerman's murder trial.

Zimmerman said in the description that "many have expressed interest in owning and displaying the firearm, including The Smithsonian Museum in Washington D.C."

The Smithsonian replied on Twitter that it had never expressed interest in the gun, and had "no plans to ever collect or display it in any museums."

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That's not hearsay. You should look up the definition of hearsay.

You have failed to understand the fear someone would feel if someone was on top of them trying to beat their head on the ground.

Someone in fear of their life if being followed would be more likely to go home, but Trayvon didn't. Can you explain why?

I do not need to look up anything and that is a poor deflection, as it is hearsay

He would not be under someone or be in a fight in the first place if not for placing fear in the child first by stalking them. So your point is moot. As I have not stated anything about when Zimmerman felt fear. He caused the situation, because he stalked and racially profiled a child, because he was black

Again you fail to understand adrenaline, by saying someone is more likely to go home. Based on what evidence? Do you understand what adrenaline does? Fight or flight. That means its one of two situations and being black in the US where he is being followed by someone, he was clearly in fear for his life. Once adrenaline kicks in, it takes over your actions. His was one where he feared for his life, as anyone would fear having anb adult stalk them for no reason

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I would say that shooting someone would probably cause their death, but that's not the point is it? I was actually addressing Quill when you jumped in. Are you merely saying that Zimmerman is morally responsible? If so, that's a different point entirely.

Deflection, so where I am easily rubbishing your defense of someone clearly guilty of causing the death of a child. You claim its now wrong to questions posts on a debate forum, to poorly attempt to get out of looking wrong

No, I saying out right he caused the child's death by his actions

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I do not need to look up anything and that is a poor deflection, as it is hearsay

He would not be under someone or be in a fight in the first place if not for placing fear in the child first by stalking them. So your point is moot. As I have not stated anything about when Zimmerman felt fear. He caused the situation, because he stalked and racially profiled a child, because he was black

Again you fail to understand adrenaline, by saying someone is more likely to go home. Based on what evidence? Do you understand what adrenaline does? Fight or flight. That means its one of two situations and being black in the US where he is being followed by someone, he was clearly in fear for his life. Once adrenaline kicks in, it takes over your actions. His was one where he feared for his life, as anyone would fear having anb adult stalk them for no reason

It's not hearsay, and it's not deflection to point that out to you. If you insist on using the incorrect term for what Zimmerman said, that's your fault, not mine, and you should stop doing it.

What you fail to understand is that we were talking about the acquittal of Zimmerman, and Quill said that if I had been on the jury he would have looked into bribery, implying that I could have been bribed to bring in that verdict against the evidence. Are you suggesting that the verdict was incorrect legally, and that the evidence showed that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon? If so, on what do you base that?

You still haven't explained why Trayvon didn't run home if he was frightened when he could easily have done so. In fact, the evidence of Rachel Jeantel suggested that he was not particularly frightened.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Deflection, so where I am easily rubbishing your defense of someone clearly guilty of causing the death of a child. You claim its now wrong to questions posts on a debate forum, to poorly attempt to get out of looking wrong

No, I saying out right he caused the child's death by his actions

Legally guilty? We were discussing the legal verdict, not anything else.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not hearsay, and it's not deflection to point that out to you. If you insist on using the incorrect term for what Zimmerman said, that's your fault, not mine, and you should stop doing it.

What you fail to understand is that we were talking about the acquittal of Zimmerman, and Quill said that if I had been on the jury he would have looked into bribery, implying that I could have been bribed to bring in that verdict against the evidence. Are you suggesting that the verdict was incorrect legally, and that the evidence showed that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon? If so, on what do you base that?

You still haven't explained why Trayvon didn't run home if he was frightened when he could easily have done so. In fact, the evidence of Rachel Jeantel suggested that he was not particularly frightened.

Can you substantiate the claims Zimmerman made?
No, thus they are hearsay

I am not debating Quill but you, so you are deflecting again, because you cannot discount my points

I did explain why he did not run home, it proves you have no conception of adrenaline

So you then bring up even more hearsay, from this Rachel. How is she going to know if someone is frightened in the dark?

There is no disputing the fact Zimmerman's actions led to the boys death

He would not be under someone or be in a fight in the first place if not for placing fear in the child first by stalking them. So your point is moot. As I have not stated anything about when Zimmerman felt fear. He caused the situation, because he stalked and racially profiled a child, because he was black

Again you fail to understand adrenaline, by saying someone is more likely to go home. Based on what evidence? Do you understand what adrenaline does? Fight or flight. That means its one of two situations and being black in the US where he is being followed by someone, he was clearly in fear for his life. Once adrenaline kicks in, it takes over your actions. His was one where he feared for his life, as anyone would fear having anb adult stalk them for no reason

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Legally guilty? We were discussing the legal verdict, not anything else.

Are you?
I am proving to you Zimmerman was responsible for the child's death

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Can you substantiate the claims Zimmerman made?
No, thus they are hearsay

I am not debating Quill but you, so you are deflecting again, because you cannot discount my points

I did explain why he did not run home, it proves you have no conception of adrenaline

So you then bring up even more hearsay, from this Rachel. How is she going to know if someone is frightened in the dark?

There is no disputing the fact Zimmerman's actions led to the boys death

He would not be under someone or be in a fight in the first place if not for placing fear in the child first by stalking them. So your point is moot. As I have not stated anything about when Zimmerman felt fear. He caused the situation, because he stalked and racially profiled a child, because he was black

Again you fail to understand adrenaline, by saying someone is more likely to go home. Based on what evidence? Do you understand what adrenaline does? Fight or flight. That means its one of two situations and being black in the US where he is being followed by someone, he was clearly in fear for his life. Once adrenaline kicks in, it takes over your actions. His was one where he feared for his life, as anyone would fear having anb adult stalk them for no reason

You've done it again! What Rachel Jeantel said wasn't hearsay, she reported what Trayvon had said to her on the phone. If she had not been on the phone and merely reported what someone else told her Trayvon had said, that would be hearsay, unless the person who told her was also a witness and could substantiate it.

Answer the question I asked - do you think that the evidence in court showed that Zimmerman was guilty of murder? Juries are not supposed to convict someone based on their perception of moral guilt.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Are you?
I am proving to you Zimmerman was responsible for the child's death

I'm discussing whether or not the verdict was right according to the evidence. If you can't do that, that's your problem. I didn't ask you to reply to my post which was directed at Quill.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You've done it again! What Rachel Jeantel said wasn't hearsay, she reported what Trayvon had said to her on the phone. If she had not been on the phone and merely reported what someone else told her Trayvon had said, that would be hearsay, unless the person who told her was also a witness and could substantiate it.

Answer the question I asked - do you think that the evidence in court showed that Zimmerman was guilty of murder? Juries are not supposed to convict someone based on their perception of moral guilt.

But could not see him,  and it cannot be substantiated, so it is hearsay, which shows you have no comprehension and that call happened early on. He could have lying to her to keep her calm and not to worry her and yet been fearful inside. Even if we take your view he was not at that point, he clearly was later on, as they ended in a fight

I am not debating on whether Zimmerman is guilty of murder, so hence more deflections
So we have entertained you have no contraception of what hearsay is and are defending a man that racially profiled a child, stalked a 13 year old and all because he was black. Any 13 year old would be in fear of his life if being stalked by an adult. Which clearly Zimmerman must have still gone looking for him as they ended up in a fight. Whether that was Zimmerman trying to make an arrests or Trayvon scared out of his wits in fighting him, as his adrenaline took over. Nobody will ever know, but one thing is clear. Zimmerman caused his death

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm discussing whether or not the verdict was right according to the evidence. If you can't do that, that's your problem. I didn't ask you to reply to my post which was directed at Quill.

You were with Quill.

I am debating, as I have been here, who is the cause of the death.
That is Zimmerman, which I have made clear in multiple posts
So why are you responding if that is not what you are debating with me?
I will tell you, its your inability to admit you could be wrong

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


But could not see him,  and it cannot be substantiated, so it is hearsay, which shows you have no comprehension and that call happened early on. He could have lying to her to keep her calm and not to worry her and yet been fearful inside. Even if we take your view he was not at that point, he clearly was later on, as they ended in a fight

I am not debating on whether Zimmerman is guilty of murder, so hence more deflections
So we have entertained you have no contraception of what hearsay is and are defending a man that racially profiled a child, stalked a 13 year old and all because he was black. Any 13 year old would be in fear of his life if being stalked by an adult. Which clearly Zimmerman must have still gone looking for him as they ended up in a fight. Whether that was Zimmerman trying to make an arrests or Trayvon scared out of his wits in fighting him, as his adrenaline took over. Nobody will ever know, but one thing is clear. Zimmerman caused his death

It wasn't hearsay - it was direct evidence.

Trayvon Martin wasn't 13, he was 17. Please try to get the basic facts right.

So basically you agree that Zimmerman is not guilty of murder. Well done.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


You were with Quill.

I am debating, as I have been here, who is the cause of the death.
That is Zimmerman, which I have made clear in multiple posts
So why are you responding if that is not what you are debating with me?
I will tell you, its your inability to admit you could be wrong

I'm not wrong, I'm just discussing the evidence, as I've been doing all along. You're just deflecting and introducing red herrings.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It wasn't hearsay - it was direct evidence.

Trayvon Martin wasn't 13, he was 17. Please try to get the basic facts right.

So basically you agree that Zimmerman is not guilty of murder. Well done.

Can it be substantiated?

No, thus its hearsay.

17 is still a child

I do not agree on any verdict, because most of the evidence is hearsay

So how can I say whether they got the verdict right?

The only other witness who could have testified, is now dead.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm not wrong, I'm just discussing the evidence, as I've been doing all along. You're just deflecting and introducing red herrings.

I said that you could be wrong and clearly I am right, that you cannot.

I am easily showing why Zimmerman was responsible for the death. So much so you are only talking about me now

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Can it be substantiated?

No, thus its hearsay.

17 is still a child

I do not agree on any verdict, because most of the evidence is hearsay

So how can I say whether they got the verdict right?

The only other witness who could have testified, is now dead.

It's not hearsay - you are wrong and you don't understand what hearsay is - you never have.

So you didn't watch the trial or see the evidence then. In that case, you have nothing to do on in order to disagree with the verdict.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I said that you could be wrong and clearly I am right, that you cannot.

I am easily showing why Zimmerman was responsible for the death. So much so you are only talking about me now

You were talking about me in your post.

I'm not interested in your red herrings, I'm interested in the evidence and the verdict - which IMO was correct based on the evidence presented in court. The kangaroo courts and the biased press can be ignored.

Raggamuffin wrote:Stop trolling Didge. If you can't address the issue properly, you're wasting my time and your own.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Stop trolling Didge. If you can't address the issue properly, you're wasting my time and your own.

More deflections

Do not make unsubstantiated accusations you cannot back up.
I now want either an apology for your false claim, or you have admin back your claim.

In your own time

Thorin wrote:So I take it by you giving me a red and abuse, you do not have admin agree with your accusation and that you do not have the decency to apologise for your false accusation. Which was only done to deflect away from the debate you had no answer to.

That clearly is you conceding to my points

Thanks

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:So I take it by you giving me a red and abuse, you do not have admin agree with your accusation and that you do not have the decency to apologise for your false accusation. Which was only done to deflect away from the debate you had no answer to.

That clearly is you conceding to my points

Thanks

Talk about you stating the obvious. Zimmerman shot Trayvon, and clearly if he hadn't done that, Trayvon would be alive. Doh!

You were the one who deflected from what I wanted to discuss. I don't dance to your stupid tune Didge - I discuss what I think is important - the evidence re whether it was murder or not, and it clearly was not.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Talk about you stating the obvious. Zimmerman shot Trayvon, and clearly if he hadn't done that, Trayvon would be alive. Doh!

You were the one who deflected from what I wanted to discuss. I don't dance to your stupid tune Didge - I discuss what I think is important - the evidence re whether it was murder or not, and it clearly was not.

If Zimmerman had not racially profiled this child and followed him, and done what the police said. Trayvon would still be alive. Zimmerman as seen by his actions caused the events that led to the death.
That means he is responsible for the child's death

Also that is the second accusation you have made unsubstantiated
Its impossible to badger someone when both have been debating. Badgering is when I am replying to posts and you are not responding. That is being deceitful again on your part, falsely playing the victim

If you make a third unsubstantiated accusation, I will report you for making false accusations with the intent to cause trouble

You have been warned

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


If Zimmerman had not racially profiled this child and followed him, and done what the police said. Trayvon would still be alive. Zimmerman as seen by his actions caused the events that led to the death.
That means he is responsible for the child's death

Also that is the second accusation you have made unsubstantiated
Its impossible to badger someone when both have been debating. Badgering is when I am replying to posts and you are not responding. That is being deceitful again on your part, falsely playing the victim

If you make a third unsubstantiated accusation, I will report you for making false accusations with the intent to cause trouble

You have been warned

Go ahead. I still don't dance to your tune, and you're still badgering me and repeating yourself over and over again. You have form for that.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Go ahead. I still don't dance to your tune, and you're still badgering me and repeating yourself over and over again. You have form for that.

If you are in debate with me and I am not demanding anything of you. Then its clearly not badgering.
You always do this when you come off poorly in a debate. Play a falsified victim, claiming false accusations onto people. Nobody is buying it anymore
You need to learn to grow up and understand that you can be wrong sometimes.
Even I can be wrong, but all you are doing is acting silly here

So I shall leave my points to stand and just leave you to sulk

Enjoy