# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  **Official** Trayvon Martin thread

## Anti Federalist

> This'll get your older-RPFer conspiracy radar going.
> 
> I was having a discussion with someone about this last night, bringing them up to speed on the case.  Here comes what's likely a long, hot summer.  There's a big political race.  People are already pissed about the economy and other crap (but in misguided ways).  People get killed and maimed regularly.
> 
> But where did this kid get killed?
> 
> Less than two hours from Tampa where the GOP Convention is going to be 
> 
> mmkay proceed.


That was posted in the main thread on the subject.

I've got an even better conspiracy.

The Martin shooting has been bubbling in the background for a month now.

But it just blew up *now*.

*Sure took that story of the Afghan village slaughter off the front page, didn't it now?*

----------


## phill4paul

Yes. Yes, it did.

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

Oh look, the coincidence theorist are at it again.

----------


## anoNY

I have spent the last few hours mapping out the times and events that happened that day using Google Maps.  Looking at the record and the times that things were alleged to have happened, there is no way that the media portrayal of this incident is correct.

I suggest you do as I did and mark off where and when each event took place and then think about the timing of the calls.  All of this info is widely available.

Here are some interesting facts:
- Trayvon ran away from Zimmerman and was lost to Zimmerman's view for 5 whole minutes.  Trayvon's father's condo was only 100 yards away, why didn't he go and stay there?
- Trayvon's girlfriend talked to him for 4 minutes AFTER Zimmerman had already lost sight of Trayvon.  
- How did the heavyset Zimmerman ever catch up to the athletic Trayvon?  Especially since Trayvon had a 5 minute head start (Zimmerman lost Trayvon for 5 minutes)
- What does Trayvon's stepbrother say about that night?  He was at the condo and the two kids were supposed to watch the All Star game together.  Did he hear the gun shot? 
- If Trayvon ran from Zimmerman for 5 minutes, how did he not cover the 100 yards to his house, and how did he end up only about 30 yards from where he ran past Zimmerman in the first place?

I personally think Trayvon ran away and then came back.  I cannot otherwise explain the fact that he did not run straight home, 100 yards away.

----------


## TheTexan

I like how this country randomly chooses an incident to get mad about, but doesn't care about the rest.

Or is it random????  Discuss.

----------


## BamaAla

It took the Jena 6 debacle five months to blowup. It's all about timing.

----------


## Anti Federalist

You want this thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-watch-captain





> I have spent the last few hours mapping out the times and events that happened that day using Google Maps.  Looking at the record and the times that things were alleged to have happened, there is no way that the media portrayal of this incident is correct.
> 
> I suggest you do as I did and mark off where and when each event took place and then think about the timing of the calls.  All of this info is widely available.
> 
> Here are some interesting facts:
> - Trayvon ran away from Zimmerman and was lost to Zimmerman's view for 5 whole minutes.  Trayvon's father's condo was only 100 yards away, why didn't he go and stay there?
> - Trayvon's girlfriend talked to him for 4 minutes AFTER Zimmerman had already lost sight of Trayvon.  
> - How did the heavyset Zimmerman ever catch up to the athletic Trayvon?  Especially since Trayvon had a 5 minute head start (Zimmerman lost Trayvon for 5 minutes)
> - What does Trayvon's stepbrother say about that night?  He was at the condo and the two kids were supposed to watch the All Star game together.  Did he hear the gun shot? 
> ...

----------


## MelissaWV

Zimmerman had a car.

100 yards away from my house is another house, but I'd have to travel about a mile to actually get there.  If I were running away and needed to call someone, I'd run out of sight, take a turn, then make the call.  I would be unlikely to get to the other house (or my house from that house) in a few minutes without cutting through yards and jumping fences.

* * * 

These things are not uncommon, so you have to ask why THIS story.  It's not a conspiracy.  It's tracing back the steps that the media itself took in deciding what sells and what to push.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> It's all about timing.


Precisely my point.

----------


## r3volution

> I like how this country randomly chooses an incident to get mad about, but doesn't care about the rest.
> 
> Or is it random????  Discuss.


i agree . this $#@! happens every day . why this 1 ? because it divides people that normally agree , gust look at the discussion about it on this site .

----------


## 1stAmendguy

The globalist owned media will use anything as a political distraction to divert attention away from the real issues and their agendas.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Racial Politics. A perfect red herring campaign issue. Also goes nicely with the people who have an irrational fear of guns (except in the hands of soldiers and law enforcement, who are professionally trained to "accidentally" kill innocent people.)

----------


## BlackTerrel

> That was posted in the main thread on the subject.
> 
> I've got an even better conspiracy.
> 
> The Martin shooting has been bubbling in the background for a month now.
> 
> But it just blew up *now*.
> 
> *Sure took that story of the Afghan village slaughter off the front page, didn't it now?*


Is there a time that it could have become big where it wouldn't be "suspicious timing"?  There is ALWAYS ten other things going on.

Somethings like Kony blow up really fast and then disappear just as fast.  Other things the momentum takes a little longer.

There is no way the media could have ignored this story much longer when there were over a million people signing petitions with NBA athletes and Hollywood stars and the blogosphere and Church email lists and blogosphere all abuzz over this.

Maybe LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, my mom's Church email list and the more than a million people who signed the petition are involved in the conspiracy.

Or maybe this is a case that resonates with a lot of people.

As far as the Afghan village slaughter - everyone agrees that is completely $#@!ed and the guy should be tried for murder.  There is not much debate.

This case is different in that the perpetrator is free.

----------


## coastie

> Is there a time that it could have become big where it wouldn't be "suspicious timing"?  There is ALWAYS ten other things going on.
> 
> Somethings like Kony blow up really fast and then disappear just as fast.  Other things the momentum takes a little longer.
> 
> There is no way the media could have ignored this story much longer when there were over a million people signing petitions with NBA athletes and Hollywood stars and the blogosphere and Church email lists and blogosphere all abuzz over this.
> 
> Maybe LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, my mom's Church email list and the more than a million people who signed the petition are involved in the conspiracy.
> 
> Or maybe this is a case that resonates with a lot of people.
> ...



I tend to agree with Terrel here, I don't see a conspiracy here at all and I will say that I am definitely one to entertain conspiracies when they come up.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> Racial Politics. A perfect red herring campaign issue. Also goes nicely with the people who have an irrational fear of guns (except in the hands of soldiers and law enforcement, who are professionally trained to "accidentally" kill innocent people.)


I wish people would get this upset when cops kill innocent unarmed people.  Whether Martin was that or not, I don't know.  But you don't have to look long to find much of that from law enforcement where the cases against the officers are obvious.  And we hear crickets.

----------


## No Free Beer

I don't even understand why this story has blown up...

----------


## coastie

> I don't even understand why this story has blown up...


nvm

----------


## BlackTerrel

> I don't even understand why this story has blown up...


Let me see if I can help you.  Most people I know agree that this sort of America is $#@!ed up

----------


## Noob

> Racial Politics. A perfect red herring campaign issue. Also goes nicely with the people who have an irrational fear of guns (except in the hands of soldiers and law enforcement, who are professionally trained to "accidentally" kill innocent people.)


Indeed, since this as not been in the national news.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012...ire-tv-station

----------


## BamaAla

.n.v.m.

----------


## azxd

> Oh look, the coincidence theorist are at it again.


The place is full of them ... Always looking for an excuse.

----------


## MelissaWV

> The place is full of them ... Always looking for an excuse.


As others have pointed out, this story does strike a chord with a lot of people.

It's not a conspiracy or coincidence.  It's how the news gets reported.  At any given moment, there are "big stories" available that fill just about any category.  People are talking about how big stars must have been part of the conspiracy.  Nope.  They were part of the reaction.  The reaction is coming now, and not when this actually happened, just like the Kony video didn't pop up when the child armies were even en vogue.

So why did the media decide to play this particular story to death right now?  

That's not begging for a conspiracy.  That's just critical thinking.

Look up the term "brutal slaying" sometime.  There are seriously lots and lots of local stories that could be blown up to a national level.  Why the media picks one, and not another, is actually a "science" of sorts.

----------


## MelissaWV

> A Baltimore prosecutor offered jurors in a murder trial a painful and troubling portrait Wednesday of the victim's final moments, describing how a killer "suffocated and butchered" the boy, whose screams for help she said went unheard by a relative who had passed out from heroin.
> 
> Assistant State's Attorney Jennifer Hastings held up two oversized pictures of 15-year-old Jason Mattison Jr., pointed to the suspect sitting just feet from the Circuit Court jury and said the victim "met with a nightmare, and that nightmare is Dante Parrish."
> 
> Parrish is a convicted murderer whose sentenced was reduced with the help of the Innocence Project.
> 
> ...
> 
> Jason had been a standout at West Baltimore's Vivian T. Thomas Medical Arts Academy, a school oriented toward students wanting to become doctors, nurses and paramedics. Lauded as talkative, bright and friendly, the lanky teen made no secret that he was gay, displaying a witty attitude and quirky dress.
> ...


Now THAT is a terrible story.

----------


## azxd

> As others have pointed out, this story does strike a chord with a lot of people.
> 
> It's not a conspiracy or coincidence.  It's how the news gets reported.  At any given moment, there are "big stories" available that fill just about any category.  People are talking about how big stars must have been part of the conspiracy.  Nope.  They were part of the reaction.  The reaction is coming now, and not when this actually happened, just like the Kony video didn't pop up when the child armies were even en vogue.
> 
> So why did the media decide to play this particular story to death right now?  
> 
> That's not begging for a conspiracy.  That's just critical thinking.
> 
> Look up the term "brutal slaying" sometime.  There are seriously lots and lots of local stories that could be blown up to a national level.  Why the media picks one, and not another, is actually a "science" of sorts.


Yea, it's called bull$#@! stories, and this thread along with the other threads about this story prove that the MSM is doing a great job at distracting the public from the things that matter.

I have little hope for this nation, and only hope I am not seriously F'd with before I depart this place.

----------


## AuH20

Will Smith and all other sanctimonious black celebrities need to wake up from their ethnic induced slumber. Jon Corzine essentially steals 1.5  billion dollars and then proceeds to commit perjury during a congressional inquiry, and he's walking around free. That act of heinous theft and manipulation upon thousands of investors far exceeds anything Zimmerman did, but I don't hear any cries for justice. I can't understand how the sheep in this country are so low brow, myopic and ignorant.

----------


## MelissaWV

Of course.  If you think the death of one person is important, then you must automatically not give a $#@! about the trouble the nation is in.

What sound logic.

----------


## AuH20

> Of course.  If you think the death of one person is important, then you must automatically not give a $#@! about the trouble the nation is in.
> 
> What sound logic.


Look at the intensity of the media coverage. The marches. I'm pretty sure there is an agenda being pushed. And it's disgusting. No peep about Corzine or Fast and furious? Meanwhile, a black kid gets shot and it's as big as the OJ trial.

----------


## kylejack

> Look at the intensity of the media coverage. The marches. I'm pretty sure there is an agenda being pushed. And it's disgusting. No peep about Corzine or Fast and furious? Meanwhile, black kid gets shot and it's as big as the OJ trial.


Yeah, the agenda is that racism is a vile, disgusting thing, especially so when institutionalized. It's an agenda I support 100%.

If you want marches about economic injustice and banksters stealing all our money, there's a really big one I can refer you to called Occupy.

----------


## azxd

> Of course.  If you think the death of one person is important, then you must automatically not give a $#@! about the trouble the nation is in.
> 
> What sound logic.


BINGO and + REP to you !!!

----------


## AuH20

> Yeah, the agenda is that racism is a vile, disgusting thing, especially so when institutionalized. It's an agenda I support 100%.


How do you know racism precipitated the incident?

----------


## kylejack

> How do you know racism precipitated the incident?


Because Zimmerman said "$#@!ing coons" on the 911 call just a few minutes before gunning down a kid with Skittles and iced tea.

----------


## azxd

> Yeah, the agenda is that racism is a vile, disgusting thing, especially so when institutionalized. It's an agenda I support 100%.
> 
> If you want marches about economic injustice and banksters stealing all our money, there's a really big one I can refer you to called Occupy.


Occupy is for $#@!s who just want to gripe about their personal problems, and lay blame upon others for their misfortunes.

----------


## AuH20

> Because Zimmerman said "$#@!ing coons" on the 911 call just a few minutes before gunning down a kid with Skittles and iced tea.


That's still up for interpretation. $#@!ing punks or $#@!ing coons has not been confirmed.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Because Zimmerman said "$#@!ing coons" on the 911 call just a few minutes before gunning down a kid with Skittles and iced tea.


Actually it's also been alleged, after some analysis, that he said "$#@!ing punk(s)."

----------


## kylejack

Sounds like coons to me, but regardless, Zimmerman made 46 calls to police since January 2011, often reporting "suspicious black males", once a kid who was "7 to 9 years old." I've called the police like twice in my entire life.

----------


## azxd

> Actually it's also been alleged, after some analysis, that he said "$#@!ing punk(s)."


YES, kill white kids on dope ... Or we could blame the band that made the prhase popular.

Allegations are like............................................ Sorry the forum says I can't give you any more REP right now.

----------


## Zatch

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-lineh...-a-drug-dealer

----------


## kylejack

> Occupy is for $#@!s who just want to gripe about their personal problems, and lay blame upon others for their misfortunes.


Their most common chant is "banks got bailed out, we got sold out." Who disagrees with that? Occupy is many things, but the poster seemed to be complaining that there wasn't media coverage or marches about the fleecing banksters have done...there have been plenty of both, including extensive media coverage of Corzine.

----------


## azxd

> Sounds like coons to me, but regardless, Zimmerman made 46 calls to police since January 2011, often reporting "suspicious black males", once a kid who was "7 to 9 years old."


Source doesn't matter, but ... It does add to the drama of an intentionally misguided nation.

----------


## azxd

> Their most common chant is "banks got bailed out, we got sold out." Who disagrees with that? Occupy is many things, but the poster seemed to be complaining that there wasn't media coverage or marches about the fleecing banksters have done...there have been plenty of both, including extensive media coverage of Corzine.


We can focus on trivial BS, or stuff that matters ... Time to make some decisions 

P.S. I like these threads ... They remove the mind from what ails the nation.

----------


## AuH20

> Their most common chant is "banks got bailed out, we got sold out." Who disagrees with that? Occupy is many things, but the poster seemed to be complaining that there wasn't media coverage or marches about the fleecing banksters have done...there have been plenty of both, including extensive media coverage of Corzine.


Haven't seen any anti-Jon Corzine marches of late or celebrities specifically asking him to be "brought to justice." It seems that this story has been artificially pushed to the forefront to create a greater divide. Like I said, it's tragic but doesn't deserve the incredible scrutiny it's been getting.

----------


## Noob

> Because Zimmerman said "$#@!ing coons" on the 911 call just a few minutes before gunning down a kid with Skittles and iced tea.


Here is the  transcript of the 911 call.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...zimmerman.html

----------


## William R

bump

----------


## AuH20

Anyone else notice the way the media has dressed up the entire narrative?



See that isn't a current picture of Trayvon but rather this is:



But obviously that photo doesn't generate the same sympathy as the one at the top. The media is rotten to the core and that's not to say that Zimmerman may have not committed a serious crime. But it's interesting to see how they craft a narrative which suits the agenda they are pushing.

----------


## Bruno

Wow, that was worth the read.  I had no idea of the size difference between the two, nor any of the other details that paint a far different picture.

----------


## BlackTerrel

Wow he was suspended from school.  And when you click on the link it shows that he also.... had a tattoooo... oh the horror 

Clearly this is relevant as to why he was unarmed and shot dead in cold blood.

----------


## kylejack

> Here is the  transcript of the 911 call.
> 
> https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...zimmerman.html


Right, and I know what it sounds like to me. Regardless, Zimmerman has a history of calling the police about suspicious black males, none of who seem to have been arrested.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Wow, that was worth the read.  I had no idea of the size difference between the two, nor any of the other details that paint a far different picture.


You had no idea Zimmerman had 110 pounds on Martin?  And an SUV and a gun?  Martin was taller.

I doubt his alleged pot use, gold teeth, or (gasp!) tattoo gave him much of an advantage.  

The only even mildly relevant thing would be the assault on a bus driver, if it ever happened, but so far the "evidence" of that seems to be one tweet.  I won't get into what people tweet about one another.




> Instead of that, we are seeing long suspensions from school, tattoos, racially-charged epitaphs, and violence.


Add to the list of things you should not do:  get gold teeth, get suspended (I was suspended for a "weapons charge" when I was in school), get inked, and have idiotic friends who talk about you being violent against someone (no proof yet, though, just like Zimmerman's "prior bad acts" that are just rumor and innuendo).

Did Zimmerman have any ink!?!?!?  It seems he wore an earring!

People are really grasping at straws

----------


## AuH20

> Wow, that was worth the read.  I had no idea of the size difference between the two, nor any of the other details that paint a far different picture.


Exactly. And he supposedly swung at a bus driver a few days before. This wasn't the meek Steve Urkel type the media has been pushing. Look, I hope the justice system gets this right, whatever decision it arrives at.

----------


## bluesc

I guess I'm the only one who really doesn't give a $#@! about this case.

----------


## TheTexan

I honestly don't know who was right or wrong here.  What I do know, is that this story is very divisive, and after the two groups get done tearing each other apart, nothing good will have come of it.  Then we just wait for the next divisive story and repeat this cycle, ad infinitum.

Pass.  I want no part in this.

----------


## Anti Federalist

The last line of the article:




> This is a textbook self-defense case, and I’d urge anyone reading to look at the full set of facts before drawing conclusions.


No it is *not*, based on the facts so far presented.

Self defense with deadly force is *not* justified, legally, if you provoke or prolong or instigate an altercation that otherwise would not have happened had you not done so.

"Stand your ground" laws do not change that.

----------


## Zatch



----------


## TruthisTreason

> Wow he was suspended from school.  And when you click on the link it shows that he also.... had a tattoooo... oh the horror 
> 
> Clearly this is relevant as to why he was unarmed and shot dead in cold blood.


Exactly! And OMG he had a screen name that wasn't politically correct, oh dear God, the horror!

----------


## BlackTerrel

> As others have pointed out, this story does strike a chord with a lot of people.
> 
> It's not a conspiracy or coincidence.  It's how the news gets reported.  At any given moment, there are "big stories" available that fill just about any category.  People are talking about how big stars must have been part of the conspiracy.  Nope.  They were part of the reaction.  The reaction is coming now, and not when this actually happened, just like the Kony video didn't pop up when the child armies were even en vogue.
> 
> So why did the media decide to play this particular story to death right now?  
> 
> That's not begging for a conspiracy.  That's just critical thinking.
> 
> Look up the term "brutal slaying" sometime.  There are seriously lots and lots of local stories that could be blown up to a national level.  Why the media picks one, and not another, is actually a "science" of sorts.


We live in the age of internet and social media.  This story would have blown up regardless and it would have had people questioning why the media wasn't touching it.  This was popping up on my facebook and on my mom's Church email list before I heard about it in the media and local people were reaching out to media and celebs to get it more coverage.

The fact is this is a case where more coverage will be a good thing.  If not for the coverage Zimmerman would have gotten away 100% free.  I am glad it is being covered so MAYBE justice will be served.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Yeah, the agenda is that racism is a vile, disgusting thing, especially so when institutionalized. It's an agenda I support 100%.
> 
> If you want marches about economic injustice and banksters stealing all our money, there's a really big one I can refer you to called Occupy.


This and +rep

----------


## RonPaulMall

> The last line of the article:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is *not*, based on the facts so far presented.
> 
> Self defense with deadly force is *not* justified, legally, if you provoke or prolong or instigate an altercation that otherwise would not have happened had you not done so.
> 
> "Stand your ground" laws do not change that.


Actually, from the facts presented thus far, it is absolutely a textbook case of self defense.  In what crazy world is going outside to ask a suspicious lurker who he is and what he's doing constitute "instigating an altercation"?  This is a free country.  You, I, or George Zimmerman have every right to follow a stranger in public, and when we catch up to them and get their attention, ask them any question we so desire.  And likewise, the person we are talking to has every right to tell us to "$#@! off", and walk away.  What they don't have the right to do is physically assault us.  And that is what Trayvon Martin is accused of doing, and why according to the SYG law this was a justifiable homicide.

----------


## anewvoice

> 


^This

----------


## Sam I am

The point is that Trayvon isn't quite as affable as he's been portrayed, which matters somewhat because it does paint a picture of someone, who might be quick to get into a fistfight.  

The points raised in the article, however are extremely weak, and even if Trayvon did throw the first punch, that's not good enough for a self defense case.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> Anyone else notice the way the media has dressed up the entire narrative?
> 
> 
> 
> See that isn't a current picture of Trayvon but rather this is:
> 
> 
> 
> But obviously that photo doesn't generate the same sympathy as the one at the top. The media is rotten to the core and that's not to say that Zimmerman may have not committed a serious crime. But it's interesting to see how they craft a narrative which suits the agenda they are pushing.


Also, Zimmerman is already in an orange jumpsuit.   And honestly, Martin doesn't look that scary to me in the bottom pic either.  




> That act of heinous theft and manipulation upon thousands of investors far exceeds anything Zimmerman did


I'd say you're off the mark there.  Both are important, but we don't really know what Zimmerman did.  Seem to be a lot of people jumping the gun.   

And a Rodney King video wouldn't even make the news these days.  Police violence ain't just for the ghetto anymore.

----------


## Sam I am

> Actually, from the facts presented thus far, it is absolutely a textbook case of self defense.  In what crazy world is going outside to ask a suspicious lurker who he is and what he's doing constitute "instigating an altercation"?  This is a free country.  You, I, or George Zimmerman have every right to follow a stranger in public, and when we catch up to them and get their attention, ask them any question we so desire.  And likewise, the person we are talking to has every right to tell us to "$#@! off", and walk away.  What they don't have the right to do is physically assault us.  And that is what Trayvon Martin is accused of doing, and why according to the SYG law this was a justifiable homicide.


but he has NO right to shoot another human being especially if he knowingly put himself into a dangerous position

----------


## hardrightedge

If none of this matters, why did the media portray him as an angelic teen?

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> The last line of the article:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is *not*, based on the facts so far presented.
> 
> Self defense with deadly force is *not* justified, legally, if you provoke or prolong or instigate an altercation that otherwise would not have happened had you not done so.
> 
> "Stand your ground" laws do not change that.



Agreed.

----------


## Sam I am

> If none of this matters, why did the media portray him as an angelic teen?


lol, you think that the media cares about what matters or not

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> Zimmerman was also 5’9 and out of shape. I’m pretty sure many tubby thirty-year-olds wouldn’t do well against a fit, 6’3, 17-year-old.


Yeah...  Zimmerman having 100 pounds on this kid just puts him at a disadvantage.  I'll take a fit 17 year old kid over an overweight Zimmerman anytime.  

The big point here is that Zimmerman escalated the situation until he had to kill someone (which should draw charges) or he just killed someone for no good reason. (which should draw charges.)

----------


## cajuncocoa

No matter what circumstantial evidence people provide (the shooter was white, the victim was black; the victim was suspended from school, etc.) about this shooting, we probably don't have all of the relevant facts!!  That being the case, isn't it a good idea to withhold judgement on both the shooter and the victim?

----------


## kylejack

Oh no, NOT MARIJUANA!

----------


## Lishy

Dunno who to believe, but it doesn't seem like we know the entire story.

But I hate when the media always blames racism for any conflict involving a black man and white man.

----------


## kylejack

> Yeah...  Zimmerman having 100 pounds on this kid just puts him at a disadvantage.  I'll take a fit 17 year old kid over an overweight Zimmerman anytime.  
> 
> The big point here is that Zimmerman escalated the situation until he had to kill someone (which should draw charges) or he just killed someone for no good reason. (which should draw charges.)


6'3  140 lbs is pretty darned scrawny.

----------


## phill4paul

> Anyone else notice the way the media has dressed up the entire narrative?
> 
> 
> 
> See that isn't a current picture of Trayvon but rather this is:
> 
> 
> 
> But obviously that photo doesn't generate the same sympathy as the one at the top. The media is rotten to the core and that's not to say that Zimmerman may have not committed a serious crime. But it's interesting to see how they craft a narrative which suits the agenda they are pushing.


  Not much difference in either pictures to me. Still looks like a kid.  Well to be p.c... a young adult.

----------


## specsaregood

This zimmerman dude shoulda never called the cops if he wanted to go around killing people.  that's the lesson to take away here.

----------


## James Madison

> This zimmerman dude shoulda never called the cops if he wanted to go around killing people.  that's the lesson to take away here.


That's true. Cops hate us mundanes doing their job for them--killing people, I mean.

----------


## phill4paul

> That's true. Cops hate us mundanes doing their job for them--killing people, I mean.



  Depends where you stand with them...

  Cops.
  Family of cops.
  Friends of cops.



  Everyone else.

----------


## Anti Federalist

The media is now throwing this phrase around, which I do not *ever* recall reading before.




> a white Hispanic


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...0,148228.story

Ya know, I started this thread half tongue in cheek.

But, keeping mind that most of the MSM is government owned, I'm beginning to think that this might very well be true, that the whole thing has been blown out of the water to get the Afghan killings off the front page.

----------


## phill4paul

> The media is now throwing this phrase around, which I do not *ever* recall reading before.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...0,148228.story
> 
> Ya know, I started this thread half tongue in cheek.
> 
> But, keeping mind that most of the MSM is government owned, I'm beginning to think that this might very well be true, that *the whole thing has been blown out of the water to get the Afghan killings off the front page.*


  If RPFs, social media sites, media are any indication then job well done.

----------


## puppetmaster

I beleive that this will get obama re-elected a sympathy vote

----------


## DisabledVet



----------


## MelissaWV

Oh good another thread on this.

1. You are taking it as a given that Trayvon initiated physical contact (no, the "witness" does not describe this, but only that there was a time where Martin was atop Zimmerman and winning the fight... not that Trayvon necessarily started it).

2. You are leaving out the part that, while Zimmerman had a bloody nose, Trayvon had a bullet hole.  That's kind of important when you're comparing injuries.

3. It is interesting to read that last line.  No one would help him, but yet the very witness so many cite as showing that Martin initiated hostilities... says that he did hear calls for help, did tell the two of them to stop, that he was calling 9-1-1.  Zimmerman seems to say that no one was helping him.  

4. A ten-day suspension from school that was characterized as being utterly unrelated to violent acts.  

It is odd that this "comparison" leaves out the other calls Zimmerman has made in the past (though I'd also like to know how many led to arrests, etc.).  It also leaves out anything about his past in general.  It seeks to swap the photos, though what I see isn't some thug... I see a really way too skinny guy showing off his teeth and flexing for some gals on FB.  I also see a really REALLY old photo of Zimmerman, which I guess is supposed to get me to vote for him for Prom King.

Why old photos of either person is supposed to detract from the known facts, or keep the investigation from seeking for additional information, is beyond me.

----------


## phill4paul

> Oh good another thread on this.


  No $#@!. And one covered in F.U.D. as well.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> I beleive that this will get obama re-elected a sympathy vote


Really?  Do you know a single person who was going to vote for someone else and will now vote Obama because of this?

----------


## DisabledVet

Oh good another thread on this.

I'll refute your foolishness below each bout of "noise" you spew.

1. You are taking it as a given that Trayvon initiated physical contact (no, the "witness" does not describe this, but only that there was a time where Martin was atop Zimmerman and winning the fight... not that Trayvon necessarily started it).

No, I'm not taking anything as a given, but that the EVIDENCE shows Zimmerman to have born the brunt of a physical assault. And there are several more witnesses your conveniently leaving out of the picture, but notice how only the Officers statement is present in the above post.

2. You are leaving out the part that, while Zimmerman had a bloody nose, Trayvon had a bullet hole.  That's kind of important when you're comparing injuries.

Hmm I wonder which one preceded the other? Victim has bloody nose from an assault, uses gun in self defense. But lets say it your way, Trayvon gets shot an killed, rises from the dead and punches Zimmerman in the nose.  OMG!!!  ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE !!!

3. It is interesting to read that last line.  No one would help him, but yet the very witness so many cite as showing that Martin initiated hostilities... says that he did hear calls for help, did tell the two of them to stop, that he was calling 9-1-1.  Zimmerman seems to say that no one was helping him.  

When your being assaulted, its obvious you want someone to step in and HELP... not stand there and say "Hey you two knock it off" and then call 911.
Your definition is subjective and will work to Zimmerman's defense in court as to his PERCEPTION OF A LIFE THREATENING ATTACK.

4. A ten-day suspension from school that was characterized as being utterly unrelated to violent acts.  

WRONG, it speaks to his character which IS USED IN COURTS ALL ACROSS THE LAND.

It is odd that this "comparison" leaves out the other calls Zimmerman has made in the past (though I'd also like to know how many led to arrests, etc.).  It also leaves out anything about his past in general.  It seeks to swap the photos, though what I see isn't some thug... I see a really way too skinny guy showing off his teeth and flexing for some gals on FB.  I also see a really REALLY old photo of Zimmerman, which I guess is supposed to get me to vote for him for Prom King.

The calls that Zimmerman made in the past as his position as a neighborhood watch captain that lead to no deaths will be of no use to any of Treyvon's lawyers.


Why old photos of either person is supposed to detract from the known facts, or keep the investigation from seeking for additional information, is beyond me.

OK, find me a photo of Zimmerman flipping off the camera.....go ahead...I'll wait...

----------


## MelissaWV

So flipping off the camera = likely to wander around until the Neighborhood Watch guy starts stalking you, leading him around in circles until he loses sight of you and gets out to scheck on a sign (all part of the plan!), then going back and charging him without any provocation at all (since Zimmerman is a choir boy).  

Incidentally, it really hasn't been released what other injuries were present.  You are the one making wild leaps here with zero proof, and adding name-calling to the mix.

One has to wonder what your motivation is.

----------


## moo

zimmerman has called the police on BABIES. he called the police on LITTLE KIDS NO MORE THAN 10 YEARS YOUNG FOR RIDING THEIR BIKES IN THE STREETS. can you imagine living in a neighborhood where a man was STALKING your children and calling the LAW ENFORCEMENT to come arrest your CHILDREN for riding their bikes?????????? excessive force is at an all time high. police are shooting to kill, tazing and brutally beating CHILDREN like they are dogs in the street and you have a racist man living in YOUR neighborhood who calls those type of men to arrest BABIES??? something isn't right with this situation. he called the police on BLACK BABIES and BLACK MEN! what does ron paul advocate against? THE MASS INCARCERATION IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY AND THE RACIST LAWS THAT PUT THEM THERE OR IN THE GRAVE.

----------


## AuH20

> Not much difference in either pictures to me. Still looks like a kid.  Well to be p.c... a young adult.


But the photo on the top would lead you believe that Martin was a pillar of society who walked old ladies across the street, while holding their groceries.

----------


## moo

and where is the dna evidence to prove that trayvon martin broke zimmerman's nose & busted his head open?

----------


## azxd

> Oh good another thread on this.


Proof of the mentality that will defeat this nation from within.

----------


## azxd

> zimmerman has called the police on BABIES. he called the police on LITTLE KIDS NO MORE THAN 10 YEARS YOUNG FOR RIDING THEIR BIKES IN THE STREETS. can you imagine living in a neighborhood where a man was STALKING your children and calling the LAW ENFORCEMENT to come arrest your CHILDREN for riding their bikes?????????? excessive force is at an all time high. police are shooting to kill, tazing and brutally beating CHILDREN like they are dogs in the street and you have a racist man living in YOUR neighborhood who calls those type of men to arrest BABIES??? something isn't right with this situation. he called the police on BLACK BABIES and BLACK MEN! what does ron paul advocate against? THE MASS INCARCERATION IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY AND THE RACIST LAWS THAT PUT THEM THERE OR IN THE GRAVE.


Nope, but I can imagine a neighborhood where kids are dead in the street because the parents are in control of their children.

----------


## phill4paul

> No, I'm not taking anything as a given, but that the EVIDENCE shows Zimmerman to have born the brunt of a physical assault. And there are several more witnesses your conveniently leaving out of the picture, but notice how only the Officers statement is present in the above post.


  Which officer is Smith? The narcotics detective on scene instead of the homicide detective. Or the officer that lead a witness by telling/correcting her that it was Zimmerman that yelled for help and not Martin instead of simply taking a statement?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> But the photo on the top would lead you believe that Martin was a pillar of society who walked old ladies across the street, while holding their groceries.


He could be the baddest "Thug Life" muthafucker out there.

That is not germane to what the law is in this case.

You *cannot* use self defense as a legal justification for the use of deadly force, if you continue, provoke, or encourage an altercation that would normally not have happened, even if that altercation turns life threatening after the fact.

The facts presented so far indicate that is just what happened here.

The analogy would be: you go into the baddest biker bar in town, start harassing the baddest dude in the place, instigating a fight and then, when he proceeds to start pounding your ass into the dirt, you shoot him.

Now, you may have saved your life and did what you could to do so, but you will have no legal protection or legal recourse in claiming "self defense".

----------


## silverhandorder

> Really?  Do you know a single person who was going to vote for someone else and will now vote Obama because of this?


It's called rallying your base. Yes more people will come out because his side will put in more effort.

edit: My personal opinion on this is that Zimmerman $#@!ed up and should suffer the consequences. However it pains me that we have such a double standard. If it was a cop in his place same thing would have happened but no one would be talking about this. That is the problem, that these issues are not being driven because of justice. If they were we would have a lot more cops sitting in prison.

edit2: And the lynch mob for Zimmerman is despicable even if it proves he is culpable.

----------


## AuH20

> He could be the baddest "Thug Life" muthafucker out there.
> 
> That is not germane to what the law is in this case.
> 
> You *cannot* use self defense as a legal justification for the use of deadly force, if you continue, provoke, or encourage an altercation that would normally not have happened, even if that altercation turns life threatening after the fact.
> 
> The facts presented so far indicate that is just what happened here.
> 
> The analogy would be: you go into the baddest biker bar in town, start harassing the baddest dude in the place, instigating a fight and then, when he proceeds to start pounding your ass into the dirt, you shoot him.
> ...


I'm not justifying any of Zimmerman's actions. In fact, I don't know what happened. I was simply pointing out how the media distorts things in order to craft a narrative.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> It's called rallying your base. Yes more people will come out because his side will put in more effort.


Yup.

The black demographic is already sewed up anyway, IIRC it went 98% for O-bomb-ya last time around.

Energize that base and get them out, that's guaranteed votes.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I'm not justifying any of Zimmerman's actions. In fact, I don't know what happened. I was simply pointing out how the media distorts things in order to craft a narrative.


Of course they do.

And who owns the media?

To what end does the said narrative serve?

I'm trying to clarify to people *what the law is*, so that hopefully decades of work on CCW and gun rights do not go up in flames because some $#@! Hispanic wannabe cop shot some black wannabe gangsta after getting into a fight that should never have happened.

Based on the facts presented, and my understanding of them, Zimmermann was *not* justified under the law, period.

----------


## donnay

> Of course they do.
> 
> And who owns the media?
> 
> To what end does the said narrative serve?


As a major distraction!  And hopefully cause a lot of racial divide, because as the story goes...divide and conquer!

----------


## AuH20

> Of course they do.
> 
> And who owns the media?
> 
> To what end does the said narrative serve?


The TPTB that wants us to be holed up in our homes frightened at the thought of taking any action. The same TPTB that wants us to defer to the almighty police officer. The same TPTB that wants us to slink away in disgrace when confronted with political schemes disguised with racial overtones.

----------


## Indy Vidual

> I like how this country randomly chooses an incident to get mad about, but doesn't care about the rest.
> 
> Or is it random????  Discuss.


Random?
We care about what the TV tells us to...

----------


## Indy Vidual

> The TPTB that wants us to be holed up in our homes frightened at the thought of taking any action....


Aren't we there already?

----------


## AuH20

> Aren't we there already?


Not everybody yet.  They know this.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> The TPTB that wants us to be holed up in our homes frightened at the thought of taking any action. The same TPTB that wants us to defer to the almighty police officer. The same TPTB that wants us to slink away in disgrace when confronted with political schemes disguised with racial overtones.


To that end they are being very effective.

LOL - And I used to get scoffed at back in 2007 when I and others would talk of "media conspiracies" and "government owned propaganda networks".

Not just this story, but the way RP is treated to how stories are built up and used, I think it's pretty clear now to everybody that is paying a little attention.

----------


## Indy Vidual

> Not everybody yet.  They know this.


OK, thanks.
Perhaps I need to get out more often.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> To that end they are being very effective.
> 
> LOL - And I used to get scoffed at back in 2007 when I and others would talk of "media conspiracies" and "government owned propaganda networks".
> 
> Not just this story, but the way RP is treated to how stories are built up and used, I think it's pretty clear now to everybody that is paying a little attention.


The conspiracy pretty much follows the Paul's around at this point. You'd have to have your head buried in the sand not to notice it

----------


## AuH20

> To that end they are being very effective.
> 
> LOL - And I used to get scoffed at back in 2007 when I and others would talk of "media conspiracies" and "government owned propaganda networks".
> 
> Not just this story, but the way RP is treated to how stories are built up and used, I think it's pretty clear now to everybody that is paying a little attention.


_If you are against the debt ceiling being raised, you hate poor black people._ None of this stuff happens by accident. It's all calculated, playing on people's emotional vulnerabilities and inherent biases.

----------


## moo

it's distraction to some of you because you'll never have to deal with racism, racial profiling & discrimination on the same level as blacks do.

----------


## kylejack

> The media is now throwing this phrase around, which I do not *ever* recall reading before.
> 
> a white Hispanic


There's nothing strange about it at all.

Someone who is Hispanic is either from a Spanish-speaking country, or have heritage from Spanish-speaking countries. Their race is independent of that. Hispanics can be black, white, Native American, or any other race.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> There's nothing strange about it at all.
> 
> Someone who is Hispanic is either from a Spanish-speaking country, or have heritage from Spanish-speaking countries. Their race is independent of that. Hispanics can be black, white, Native American, or any other race.


Yes, I'm well aware of that fact.

I have never seen anybody in any major media outlet be described as a "white Hispanic" before.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> There's nothing strange about it at all.
> 
> Someone who is Hispanic is either from a Spanish-speaking country, or have heritage from Spanish-speaking countries. Their race is independent of that. Hispanics can be black, white, Native American, or any other race.


My grandpa is a white Hispanic, as am I. People never seem to believe me when I tell them, and it pisses me off

----------


## dillo

Obama needs to start a race war so that he has some mild excuse for declaring martial law and taking peoples guns

----------


## lester1/2jr

ironic people complaining about the lynch mob coming for zimmerman.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> My grandpa is a white Hispanic, as am I. People never seem to believe me when I tell them, and it pisses me off


I think you're missing the point.  If I understand Anti Federalist correctly, he's saying he's never seen such a description *in the media* before.  And neither have I.

----------


## rag-time4

Ron Paul was asked about the Trayvon Martin case in a recent Q & A:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RETyDEHjHY0

Just a brief response but he said he didnt know all the details of the case, and that he favors local law enforcement handling it vs federal involvement

----------


## Bruno

I wasn't really following the story much, just catching the headlines.  But what I read in the report above differs completely from the media story, and that is the point - the story the media chooses to sell to us, as we all should be a little more sensitive to than many others.    

The media is portraying him as what looks likes an innocent 14 year old, when he was possibly according to this story a trouble-making gang member with a "No Limit" attitude who may have just recently swung at a bus drive, and was confronted by some guy in a neighborhood he wasn't from.  They were likely both in the wrong at some point during the confrontation, and Zimmerman probably shouldn't have followed him and maybe should have left it to the police since they were on they way (where ironically this kid's chances of getting beaten or shot would have been likely higher, unfortunately).  I don't know if this Zimmerman's life was in danger when he felt he had to pull the trigger, or not. I don't yet know who started the confrontation, and who was doing what to whom when the trigger was pulled.   But the 6'3" young man described in this article is a different picture than the one being portrayed  by the media, and everyone has already jumped to their conclusions based upon it.  

And no, his pot use, tattoos, and his investment in precious metals to cover his teeth have nothing to do with it.

----------


## onlyrp

somehow a person being suspended from school at 17, makes him ok to kill if he's wearing a hoodie and holds a bag of skittles?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Ron Paul was asked about the Trayvon Martin case in a recent Q & A:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RETyDEHjHY0
> 
> Just a brief response but he said he didnt know all the details of the case, and that he favors local law enforcement handling it vs federal involvement


Dr. Paul is a very wise man.

----------


## dawnbt

> There's nothing strange about it at all.
> 
> Someone who is Hispanic is either from a Spanish-speaking country, or have heritage from Spanish-speaking countries. Their race is independent of that. Hispanics can be black, white, Native American, or any other race.


I was shocked the first time the news said he was killed by a "white" guy.  I looked at the picture and thought..."yeah, not looking really white, I'd say Hispanic.".  At that point, I KNEW there was more to this story.

----------


## onlyrp

> That's true. Cops hate us mundanes doing their job for them--killing people, I mean.


Which is why it's unlikely he did anything wrong in this case, wouldn't the police LOVE to lock this kid up and assert their authority on the neighborhood to prevent friendly fire or vigilante justice if he actually did something wrong and they let it slip?

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> I think you're missing the point.  If I understand Anti Federalist correctly, he's saying he's never seen such a description *in the media* before.  And neither have I.


Yeah, I haven't either. I wasn't disagreeing with Anti Fed

----------


## onlyrp

> I was shocked the first time the news said he was killed by a "white" guy.  I looked at the picture and thought..."yeah, not looking really white, I'd say Hispanic.".  At that point, I KNEW there was more to this story.


well he's not black, that's all that matters for blacks.

----------


## dillo

> ironic people complaining about the lynch mob coming for zimmerman.


ironic people supporting lynch mobs with shotty information and no trial

----------


## dawnbt

If you're gonna divide and conquer, rile the masses, and stir up racial tensions (they already tried class warfare and republicans hate women) they have to make the suspect "white".
Two babies under two were killed in drive-by shootings in over a week in Detroit recently.  Why didn't THAT make national news?  I just saw on ESPN today that a Texas A&M band student was beaten to death on a charter bus by fellow band members as part of a "hazing", no one has been charged with that boys death!  Multiple people, on a bus, how is this not being blown up on the news? 
The media outlets are prompted on what stories to promote and what angle to promote them.  Period.  THAT'S the problem here.  This was a horrible situation no matter what happened and no matter what the outcome is, but to incite a race war, which has prompted the Black Panthers to offer a bounty for Zimmerman's "capture", and causing anger and tension in the country is exactly what they want.  Even with "new" evidence coming out the outlets (Fox included) are broadcasting the witnesses claims in a very condescending (Ron Paulesque if I may) manner.
Anyone who can't see how the media isn't taking advantage of this tragic situation and manipulating doesn't WANT to see it.

----------


## Ender

Another site says:

_He has sake gold grills on and is making fun of it on his FB, but its being passed like they are real._

----------


## MikeStanart

I'm so sick of hearing about this story.

My opionion is:    People are spending WAY too much damned time on this; a jury will determine the outcome & justice will be served.

This story does not warrant this much of our attention.

----------


## moo

> ironic people supporting lynch mobs with shotty information and no trial


if there was no mob this case wouldve been swept under the rug. the mob is here because we WANT this case to go to trial so we CAN get factual information. we don't know why trayvon was murdered and parents need to know what we must do to prevent this from happening to other children.

----------


## dillo

Maybe people will learn to get actual facts and details before they call for lynch mobs or make radical opinions.  Some day

----------


## onlyrp

this is classic flat out ad hominem, what does a person's background have to do with what happened the moment before Zimmerman decided to shoot Trayvon?

----------


## onlyrp

> I'm so sick of hearing about this story.
> 
> My opionion is:    People are spending WAY too much damned time on this; a jury will determine the outcome & justice will be served.
> 
> This story does not warrant this much of our attention.


oh yes it does! because racism is always an issue in elections, and so are guns. you wanna keep your guns? then pay attention to what the populus are whining about.

----------


## dillo

> if there was no mob this case wouldve been swept under the rug. the mob is here because we WANT this case to go to trial so we CAN get factual information. we don't know why trayvon was murdered and parents need to know what we must do to prevent this from happening to other children.


Oh so this 10,000 person mob will be satisfied for a not guilty verdict or a non trial if the prosecutor feels no law has been broken?

----------


## silverhandorder

> if there was no mob this case wouldve been swept under the rug. the mob is here because we WANT this case to go to trial so we CAN get factual information. we don't know why trayvon was murdered and parents need to know what we must do to prevent this from happening to other children.


Why aren't you making a mob for the kids mentioned couple of posts above yours?

----------


## moo

> Why aren't you making a mob for the kids mentioned couple of posts above yours?


why are you waiting for someone else to bring awareness to a crime you feel deserves media attention?

----------


## RonPaulMall

> There's nothing strange about it at all.
> 
> Someone who is Hispanic is either from a Spanish-speaking country, or have heritage from Spanish-speaking countries. Their race is independent of that. Hispanics can be black, white, Native American, or any other race.


As a White Hispanic myself, I can assure you there ever since the Clinton administration, it has been the unofficial policy of the government and the MSM to pretend that there is not such thing as a white (or black, or asian for that matter) Hispanic.  They have done everything in their power to promote the idea that Hispanic is a separate race.  The return of the "White Hispanic" to the MSM's lexicon is painfully revealing as to what their agenda is in this case.  And of course the most ridiculous aspect of this whole thing is that while White Hispanics certainly exist, Zimmerman is most obviously NOT one of them!  The fact he looks so mestizo despite having a white American father indicates his mother must be very, very mestizo.

----------


## silverhandorder

> why are you waiting for someone else to bring awareness to a crime you feel deserves media attention?


This is not about me, it is about you being fake. If you actually feel the way you do you should be spreading awareness about all these cases.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> if there was no mob this case wouldve been swept under the rug. the mob is here because we WANT this case to go to trial so we CAN get factual information. we don't know why trayvon was murdered and parents need to know what we must do to prevent this from happening to other children.


Again, you have a completely mistaken understanding of the American Justice system.  A trial is not a search for the truth.  It is an adversarial proceeding in which the state is accusing someone of a crime!  It is a testament to how far we have gone towards complete totalitarianism that so many people, on a freaking Ron Paul site!, think the state has a right to arrest someone absent probable cause of a crime.  If you want factual information, what you should be calling for is an _investigation_, not a trial.  A trial is what happens after the factual information has been assembled, and that factual information is sufficient that the prosecution believes a crime has occurred and that the accused is guilty of that crime.

----------


## moo

> This is not about me, it is about you being fake. If you actually feel the way you do you should be spreading awareness about all these cases.


if that is the case why are *you* against THIS murder?

----------


## silverhandorder

> if that is the case why are *you* against THIS murder?


I am not sure what you mean. But to clarify I don't think kids should be shot for walking down a street. I also don't trust police or our courts to actually provide justice for the shooter or for the family.

So since this is a cluster$#@! I would rather attention be pointed at utter failure of public police. This way we can actually speak about real issue here and put our effort into a real solution. I am not holding out any hope that it will actually happen. I predict people will be divided on this and political whores will be able to take advantage of both sides. 

As people pointed out divide and conquer.

----------


## 40oz

> Actually, from the facts presented thus far, it is absolutely a textbook case of self defense.  In what crazy world is going outside to ask a suspicious lurker who he is and what he's doing constitute "instigating an altercation"?  This is a free country.  You, I, or George Zimmerman have every right to follow a stranger in public, and when we catch up to them and get their attention, ask them any question we so desire.  And likewise, the person we are talking to has every right to tell us to "$#@! off", and walk away.  What they don't have the right to do is physically assault us.  And that is what Trayvon Martin is accused of doing, and why according to the SYG law this was a justifiable homicide.


Are you sure that's what happened? We need to know if Zimmerman tried to detain Martin or if Martin rushed Zimmerman instead of telling him to "$#@! off".

----------


## moo

i understand there is a double standard and it is unfair but in this particular case, a man killed an innocent child and wasn't arrested because of that "stand your ground" law. that law puts innocent children at risk for being murdered.

----------


## silverhandorder

> i understand there is a double standard and it is unfair but in this particular case, a man killed an innocent child and wasn't arrested because of that "stand your ground" law. that law puts innocent children at risk for being murdered.


And cops shoot kids all the time in the exact same circumstances.  Again why this so special?

----------


## dawnbt

> I wasn't really following the story much, just catching the headlines.  But what I read in the report above differs completely from the media story, and that is the point - the story the media chooses to sell to us, as we all should be a little more sensitive to than many others.    
> 
> The media is portraying him as what looks likes an innocent 14 year old, when he was possibly according to this story a trouble-making gang member with a "No Limit" attitude who may have just recently swung at a bus drive, and was confronted by some guy in a neighborhood he wasn't from.  They were likely both in the wrong at some point during the confrontation, and Zimmerman probably shouldn't have followed him and maybe should have left it to the police since they were on they way (where ironically this kid's chances of getting beaten or shot would have been likely higher, unfortunately).  I don't know if this Zimmerman's life was in danger when he felt he had to pull the trigger, or not. I don't yet know who started the confrontation, and who was doing what to whom when the trigger was pulled.   But the 6'3" young man described in this article is a different picture than the one being portrayed  by the media, and everyone has already jumped to their conclusions based upon it.  
> 
> And no, his pot use, tattoos, and his investment in precious metals to cover his teeth have nothing to do with it.


Exactly! +1 rep!

The point is the angle that the media is portraying this and convicting Zimmerman in the public eye.  Looking and acting like a thug doesn't give right to kill a man, that's not the point here.  The point is calling the media out on their bias crap.  We all know the days of honest journalism is over, but believe it or not there are TONS of people who are still in the fog.  This blatant manipulation of the truth needs to be exposed to those who unquestionably believe everything they see on the news.  Unfortunately, this tragedy needs to be left to the authorities in a court of law.  Unfortunately, for Zimmerman, regardless of what evidence comes out, he's already been convicted in the public eye.

----------


## moo

> And cops shoot kids all the time in the exact same circumstances.  Again why this so special?


im sorry but if you do not understand the severity of this case & why lives are at risk then you should really stop posting and move on to another thread.

----------


## BamaAla

> And cops shoot kids all the time in the exact same circumstances.  Again why this so special?


You're arguing with a troll. I'd step away.

----------


## silverhandorder

> You're arguing with a troll. I'd step away.


I know he is a troll hence why I am not getting mad. Sometimes easiest thing to do is to show how silly the troll is.

----------


## onlyrp

> And cops shoot kids all the time in the exact same circumstances.  Again why this so special?



....how about because some people believe police shouldn't share their privileges with citizens?

----------


## moo

> You're arguing with a troll. I'd step away.


how am I a troll when I am discussing the murder of trayvon martin?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> i understand there is a double standard and it is unfair but in this particular case, a man killed an innocent child and wasn't arrested because of *that "stand your ground" law. that law puts innocent children at risk for being murdered*.


You are incorrect.

If there is one reason why Zimmermann wasn't arrested is that he was "friendly" with the cops.

The facts presented so far do *NOT* show Zimmermann to be justified in using lethal force, regardless of the "stand your ground" law.

----------


## onlyrp

> You are incorrect.
> 
> If there is one reason why Zimmermann wasn't arrested is that he was "friendly" with the cops.
> 
> The facts presented so far do *NOT* show Zimmermann to be justified in using lethal force, regardless of the "stand your ground" law.


are you basically saying, it's not the law, it's the police and enforcement that matters?

----------


## moo

how am I a troll when I frequent the chatrooms and I've never seen your screennames in there. Don't patronize me. I came in here to support the trayvon martin case, a case some of you have deemed unworthy of attention because issues that you care about the most go unnoticed by the people. I understand.

----------


## Indy Vidual

> how am I a troll...


If you are not, then don't worry about it; If you are, then why are you worried about it?

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> I like how this country randomly chooses an incident to get mad about, but doesn't care about the rest.
> 
> Or is it random????  Discuss.


Public Relations bro.

----------


## Ender

> You are incorrect.
> 
> If there is one reason why Zimmermann wasn't arrested is that he was "friendly" with the cops.
> 
> The facts presented so far do *NOT* show Zimmermann to be justified in using lethal force, regardless of the "stand your ground" law.


In complete agreement.

Zimmerman followed  the kid after being told not to- if anything, Martin was the one who had the right to "stand your ground".

----------


## onlyrp

> If you are not, then don't worry about it; If you are, then why are you worried about it?


maybe he's just a newbie. but just on the other side of the coin, both trolls and non-trolls prefer to keep posting, so don't like to be spotted as trolls.

----------


## moo

> are you basically saying, it's not the law, it's the police and enforcement that matters?


exactly!

----------


## Anti Federalist

> are you basically saying, it's not the law, it's the police and enforcement that matters?


I thought I was being pretty clear about what I was saying.

Under FL law, based on the facts as presented so far, Zimmermann emerges with no legal justification to use deadly force.

If the cops fell down on the job and let this guy skate because he was an FoC, then that was clearly an injustice.

If there are extenuating circumstances that significantly change the whole outlook of the story, then the cops better get those out there right away, before this poor $#@!er gets lynched.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Exactly! +1 rep!
> 
> The point is the angle that the media is portraying this and convicting Zimmerman in the public eye.  Looking and acting like a thug doesn't give right to kill a man, that's not the point here.  The point is calling the media out on their bias crap.  We all know the days of honest journalism is over, but believe it or not there are TONS of people who are still in the fog.  This blatant manipulation of the truth needs to be exposed to those who unquestionably believe everything they see on the news.  Unfortunately, this tragedy needs to be left to the authorities in a court of law.  Unfortunately, for Zimmerman, regardless of what evidence comes out, he's already been convicted in the public eye.


Unfortunately, the system will not allow me to +1 you again at this time for this excellent point.

----------


## moo

and trayvon did call 911 but they haven't released the tape yet.

----------


## James Madison

> I'm so sick of hearing about this story.
> 
> My opionion is:    People are spending WAY too much damned time on this; a jury will determine the outcome & justice will be served.
> 
> This story does not warrant this much of our attention.


Don't expect this story to go away. Every self-righteous social-activist wannabe is drooling over this right now. Same people that got suckered into the Kony 2012 bull$#@!. Meanwhile, thousands die every month in the Middle East because of our foreign policy and not a peep from these so-called 'activists'. Millions dead in Africa because of western-backed puppet dictators and not a peep. But one kid gets murdered, and it's as if the guy just killed Christ. And don't worry, they'll gladly send you off to go die in Iran when their dear leader starts WW3.

----------


## Zatch

> somehow a person being suspended from school at 17, makes him ok to kill if he's wearing a hoodie and holds a bag of skittles?


Trayvon had Skittles! SKITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTLES!!! Case closed. No one who likes Skittles could be a bad person. Period. Execute Zimmerman NOW! /sarcasm

----------


## BlackTerrel

> It's called rallying your base. Yes more people will come out because his side will put in more effort.


No they won't.  In six months this won't be impacting the polls.




> Yup.
> 
> The black demographic is already sewed up anyway, IIRC it went 98% for O-bomb-ya last time around.
> 
> Energize that base and get them out, that's guaranteed votes.


Yes.  No one is changing their vote based on this.




> As a major distraction!  And hopefully cause a lot of racial divide, because as the story goes...divide and conquer!


Outside of this forum and out in the real world there is NO racial divide.  My friends are incredibly diverse - black, Asian, Hispanic, white, Asian - no one is divided over this we all agree it is a travesty of justice.  And not a single person I know is taking their anger out on a racial group - our anger is clearly directed at Zimmerman AND law enforcement.

The only $#@! I am hearing of racial divide and even the absurdity of "race war" is coming from this forum.

The vast majority of Americans just want justice - that is all.

----------


## onlyrp

> Trayvon had Skittles! SKITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTLES!!! Case closed. No one who likes Skittles could be a bad person. Period. Execute Zimmerman NOW! /sarcasm


anybody who likes skittles CAN be a bad person, but WAS he, and more importantly, was he doing anything wrong at the time? I'm not crying for his kid, but I don't think it's fair to bring up what he did in the past as some indicator that he was a criminal at the moment (and he might've deserved to be shot, just not because of being suspended from school, or because he had skittles).

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Obama needs to start a race war so that he has some mild excuse for declaring martial law and taking peoples guns


"Race war" is just about as likely as "WW3" or "Y2K".

For a people that rightfully complain about media and government there is a lot of propagating of fear around here.

Calm down.  There is not going to be a race war.  Nobody I know wants to hurt you.  Stop living in fear.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> somehow a person being suspended from school at 17, makes him ok to kill if he's wearing a hoodie and holds a bag of skittles?


That's what it sounds like.

----------


## Indy Vidual

> The only $#@! I am hearing of racial divide...
> ...is coming from this forum.


Really?

"How do we turn pain into power?" Jackson asked a standing-room only congregation while preaching at Macedonia Missionary Baptist Church in Eatonville, Fla...
..."The blood of the innocent has power," Jackson said, naming other slain black Americans whose deaths became rallying cries in the struggle for equality. "There's power in the blood of Emmett Till. There's power in the blood of Medgar Evers. There's power in the blood of Dr. King."
Martin case rings across country's pulpits

----------


## kylejack

> Really?
> 
> "How do we turn pain into power?" Jackson asked a standing-room only congregation while preaching at Macedonia Missionary Baptist Church in Eatonville, Fla...
> ..."The blood of the innocent has power," Jackson said, naming other slain black Americans whose deaths became rallying cries in the struggle for equality. "There's power in the blood of Emmett Till. There's power in the blood of Medgar Evers. There's power in the blood of Dr. King."
> Martin case rings across country's pulpits


Doesn't sound like racial divide to me. Sounds to me like a call to power, to end racial injustice (which is still very present).

----------


## Indy Vidual

> ...
> This story does not warrant this much of our attention.


That never happens in America:

----------


## Danke

Isn't a gated community private property?

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> Doesn't sound like racial divide to me. Sounds to me like a call to power, to end racial injustice (which is still very present).


He'd be out of a job if racial injustice were eliminated. Vermin like Jackson thrives on it

----------


## AGRP

Cool:

All of the smart Paul people who can see through this BS will be busy getting delegates while most of the Romney, Santorum, and Newt sheeple will be distracted at this non-issue on places like Facebook, Redstate, and theblazed.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Really?
> 
> "How do we turn pain into power?" Jackson asked a standing-room only congregation while preaching at Macedonia Missionary Baptist Church in Eatonville, Fla...
> ..."The blood of the innocent has power," Jackson said, naming other slain black Americans whose deaths became rallying cries in the struggle for equality. "There's power in the blood of Emmett Till. There's power in the blood of Medgar Evers. There's power in the blood of Dr. King."
> Martin case rings across country's pulpits


That's not division and it's certainly not "race war".  It's talking about justice.  Big difference.

Calm the $#@!ing race war talk down.  Do you know what even that hypothetically would look like?  Millions of Americans taking up arms and shooting at millions of other Americans because of the color of their skin?

It would basically be Armageddon.  But it won't $#@!ing happen... 99% of us get along.  So calm the $#@! down and quell the "race war" bull$#@!.

People want to talk about justice and bringing a murderer to trial.  No one wants millions of Americans shooting each other.  That will NEVER happen so stop promoting this fear and violence.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> That's not division and it's certainly not "race war".  It's talking about justice.  Big difference.
> 
> Calm the $#@!ing race war talk down.  Do you know what even that hypothetically would look like?  Millions of Americans taking up arms and shooting at millions of other Americans because of the color of their skin?
> 
> It would basically be Armageddon.  But it won't $#@!ing happen... 99% of us get along.  So calm the $#@! down and quell the "race war" bull$#@!.
> 
> People want to talk about justice and bringing a murderer to trial.  No one wants millions of Americans shooting each other.  That will NEVER happen so stop promoting this fear and violence.


You got your head in the sand. Race war concerns are real. There isn't anyone here promoting it, they're just admitting the unfortunate reality

----------


## moo

I agree. Just because you read articles about the black panthers doesn't mean this is a white vs black situation. The black panthers are there because zimmerman is a racist and the police dept tried to cover it up. The only people who fear the black panthers are the klansman. they're trying to portray the panthers as the boogieman but white people aren't falling for that old trick. There are many different organizations that are involved in this case. People of all walks of life all across the world have united together for trayvon martin. Look at the pictures & videos on social networks to see for yourself. EVERYONE has united so don't let an extremely SMALL group of people, who are being paid to divide this movement, make you miss this great opportunity to be apart of a modern day civil rights movement. the occupy movement, the gay rights movement, the tea party movement, the reason movement, the civil rights movement and so many more are historical events that is happening right now. 

this shows what the people can do if we simply UNITE and stand together for what is RIGHT. we can change laws & change minds.

----------


## fr33

*jumps into a multi-page topic without reading it*

What I hate is how "we" all feel the need to choose a side on these type of stories if we feel it will be used against our political stances. None of us truly know what happened. We weren't there. Stories like this happen often but are selectively covered by the media.

It gets to the point where there's some type of pressure for me to support this Zimmerman dude if I support self defense. But wait I'm against racism and busy-body pricks so I must oppose, right?

Then some douche-bag like Geraldo Rivera feels the need to inform me that every day this winter I was asking to be shot because I wear a hoodie.

Sorry but I feel Geraldo comes out of this story being the biggest idiot. A sweatshirt/jacket with a hood on it is not suspicious and those that promote such an ideal deserve nothing but criticism.

----------


## onlyrp

> Isn't a gated community private property?


yes, generally. Though they have street addresses, usually they can only gate it up because they owned the land to start, and the streets inside are "artificial".

----------


## onlyrp

> *jumps into a multi-page topic without reading it*
> 
> *What I hate is how "we" all feel the need to choose a side on these type of stories if we feel it will be used against our political stances. None of us truly know what happened. We weren't there. Stories like this happen often but are selectively covered by the media.*


yeah, seriously.

----------


## kylejack

> Isn't a gated community private property?


Yes. Both had a right to be there (Zimmerman owns or rents a house, and Trayvon was staying with his father.)

----------


## moo

here is the worlds most notorious criminal. being kissed on the cheek by his father must be some kind gang ritual.

----------


## onlyrp

> here is the worlds most notorious criminal. being kissed on the cheek by his father must be some kind gang ritual.


You know, there's more options than just "worlds most notorious criminal" and "perfectly innocent and never deserved to be shot", you knew that, right?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Actually, from the facts presented thus far, it is absolutely a textbook case of self defense.  In what crazy world is going outside to ask a suspicious lurker who he is and what he's doing constitute "instigating an altercation"?  This is a free country.  You, I, or George Zimmerman have every right to follow a stranger in public, and when we catch up to them and get their attention, ask them any question we so desire.  And likewise, the person we are talking to has every right to tell us to "$#@! off", and walk away.  What they don't have the right to do is physically assault us.  And that is what Trayvon Martin is accused of doing, and why according to the SYG law this was a justifiable homicide.


You are *wrong* and you are giving out information that could potentially land people in prison for a long period of time if followed:




> Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?
> 
> A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:
> 
> *    Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
>     Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.*
> 
> Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, *manslaughter, or worse.*
> 
> ...



From the facts presented thus far:

A - Zimmerman played free lance cop by following Martin AFTER being told to stand down.

B - Martin was unarmed and was committing no violent felony during the time Zimmerman had him "under surveillance".

C - A fistfight with a minor does not rise to the level of threat that would justify the use of deadly force.

He was unjustified, under *current Stand Your Ground* Florida law, in responding with deadly force, based on the facts as they appear now.

----------


## Anti Federalist

The law on this:





> Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?
> 
> A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:
> 
> *    Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
>     Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.*
> 
> Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, *manslaughter, or worse.*
> 
> ...



From the facts presented thus far:

A - Zimmerman played free lance cop by following Martin AFTER being told to stand down.

B - Martin was unarmed and was committing no violent felony during the time Zimmerman had him "under surveillance".

C - A fistfight with a minor does not rise to the level of threat that would justify the use of deadly force.

He was unjustified, under *current Stand Your Ground* Florida law, in responding with deadly force, based on the facts as they appear now.

----------


## asurfaholic

> how am I a troll when I am discussing the murder of trayvon martin?


Why is traayvon martin so special????

Don't you realize that the media has worked its magic on you? Media sensationalism has definitely done its trick across the country. Would people have been less outraged if the headlines were "newcomer drug dealer attacks a local neighborhood watch captain, dies."

Instead the media has turned this into a bloody racial issue, knowing damn well that idiots eat that up..

Trayvon martin... im sick of this story already

----------


## Working Poor

> I honestly don't know who was right or wrong here.  What I do know, is that this story is very divisive, and after the two groups get done tearing each other apart, nothing good will have come of it.  Then we just wait for the next divisive story and repeat this cycle, ad infinitum.
> 
> Pass.  I want no part in this.



I believe the media is pushing this to create more racial tension.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Why is traayvon martin so special????
> 
> Don't you realize that the media has worked its magic on you? Media sensationalism has definitely done its trick across the country. Would people have been less outraged if the headlines were "newcomer drug dealer attacks a local neighborhood watch captain, dies."
> 
> Instead the media has turned this into a bloody racial issue, knowing damn well that idiots eat that up..
> 
> Trayvon martin... im sick of this story already


Not sick enough of it to label Martin a "newcomer drug dealer" and once again perpetuate the meme (made up by people who weren't there) that he attacked first.

Interesting gymnastics you go through in a single post.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Not sick enough of it to label Martin a "newcomer drug dealer" and once again perpetuate the meme (made up by people who weren't there) that he attacked first.
> 
> Interesting gymnastics you go through in a single post.


I think you missed what he was trying to say (he was speaking hypothetically). His point was that the media has a powerful role in determining how important a story is. The media *COULD* have said that he was a 'newcomer drug dealer' and everyone would have just rolled over in bed and slept in. Instead this story is getting massively pumped up. 

My question is the same as a few others: Why this one? The Ohio school shootings were good for national ratings for only a few days. We've had a few courthouse shootings in various states since around that time. These stories are thrown out and if they don't stick, they're dropped. 

My theory is that if there's a story with any degree of potential 'racism value', they media will lay it on hard-and-thick. This one is gonna stick for a while longer. Can't let the American people start viewing these crimes as 'normal' crimes. No, this one is special. They had different skin color. We aren't quite to the point where the media lets us view each other as individuals.

I think I'll agree with asurfaholic. I'm sick of this story too, due to the way it's being handled. Try Zimmerman for murder (of which he'll likely be found guilty) and lets move on with things. No need to mention skin tone for the extra boost in ratings it gets.

----------


## Bruno

> That's what it sounds like.


Then you missed the point, or are pretending that you did.  Rereading will solve the former, the latter would be up to you.

----------


## asurfaholic

> Not sick enough of it to label Martin a "newcomer drug dealer" and once again perpetuate the meme (made up by people who weren't there) that he attacked first.
> 
> Interesting gymnastics you go through in a single post.


I was just using that as an example of how a simple change in headline could change the entire focus of the story. I knew I shoulda stayed out of this thread.... and the other 6 trayvon martian threads... 

I do not know what went down. I DO know that the media is blowing this up. The other day in my town a group of 4 black dudes broke into a white mans house and shot him dead, then robbed the place. What, didn't hear about it? Neither did I until I talked to someone who was there...

----------


## Toureg89

> I guess I'm the only one who really doesn't give a $#@! about this case.


 i give a $#@! to the extent that people crying racist also seem to want to get rid of our Stand-Your-Ground law to try to nanny-police future incidents of racist whites shooting blacks. 

whether or not Zimmerman is guilty or Trayvon instigated it, i dont care to the because i feel its something to be worked out between Zimmerman and the boys parents through the courts.

----------


## lester1/2jr

Trayvon Martin was visiting family in the neighborhood. No one disputes that. Zimmerman had no reason to be following him at all.

----------


## lester1/2jr

dillo- 


> ironic people supporting lynch mobs with shotty information and no trial


so you admit Zimmerman essentially lynched Martin with $#@!ty information and no trial.

----------


## moderate libertarian

Is this a new angle or already known tidbit:




> *Who is George Zimmerman - the frustrated cop wannabe* in the eye of a race storm?
> Sydney Morning Herald - ‎15 hours ago‎


http://m.smh.com.au/world/who-is-geo...325-1vs1a.html

----------


## Cowlesy

> http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-lineh...-a-drug-dealer



Geez, the media really seems to be playing a weird game with this story.

----------


## specsaregood

> Geez, the media really seems to be playing a weird game with this story.


Judging based on the deluge of threads here on the "story", they are getting just what they wanted: attention and eyeballs.

----------


## Cowlesy

> I believe the media is pushing this to create more racial tension.


I think you are right, and I find it to be disgusting.

What are they going to do when one of the black panther clowns loses it to get "revenge"?  Instead of outrage, the media will shrug and say "well this is the price we gotta pay."

----------


## Cowlesy

> Judging based on the deluge of threads here on the "story", they are getting just what they wanted: attention and eyeballs.


The whole thing vexes me, as there are tragedies every damn day where there is injustice (or perceived injustice), and now all of a sudden we've been in national mourning for over a week with about 60% of the facts.

----------


## pcosmar

> I do not know what went down. I DO know that the media is blowing this up.


I am pretty sure that an armed man shot and killed an unarmed man.
I am pretty sure that the unarmed man had every right to be there and no reason to be accosted by the armed man.

And yes, the media is blowing it up,
  Some people are rightfully pissed that the armed man is being protected by police.

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## moderate libertarian

> That was posted in the main thread on the subject.
> 
> I've got an even better conspiracy.
> 
> The Martin shooting has been bubbling in the background for a month now.
> 
> But it just blew up *now*.
> 
> *Sure took that story of the Afghan village slaughter off the front page, didn't it now?*


Could Obama electioneering gurus like David Axlerod or one of those told Obama and media owners to talk it up?

+rep for an astute observation.

----------


## azxd

> The point is that Trayvon isn't quite as affable as he's been portrayed, which matters somewhat because it does paint a picture of someone, who might be quick to get into a fistfight.  
> 
> The points raised in the article, however are extremely weak, and *even if Trayvon did throw the first punch, that's not good enough for a self defense case*.


Tell that to the people who have been killed by 1 punch ... It happens.

----------


## Cowlesy

> How long was the story about that white girl that disappeared in Aruba on the air?


I didn't know there was a racial component to the crime on that one, but I do recall hearing about it.

----------


## azxd

> You are *wrong* and you are giving out information that could potentially land people in prison for a long period of time if followed:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?
> 
> A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:
> ...


Very judgemental and *absolutely wrong* of you to suggest that a fist fight cannot end in death, and that a fist fight will not bring with it serious harm or death.

----------


## The_Ruffneck

someone explain why the trayvon story is getting so much more media attention than the two white tourists that got killed in Florida because they walked into the wrong neighbouhood a while back? The black kid who killed those two white guys was jailed recently , hardly any coverage.

----------


## cajuncocoa

The media is manipulating the public about this story...from the use of the pic of Trayvon as an angelic 12-year old to the pic of Zimmerman as a thug, wearing what looks like an orange prison jumpsuit.  

It doesn't  matter/shouldn't matter whether the young man was a Boy Scout or a tattoo-covered drug dealer.  Nor should it matter whether he was suspended from school or whether said suspension was due to some previous incidence of violence that involved Trayvon.  All of that is circumstantial evidence, and certainly does NOT give anyone the right to hunt him down and stalk him/shoot him.

But since it doesn't matter, why did the media manipulate the story in the first place?  Y'all know the answer:  so there would be a rush to judgement about Zimmerman.  Maybe all we know is not all there *is* to know.  Since when do we trust the MSM to give us all of the facts about a story, particularly when they have an agenda?

----------


## angelatc

> The last line of the article:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is *not*, based on the facts so far presented.
> 
> Self defense with deadly force is *not* justified, legally, if you provoke or prolong or instigate an altercation that otherwise would not have happened had you not done so.
> 
> "Stand your ground" laws do not change that.


And neither does the affiliations of your victim.  This "crucify the victim" tendency is horrible.  I don't get why so many people are so desperate to believe Zimmerman is innocent.

----------


## azxd

> And neither does the affiliations of your victim.  This "crucify the victim" tendency is horrible.  I don't get why so many people are so desperate to believe Zimmerman is innocent.


I'm gonna guess the numbers are about equal to those who think the kid was innocent.

----------


## specsaregood

> I didn't know there was a racial component to the crime on that one, but I do recall hearing about it.


Yeah, I wasn't discussing the possible racial components; just saying the media with a story is like a dog with a new squeak toy.  When they get a good squeaky one they are gonna play with it nonstop until the squeaker breaks, then onto the next one.  it is what it is.  This story is just the squeak toy of the week.  They'll keep on squeaking it until the audience gets bored with it.  Just watching the attention its getting here on rpfs indicates to me that the public is still enthralled with it.

----------


## AuH20

Right on cue. Government media complex going for the throat on this.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...Martin%20Death

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...g-To-Kochs-NRA

Now folks understand why many of us are so angry about how this has been presented? Apparently, the conservative, more libertarian segment of society is now responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin as opposed to one man. LOL  Go figure. And no one here is defending Zimmerman if he did use excessive force. But this is how the establishment plays.

----------


## pcosmar

> I'm gonna guess the numbers are about equal to those who think the kid was innocent.


It does not matter if the kid was innocent.
He had a RIGHT to BE there. 

Zimmerman had NO right to assault him.

If Zimmerman had not gotten OUT of his Vehicle and Confronted (assaulted) Travon there would have been no fight.

How is that so hard to understand.

----------


## specsaregood

> here is the worlds most notorious criminal. being kissed on the cheek by his father must be some kind gang ritual.


And here is a picture of Jeffrey Dahmer loving his dog.

----------


## AuH20

> It does not matter if the kid was innocent.
> He had a RIGHT to BE there. 
> 
> Zimmerman had NO right to assault him.
> 
> If Zimmerman had not gotten OUT of his Vehicle and Confronted (assaulted) Travon there would have been no fight.
> 
> How is that so hard to understand.


With that said, we have no idea who escalated it after first contact was made. It takes two to tango.

----------


## MelissaWV

> someone explain why the trayvon story is getting so much more media attention than the two white tourists that got killed in Florida because they walked into the wrong neighbouhood a while back? The black kid who killed those two white guys was jailed recently , hardly any coverage.


I posted a different story in one of these threads, which seems ready-made for the media to feign outrage, but didn't get the same flurry of interest.




> A Baltimore prosecutor offered jurors in a murder trial a painful and troubling portrait Wednesday of the victim's final moments, describing how a killer "suffocated and butchered" the boy, whose screams for help she said went unheard by a relative who had passed out from heroin...
> 
> "He went from place to place to keep a roof over his head," Hastings said in court. He felt welcome at the house owned by his great-aunt on Llewellyn Avenue, but the prosecutor said there was little adult supervision, many occupants spent the days shooting heroin, drinking and playing cards, and keeping the front door open to random visitors.


Maybe we just didn't need a "heartbreaking" story that week.

----------


## ctiger2

> Clearly this is relevant as to why he was unarmed and shot dead in cold blood.


What about the police reports where it states Zimmerman had blood running from his nose and the back of his head? Still no reason to kill someone IMHO. But at least we understand motive now.

----------


## pcosmar

> With that said, we have no idea who escalated it after first contact was made. It takes two to tango.


It does not matter. Zimmerman had  no business confronting the kid in the first place.

If the kid had shot him outright he would have been 100% justified.
Zimmerman was the attacker. ( he stalked him, exited his vehicle and confronted him) And he was armed.

First contact? There should have been NO contact. 
Zimmerman should have stayed in his vehicle and *Minded his own business.*

----------


## coastie

> It does not matter if the kid was innocent.
> He had a RIGHT to BE there. 
> 
> Zimmerman had NO right to assault him.
> 
> If Zimmerman had not gotten OUT of his Vehicle and Confronted (assaulted) Travon there would have been no fight.
> 
> How is that so hard to understand.


Seems only a few of us here are capable of thinking without our emotions, Pete, even some here I thought were better than that.

----------


## AuH20

> It does not matter. Zimmerman had  no business confronting the kid in the first place.
> 
> If the kid had shot him outright he would have been 100% justified.
> Zimmerman was the attacker. ( he stalked him, exited his vehicle and confronted him) And he was armed.
> 
> First contact? There should have been NO contact. 
> Zimmerman should have stayed in his vehicle and *Minded his own business.*


This is where I disagree. Cops roughly prevent 20% of the crimes committed and minding your own business could prove dire in the long term. And given what we know about Zimmerman's neighborhood, it was ravaged by home burglaries and the like. The neighborhood watch was formed of necessity not of bragaddoccio. With that said, Zimmerman reacted poorly when the conflict escalated. Zimmerman's personal judgement should be questioned as opposed to the everlasting principle of defending one's neighborhood.

----------


## Danke

> It does not matter. Zimmerman had  no business confronting the kid in the first place.
> 
> If the kid had shot him outright he would have been 100% justified.
> Zimmerman was the attacker. ( he stalked him, exited his vehicle and confronted him) And he was armed.
> 
> First contact? There should have been NO contact. 
> Zimmerman should have stayed in his vehicle and *Minded his own business.*


Well, if it is private property and the owners agreed on Zimmerman patrolling said properties, I don't see why not.

----------


## coastie

> This is where I disagree. Cops roughly prevent 20% of the crimes committed and minding your own business could prove dire in the long term. And given what we know about Zimmerman's neighborhood, it was ravaged by home burglaries and the like. The neighborhood watch was formed of necessity not of bragaddaccio. With that said, Zimmerman reacted poorly when the conflict escalated. *Zimmerman's personal judgement should be questioned* as opposed to the everlasting principle of defending one's neighborhood.


Which is exactly what Pete was getting at. Holy $#@! you guys are giving me a headache with this....

----------


## AuH20

> Which is exactly what Pete was getting at. Holy $#@! you guys are giving me a headache with this....


Which was pulling the trigger. Not accosting Martin. Martin was a stranger in his neighborhood.

----------


## pcosmar

> .* The neighborhood watch was formed of necessity* not of bragaddaccio.


That is entirely possible and completely irrelevant.
*If* It was so,, he was responsible to protect Travon (who was living in that neighborhood) and should have observed (from his vehicle) that Travon was not assaulted on his way home.

*If*  that was so he should have observed (from his vehicle) any attempts to break in to anything.

Neighborhood watch does not equal neighborhood assault.

----------


## coastie

> That is entirely possible and completely irrelevant.
> *If* It was so,, he was responsible to protect Travon (who was living in that neighborhood) and should have observed (from his vehicle) that Travon was not assaulted on his way home.
> 
> *If*  that was so he should have observed (from his vehicle) any attempts to break in to anything.
> 
> Neighborhood watch does not equal neighborhood assault.


Be careful with your logic here....your making way too much sense for some in here.

----------


## pcosmar

> Which was pulling the trigger. Not accosting Martin. Martin was a stranger in his neighborhood.


*NO HE WAS NOT.*
His father lived there. He was staying with his father.
Zimmerman's ignorance of this fact is not a valid excuse.

----------


## coastie

> Which was pulling the trigger. Not accosting Martin. Martin was a stranger in his neighborhood.



Yes-to the vigilante wannabe....he was not a stranger to the neighborhood in reality-he was a guest.

So is that a valid excuse for Zimmerman now?

----------


## AuH20

> That is entirely possible and completely irrelevant.
> *If* It was so,, he was responsible to protect Travon (who was living in that neighborhood) and should have observed (from his vehicle) that Travon was not assaulted on his way home.
> 
> *If*  that was so he should have observed (from his vehicle) any attempts to break in to anything.
> 
> Neighborhood watch does not equal neighborhood assault.


No, it's not. First, you're laying out the situation in such a manner to lead one to believe that Zimmerman ALREADY had those facts in hand, when he confronted Martin. At the time, Martin was a stranger to the neighborhood in his estimation. I have no problem with Zimmerman accosting Martin on principle. For hundreds of years going to back to the Middle Ages, there were night watchmen assigned to street duty in a given village to make certain no one got their throat slit or had their valuables stolen. Rather, I'm questioning why Zimmerman took it upon himself to fire his weapon at Martin. That's the issue.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

The media attention is needed because Zimmerman can't be charged by the local authorities so the feds have to get baited into making this a federal hate crime and thus sending Zimmerman to jail. People should stop complaining about the media's role because thats just what they do.

----------


## coastie

> No, it's not. *First, you're laying out the situation in such a manner to lead one to believe that Zimmerman ALREADY had those facts in hand, when he confronted Martin.* At the time, Martin was a stranger to the neighborhood in his estimation. I have no problem with Zimmerman accosting Martin on principle. For hundreds of years going to back to the Middle Ages, there were night watchmen assigned to street duty in a given village to make certain no one got their throat slit or valuables stolen. Rather, I'm questioning why Zimmerman took it upon himself to fire his weapon at Martin. That's the issue.


So you agree, this all could've been solved with a simple "hey how are you, do you live here?" then?

----------


## Danke

> Be careful with your logic here....your making way too much sense for some in here.


Supposedly he lost sight of the kid, that is why he got out of his vehicle to look around.

But no one really knows all the facts at this point.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> It does not matter if the kid was innocent.
> He had a RIGHT to BE there. 
> 
> Zimmerman had NO right to assault him.
> 
> If Zimmerman had not gotten OUT of his Vehicle and Confronted (assaulted) Travon there would have been no fight.
> 
> How is that so hard to understand.


Zimmerman was well within his right to confront the perp. Why is he not allowed to get out of his truck? Why is he supposed to know that instead of Martin answering in a non criminal manner(running) and simply talk like normal people instead of acting scared that a mexican was gonna hurt him.

----------


## asurfaholic

> Right on cue. Government media complex going for the throat on this.
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...Martin%20Death
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...g-To-Kochs-NRA
> 
> Now folks understand why many of us are so angry about how this has been presented? Apparently, the conservative, more libertarian segment of society is now responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin as opposed to one man. LOL  Go figure. And no one here is defending Zimmerman if he did use excessive force. But this is how the establishment plays.


That's just what I hate about our country. Police killers, police protecting killers. The media never reports the whole story. Here we have the black panthers going public with their hate, and its ok. But if someone opposes obama for something, its called racism.

----------


## pcosmar

> No, it's not. First, you're laying out the situation in such a manner to lead one to believe that Zimmerman ALREADY had those facts in hand, when he confronted Martin. At the time, Martin was a stranger to the neighborhood in his estimation.* I have no problem with Zimmerman accosting Martin on principle.* For hundreds of years going to back to the Middle Ages, there were night watchmen assigned to street duty in a given village to make certain no one got their throat slit or had their valuables stolen. Rather, I'm questioning why Zimmerman took it upon himself to fire his weapon at Martin. That's the issue.


Whoa.  I am in favor of Neighborhood watches.. And of vigilance.

I do have a problem with free people being accosted. Regardless of any alleged authority.

And if this "watchman" was on his job as some claim. why did he not see the kid leave his fathers home only minutes before and walk to that store?

----------


## eduardo89

Don't we have more pressing issues to worry about than this?

----------


## specsaregood

> Why is he supposed to know that instead of Martin answering in a non criminal manner(running) and simply talk like normal people instead of acting scared that a mexican was gonna hurt him.


You say "non criminal manner", another might argue "purdence".  Perhaps the kid had life experiences different than your own that have taught him that it is better to run.

----------


## pcosmar

> Zimmerman was well within his right to confront the perp.


He was not a "perp".
He was the son of a resident who had walked to the store for candy.

----------


## Danke

> Don't we have more pressing issues to worry about than this?



Yes, I still need additional funds to get to Disneyland, thanks.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> Cops roughly prevent 20% of the crimes committed



Really?  How do you know that?  How could anyone possibly know that?

----------


## azxd

> It does not matter if the kid was innocent.
> He had a RIGHT to BE there. 
> 
> Zimmerman had NO right to assault him.
> 
> If Zimmerman had not gotten OUT of his Vehicle and Confronted (assaulted) Travon there would have been no fight.
> 
> How is that so hard to understand.


Because regardless of what the media is telling you, getting out of a vehicle, approaching someone, and asking them questions, or not ... Does not constitute assault.
Stupid perhaps, but it is not assault.

Heck,
I can imagine that in your World asking questions can be equated to assault, but it is only a verbal assault, and aligns with that old phrase about sticks and stones.

ETA:
But I do appreciate your ability to know who is guilty of assault WITHOUT having been there.

----------


## coastie

> Zimmerman was well within his right to confront the perp. *Why is he not allowed to get out of his truck?*


Because he was CCW in Florida, which requires you to keep your head and not do $#@! like this. He injected himself into this situation with a gun. It is a FACT that he was on the phone while fat-boy was pursuing him, this is not threatening behavior by any stretch.




> Why is he supposed to know that instead of Martin answering in a non criminal manner(running) and simply talk like normal people instead of acting scared that a mexican was gonna hurt him.


Looks like he was right to be scared in the end, doesn't it? Martin wasn't required by law to address Zimmerman regardless, he just *wanted* to be a cop-he *wasn't* one.

----------


## Brian Coulter

> I guess I'm the only one who really doesn't give a $#@! about this case.



Nope

----------


## pcosmar

> ETA:
> But I do appreciate your ability to know who is guilty of assault WITHOUT having been there.


*An armed man shot an unarmed man.*
That is pretty clear.

----------


## frodus24

I wonder if someone is hoarding video footage?

----------


## Bruno

> Don't we have more pressing issues to worry about than this?


Considering the non-pressing content of some your own posts, that is pretty funny.

----------


## coastie

> Considering the non-pressing content of some your own posts, that is pretty funny.


LMAO-beat me to it.

----------


## eduardo89

> Considering the non-pressing content of your own posts, that is pretty funny. :P


Walmart experiences and Danke going to Disneyland are more pressing matters to be discussed than a shooting which no one here really knows any details about.

----------


## coastie

> Walmart experiences and Danke going to Disneyland are more pressing matters to be discussed than a shooting which no one here really knows any details about.

----------


## specsaregood

> Walmart experiences and Danke going to Disneyland are more pressing matters to be discussed than a shooting which no one here really knows any details about.


no wonder you are single, you don't recognize the fun in argumentative foreplay.

----------


## AFPVet

Regarding youth, being in shape has more to do with being physically capable than age. The male frame continues to fill out muscle mass into the 20's and reaches a prime at about 30. I know that if I met my 17 year old twin now at 29, I would beat the crap out of him  not just because of military training, but because I was a toothpick at 17... skin and bone. I am still skinny, but I have a lot more muscle on me, a bigger frame, and more endurance. Being in shape is more important than age!

----------


## angelatc

> Zimmerman was well within his right to confront the perp. Why is he not allowed to get out of his truck? Why is he supposed to know that instead of Martin answering in a non criminal manner(running) and simply talk like normal people instead of acting scared that a mexican was gonna hurt him.


THE PERP?

----------


## coastie

> THE PERP?


Yes, all unidentified black people are considered perps to him.

----------


## angelatc

> You say "non criminal manner", another might argue "purdence".  Perhaps the kid had life experiences different than your own that have taught him that it is better to run.


Exactly.  For example, if Trayvon had been female nobody would even consider the fact that she should stay and verbally engage somebody who had been following her.  John Wayne Gacy talked young men into his apartment on a regular basis.

Before the "Stand Your Ground" law was passed, a person in Trayvon's situation could have been prosecuted for not fleeing a potentially harmful situation, even if not the aggressor.   How absolutely sad that he's now being villified for doing exactly that.

----------


## Athan

Calling Judge Ito and Martha Clark the masses are hungry again.

----------


## Noob

Trayvon Martin Police Report here It kind of paints a different picture than the media portrayal. 6 eyewitnesses, Zimmerman treated by medics, and said he was yelling for help but nobody came. 

http://cnninsession.files.wordpress....olicreport.pdf

----------


## Dr.3D

Strange how so many people want to determine guilt or innocence without all of the facts.  Myself, I'll wait for the facts before I make up my mind.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

Thats bs, on the 911 call, Zimmerman is clearly asking him a non threatening question and he responds by thinking Zimmerman is a white racist and takes off running escolating the situation. The second he refused to respond and took off, he became a perp.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> Exactly.  For example, if Trayvon had been female nobody would even consider the fact that she should stay and verbally engage somebody who had been following her.  John Wayne Gacy talked young men into his apartment on a regular basis.
> 
> Before the "Stand Your Ground" law was passed, a person in Trayvon's situation could have been prosecuted for not fleeing a potentially harmful situation, even if not the aggressor.   How absolutely sad that he's now being villified for doing exactly that.


What the hell does that even mean, if Trayvon had been a women?!? Why? Totally irrelevant.

----------


## Brian Coulter

...

----------


## angelatc

> I posted a different story in one of these threads, which seems ready-made for the media to feign outrage, but didn't get the same flurry of interest.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we just didn't need a "heartbreaking" story that week.


Metro Detroit has at least one a week.  Currently, we've even got a serial killer roaming around.    The media has spent more time yammering about the site the killer uses to meet his victims (with not-so-subtle undertones of future internet regulation ) than the fact that there is a serial killer roaming the streets.

----------


## coastie

> Thats bs, on the 911 call, Zimmerman is clearly asking him a non threatening question and he responds by thinking Zimmerman is a white racist and takes off running escolating the situation. The second he refused to respond and took off, *he became a perp*.


IF HE WAS RUNNING FROM A COP-MAYBE. But he wasn't. Taking off running from someone you percieve as athreat to your safety falls flatly in the "DE-ESCALATION" category......

It is documented this young man was on the phone and told his girlfriend he was concerned about fatty following him. That fact alone justifies him running from him, and that in itself is de-escalation, because he is FLEEING THE SITUATION. How do you not see this?

----------


## Bosco Warden

Why didnt the OP post the damn article?

I cant get the page to load. wtf.

----------


## angelatc

> What the hell does that even mean, if Trayvon had been a women?!? Why? Totally irrelevant.


Well, no, it wasn't irrelevant in the context of life experiences. And I am not wrong.  If Martin had been a 17 year old girl who ran, we would all know she ran because she was afraid of being raped or worse.  I see no reason that we should hold male children to a different standard, hence my John Wayne Gacy reference.

 I have two kids - one of whom happens to be a 17 year old male.  If a strange man was following him around the neighborhood, I hope he would do as he's been taught and run.

Kids are taught that from toddlerhood. Both boys and girls.  Nobody is ever taught that if a stranger approaches you and asks you a question, you should immediately defer to him and answer all his questions.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> IF HE WAS RUNNING FROM A COP-MAYBE. But he wasn't. Taking off running falls flatly in the "DE-ESCALATION" category......
> 
> It is documented this young man was on the phone and told his girlfriend he was concerned about fatty following him. That fact alone justifies him running from him, and that in itself is de-escalation, because he is FLEEING THE SITUATION. How do you not see this?


Zimmerman was on the call to the 911 operator and gave a description of Martin to the police right before he took off running without answering the non threatening question from the neighborhood watch. That is what made him a perp and considering that when the police arrived, they didn't even arrest Zimmerman clearly indicates that the police considered Martin a PERP! Deal with it.

----------


## coastie

> Well, no, it wasn't irrelevant in the context of life experiences.
> 
>  I have two kids - one of whom happens to be a 17 year old male.  If a strange man was following him around the neighborhood, I hope he would do as we've taught him and run.



B,b,bb,b,butttt, no, he's supposed to square off and fight like a man galdiator-style!


/s

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> Well, no, it wasn't irrelevant in the context of life experiences.
> 
>  I have two kids - one of whom happens to be a 17 year old male.  If a strange man was following him around the neighborhood, I hope he would do as we've taught him and run.
> 
> Kids are taught that from toddlerhood.


Yes, it is completely irrelevant. IF Martin had wings and could fly, he would. He did not, so that makes it irrelevant. Now if Martin had a vagina?, I'm not sure how that is any more relevant.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Zimmerman was on the call to the 911 operator and gave a description of Martin to the police right before he took off running without answering the non threatening question from the neighborhood watch. That is what made him a perp and considering that when the police arrived, they didn't even arrest Zimmerman clearly indicates that the police considered Martin a PERP! Deal with it.


I'm sorry, but which is it?  Martin ran off like a perp, or Martin beat the crap out of Zimmerman and "jumped" him without provocation?  Those seem like markedly different actions to be taken just minutes apart.

----------


## coastie

> Zimmerman was on the call to the 911 operator and gave a description of Martin to the police right before he took off running *without answering the non threatening question from the neighborhood watch*. That is what made him a perp and considering that when the police arrived, they didn't even arrest Zimmerman clearly indicates that the police considered Martin a PERP! Deal with it.


Show me where you are "REQUIRED"(as you infer) to answering a neighborhood watch's questions....you are not. Perp is short for perpetrator...perptrated what, walking to a store whilst on a cell phone? 

The police didn't arrest him because they mis-applied  Florida Law. Period. 

Deal with that.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> B,b,bb,b,butttt, no, he's supposed to square off and fight like a man galdiator-style!
> 
> 
> /s


Actually, how about answering the question that Zimmerman asked him in a non threatening way which can be heard on the 911 call. Vicious racist criminals don't normally confront the people they're about to slaughter in a racist fit of anger with a cell phine connected to the police department. Just like innocent people don't take off running when asked a non threatening question like, what are you doing here, answer, watching the all star game at my dads house, situation averted.

----------


## angelatc

> Yes, it is completely irrelevant. IF Martin had wings and could fly, he would. He did not, so that makes it irrelevant. Now if Martin had a vagina?, I'm not sure how that is any more relevant.


If Martin had been a 17 year old girl who ran, we would all know she ran because she was afraid of being raped or worse. I see no reason that we should hold male children to a different standard, hence my John Wayne Gacy reference.

I have two kids - one of whom happens to be a 17 year old male. If a strange man was following him around the neighborhood, I hope he would do as he's been taught and run.

Kids are taught that from toddlerhood. Both boys and girls. Nobody is ever taught that if a stranger approaches you and asks you a question, you should immediately defer to him and answer all his questions.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> I'm sorry, but which is it?  Martin ran off like a perp, or Martin beat the crap out of Zimmerman and "jumped" him without provocation?  Those seem like markedly different actions to be taken just minutes apart.


Martin ran at first, we know this because of the 911 call. Then Martin attacked Zimmerman which is what the police department confirmed judging by the injuries he suffered. That is why they can't charge him.

----------


## angelatc

> Thats bs, on the 911 call, Zimmerman is clearly asking him a non threatening question and he responds by thinking Zimmerman is a white racist and takes off running escolating the situation. The second he refused to respond and took off, he became a perp.


That's simply not true.  Zimmerman is not law enforcement, and if the police were treating this like he was, that just compounds the mistake.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> Show me where you are "REQUIRED"(as you infer) to answering a neighborhood watch's questions....you are not. Perp is short for perpetrator...perptrated what, walking to a store whilst on a cell phone? 
> 
> The police didn't arrest him because they mis-applied  Florida Law. Period. 
> 
> Deal with that.


Yea, coastie knows more about the evidence then the police that responded to the crime. Go figure.

----------


## coastie

> *Actually, how about answering the question that Zimmerman asked him in a non threatening way which can be heard on the 911 call.* Vicious racist criminals don't normally confront the people they're about to slaughter in a racist fit of anger with a cell phine connected to the police department. Just like innocent people don't take off running when asked a non threatening question like, what are you doing here, answer, watching the all star game at my dads house, situation averted.


Actually, how about you show me where he was REQUIRED to do that. You seem to believe that Martin was somehow required to answer Zimmerman, when he was not. 



 You are inferring here that he deserved it in the end, because he ran from some $#@!ing fat busy body that was following him around at night, and didn't properly bow down to Zimmerman.

----------


## Liberty4life

> 


Dude are you the guy in this video?  I love this guy!

----------


## angelatc

> Martin ran at first, we know this because of the 911 call. Then Martin attacked Zimmerman which is what the police department confirmed judging by the injuries he suffered. That is why they can't charge him.


No, that's why they didn't charge him.  They were wrong.  They should have let the grand jury decide if Zimmerman's stalking counted as enough provocation to charge him.

----------


## azxd

> Strange how so many people want to determine guilt or innocence without all of the facts.  Myself, I'll wait for the facts before I make up my mind.


I don't find it strange at all ... Some people are just predisposed to jump to conclusions.

----------


## coastie

> Yea, coastie knows more about the evidence then the police that responded to the crime. Go figure.


Yeah, but coastie the CCW holder does know that he cannot go around looking for people at night, with a gun, in the manner Zimmerman appears to have done. When Martin ran, that was the end of it. Fat boy should've drove off, and let the police handle it from there. Exiting his truck will be what hangs him here, there was no reason for it.

----------


## eduardo89

> No, that's why they didn't charge him.  They were wrong.  They should have let the grand jury decide if Zimmerman's stalking counted as enough provocation to charge him.


And that's what will probably happen. 

Anyway, if there was enough evidence to charge him, they'd do it right away. There isn't, so they haven't.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> That's simply not true.  Zimmerman is not law enforcement, and if the police were treating this like he was, that just compounds the mistake.


Think about it. What do police call people that take off running and then violently attack someone? When I said deal with it, I meant it. That is just the nature of this case. THe police arrived with the PERP shot dead, they know he was the perp because when Zimmerman was on the 911 call, Martin takes off running which in the eyes of the police makes you a perp. Zimmerman not being law enforcement is irrelevant when the 911 operator reports that the perp is running towards the back entrance. Case closed, he was a perp, and no, I not racist for saying it. Just calling the situation as it is.

----------


## angelatc

> Yea, coastie knows more about the evidence then the police that responded to the crime. Go figure.


Cops are not lawyers.  If the DA had taken this to a Grand Jury, we likely would not be having this conversation.  

Personally, I think all person-on-person shootings (especially cop-on-civilian) shootings should go to a jury, for that very reason.  If Zimmerman had been acquitted by a jury, he'd be in a much position right now.

----------


## azxd

> Trayvon Martin Police Report here It kind of paints a different picture than the media portrayal. 6 eyewitnesses, Zimmerman treated by medics, and said he was yelling for help but nobody came. 
> 
> http://cnninsession.files.wordpress....olicreport.pdf


This means nothing to those who have already rendered a verdict of guilty without a trial.

----------


## specsaregood

> Think about it. What do police call people that take off running and then violently attack someone? When I said deal with it, I meant it. That is just the nature of this case. THe police arrived with the PERP shot dead, they know he was the perp because when Zimmerman was on the 911 call, Martin takes off running which in the eyes of the police makes you a perp. Zimmerman not being law enforcement is irrelevant when the 911 operator reports that the perp is running towards the back entrance. Case closed, he was a perp, and no, I not racist for saying it. Just calling the situation as it is.


Another lesson to learn.  If you are gonna kill somebody, make sure to call the cops first and claim the person you intend to murder took off running.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Martin ran at first, we know this because of the 911 call. Then Martin attacked Zimmerman which is what the police department confirmed judging by the injuries he suffered. That is why they can't charge him.


So he ran off... then came back just to start a fight?

That really makes logical sense to you?

----------


## angelatc

> Think about it. What do police call people that take off running and then violently attack someone? When I said deal with it, I meant it. That is just the nature of this case. THe police arrived with the PERP shot dead, they know he was the perp because when Zimmerman was on the 911 call, Martin takes off running which in the eyes of the police makes you a perp. Zimmerman not being law enforcement is irrelevant when the 911 operator reports that the perp is running towards the back entrance. Case closed, he was a perp, and no, I not racist for saying it. Just calling the situation as it is.


Uhm, I haven't heard the police use the term at all in this case.   You can call him a perp all you want, but in my mind Zimmerman is the real "perp."  He stalked and killed a 17 year old - like a hunter going after a deer.  (And yes, deer will attack.)  Case closed.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> Actually, how about you show me where he was REQUIRED to do that. You seem to believe that Martin was somehow required to answer Zimmerman, when he was not. 
> 
> 
> 
>  You are inferring here that he deserved it in the end, because he ran from some $#@!ing fat busy body that was following him around at night, and didn't properly bow down to Zimmerman.


You are right, but that is not the point. Martin has a right to do whatever he wants, just like Zimmerman has a right to confront him in a non threatening, non violent way. The second Zimmerman started getting his ass beat, he had every right to shoot whoever was doing it. Unless a witness says that Zimmerman struck first or is a racist, remember, no one close to Zimmerman accuses him of being racist, and his father says that he has black family members, this case is closed.

----------


## eduardo89

> Cops are not lawyers.  If the DA had taken this to a Grand Jury, we likely would not be having this conversation.


A DA will only take this to a Grand Jury if they think they have a shot at making it to trial.

----------


## coastie

> Think about it. What do police call people that take off running and then violently attack someone? When I said deal with it, I meant it. That is just the nature of this case. THe police arrived with the PERP shot dead, they know he was the perp because when Zimmerman was on the 911 call, Martin takes off running which in the eyes of the police makes you a perp. Zimmerman not being law enforcement is irrelevant when the 911 operator reports that the perp is running towards the back entrance. Case closed, he was a perp, and no, I not racist for saying it. Just calling the situation as it is.


I wasn't aware we could freely shoot people because they run from a NON COP. Good to know, I'll keep that in mind next time I see someone take off from me because I'm being an over-zealous busy body(as is clearly documented in Zimmerman's phone call-funny how you only mention the part where Zimmerman asked him a question, and not Zimmerman's attitude on the phone call)...


And in the end-Zimmerman was wrong, wasn't he? The kid was walking to the store to get a soda or whatever-not rob houses.

----------


## angelatc

> And that's what will probably happen. 
> 
> Anyway, if there was enough evidence to charge him, they'd do it right away. There isn't, so they haven't.


You don't need evidence to charge somebody.

----------


## eduardo89

> You don't need evidence to charge somebody.


I didn't say you do. But they haven't charged him since the shooting, which shows they have no evidence.

----------


## MelissaWV

> A DA will only take this to a Grand Jury if they think they have a shot at making it to trial.


There is a grand jury convening on April 10th.

----------


## azxd

> Exactly.  For example, if Trayvon had been female nobody would even consider the fact that she should stay and verbally engage somebody who had been following her.  John Wayne Gacy talked young men into his apartment on a regular basis.
> 
> Before the "Stand Your Ground" law was passed, a person in Trayvon's situation could have been prosecuted for not fleeing a potentially harmful situation, even if not the aggressor.   How absolutely sad that he's now being villified for doing exactly that.


Vilified, or pre-judged ?



> Trayvon Martin Police Report here It kind of paints a different picture than the media portrayal. *6 eyewitnesses*, Zimmerman treated by medics, and said he was yelling for help but nobody came. 
> 
> http://cnninsession.files.wordpress....olicreport.pdf

----------


## eduardo89

> There is a grand jury convening on April 10th.


Well then, on the 10th this issue will probably be put to rest.

But showing by the fact that he hasn't been charged with anything, it's quite safe to say there is nothing but hearsay or circumstantial evidence against him.

----------


## angelatc

> A DA will only take this to a Grand Jury if they think they have a shot at making it to trial.


The DA will only take it to the Grand Jury if they think they can win at trial.  And I'm not even sure the DA actually even saw this.  I am under the impression that the cops ruled on it, and it went no farther, but I could be wrong about that.

----------


## azxd

> What the hell does that even mean, if Trayvon had been a women?!? Why? Totally irrelevant.


Because when racism isn't working ... Go for sexism

----------


## coastie

> You are right, but that is not the point. Martin has a right to do whatever he wants, just like Zimmerman has a right to confront him in a non threatening, non violent way. *The second Zimmerman started getting his ass beat, he had every right to shoot whoever was doing it.* Unless a witness says that Zimmerman struck first or is a racist, remember, no one close to Zimmerman accuses him of being racist, and his father says that he has black family members, this case is closed.


No the $#@! HE DID NOT!!!!! DO you have a CCW? Do you even live in Florida? Well, I do. Zimmerman interjected himself into this situation-WITH A GUN, something the law in Florida CLEARLY states you CANNOT do. The fact he was carrying alone states he should've left when Martin ran, not got out to look for him. Martin was no longer a threat at that point.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> Yeah, but coastie the CCW holder does know that he cannot go around looking for people at night, with a gun, in the manner Zimmerman appears to have done. When Martin ran, that was the end of it. Fat boy should've drove off, and let the police handle it from there. Exiting his truck will be what hangs him here, there was no reason for it.


What? he can't confront people as part of the neighborhood watch? As part of my neighborhood watch, I confront people all the time and yes, sometimes I have my pistol, and sometimes, the people I confront are black. Nobody has ever started running when I ask them why they are in the neighborhood. I have had people say that it was because they want to be here and it's none of my business. I tell them I understand and I am just trying to protect my friends and family at their request. Never had a problem.

----------


## angelatc

> There is a grand jury convening on April 10th.


If they had done that to begin with, likely this would not be happening.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> Because when racism isn't working ... Go for sexism


It really is sad.

----------


## azxd

> Well, no, it wasn't irrelevant in the context of life experiences. And I am not wrong.  If Martin had been a 17 year old girl who ran, we would all know she ran because she was afraid of being raped or worse.  I see no reason that we should hold male children to a different standard, hence my John Wayne Gacy reference.
> 
>  I have two kids - one of whom happens to be a 17 year old male.  If a strange man was following him around the neighborhood, I hope he would do as he's been taught and run.
> 
> Kids are taught that from toddlerhood. Both boys and girls.  Nobody is ever taught that if a stranger approaches you and asks you a question, you should immediately defer to him and answer all his questions.


Because we all know a 17 year old boy can't be raped

----------


## angelatc

> What? he can't confront people as part of the neighborhood watch? As part of my neighborhood watch, I confront people all the time and yes, sometimes I have my pistol, and sometimes, the people I confront are black. Nobody has ever started running when I ask them why they are in the neighborhood. I have had people say that it was because they want to be here and it's none of my business. I tell them I understand and I am just trying to protect my friends and family at their request. Never had a problem.


You do neighborhood watch?  That's scarier than not having Neighborhood Watch.

You have a right to talk to people. They do not have any responsibility or obligation to engage with you.   They have a right to run away from you.   You do not have the right to hunt them down because they did.

----------


## Iceclops

Your picture has nothing to do with the fact that Zimmerman was advised not to follow after the kid.  The whole situation could've easily been avoided if he had just had some common sense about it and let cops do their job.  Whether the kid was "troubled" or not shouldn't have mattered when it comes to life.  He was only 17, he might have become a great man for all you know.  You can't judge this situation based on other events like the school suspension because it doesn't correlate, the night on question he wasn't up to trouble, he was unarmed and talking on the phone with his girlfriend, so you're basically advocating death as punishment for getting suspended from school.  Zimmerman's mistakes are what caused Trayvon to react the way he did that night, and we don't really know how the confrontation happened or who initiated the violence.  All we know is that Zimmerman confronted someone who was not committing any crimes, and confronted him against the advise of dispatchers and police.

I don't understand how you can be on this forum as a Paul supporter and justify senseless deaths when this whole situation is similar to Paul's view on Iran.  America keeps confronting Iran over and over, antagonizing and backing them into a corner until they are going to lash out like Trayvon did.  Once they lash out from repeated antagonizing and harassment, the American populace will use it as justification to invade, just like Zimmerman used it as justification to shoot Trayvon.  It's just asking for trouble when both situations are easily avoidable.  Who has more power to to prevent it from getting out of hand, the antagonizor or the one being antagonized?

----------


## angelatc

> Because we all know a 17 year old boy can't be raped


And even if he could, homosexual rapist / murderers are never cruising around in cars in gated communities.  And they never pick black kids, either.

----------


## angelatc

> Well then, on the 10th this issue will probably be put to rest.
> 
> But showing by the fact that he hasn't been charged with anything, it's quite safe to say there is nothing but hearsay or circumstantial evidence against him.


Most murder cases are won on circumstantial evidence.  Despite what we see on TV, the proverbial smoking gun is relatively rare.

----------


## eduardo89

> And even if he could, homosexual rapist / murderers are never cruising around in cars in gated communities.  And they never pick black kids, either.


You know a lot about homosexual rapists...

----------


## angelatc

> It really is sad.


So you didn't teach your kids not to talk to strange men who follow them around at night in cars?   Or did you only teach your daughters not to do that?

----------


## eduardo89

> Most murder cases are won on circumstantial evidence.  Despite what we see on TV, the proverbial smoking gun is relatively rare.


Yes, but enough circumstantial evidence is needed to prove something "beyond reasonable doubt". Nothing I've read in this thread is even close to that.

----------


## coastie

> What? he can't confront people as part of the neighborhood watch? As part of my neighborhood watch, I confront people all the time and yes, sometimes I have my pistol, and sometimes, the people I confront are black. Nobody has ever started running when I ask them why they are in the neighborhood. I have had people say that it was because they want to be here and it's none of my business. I tell them I understand and I am just trying to protect my friends and family at their request. Never had a problem.


You apparently didn't comprehend my post. I never said anything about him confronting him. That's fine. When Martin ran though-that's where Zimmerman's part is done here. By him exiting his vehicle, he is now escalating the situation. Martin fled the scene.

You're cherry picking here, because as is known and I've stated several times here already-Martin was afraid of the weirdo following him, he said this to his girlfriend while on the phone with her as said weirdo was following him. Him running wasn't unusual in this case, and just because it's never happened to you does not mean it doesn't happen anywhere.

----------


## AuH20

Here come the CNN public opinion polls:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/26/justic...shooting-poll/

----------


## angelatc

> You know a lot about homosexual rapists...


It's America. Homosexual rapists / murderers get lots of attention.  John Wayne Gacy and Wayne Williams come to mind.  They serve to remind all of us that we all need to be very afraid of each other.

----------


## AFPVet

> You don't need evidence to charge somebody.


Nope... just a probable cause affidavit. Or, in the case of infractions, good faith belief.

----------


## angelatc

> Yes, but enough circumstantial evidence is needed to prove something "beyond reasonable doubt". Nothing I've read in this thread is even close to that.


You don't need to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" to a Grand Jury.  You only need to prove that there is a chance that a crime happened

ETA: The issue here is that DA's get judged on their conviction rates.  So they simply won't take a case to a Grand Jury if they even think they might lose in a criminal trial.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> I wasn't aware we could freely shoot people because they run from a NON COP. Good to know, I'll keep that in mind next time I see someone take off from me because I'm being an over-zealous busy body(as is clearly documented in Zimmerman's phone call-funny how you only mention the part where Zimmerman asked him a question, and not Zimmerman's attitude on the phone call)...
> 
> 
> And in the end-Zimmerman was wrong, wasn't he? The kid was walking to the store to get a soda or whatever-not rob houses.


How do you know that? We are now finding out that this kid was in a gang and has a history of violence and you don't think he was capable of violence towards Zimmerman? If the police have an eye witness to dispute his claim, then Zimmerman would be in jail. They don't, the witnesses they have helped convince them that Martin was a perp and Zimmerman acted in self defense. Case closed unless you get the president to way in and hopefully make this a federal hate crime, which explains the media attention. It's all they have left at this point and it will be devasting to the local community if Zimmerman is not charged and I blame it all on Anderson Cooper.

----------


## AuH20

Jesse Jackson: Blacks are under attack in America. (cue the violin)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/n...,2131299.story




> He added: *Blacks are under attack."* African American families are facing record home foreclosures and unemployment. Their children are burdened with student loan debt. States, particularly conservative ones, are passing voter laws that leaders know will disenfranchise blacks and other minorities. Meanwhile, the nation's prisons are brimming with black faces, he said, and their numbers that suggest that the legal system is quicker to send blacks to prison than whites.
> 
> Jackson said gunfire in America continues to be a problem for all Americans -- not just blacks. Why, he asked, isn't America outraged, that far more people die of gun violence in one year in America than the number of soldiers killed in the wars waged in Iraq and Afghanistan?

----------


## specsaregood

> It's America. Homosexual rapists / murderers get lots of attention.  John Wayne Gacy and Wayne Williams come to mind.  They serve to remind all of us that we all need to be very afraid of each other.


don't forget dahmer.  i even already included a picture of him in this thread.  a nice photo of him and his dog, showing what a nice young man he was.

----------


## MelissaWV

What gang was he in now?  Or is that an extension of his photos?

----------


## azxd

> And even if he could, homosexual rapist / murderers are never cruising around in cars in gated communities.  And they never pick black kids, either.


If we all possessed the crystal ball you seem to have, the World would be a better place, because we would all know that NEVER is what happens when you use a snow globe..

----------


## azxd

> You know a lot about homosexual rapists...


Sad huh !!

----------


## hazek

> Actually, from the facts presented thus far, it is absolutely a textbook case of self defense.  In what crazy world is going outside to ask a suspicious lurker who he is and what he's doing constitute "instigating an altercation"?  This is a free country.  You, I, or George Zimmerman have every right to follow a stranger in public, and when we catch up to them and get their attention, ask them any question we so desire.  And likewise, the person we are talking to has every right to tell us to "$#@! off", and walk away.  What they don't have the right to do is physically assault us.  And that is what Trayvon Martin is accused of doing, and why according to the SYG law this was a justifiable homicide.


This is exactly how I got attacked when I was a young kid. One early Saturday morning I was walking towards a meeting spot with my teacher because we were going somewhere where I would take part in a competition and some guy was walking in my direction on the other side of the road. I thought he looked like someone I know so I said "hey Gowshnek(last name of the guy I thought he looked like)" and he immediately exploded across the street screaming "what did you call me" grabbed my head and started beating me.

Now if I was older and had a gun and he got me down on the ground and I felt I couldn't defend myself but to pull and shoot my gun, how is that not a clear case of self defense? Likewise if Zimmerman merely approached him to ask a question and the guy exploded into his face and attacked him, got him down on the ground bloodied his noose and back of the head how is this not a clear case of self defense?

The only way it wouldn't be clear if he attacked first, if he could be heard on the phone ordering Martin to freeze and tried to restrain him somehow. Now I don't know if he did that or not but hearing the aggressive history of Martin I suspect he merely tried to ask a question and the guy exploded and got what was coming to him.

----------


## angelatc

> How do you know that? We are now finding out that this kid was in a gang and has a history of violence and you don't think he was capable of violence towards Zimmerman?


Unless Zimmerman knew the Martin's alleged history, none of that matters.  Martin ran away from a guy who was stalking him.  Zimmerman tracked him down, and killed him.

----------


## moo

> Jesse Jackson: Blacks are under attack in America. (cue the violin)
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/n...,2131299.story


you don't like it when civil rights leaders bring awareness to the injustice the black community is facing?

----------


## eduardo89

> You don't need to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" to a Grand Jury.  You only need to prove that there is a chance that a crime happened.


When did I say that? I was agreeing with you that most cases are won by circumstantial evidence, but I'm just saying that you need enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. This case doesn't seem to have that.

----------


## MelissaWV

Hey Anti-Fed...

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> You do neighborhood watch?  That's scarier than not having Neighborhood Watch.
> 
> You have a right to talk to people. They do not have any responsibility or obligation to engage with you.   They have a right to run away from you.   You do not have the right to hunt them down because they did.


Why is that scary? Do you know me? Yes, you have the right to hunt them down, especially if they run from you!!!! Why the hell would they run from a non threatening person who ask them a question?

----------


## azxd

> How do you know that? We are now finding out that this kid was in a gang and has a history of violence and you don't think he was capable of violence towards Zimmerman? If the police have an eye witness to dispute his claim, then Zimmerman would be in jail. They don't, the witnesses they have helped convince them that Martin was a perp and Zimmerman acted in self defense. Case closed unless you get the president to way in and hopefully make this a federal hate crime, which explains the media attention. It's all they have left at this point and it will be devasting to the local community if Zimmerman is not charged and I blame it all on Anderson Cooper.


He just might do exactly that or have one of his cronies do it ... Another great excuse to distort and remove a bit of that Second Amendment

----------


## AuH20

> you don't like it when civil rights leaders bring awareness to the injustice the black community is facing?


The black community hitched it's proverbial wagon to the purveyors of their own destruction many years ago. Jesse is trying to cast the blame on guns and others when his very kind sold out to the power structure for a pittance. The government is in the process of an implosion and the blacks who are most dependent on it's dominance are the ones being adversely affected by it's slide.

----------


## moo

> Why is that scary? Do you know me? Yes, you have the right to hunt them down, especially if they run from you!!!! Why the hell would they run from a non threatening person who ask them a question?


because thats what all mothers teach their child to do when they're being followed by a stranger. instinct told trayvon to call 911, tell his girlfriend he's being followed and run.

----------


## angelatc

> How do you know that? ... If the police have an eye witness to dispute his claim, then Zimmerman would be in jail.


How do you know that?  If Martin was indeed the thug-life gang-banger you're making him out to be, how do you know that the cops weren't estatic to see somebody take him out, justified or not, and chose to try to make it go away?

----------


## angelatc

> Why is that scary? Do you know me? Yes, you have the right to hunt them down, especially if they run from you!!!! Why the hell would they run from a non threatening person who ask them a question?


Why do you assume you're non-threatening?  You're cruising the streets after dark, armed, trying to chat up strangers.  

Why do you think you have a right to stalk and harass people who chose not to engage with you?

----------


## azxd

> Why is that scary? Do you know me? Yes, you have the right to hunt them down, especially if they run from you!!!! Why the hell would they run from a non threatening person who ask them a question?


You said you have a gun ... You are dangerous to some, just because you own one ... But you also said you have a CCW and that makes you a future killer.

AND SCARY !!!

----------


## MelissaWV

You are assuming the gun was holstered and Zimmerman was just asking a friendly question.

You are assuming that Martin ran off, then turned back around and "jumped" the guy at the precise moment he got out of the car to check on a street sign in the neighborhood he knew so well.

You are assuming that witnesses who said Martin was calling for help, not Zimmerman, and were corrected by the police... were mistaken at first.

You are assuming that there were no marks on Martin's body other than the gunshot wound.  

You are assuming there are defensive wounds on Zimmerman (actually, none of them seem like defensive wounds, as far as what's been described).

You are asserting that Martin was in a gang.

You are implying that a non-violent school suspension and photos of him having tattoos make him a thug, though this drug-dealing violent thug had neither weapon nor drug on him.

You are using the testimony of someone who saw Martin on top, then saw Martin dead, as the basis for saying Martin jumped Zimmerman and got what was coming to him.

You are absolutely no better than those who tried to paint this as a crime where Zimmerman stalked and promptly killed Martin, who was nothing but a pure little angel.

----------


## azxd

> The black community hitched it's proverbial wagon to the purveyors of their own destruction many years ago. Jesse is trying to cast the blame on guns and others when his very kind sold out to the power structure for a pittance. The government is in the process of an implosion and the blacks who are most dependent on it's dominance are the ones being adversely affected by it's slide.


If this is true, then those who think Zimmerman is a cold blooded murderer who saught out a black kid to kill, should switch sides and start supporting Obama LOL

----------


## MelissaWV

> You said you have a gun ... You are dangerous to some, just because you own one ... But you also said you have a CCW and that makes you a future killer.
> 
> AND SCARY !!!


Not really.  Ladies at work conceal-carry every single day and it's awesome.

However, if someone knocked on a door at work, and one of them yelled "HEY!  What are you doing!?" and the person ran off, I'm pretty sure they would not be within their rights to "hunt him down" and shoot him if a fight ensued.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> Unless Zimmerman knew the Martin's alleged history, none of that matters.  Martin ran away from a guy who was stalking him.  Zimmerman tracked him down, and killed him.


Umm, no, it wouldn't matter to Zimmerman at that time. It does now. If Martin's violence is documented and 6 eye witnesses confirm Zimmermans story, this is nothing more than a media lynching of a guy who was just trying to protect his neighborhood. Sad that America is at this point.

----------


## coastie

> How do you know that? We are now finding out that this kid was in a gang and has a history of violence and you don't think he was capable of violence towards Zimmerman? If the police have an eye witness to dispute his claim, then Zimmerman would be in jail. They don't, the witnesses they have helped convince them that Martin was a perp and Zimmerman acted in self defense. Case closed unless you get the president to way in and hopefully make this a federal hate crime, which explains the media attention. It's all they have left at this point and it will be devasting to the local community if Zimmerman is not charged and I blame it all on Anderson Cooper.



You just don't get it-and you're prejudices are showing through in your comment. I never said he wasn't capable of violence-you're putting words in my mouth now( I wonder why).

I'm talking about the FACT that Zimmerman should've LEFT after Martin LEFT, or at bare minimum remained in his vehicle. This is the LAW in Florida. Zimmerman was obviously agitated on the 9/11 call that "they always get away"(HIS WORDS), which calls his judgement into serious question. He just ASSUMED this kid was up to no good, again as verified by HIS OWN WORDS on the 9/11 call.

Zimmerman was then told not to follow, and while not legally binding advice, was good advice just the same. Do you think he was told not to follow him because he might get his ass kicked, or because the dispatcher knew Zimmerman was armed, or maybe both? I'll admit the dispatcher knowing that is speculation at this point, but it's not out of the question as the police knew who this guy was(he started the hood watch), and most certainly knew he was also a CCW holder by that point.

----------


## angelatc

> don't forget dahmer.  i even already included a picture of him in this thread.  a nice photo of him and his dog, showing what a nice young man he was.


Gacy was a clown.  Who the hell could justify being afraid of a kids birthday clown for heaven's sake?

----------


## azxd

> Why do you assume you're non-threatening?  You're cruising the streets after dark, armed, trying to chat up strangers.  
> 
> Why do you think you have a right to stalk and harass people who chose not to engage with you?


If BlockWatch was/is as bad as you think ... I guess you support big government protecting you ... YES ?

----------


## moo

we are assuming that zimmerman had injuries even though there is no evidence. the police did not take pictures of zimmerman's injuries. there are no medical records stating that zimmerman went to a doctor. we have no idea what zimmerman's face & body looked like after the fight assuming that there was ever a fight.

----------


## azxd

> You are assuming the gun was holstered and Zimmerman was just asking a friendly question.
> 
> You are assuming that Martin ran off, then turned back around and "jumped" the guy at the precise moment he got out of the car to check on a street sign in the neighborhood he knew so well.
> 
> You are assuming that witnesses who said Martin was calling for help, not Zimmerman, and were corrected by the police... were mistaken at first.
> 
> You are assuming that there were no marks on Martin's body other than the gunshot wound.  
> 
> You are assuming there are defensive wounds on Zimmerman (actually, none of them seem like defensive wounds, as far as what's been described).
> ...


You are assuming Zimmerman is guilty ... What's your point ?

----------


## specsaregood

> Gacy was a clown.  Who the hell could justify being afraid of a kids birthday clown for heaven's sake?


True, totally non threatening.  I guess Gacy was within his rights to hunt down his victims.

----------


## azxd

> we are assuming that zimmerman had injuries even though there is no evidence. the police did not take pictures of zimmerman's injuries. there are no medical records stating that zimmerman went to a doctor. we have no idea what zimmerman's face & body looked like after the fight assuming that there was ever a fight.


Assumptions are stupid things to make ... Read the report 


> Trayvon Martin Police Report here It kind of paints a different picture than the media portrayal. 6 eyewitnesses, Zimmerman treated by medics, and said he was yelling for help but nobody came. 
> 
> http://cnninsession.files.wordpress....olicreport.pdf

----------


## angelatc

> You said you have a gun ... You are dangerous to some, just because you own one ... But you also said you have a CCW and that makes you a future killer.
> 
> AND SCARY !!!


The law says that because Zimmerman was carrying, he has the responsibility to make *every* effort not to use the gun.  When Martin ran, Zimmerman chased him down, therefore abdicating that responsibility.

----------


## AuH20

Martin was 250 miles away from his prime residency, visiting a father's friend who lived in the complex?

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/2...ical-teen.html




> He would be 17 for 21 days. He died Feb. 26, a bullet in his chest, *shot by a neighborhood crime watch captain patrolling a suburban gated townhouse community in Sanford, 250 miles from his home, where he had gone with his father after a school suspension.*

----------


## angelatc

> If BlockWatch was/is as bad as you think ... I guess you support big government protecting you ... YES ?


I don't need government to protect me any more than I need ThreeJoeGlass to protect my neighborhood.    My argument is consistent - I can defend myself, and I don't need anybody else roaming the streets in the name of their definition of some public good. 

Especially when they're absolutely abconvinced they have the right to track down and kill kids who don't trust strangers.

----------


## eduardo89

These questions aren't necessarily directed at you Melissa. 




> You are assuming the gun was holstered and Zimmerman was just asking a friendly question.


Do you know if it was holstered or not? If he had a CCW then it would have been conceiled. Does Martin make any mention of seeing a gun on the phone? 




> You are assuming that Martin ran off, then turned back around and "jumped" the guy at the precise moment he got out of the car to check on a street sign in the neighborhood he knew so well.


Do you have any evidence that this did not happen? Do you have any evidence that Martin did not attack Zimmerman?




> You are assuming that witnesses who said Martin was calling for help, not Zimmerman, and were corrected by the police... were mistaken at first.


Do you have any evidence of witness tampering by police? Do you know for certain whose voice it is on the 911 call yelling for help? Why did Zimmerman tell the cops that he was yelling for help, he wouldn't have known there was a recording or any witnesses?




> You are assuming that there were no marks on Martin's body other than the gunshot wound.


Are there?  




> You are assuming there are defensive wounds on Zimmerman (actually, none of them seem like defensive wounds, as far as what's been described).


Do you know there aren't? A broken nose and gash to the back of the head seem to be marks of an attack victim. 




> You are asserting that Martin was in a gang.


Do you know he wasn't? 




> You are implying that a non-violent school suspension and photos of him having tattoos make him a thug, though this drug-dealing violent thug had neither weapon nor drug on him.


We don't know what he was suspended for. His records are sealed. 




> You are using the testimony of someone who saw Martin on top, then saw Martin dead, as the basis for saying Martin jumped Zimmerman and got what was coming to him.


Does that testimony contradict what Zimmerman is saying?




> You are absolutely no better than those who tried to paint this as a crime where Zimmerman stalked and promptly killed Martin, who was nothing but a pure little angel.


Both sides here have already made their minds up. Either Zimmerman is a cold blooded racist murderer or Martin is the drug dealing thug. Both sides have already judged, because they know exactly what happened, they know both people, they were there and have all the evidence...

----------


## coastie

> Why is that scary? Do you know me? *Yes, you have the right to hunt them down, especially if they run from you!!!!* Why the hell would they run from a non threatening person who ask them a question?


Wow-I hope whatever county/state issued your CCW never reads this, for your sake. Then again, maybe I do-for the public's sake.

There is no precedent ANYWHERE in this country to back up your statement, not to mention it's about as retarded as you can get. you are definitely one I would have no problem with the state taking that right from you-you're obviously not smart enough to handle the responsibility.

----------


## AuH20

> The law says that because Zimmerman was carrying, he has the responsibility to make *every* effort not to use the gun.  When Martin ran, Zimmerman chased him down, therefore abdicating that responsibility.


One of the main witnesses stated that Zimmerman was attacked on the way back to his car. Take that for what it's worth.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> Why do you assume you're non-threatening?  You're cruising the streets after dark, armed, trying to chat up strangers.  
> 
> Why do you think you have a right to stalk and harass people who chose not to engage with you?


You can only ignore the neighborhood watch aspect at your own peril. If I were to let people just wander through the neighborhood at all hours of the night, my residents would not keep me in charge or on duty. I can asure you we have discussed this case at great length and we know our rights as home owners.

----------


## angelatc

> True, totally non threatening.  I guess Gacy was within his rights to hunt down his victims.


i

Damned straight.  And they had no right to run.

----------


## coastie

> You don't have any idea what they have done, if they start running, that normally means they did something bad. You are smart enough to understand this. Not sure how threatening my kids doesn't get you banned immediatley, but my address isn't hidden and you are more than welcome to come visit me big boy. *Thanks to your post, if I ever see you in my neck of the woods i will have two words for you, bang bang.*


Bannable offense. Mods?

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> I threatened nobody.  You claimed it is within anothers right to hunt down and kill kids that did nothing wrong.  That is your claim and position, not mine.  I for one think you are $#@!ing sick for believing that.


You are a chicken $#@! little basterd that hides behind Burt Reynolds. You threatenend my kids and RPF can kiss my ass for letting people like you post here. Like I said, come visit big boy. I won't use my gun on you, atleast not the barrel.

----------


## angelatc

> You can only ignore the neighborhood watch aspect at your own peril. If I were to let people just wander through the neighborhood at all hours of the night, my residents would not keep me in charge or on duty. I can asure you we have discussed this case at great length and we know our rights as home owners.


What - are you going to kill me now, instead of actually answering the questions I asked?  

You have no right to track down and kill a person who chooses to run away from you. None, zero, zip.

----------


## eduardo89

Has anyone thought of this:

If you see a suspicious stranger in your crime riddle neighbourhood, you ask him what he's doing and he runs...wouldn't you go after him to see where he's run to and what he's doing? I sure as hell would...

----------


## coastie

> One of the main witnesses stated that Zimmerman was attacked on the way back to his car. Take that for what it's worth.


Not worth $#@!-he never should've exited his car. Follow along here...

----------


## angelatc

> One of the main witnesses stated that Zimmerman was attacked on the way back to his car. Take that for what it's worth.


Sure - that would change everything for me.

----------


## specsaregood

> You are a chicken $#@! little basterd that hides behind Burt Reynolds. You threatenend my kids and RPF can kiss my ass for letting people like you post here. Like I said, come visit big boy. I won't use my gun on you, atleast not the barrel.


lol, guess you don't like the idea of somebody hurting your kids eh?  better tell them never to run, otherwise somebody is within their rights to kill them -- at least according to you.

----------


## AuH20

> Has anyone thought of this:
> 
> If you see a suspicious stranger in your crime riddle neighbourhood, you ask him what he's doing and he runs...wouldn't you go after him to see where he's run to and what he's doing? I sure as hell would...


Of course. Human nature would dictate you to do so. What if he ends up in your home? Dereliction of duty and indifference ends up burning you and your family.

----------


## coastie

> Has anyone thought of this:
> 
> If you see a suspicious stranger in your crime riddle neighbourhood, you ask him what he's doing and he runs...wouldn't you go after him to see where he's run to and what he's doing? I sure as hell would...


Hmm...I'm 225 lbs former LE, and I wouldn't even do that. Methinks you wouldn't either, easy to say stuff like that when the likelihood of that ever happening to you is nil.

----------


## AuH20

> Sure - that would change everything for me.


I don't think it would excuse Zimmerman's final action but would flesh out what transpired.

----------


## eduardo89

> Not worth $#@!-he never should've exited his car. Follow along here...


Why not? If he's tasked with looking out for his neighbourhood and he sees a suspicious unknown kid walking around, asks the kid what he's up to and the kid runs...why would he search for the kid and find out what he's up to?

----------


## coastie

> Of course. Human nature would dictate you to do so. What if he ends up in your home? Dereliction of duty and indifference ends up burning you and your family.


If he ended up my home-he'd be leaving in a body bag. And that would not even require me being there...Everyone in my house can and will shoot, if necessary.

----------


## angelatc

> You don't have any idea what they have done, if they start running, that normally means they did something bad. You are smart enough to understand this. Not sure how threatening my kids doesn't get you banned immediatley, but my address isn't hidden and you are more than welcome to come visit me big boy. Thanks to your post, if I ever see you in my neck of the woods i will have two words for you, bang bang.


Seriously - answer the question.  If some stranger cruises up to one of your kids late at night and asks where they're headed, you seriously want them to stop and answer?

Really?

----------


## coastie

> Why not? If he's tasked with looking out for his neighbourhood and he sees a suspicious unknown kid walking around, asks the kid what he's up to and the kid runs...why would he search for the kid and find out what he's up to?


Well, we see what happened when he did it your way, now don't we?

----------


## eduardo89

> If he ended up my home-he'd be leaving in a body bag. And that would not even require me being there...Everyone in my house can and will shoot, if necessary.


 easy to say stuff like that when the likelihood of that ever happening to you is nil.

----------


## Stupified

> Why not? If he's tasked with looking out for his neighbourhood and he sees a suspicious unknown kid walking around, asks the kid what he's up to and the kid runs...why would he search for the kid and find out what he's up to?


Because he had already notified the police (lol, I know) and they told him to stay put.

----------


## coastie

> easy to say stuff like that when the likelihood of that ever happening to you is nil.


What makes you think it hasn't....without going into detail, you are wrong about what I would do. and any of you that run after random people in the dark deserve what happens after that.

----------


## angelatc

> I don't think it would excuse Zimmerman's final action but would flesh out what transpired.


If Zimmerman was attacked from behind, and was getting pummeled....he had a right to defend himself.  But I think manslaughter, rather than murder, would be an appropriate charge, because he stalked and provoked this encounter.

----------


## hardrightedge

> Seriously - answer the question.  If some stranger cruises up to one of your kids late at night and asks where they're headed, you seriously want them to stop and answer?
> 
> Really?


If any stanger ever talks to my kids...they should whoop their ass...

----------


## AuH20

> Because he had already notified the police (lol, I know) and they told him to stay put.


Per the Supreme Court, the Police are not responsible for the physical welfare of the mundane class. So whatever they say doesn't carry much weight in terms of threat assessment and crime prevention.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> What - are you going to kill me now, instead of actually answering the questions I asked?  
> 
> You have no right to track down and kill a person who chooses to run away from you. None, zero, zip.


You have no point, no question or logic. You have every right to track a person just like that person has every right to track you. Martin got killed because of six eye witnesses told the police what happened, not what you wanted to have happen. Your personnel attacks on me are unwarranted, I have not attacked you.

----------


## coastie

> If Zimmerman was attacked from behind, and was getting pummeled....he had a right to defend himself.  But I think manslaughter, rather than murder, would be an appropriate charge, because *he stalked and provoked this encounter.*


...which is against Florida Law, and why I think bare minimum should be his charge.

----------


## AuH20

> If Zimmerman was attacked from behind, and was getting pummeled....he had a right to defend himself.  But I think manslaughter, rather than murder, would be an appropriate charge, because he stalked and provoked this encounter.


That's my line of thinking as well. This looks like a manslaughter charge from the details I gleaned from the case report.

----------


## Stupified

> If any stanger ever talks to my kids...they should whoop their ass...


Remind me not to ask your kids for direction or something. 


$#@! this way of thinking.





> Per the Supreme Court, the Police are not responsible for the physical welfare of the mundane class. So whatever they say doesn't carry much weight in terms of threat assessment and crime prevention.


I know, that's why I said "lol" in parentheses. But still, going by the legal order of things, Zimmerman should have stayed in the car.

----------


## eduardo89

> If Zimmerman was attacked from behind, and was getting pummeled....he had a right to defend himself.  But I think manslaughter, rather than murder, would be an appropriate charge, because he stalked and provoked this encounter.


If he was being attacked he had every right to defend himself by any and every means possible. 

It's ridiculous that if someone enters your house unarmed and does not even attack you, you can shoot them dead, but if you are being attacked in the street you can't use deadly force if you are being attacked.

----------


## azxd

> I don't need government to protect me any more than I need ThreeJoeGlass to protect my neighborhood.    My argument is consistent - I can defend myself, and I don't need anybody else roaming the streets in the name of their definition of some public good. 
> 
> Especially when they're absolutely abconvinced they have the right to track down and kill kids who don't trust strangers.


GOOD ... Now explain why he is scary to you, because I'm not buying what you're writing, thus far.

----------


## coastie

> Per the Supreme Court, the Police are not responsible for the physical welfare of the mundane class. So whatever they say *doesn't carry much weight in terms of threat assessment and crime prevention*.


Seemed like a LOGICAL response to me in this situation, never mind what ended up happening specifically because of him not heeding this correct assessment though, right?

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> lol, guess you don't like the idea of somebody hurting your kids eh?  better tell them never to run, otherwise somebody is within their rights to kill them -- at least according to you.


If my son attacks a man, he knows that the consequences can be unpredictable. How about you stop talking about my children just because you and the other clown are getting owned by logic, reason, and eye withness testimony.

----------


## moo

> Assumptions are stupid things to make ... Read the report


a thorough investigation wasn't conducted that night.

----------


## azxd

> One of the main witnesses stated that Zimmerman was attacked on the way back to his car. Take that for what it's worth.


Doing that blows the bias out of the water ... It must be rejected !!!

----------


## coastie

> Doing that blows the bias out of the water ... It must be rejected !!!


Well, being that he never should've exited his car, er wait.....doing that blows the bias out of the water, now doesn't it?

----------


## azxd

> Bannable offense. Mods?


IMO, only if the other party is also banned ... The comment you quote would not be there, if not for the other party.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> a thorough investigation wasn't conducted that night.


And you know that based on what Moo? Anderson Cooper? Nancy Grace? Obama?

----------


## specsaregood

> If my son attacks a man, he knows that the consequences can be unpredictable. How about you stop talking about my children just because you and the other clown are getting owned by logic, reason, and eye withness testimony.


You aren't owning anything.  You are one sick puppy.  I brought up your kids; because it is a fair point to ask you how you would feel if you were the victim's parents.  This kid was violating no laws or harming any others when it began and ended up dead.  The kid tried to flee the presense of somebody he obviously thought was threatening.  You aren't that kid, you weren't in his position so you don't know.   I think the kid was within his rights to try to flee the situation.  You think the killer was in his right to "hunt" the kid down.   We just disagree.

----------


## AuH20

> Doing that blows the bias out of the water ... It must be rejected !!!


Well, it's obvious even to the untrained eye that Travon was far from the likeable saint portrayed by the MSM and Zimmerman was not a racially motivated monster sans the white hood. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I bet that Martin escalated the situation after he was accosted by Zimmerman, and then all hell broke lose, ultimately with Zimmerman foolishly shooting him in the chest at close range.

----------


## azxd

> Not worth $#@!-he never should've exited his car. Follow along here...


Why ?

If part of his blockwatch duty is to check signs for whatever reason, it's part of his volunteer duty.

Follow along here.....................................

----------


## coastie

> IMO, only if the other party is also banned ... The comment you quote would not be there, if not for the other party.


Did some stupid bomb blow up on your head recently? That comment was uncalled for regardless of what was said.

I'm really beginning to think you are 13 years old, because that's the logic mine tries to use on me sometimes.

----------


## Stupified

> And you know that based on what Moo? Anderson Cooper? Nancy Grace? Obama?


Any investigation of a death that does not include a toxicology test of the killer is not thorough. Instead they did one on the victim, so if he had weed in his system or something they could plaster that all over the report.

----------


## angelatc

> Why not? If he's tasked with looking out for his neighbourhood and he sees a suspicious unknown kid walking around, asks the kid what he's up to and the kid runs...why would he search for the kid and find out what he's up to?


He's not "tasked" with it.  He and he alone has decided that is his role.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> You aren't owning anything.  You are one sick puppy.  I brought up your kids; because it is a fair point to ask you how you would feel if you were the victim's parents.  This kid was violating no laws or harming any others when it began and ended up dead.  The kid tried to flee the presense of somebody he obviously thought was threatening.  You aren't that kid, you weren't in his position so you don't know.   I think the kid was within his rights to try to flea the situation.  You think the killer was in his right to "hunt" the kid down.   We just disagree.


I'm the sick puppy, your the one talking about murdering my children. How about you $#@!ing apoligize or leave it alone. Eitherway, I don't give a $#@!. Was George Zimmerman acting in self defense or racist anger, that is the point of this thread and I attacked nobody in this thread, only offered my opinion and backed that up with logic, reason, and fact. You asked a hypothetical question about murdering my three children. Hmmm.

----------


## coastie

> Why ?
> 
> If part of his blockwatch duty is to check signs for whatever reason, it's part of his volunteer duty.
> 
> Follow along here.....................................


That doesn't carry any weight whatsoever w/ regard to Florida CCW law, which is what this man clearly broke. FOLLOW ALONG

----------


## eduardo89

> Well, being that he never should've exited his car, er wait.....doing that blows the bias out of the water, now doesn't it?


Did he not have the right to exit his car? Does exiting his car somehow make Martin attacking him ok?

----------


## coastie

> I'm the sick puppy, your the one talking about murdering my children. How about you $#@!ing apoligize or leave it alone. Eitherway, I don't give a $#@!. Was George Zimmerman acting in self defense or racist anger, that is the point of this thread and I attacked nobody in this thread, only offered my opinion and backed that up with logic, reason, and fact. You asked a hypothetical question about murdering my three children. Hmmm.


So says the guy threatening people with murder if they merely walk in his neighborhood.

----------


## angelatc

> Why ?
> 
> If part of his blockwatch duty is to check signs for whatever reason, it's part of his volunteer duty.
> 
> Follow along here.....................................


But don't the CCW requirements that he NOT engage take precedent?

----------


## coastie

> Did he not have the right to exit his car? Does exiting his car somehow make Martin attacking him ok?


WHEN HE IS CARRYING IN FLORIDA, IN THIS SITUATION, NO HE DOES NOT. Read the $#@!ing law.

How many $#@!ing times do I have to say this?

----------


## AuH20

> I'm the sick puppy, your the one talking about murdering my children. How about you $#@!ing apoligize or leave it alone. Eitherway, I don't give a $#@!. Was George Zimmerman acting in self defense or racist anger, that is the point of this thread and I attacked nobody in this thread, only offered my opinion and backed that up with logic, reason, and fact. You asked a hypothetical question about murdering my three children. Hmmm.


Based on the witness details, it appears it was self-defense, but he used excessive force, which may lead to an appropriate manslaughter charge.

----------


## angelatc

> Did he not have the right to exit his car?


Not while carrying the gun.

----------


## coastie

> But don't the CCW requirements that he NOT engage take precedent?


Yes, but that's no matter to these idiots, none of which know Florida law, apparently..

----------


## specsaregood

> I'm the sick puppy, your the one talking about murdering my children. How about you $#@!ing apoligize or leave it alone. Eitherway, I don't give a $#@!. Was George Zimmerman acting in self defense or racist anger, that is the point of this thread and I attacked nobody in this thread, only offered my opinion and backed that up with logic, reason, and fact. You asked a hypothetical question about murdering my three children. Hmmm.


No, I never threatened you or your children.   In fact, I'm on record as being against such behavior. You approve of murder and hunting of kids.

----------


## eduardo89

> WHEN HE IS CARRYING IN FLORIDA, IN THIS SITUATION, NO HE DOES NOT. Read the $#@!ing law.
> 
> How many $#@!ing times do I have to say this?


The law says "you may not exit your car?"

----------


## AuH20

> Not while carrying the gun.


Brandishing or carrying? Brandishing I could understand but concealed? He should be able to carry CCW even on his watch. There are so many potential variables that you could encounter.

----------


## angelatc

> IMO, only if the other party is also banned ... The comment you quote would not be there, if not for the other party.


No, one was a hypothetical example.  The other was the deranged rantings of a homocidal lunatic.

----------


## coastie

> Any investigation of a death that does not include a toxicology test of the killer is not thorough. Instead they did one on the victim, so if he had weed in his system or something they could plaster that all over the report.


Oh yeah-now that you mention this:

Florida CCW law REQUIRES a Drug Test be IMMEDIATELY performed anytime said CCW is involved in a shooting....

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> With that said, we have no idea who escalated it after first contact was made. It takes two to tango.


Certainly. And we will never know the facts. The only person that will know a good portion of the story is Zimmerman, and no doubt after rehashing it a million times he will no longer remember what actually happened. No doubt he has been coached at this point. And all of the charlatans jumping on this story have no desire for the truth.

Isn't this the "gold standard" in some parts as to how the world would ideally work?




> The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion principle, the zero aggression principle, the non-initiation of force), or NAP for short, is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. Aggression, for the purposes of the NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property, including that person’s body, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficiary or neutral to the owner, are considered violent when they are against the owner’s free will and interfere with his right to self-determination, as based on the libertarian principle of self-ownership. Supporters of NAP use it to demonstrate the immorality of theft, vandalism, assault, and fraud. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violence used in self-defense or defense of others.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

----------


## angelatc

> Brandishing or carrying? Brandishing I could understand but concealed? He should be able to carry CCW even on his watch. There are so many potential variables that you could encounter.


Maybe that's the way it should be, but scroll up and read the law. Coastie posted it here.  When you're carrying, under Florida law, you have an obligation not to inject yourself into a situation like Zimmerman did.

----------


## phill4paul

> And you know that based on what Moo? Anderson Cooper? Nancy Grace? Obama?


 Based on what a witness says.........




> But after the shooting, a source inside the police department told ABC News that a narcotics detective and not a homicide detective first approached Zimmerman. *The detective pepppered Zimmerman with questions, the source said, rather than allow Zimmerman to tell his story. Questions can lead a witness, the source said.*
> 
> *Another officer corrected a witness after she told him that she heard the teen cry for help.*
> 
> *The officer told the witness, a long-time teacher, it was Zimmerman who cried for help, said the witness. ABC News has spoken to the teacher and she confirmed that the officer corrected her when she said she heard the teenager shout for help.*


http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhoo...6#.T3Cre2EgdMg

----------


## angelatc

> Oh yeah-now that you mention this:
> 
> Florida CCW law REQUIRES a Drug Test be IMMEDIATELY performed anytime said CCW is involved in a shooting....


Why, certainly the cops knew that, right?

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> Did some stupid bomb blow up on your head recently? That comment was uncalled for regardless of what was said.
> 
> I'm really beginning to think you are 13 years old, because that's the logic mine tries to use on me sometimes.


So the other guy can hypothetically threaten my children, (attack me), I respond with a hypothetical acceptance of his threat and then I use a hyperbolic threat(to defend myself) and I should get banned? But he attacked me first, don't I have the right to defend myself? How about nobody gets banned cause banning people is gay and counter productive.

----------


## hardrightedge

Zimmerman was questioned and told his story that night...the only one I think being coached is Trayvon's girlfriend...

----------


## coastie

> The law says "you may not exit your car?"


Are you being $#@!ing serious right now? Really? You must've missed the "read the $#@!ing law part" in my comment.

He CANNOT engage someone in the manner he did, while CCW in Florida. PERIOD.

----------


## moo

> And you know that based on what Moo? Anderson Cooper? Nancy Grace? Obama?



based on the fact that the PEOPLE are asking questions that were never asked by the SPD. the PEOPLE are asking for evidence that was never obtained by the SPD. the PEOPLE are doing the SPD jobs. the DOJ had to investigate this case. if there was a THOROUGH investigation zimmerman wouldve been arrested by the SPD.

----------


## coastie

> Why, certainly the cops knew that, right?


They should....

----------


## angelatc

> The law says "you may not exit your car?"


It says you have an obligation not to escalate a situation.  I think it's quite reasonable to conclude that exiting the car was escalating the situation.  The situation would not exist if Zimmerman had minded his own damned business.

----------


## phill4paul

> Zimmerman was questioned and told his story that night...the only one I think being coached is Trayvon's girlfriend...


  Zimmerman did not tell 'his' story that night. He was peppered with questions by a *narcotics* detective. Questions can lead a witness.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> Based on the witness details, it appears it was self-defense, but he used excessive force, which may lead to an appropriate manslaughter charge.


That would have to be proven in a court of law and against the eye witness accounts at the scene. It is presumptuous to say he used excessive force.

----------


## eduardo89

> It says you have an obligation not to escalate a situation.  I think it's quite reasonable to conclude that exiting the car was escalating the situation.  The situation would not exist if Zimmerman had minded his own damned business.


I think Martin escalated the situation by running. And no, he didn't have to "mind his own business". If my neighbourhood had a problem with break ins and other crime, I would want to know what some unknown suspicious fellow was doing, especially if he ran off when I asked him. 

Anyway, this thread bores me. I honestly couldn't care less about what happened.

----------


## specsaregood

> How about nobody gets banned cause banning people is gay and counter productive.


For the record, I don't want anybody banned -- we've had enough of that lately.  My comment was meant to be a put yourself in another's shoes type comment.   I would never harm somebody that did not harm/attempt to harm me first.   I think the kid was well within his rights to run away and the guy that killed him should have a jury trial.   It concerns me that you think somebody has a right to hunt down others and put them in a situation where one gets killed.

----------


## angelatc

> Zimmerman was questioned and told his story that night...the only one I think being coached is Trayvon's girlfriend...


You know, referring to George Zimmerman by his last name, while using Trayvon Martin's first name is going to be perceived as racist.  Look up newspaper articles from the 50's and 60's.  They were written just like that.  I am not saying you're a racist, or even that you're the only one in the thread that's doing it, but if you were out in the real world.....

As far as his girlfriend getting coached - how did they manage to coach a dead kid to make a cell phone call?

----------


## angelatc

> I think Martin escalated the situation by running. And no, he didn't have to "mind his own business". If my neighbourhood had a problem with break ins and other crime, I would want to know what some unknown suspicious fellow was doing, especially if he ran off when I asked him. 
> 
> Anyway, this thread bores me. I honestly couldn't care less about what happened.


Wait until a stranger pulls up in a car and talks to one of your kids.  You'll see it differently then.  Especially if you have a teenager at home.  They're $#@!ing goofy.

You can ask people anything you want to, but if you think they have any obligation to answer you - then you're wrong.

----------


## angelatc

> So the other guy can hypothetically threaten my children, (attack me), I respond with a hypothetical acceptance of his threat and then I use a hyperbolic threat(to defend myself) and I should get banned? But he attacked me first, don't I have the right to defend myself? How about nobody gets banned cause banning people is gay and counter productive.


This post only again shows that you clearly have trouble separating fiction from reality.  He didn't attack you.

----------


## moo

the only person being coached right now is zimmerman & the people who helped try to cover this case up.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> So says the guy threatening people with murder if they merely walk in his neighborhood.


Stop lying. There is no point in saying that is what I said. It clearly is not and I don't do that. The only person I threatend made a dumb comment about my kids. I live in a great neighborhood that is both peaceful and diverse. We love our small community and we trust each other, but we don't trust you.

----------


## hardrightedge

I was going to call him Tray...I guess that would've made me extremely racist...

----------


## phill4paul

> That would have to be proven in a court of law and against the eye witness accounts at the scene. It is presumptuous to say he used excessive force.


  I think that is the point most are trying to make here, TheeJoeGlass. The police department did not charge him after bungling an investigation. It could have been a friend of cop kinda thing since he was a wanna-be. This we will never know. However, we do know that officers at the scene lead witnesses and Zimmermann should have had a toxicology ran on him under Florida CCW laws. There is also an inside source that says a Narcotics detective, rather than a Homicide detective, took Zimmermans statement and lead him with question (This part unsubstantiated).

----------


## jmdrake

> Exactly. And he supposedly swung at a bus driver a few days before. This wasn't the meek Steve Urkel type the media has been pushing. Look, I hope the justice system gets this right, whatever decision it arrives at.


 Who said anything about Steve Urkel?  According to the story all along Trayvon was getting the best of the bully Zimmerman who started the whole mess when Zimmerman punked out and pulled a gun.  And yes I'm being colorful with my words, but dead honest at the same time.  Never lose site of the *fact* that Zimmerman was armed, Trayvon was *unarmed* and Zimmerman started the altercation.  Zimmerman should have taken his well deserved butt whupping like a man and gone home.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> This post only again shows that you clearly have trouble separating fiction from reality.  He didn't attack you.


Are you serious. Angelatc, anyone on this board can find my address, you can, how on god's green earth is asking someone what they would do if they killed their children not be an attack?

----------


## coastie

> *I think Martin escalated the situation by running.* And no, he didn't have to "mind his own business". If my neighbourhood had a problem with break ins and other crime, I would want to know what some unknown suspicious fellow was doing, especially if he ran off when I asked him. 
> 
> Anyway, this thread bores me. I honestly couldn't care less about what happened.


And you're thinking wrong-running from this situation is not escalating it, no matter how you try to twist it, and we know that Martin was talking to his girlfriend and scared of the man following him. This means that MARTIN DE-escalated the situation by running from it as he perceived it at the time. Get it now>?

----------


## hardrightedge

> Who said anything about Steve Urkel?  According to the story all along Trayvon was getting the best of the bully Zimmerman who started the whole mess when Zimmerman punked out and pulled a gun.  And yes I'm being colorful with my words, but dead honest at the same time.  Never lose site of the *fact* that Zimmerman was armed, Trayvon was *unarmed* and Zimmerman started the altercation.  Zimmerman should have taken his well deserved butt whupping like a man and gone home.


I agree with this...I don't think a fist fight should end up with someone getting shot...

----------


## jmdrake

> That would have to be proven in a court of law and against the eye witness accounts at the scene. It is presumptuous to say he used excessive force.


*No it's not!*  When a prosecutor indicts someone they don't wait until it's been "proven in a court of law" before stating their view of the facts.  It kills me how people think statements about criminal cases cannot be made until everything has been "proven in a court of law".  Following that line of reasoning no one would ever be prosecuted for anything.

----------


## jmdrake

> Based on the witness details, it appears it was self-defense, but he used excessive force, which may lead to an appropriate manslaughter charge.


It is *NOT* self defense when you started the altercation.  If Trayvon had shot Zimmerman *that* would have been self defense.  Zimmerman started the altercation, was losing the fight, and pulled a gun like a punk.

----------


## specsaregood

> Are you serious. Angelatc, anyone on this board can find my address, you can, how on god's green earth is asking someone what they would do if they killed their children not be an attack?


Its not an attack, its a question meant to have you look at it from a different point of view.  I can see based on your response that you probably would be none to happy and if Zimmerman had killed your kid, it sounds like you would have retaliated in some manner. Even though by your own statements you think Zimmerman was within his rights.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> I think that is the point most are trying to make here, TheeJoeGlass. The police department did not charge him after bungling an investigation. It could have been a friend of cop kinda thing since he was a wanna-be. This we will never know. However, we do know that officers at the scene lead witnesses and Zimmermann should have had a toxicology ran on him under Florida CCW laws. There is also an inside source that says a Narcotics detective, rather than a Homicide detective, took Zimmermans statement and lead him with question (This part unsubstantiated).


If six eye witnesses say Zimmerman acted in self defense everything you said is not valid. I am making the point that the police already have enough evidence and made the right call. And that is why the feds have to get involved because the local authorities cannot convict him. That is where the media comes into play as they always do.

----------


## Danke

> It is *NOT* self defense when you started the altercation.  If Trayvon had shot Zimmerman *that* would have been self defense.  Zimmerman started the altercation, was losing the fight, and pulled a gun like a punk.


Is that is the police report?

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> Are you being $#@!ing serious right now? Really? You must've missed the "read the $#@!ing law part" in my comment.
> 
> He CANNOT engage someone in the manner he did, while CCW in Florida. PERIOD.


Yes. He. Can. While. Being. An. American. Citizen.

----------


## cajuncocoa

*STOP!!*

*Can we take a deep breath for a moment??*


Some here are blaming the victim, and others are trying the accused on a message board.  Both of these actions seems unfair to me.  


None of us were there on the night this tragedy happened. All we have are emotionally charged and manipulative msm* accounts of this incident (*people that Ron Paul supporters normally do not trust to tell us the truth).

I've said this before:  based on what we've been told it sure seems like the cops dropped the ball for not arresting Zimmerman.  But I don't know if what we know is all there is to know.  It sure would be nice to wait for all of the facts before we convict Trayvor Martin or George Zimmerman.

Martin is not here to give his account; may he rest in peace.  But in a way, Zimmerman's life is basically over too, no matter what happens next.  This is a situation where there is no winner, folks.

----------


## AuH20

> It is *NOT* self defense when you started the altercation.  If Trayvon had shot Zimmerman *that* would have been self defense.  Zimmerman started the altercation, was losing the fight, and pulled a gun like a punk.


That remains to be seen. Witnesses say Zimmerman was attacked on the way back to his vehicle.

----------


## coastie

> If six eye witnesses say Zimmerman acted in self defense everything you said is not valid. *I am making the point that the police already have enough evidence and made the right call.* And that is why the feds have to get involved because the local authorities cannot convict him. That is where the media comes into play as they always do.


By not conducting an investigation properly, according to Florida law, they have enough evidence and made the right call???? Surely you jest.

----------


## cajuncocoa

Yeah, I'm posting this in all of the Martin/Zimmerman threads:

*STOP!!*

*Can we take a deep breath for a moment??*


Some here are blaming the victim, and others are trying the accused on a  message board.  Both of these actions seems unfair to me.  


None of us were there on the night this tragedy happened. All we have  are emotionally charged and manipulative msm* accounts of this incident  (*people that Ron Paul supporters normally do not trust to tell us the  truth).

I've said this before:  based on what we've been told it sure seems like  the cops dropped the ball for not arresting Zimmerman.  But I don't  know if what we know is all there is to know.  It sure would be nice to  wait for all of the facts before we convict Trayvor Martin or George  Zimmerman.

Martin is not here to give his account; may he rest in peace.  But in a  way, Zimmerman's life is basically over too, no matter what happens  next.  This is a situation where there is no winner, folks.

----------


## teacherone

Good way to get away with murder.

Start a fight and when the other guy hits you back shoot him dead in self-defense.

----------


## coastie

> That remains to be seen. Witnesses say Zimmerman was attacked on *the way back* to his vehicle.


The vehicle he should've never gotten out of? That one?

----------


## coastie

dbl post

----------


## jmdrake

> Well, it's obvious even to the untrained eye that Travon was far from the likeable saint portrayed by the MSM and Zimmerman was not a racially motivated monster sans the white hood. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I bet that Martin escalated the situation after he was accosted by Zimmerman, and then all hell broke lose, ultimately with Zimmerman foolishly shooting him in the chest at close range.


Here's the problem.  Zimmerman had no right to accost Trayvon.  None whatsoever.  Zimmerman was not a cop.  He was a freaking wannabe cop.  Flip the script, make the young black teen with the hoodie the "blockwatch captain", and see how this all plays out in your mind.  And Zimmerman's own statement proves he was racist.




Not unless you think the phrase "f*cking coons" is a term of endearment.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> Its not an attack, its a question meant to have you look at it from a different point of view.  I can see based on your response that you probably would be none to happy and if Zimmerman had killed your kid, it sounds like you would have retaliated in some manner. Even though by your own statements you think Zimmerman was within his rights.


Hey spec, what would you do if I come and rape you? Just a question. Whatever you want to call it, it was $#@!ing stupid and you should just apologize and move on. You can see my location, you can find house, you can come kill my children. Is any of this registering with you? I called Trayvon Martin a perp because that's what the police have interpreted him to be by the fact that Zimmerman was let go indicating that Martin had in fact, PERPITRATED a crime. That is the simple fact of the situation. Whether YOU think that is right is irrelevant. I called him a perp because thats what he was as of right now.

----------


## jmdrake

> That remains to be seen. Witnesses say Zimmerman was attacked on the way back to his vehicle.





> The vehicle he should've never gotten out of? That one?


+rep coastie.  AuH20 I can't believe you're defending this garbage.  Or is it just because the "liberal media" is attacking Zimmerman so he must be okay?

----------


## AuH20

> Here's the problem.  Zimmerman had no right to accost Trayvon.  None whatsoever.  Zimmerman was not a cop.  He was a freaking wannabe cop.  Flip the script, make the young black teen with the hoodie the "blockwatch captain", and see how this all plays out in your mind.  And Zimmerman's own statement proves he was racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not unless you think the phrase "f*cking coons" is a term of endearment.


It's still up for interpretation what was muttered under his breath. $#@!ing punks or $#@!ing coons. Apparently, the lynch mob wants it to be coons for obvious reasons. An impassioned struggle resulting in manslaughter of this young man is not enough.

----------


## jmdrake

> Hey spec, what would you do if I come and rape you? Just a question. Whatever you want to call it, it was $#@!ing stupid and you should just apologize and move on. You can see my location, you can find house, you can come kill my children. Is any of this registering with you? I called Trayvon Martin a perp because that's what the police have interpreted him to be by the fact that Zimmerman was let go indicating that Martin had in fact, PERPITRATED a crime. That is the simple fact of the situation. Whether YOU think that is right is irrelevant. I called him a perp because thats what he was as of right now.


 Committed the crime of what exactly?  

First they came for the black teens wearing hoodies carrying skittles and soda.
Then they came for the Ron Paul supporters.
When they finally came for me there was no one left to stand up for anyone.

----------


## jmdrake

> It's still up for interpretation what was muttered under his breath. $#@!ing punks or $#@!ing coons. Apparently, the lynch mob wants it to be coons for obvious reasons. An impassioned struggle resulting in manslaughter of this young man is not enough.


If you think he said "punks" then you need your hearing examined.  Seriously, there's no way that sounds like "punks" and you know it.  As far as a manslaughter charge, please let me know when that actually happens.

----------


## specsaregood

> Hey spec, what would you do if I come and rape you? Just a question.


I'd defend myself if you tried and if you succeeded you'd have a later date with a crab trap and a few atmospheres of ocean overtop.   Thanks for asking!

----------


## angelatc

> Hey spec, what would you do if I come and rape you? Just a question. Whatever you want to call it, it was $#@!ing stupid and you should just apologize and move on. You can see my location, you can find house, you can come kill my children. Is any of this registering with you? I called Trayvon Martin a perp because that's what the police have interpreted him to be by the fact that Zimmerman was let go indicating that Martin had in fact, PERPITRATED a crime. That is the simple fact of the situation. Whether YOU think that is right is irrelevant. I called him a perp because thats what he was as of right now.


So you'd rather turn into a homocidal drama queen than answer a simple question?

----------


## phill4paul

> If six eye witnesses say Zimmerman acted in self defense everything you said is not valid. I am making the point that the police already have enough evidence and made the right call. And that is why the feds have to get involved because the local authorities cannot convict him. That is where the media comes into play as they always do.


  And if six eyewitnesses were led by investigators with questions as opposed to just retrieving statements then there is some level of malfeasance here. Along with the fact that against state law no toxicology tests were performed on Zimmerman. THAT is the reasoning for calling for a grand jury probe. The family does not believe they got a fair shake. And so they have petitioned the government for their day in court to seek justice.

----------


## Bruno

One thing is for sure, there are a lot of people who thankfully won't be on the jury if this goes to trial, because they have their minds made up one way or another without hearing all the facts.

----------


## teacherone

Honestly the racism issue is a side show.

The guy started a fight and then killed his opponent when he dared to fight back.


That its not self defense. If it is then thousands of murderers should be released because their victims fought back too.

----------


## AuH20

> +rep coastie.  AuH20 I can't believe you're defending this garbage.  Or is it just because the "liberal media" is attacking Zimmerman so he must be okay?


That's not it. The story is being intentionally distorted to make it out to be a racial attack. This isn't the James Byrd Jr. case where it was abundantly clear their was racial animus behind the attack. This incident is far more complex. Neighborhood watchman patrolling in a crime ridden gated community accosts a young teen he doesn't recognize and who isn't a member of the community, and eventually the situation escalates to a heated struggle in which the protagonist kills the teen with his firearm. It's more attributable to a breakdown of communication and a crime of passion as opposed to a premiditated murder, predicated on racial bias. This meme being pushed is absolutely false.

----------


## jmdrake

> The last line of the article:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is *not*, based on the facts so far presented.
> 
> Self defense with deadly force is *not* justified, legally, if you provoke or prolong or instigate an altercation that otherwise would not have happened had you not done so.
> 
> "Stand your ground" laws do not change that.


+rep!  The last sentence is the most important.  Those defending Zimmerman need to think long and hard about this.  If Zimmerman was somehow "justified" under the "Stand your ground" law, then that law is in serious jeopardy.  Is this obvious jerk-off (Zimmerman) really worth it?

----------


## specsaregood

> So you'd rather turn into a homocidal drama queen than answer a simple question?


He knows full well that if it was his kid, he wouldn't be taking the same position he is now.  That is why.

----------


## jmdrake

> That's not it. The story is being intentionally distorted to make it out to be a racial attack. This isn't the James Byrd Jr. case where it was abundantly clear their was racial animus behind the attack. This incident is far more complex. Neighborhood watchman patrolling in a crime ridden gated community accosts a young teen he doesn't recognize and who isn't a member of the community, and eventually the situation escalates to a heated struggle in which the protagonist kills the teen with his firearm. It's more attributable to a breakdown of communication and a crime of passion as opposed to a premiditated murder, predicated on racial bias. This meme being pushed is absolutely false.


When you get your hearing checked and you can tell the difference between the "unk" sound in "punk" and the "oon" sound in "coon" let me know.

----------


## azxd

> What makes you think it hasn't....without going into detail, you are wrong about what I would do. and any of you that run after random people in the dark deserve what happens after that.


Just like someone who jumps you as you're getting back in your car, deserve what happens after that.

----------


## jmdrake

> Honestly the racism issue is a side show.
> 
> The guy started a fight and then killed his opponent when he dared to fight back.
> 
> 
> That its not self defense. If it is then thousands of murderers should be released because their victims fought back too.


+rep

----------


## AuH20

> When you get your hearing checked and you can tell the difference between the "unk" sound in "punk" and the "oon" sound in "coon" let me know.


Who uses the pejorative coons in a modern setting? Did the Hispanic Zimmerman grow up in 1940s era Alabama? Highly doubtful and more eye of the beholder nonsense. Several of Zimmerman's close associates (including a few African Americans) already testified that Zimmerman never exhibited racial prejudice nor utilized hateful language while in their presence.

----------


## azxd

> a thorough investigation wasn't conducted that night.


Thorough investigations are rarely carried out in a linear fashion with immediacy.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> *No it's not!*  When a prosecutor indicts someone they don't wait until it's been "proven in a court of law" before stating their view of the facts.  It kills me how people think statements about criminal cases cannot be made until everything has been "proven in a court of law".  Following that line of reasoning no one would ever be prosecuted for anything.


99.99% of cases in this country are tried without statement.

----------


## azxd

> Well, being that he never should've exited his car, er wait.....doing that blows the bias out of the water, now doesn't it?


Only if you are of the belief that he should not exit his car to check out the sign it was reported that he was checking, and only if you don't agree with the 6 witnesses who stated he was jumped as he was getting in his car ... But believing the witnesses ... That just seems to keep blowing your bias out of the water

----------


## RonPaulMall

> +rep!  The last sentence is the most important.  Those defending Zimmerman need to think long and hard about this.  If Zimmerman was somehow "justified" under the "Stand your ground" law, then that law is in serious jeopardy.  Is this obvious jerk-off (Zimmerman) really worth it?


The thing that makes us different is our adherence to principal over politics.  If we allow an unpopular guy to be lynched just because we think it will help some political position we may favor, then we are no better than the monsters we are fighting.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> Committed the crime of what exactly?  
> 
> First they came for the black teens wearing hoodies carrying skittles and soda.
> Then they came for the Ron Paul supporters.
> When they finally came for me there was no one left to stand up for anyone.


Attacking George Zimmerman.

----------


## Danke

> When you get your hearing checked and you can tell the difference between the "unk" sound in "punk" and the "oon" sound in "coon" let me know.


How about "goon."

----------


## azxd

> You aren't owning anything.  You are one sick puppy.  I brought up your kids; because it is a fair point to ask you how you would feel if you were the victim's parents.  This kid was violating no laws or harming any others when it began and ended up dead.  The kid tried to flee the presense of somebody he obviously thought was threatening.  You aren't that kid, you weren't in his position so you don't know.   I think the kid was within his rights to try to flee the situation.  You think the killer was in his right to "hunt" the kid down.   We just disagree.


And in this heated debate you made it personal between you and the other party ... Not good, even if your intent was to put the other party into a different set of shoes.

----------


## azxd

> Well, it's obvious even to the untrained eye that Travon was far from the likeable saint portrayed by the MSM and Zimmerman was not a racially motivated monster sans the white hood. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I bet that Martin escalated the situation after he was accosted by Zimmerman, and then all hell broke lose, ultimately with *Zimmerman foolishly shooting him* in the chest at close range.


I mostly agree with you, but on the shooting aspect, if I am being assaulted by ANYONE, you can be damn sure I will defend myself, and if I believe lethal force is being used against me, I will do my best to end that threat by whatever means necessary.

I see nothing foolish after "all hell broke loose".

I suspect you would do the same.

----------


## jmdrake

> The thing that makes us different is our adherence to principal over politics.  If we allow an unpopular guy to be lynched just because we think it will help some political position we may favor, then we are no better than the monsters we are fighting.


Right.  So the principled thing to do is to do character assassination of the victim.    Pick your monster.  You can defend Zimmerman getting a fair trial without stretching the truth in the process.  (I'm not talking about "you" in particular).

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> Only if you are of the belief that he should not exit his car to check out the sign it was reported that he was checking, and only if you don't agree with the 6 witnesses who stated he was jumped as he was getting in his car ... But believing the witnesses ... That just seems to keep blowing your bias out of the water


If what the witnesses say match up with Zimmerman, he is justified. If they don't, then he will be prosecuted. What we did not need was the dis-information coming from the media which is exactly what is being spewed on this thread.

----------


## jmdrake

> Attacking George Zimmerman.


Under the circumstances there is more evidence suggesting that Trayvon acted in self defense than there is that Zimmerman was.  It's funny that you are so willing to give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt, but you are ready to convict a dead teen based on what the policed *didn't* do.  Actually it's not funny.  It's disgusting.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> It is *NOT* self defense when you started the altercation.  If Trayvon had shot Zimmerman *that* would have been self defense.  Zimmerman started the altercation, was losing the fight, and pulled a gun like a punk.


Problem is there is no evidence to suggest Zimmerman started the altercation.  The only eyewitness (Zimmerman) says Martin started it.  What other witnesses saw doesn't prove but is certainly consistent with Zimmerman's account.  The physical evidence all points to Zimmerman being the victim and shooting in self defense.  A criminal charge requires probable cause that a crime was committed.  The police need to believe Zimmerman launched an unprovoked attack against Martin for them to charge him with a crime.  Based on the evidence we have so far, no reasonable person would come to that belief.  That is why Zimmerman remains free.




> Under the circumstances there is more evidence suggesting that Trayvon acted in self defense than there is that Zimmerman was.


More evidence?  Where is there _any_ evidence that Trayvon acted in self defense?  The whole reason Zimmerman hasn't been charged with a crime is the complete lack of evidence that any crime was committed.  If evidence existed to suggest Zimmerman attacked Martin, you don't think we'd have heard about it by now?  The MSM would go crazy if there was any actual evidence Zimmerman was the attacker.

----------


## azxd

> Did some stupid bomb blow up on your head recently? That comment was uncalled for regardless of what was said.
> 
> I'm really beginning to think you are 13 years old, because that's the logic mine tries to use on me sometimes.


I find it interesting that a few people, yourself included, want to get personal with direct insults, and in your case ... Via an allegation about another posters age being somehow relevant to this discussion.

----------


## jmdrake

> How about "goon."


Yeah that's possible.  But AuH20 said "punks" so I'm holding him to that.

----------


## angelatc

> Who uses the pejorative coons in a modern setting? Did the Hispanic Zimmerman grow up in 1940s era Alabama? Highly doubtful and more eye of the beholder nonsense. Several of Zimmerman's close associates (including a few African Americans) already testified that Zimmerman never exhibited racial prejudice nor utilized hateful language while in their presence.


LOL - I was thinking that too. I can't remember the last time I heard that particular slur.  I mean, I am familiar with it, but I sort of forgot about it until I read that.

But truth be told, that's what I hear in the tape.

----------


## jmdrake

> Problem is there is no evidence to suggest Zimmerman started the altercation.  The only eyewitness (Zimmerman) says Martin started it.  What other witnesses saw doesn't prove but is certainly consistent with Zimmerman's account.  The physical evidence all points to Zimmerman being the victim and shooting in self defense.  A criminal charge requires probable cause that a crime was committed.  The police need to believe Zimmerman launched an unprovoked attack against Martin for them to charge him with a crime.  Based on the evidence we have so far, no reasonable person would come to that belief.  That is why Zimmerman remains free.


Your side of the argument is conceding that Zimmerman accosted Trayvon.  Based on that assertion Zimmerman started the altercation.  Now if you have some evidence that Trayvon followed Zimmerman home then attacked him as he was going into his (Zimmerman's) house then I'm willing to hear that.  Otherwise you're blowing smoke.

----------


## angelatc

> And in this heated debate you made it personal between you and the other party ... Not good, even if your intent was to put the other party into a different set of shoes.


The other party has spent a good deal of energy reminding us that he's a BLockWatcher too - he made it personal.

----------


## AuH20

> Problem is there is no evidence to suggest Zimmerman started the altercation.  The only eyewitness (Zimmerman) says Martin started it.  What other witnesses saw doesn't prove but is certainly consistent with Zimmerman's account.  The physical evidence all points to Zimmerman being the victim and shooting in self defense.  A criminal charge requires probable cause that a crime was committed.  The police need to believe Zimmerman launched an unprovoked attack against Martin for them to charge him with a crime.  Based on the evidence we have so far, no reasonable person would come to that belief.  That is why Zimmerman remains free.


Correct. Zimmerman was bloodied in the face and the back of his head. And his shirt back and pant posterior were stained by wet grass, indicating he was pinned down. He clearly was on the wrong end of the fight which leads you to believe he didn't pick a fight with a kid 6 inches taller than himself.

----------


## azxd

> That doesn't carry any weight whatsoever w/ regard to Florida CCW law, which is what this man clearly broke. FOLLOW ALONG


I'm licensed to carry in Florida ... What's your point ?

That an individual can't defend self and family when being assaulted as they get in their car ?

The problem as I see it is,
Some people have rushed to judgement, and are now attempting to justify their thoughts about Zimmerman.

----------


## hardrightedge

Can't find the video...but someone isolated that section, and it sounds like he said punks...

----------


## specsaregood

> LOL - I was thinking that too. I can't remember the last time I heard that particular slur.  I mean, I am familiar with it, but I sort of forgot about it until I read that.  But truth be told, that's what I hear in the tape.


It is still a pretty popular term.

----------


## jmdrake

> Who uses the pejorative coons in a modern setting? Did the Hispanic Zimmerman grow up in 1940s era Alabama? Highly doubtful and more eye of the beholder nonsense. Several of Zimmerman's close associates (including a few African Americans) already testified that Zimmerman never exhibited racial prejudice nor utilized hateful language while in their presence.


When Snoop Dog gave a shout out to Ron Paul someone called him (Snoop dog) a coon on his Facebook page.  And even though I wasn't born until 1968 I immediately recognized the slur.  Just because you haven't heard it since 1940 doesn't mean it still doesn't get used.  Still, I'm glad to see you've backed away from the ridiculous "he really said punks" argument.  Let's say he said "goons".  Fine.  He still had no business doing anything other than reporting what he saw to the police and *maybe* continuing to follow from his car.

----------


## eduardo89

> How about "goon."


Shhhh! That doesn't play into the media's narrative.

----------


## angelatc

> It is still a pretty popular term.


I guess I'm not hanging out in the right crowds to hear it.  Soccer Moms tend not to throw around racial slurs in polite company.

----------


## AuH20

> Can't find the video...but someone isolated that section, and it sounds like he said punks...


Punks, goons. Far more understandable than coons. This isn't _To Kill A Mockingbird_. It's 2012. Now if he said the N word plural, that would be far more applicable? But coons? In the height of passion, you're going to go through your vocabulary of ethnic putdowns and use Coons? And it's not like he's a Good Ole Boy living in the Ozarks.

----------


## coastie

> Only if you are of the belief that he should not exit his car to check out the sign it was reported that he was checking, and only if you don't agree with the 6 witnesses who stated he was jumped as he was getting in his car ... But believing the witnesses ... That just seems to keep blowing your bias out of the water


I don't have any biases here, it is you and those of your ilk that can't get it through your thick skulls that I am saying that Zimmerman was wrong, *according to the law*. You believe the kid was going to randomly attack him for no reason while "he's checking out a street sign?" While possible, it is highly unlikely seeing as how Zimmerman was pursuing him to begin with, i.e. these events were set into motion BECAUSE of Zimmerman's actions-not Martin's. This alone is enough for a manslaughter conviction in most states.

And then hearing Zimmerman calling the kid a "$#@!ing coon" on the call should give most reasonable people pause there-he already had it in his mind that this kid was less of a human than himself, and was already frustrated at his perception of a lack of police response to these "$#@!ing coons", as has been documented.

Zimmerman should have done nothing but tell the police where he saw him run to, then return home, they were obviously already on the way there, the initial report stated they arrived within 2 minutes.

ETA: I know of one or two people I've heard say the word coon when describing black people, and I'm only 35. Racists are racists, their terms don't improve with age.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Is the NAP applicable?




> The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion principle, the zero aggression principle, the non-initiation of force), or NAP for short, is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. Aggression, for the purposes of the NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property, including that person’s body, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficiary or neutral to the owner, are considered violent when they are against the owner’s free will and interfere with his right to self-determination, as based on the libertarian principle of self-ownership. Supporters of NAP use it to demonstrate the immorality of theft, vandalism, assault, and fraud. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violence used in self-defense or defense of others.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

----------


## angelatc

> I'm licensed to carry in Florida ... What's your point ?
> 
> That an individual can't defend self and family when being assaulted as they get in their car ?
> 
> .


 His point all along has been that because Zimmerman was carrying, he was legally obligated not to get out of the car in the first place, as you would be in the same circumstance.

----------


## azxd

> But don't the CCW requirements that he NOT engage take precedent?


Why don't you go to class, if you haven't, and obtain a CCW ... Then you won't have to ask these open-ended gotcha attempt questions.

But if you want to continue, fully define "engage", because in my book, as it stands now, 6 witnesses have stated that Zimmerman was jumped while getting in his car.
Therefore, the idea of trying to pin this on Zimmerman, because of his block-watch activities is meaningless.

----------


## specsaregood

> I guess I'm not hanging out in the right crowds to hear it.  Soccer Moms tend not to throw around racial slurs in polite company.


somebody I know in law enforcement used it just not too long ago -- and they were even referring to their partner.   It was probably the #1 term used by white trash folk I knew out in california only about a decade ago.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> And in this heated debate you made it personal between you and the other party ... Not good, even if your intent was to put the other party into a different set of shoes.


I think these folks are blinded by emotion right now. They condem George Zimmerman for checking the guy out, but, aren't they supposed to do that very thing? Suppose if Trayvon Martin was a bad guy and Zimmerman let him get away? Every one would rip him for not stoping the criminal! His very existence is, to stop criminals, to stop crime, before it happens. You can't have it both ways. This neighborhood has suffered numerous robberies over a short period of time, of course you have a right to defend your house. My neighborhood went ape $#@! crazy after one, old ladys crying in the street crazy. I feel for the community, it is a perfect example of the economic collapse and one that the media constantly ignores by playing up the good guy bad guy meme.

----------


## azxd

> But don't the CCW requirements that he NOT engage take precedent?


Why don't you go to class, if you haven't, and obtain a CCW ... Then you won't have to ask these open-ended gotcha attempt questions.

But if you want to continue, fully define "engage", because in my book, as it stands now, 6 witnesses have stated that Zimmerman was jumped while getting in his car.
Therefore, the idea of trying to pin this on Zimmerman, because of his block-watch activities, is meaningless.

----------


## jmdrake

> Correct. Zimmerman was bloodied in the face and the back of his head. And his shirt back and pant posterior were stained by wet grass, indicating he was pinned down. He clearly was on the wrong end of the fight which leads you to believe he didn't pick a fight with a kid 6 inches taller than himself.


Let me see if I'm understanding you.  You think that just because someone ends up on the "wrong end" of a fight that he didn't pick the fight?  Really?  And what's height got to do with it?  Sporting fighting categorizes people by *weight class* rather than *height class* for a reason.  You expect heavyweight to be able to beat up the bantam weight.  That's true for boxing, kickboxing and MMA.  That's especially true if the fight goes to the ground where "reach" no longer matters.  Lastly "picking a fight" doesn't always mean throwing the first punch.  It can mean intimidation as well.  Anyway, we both agree (I think) that he should have been charged with *something*.  And I'm cool with manslaughter.  And that's even if Zimmerman had used the "n-word".  If Zimmerman and Trayvon had both been Hispanic, I'd feel the same way.  Whatever was running through Zimmerman's mind was his motivation for initiating the encounter, not his motivation for shooting Trayvon.  But it wasn't self defense.

----------


## eduardo89

> somebody I know in law enforcement used it just not too long ago -- and they were even referring to their partner.   It was probably the #1 term used by white trash folk I knew out in california only about a decade ago.


I had no idea Americans used the word coon. I've never heard anyone use it, I only know the word cause my dad told me a story about how all the boys on his rugby team at boarding school used it to tease a black kid on an opposing team. (in 1960's England)

----------


## azxd

> Based on the witness details, it appears it was self-defense, but *he used excessive force*, which may lead to an appropriate manslaughter charge.


If he felt his life was being threatened, how is it excessive force to anyone but a gun-grabber ?

----------


## Danke

> Yeah that's possible.  But AuH20 said "punks" so I'm holding him to that.


Listening to the tape, he clearly said "$#@!ing Toons."

----------


## AuH20

> Let me see if I'm understanding you.  You think that just because someone ends up on the "wrong end" of a fight that he didn't pick the fight?  Really?  And what's height got to do with it?  Sporting fighting categorizes people by *weight class* rather than *height class* for a reason.  You expect heavyweight to be able to beat up the bantam weight.  That's true for boxing, kickboxing and MMA.  That's especially true if the fight goes to the ground where "reach" no longer matters.  Lastly "picking a fight" doesn't always mean throwing the first punch.  It can mean intimidation as well.  Anyway, we both agree (I think) that he should have been charged with *something*.  And I'm cool with manslaughter.  And that's even if Zimmerman had used the "n-word".  If Zimmerman and Trayvon had both been Hispanic, I'd feel the same way.  Whatever was running through Zimmerman's mind was his motivation for initiating the encounter, not his motivation for shooting Trayvon.  But it wasn't self defense.


All I'm saying is that as human beings, many of us would be deterred by such a severe height disadvantage. I'm 6-3" 200 pounds and can certainly hold my own within my given height/weight class but I'd be lying to you saying that I'd intentionally initiate a fight with someone 6 inches taller than me at 6-9". That's simply not smart.

----------


## azxd

> Maybe that's the way it should be, but scroll up and read the law. Coastie posted it here.  When you're carrying, under Florida law, you have an obligation not to inject yourself into a situation like Zimmerman did.


Ya mean being jumped as he was getting in his car ... Right ?

Please turn the emotions of _I am right_,  off, and start thinking.

----------


## jmdrake

> I think these folks are blinded by emotion right now. They condem George Zimmerman for checking the guy out, but, aren't they supposed to do that very thing?


You're the blind one.  Checking Trayvon out and calling the cops if he *really* thought he was a threat wasn't the problem.  Initiating contact after the police told him not to was.




> Suppose if Trayvon Martin was a bad guy and Zimmerman let him get away? Every one would rip him for not stoping the criminal! His very existence is, to stop criminals, to stop crime, before it happens. You can't have it both ways.


Really?  This self appointed neighborhood watch captain's "existence" is to "stop crime"?  In who's universe?  So I can appoint myself neighborhood watch captain and if I see you walking down the street I can follow you and do whatever it is in my power to "stop" you even if I don't have any evidence that you are doing anything just because you *might* be a criminal?  And that's the world you want to live in?




> This neighborhood has suffered numerous robberies over a short period of time, of course you have a right to defend your house. My neighborhood went ape $#@! crazy after one, old ladys crying in the street crazy. I feel for the community, it is a perfect example of the economic collapse and one that the media constantly ignores by playing up the good guy bad guy meme.


Right.  You have the right to defend *your house*.  And certainly you can assist your neighbor in defending *his house*.  You don't have the right to play vigilante against someone walking down the street just because you *think* he *might* break into someone's house.  That's the issue here.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> The other party has spent a good deal of energy reminding us that he's a BLockWatcher too - he made it personal.


What is your deal with me? At NO point did I attack anyone. We disagree. You wanna lynch George Zimmerman based off of a story we don't know yet, and I wanna respect the man for trying to clean up his neighborhood and help his community, which judging by eye witness testimony, he was doing with some degree of success. We will learn the truth now for sure, but the problem with the truth now is, it's tainted by media dis-information. So no matter what that truth is it will most likely end in more violence. Great, thanks Anderson.

----------


## specsaregood

> I had no idea Americans used the word coon. I've never heard anyone use it, I only know the word cause my dad told me a story about how all the boys on his rugby team at boarding school used it to tease a black kid on an opposing team. (in 1960's England)


just to be clear, I would never use it.  But I have heard it used more than the "nword" which even most people that say coon dont use.    I've heard in the NorthEast more than anywhere excepting maybe the desert areas of CA.

----------


## jmdrake

> All I'm saying is that as human beings, many of us would be deterred by such a severe height disadvantage. I'm 6-3" 200 pounds and can certainly hold my own within my given height/weight class but I'd be lying to you saying that I'd intentionally initiate a fight with someone 6 inches taller than me at 6-9". That's simply not smart.


If someone was 6'9" *and 140 lbs* and he started a fight with you then *he* is not smart.  Not unless you can't really hold your own in your weight class.  Really, think of Manute Bol trying to fight Shaquel O'Neil.

----------


## kylejack

Trayvon wasn't doing anything suspicious. From the timing, it's clear that Zimmerman called 911 the instant that Trayvon walked through the front gate.

----------


## azxd

> Are you being $#@!ing serious right now? Really? You must've missed the "read the $#@!ing law part" in my comment.
> 
> He CANNOT engage someone in the manner he did, while CCW in Florida. PERIOD.


Same repsonse to you ... YA mean him getting in his car and being jumped, right ??
That's what you're now refering to as engagement ... Isn't it ?
6 witnesses have stated this.

Why are you having such a difficult time realizing that the initial engagement was broken off, and the man who shot, was jumped ?

----------


## eduardo89

> just to be clear, I would never use it.  But I have heard it used more than the "nword" which even most people that say coon dont use.    I've heard in the NorthEast more than anywhere excepting maybe the desert areas of CA.


This is the only context I've personally heard it used as

----------


## azxd

> Who said anything about Steve Urkel?  According to the story all along Trayvon was getting the best of the bully Zimmerman who started the whole mess when Zimmerman punked out and pulled a gun.  And yes I'm being colorful with my words, but dead honest at the same time.  Never lose site of the *fact* that Zimmerman was armed, Trayvon was *unarmed* and Zimmerman started the altercation.  *Zimmerman should have taken his well deserved butt whupping like a man and gone home*.


I'll try to remember that the next time I ask someone a question, and later get jumped LOL

And the bolded part,
I hope you remember that if/when you are assaulted.

----------


## AuH20

> Same repsonse to you ... YA mean him getting in his car and being jumped, right ??
> That's what you're now refering to as engagement ... Isn't it ?
> 6 witnesses have stated this.
> 
> *Why are you having such a difficult time realizing that the initial engagement was broken off, and the man who shot, was jumped ?*



That may have occurred based on the testimony. But I have a hard time believing that Zimmerman should have mortally wounded Martin, unless this kid had special ops training we weren't privy too. Sure, he probably beat up Zimmerman good but responding with lethal force, given what details we know, seems excessive and unwarranted. Now I'm certainly not saying that lethal force should be taken off the table when defending oneself, but in this case it seems to go above and beyond the context of the conflict.

----------


## phill4paul

> What is your deal with me? At NO point did I attack anyone. We disagree. You wanna lynch George Zimmerman based off of a story we don't know yet, and I wanna respect the man for trying to clean up his neighborhood and help his community, which judging by eye witness testimony, he was doing with some degree of success. We will learn the truth now for sure, but the problem with the truth now is, it's tainted by media dis-information. So no matter what that truth is it will most likely end in more violence. Great, thanks Anderson.


  The truth was 'tainted' when officers led witnesses in their questioning instead of just taking statements. When Martin underwent a post-mortem toxicology and Zimmerman did not as is standard procedure. THAT is why the family and community sought a higher authority than the local  police.
  If I believed that my son, whom I thought was an upstanding young man, was gunned down by a neighborhood watch and I believed the local police acted with malfeasance I would go to a higher authority to seek what I believed was justice.
  In the end we will see what the grand jury decides and that will be that.

----------


## kylejack

> I'll try to remember that the next time I ask someone a question, and later get jumped LOL
> 
> And the bolded part,
> I hope you remember that if/when you are assaulted.


Do you think it's normal to follow someone in the dark when it's raining to ask them a question? Neighborhood Watch are not supposed to get involved. They simply report to the police what they see. They're not police. Police are the fact-finders who get to the bottom of what's going on.

----------


## azxd

> I agree with this...I don't think a fist fight should end up with someone getting shot...


I worked with a guy who did 5 years for manslaughter ... He hit the guy ONE time, and drove part of the deceased's jaw into the brain.

Only people who can't get past the grade school fight mentality would never consider that a fist can be a deadly weapon.

----------


## angelatc

> What is your deal with me? .... I wanna respect <Zimmerman> for trying to clean up his neighborhood and help his community, .


That right there.  Your definition of cleaning up the neighborhood and helping the community is much different than mine.  If I invite people to my home, I don't want self-appointed, self-important Brown Shirts asking them for their papers while they're en route.

----------


## hardrightedge

> I worked with a guy who did 5 years for manslaughter ... He hit the guy ONE time, and drove part of the deceased's jaw into the brain.
> 
> Only people who can't get past the grade school fight mentality would never consider that a fist can be a deadly weapon.


whatever...I'm not saying you can't be seriously injured with fists. If you confront someone who you think is shady, you should be ready to fight, or don't confront them at all...

----------


## azxd

> If what the witnesses say match up with Zimmerman, he is justified. If they don't, then he will be prosecuted. What we did not need was the dis-information coming from the media which is exactly what is being spewed on this thread.


Agreed !!

----------


## angelatc

> Why don't you go to class, if you haven't, and obtain a CCW ... Then you won't have to ask these open-ended gotcha attempt questions.
> .


So that's a yes?

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Do you think it's normal to follow someone in the dark when it's raining to ask them a question? Neighborhood Watch are not supposed to get involved. They simply report to the police what they see. They're not police. Police are the fact-finders who get to the bottom of what's going on.


This is the problem with the media and black panther position.  You seem obsessed about what is "normal".  If Zimmerman didn't behave in a "normal" way, then he needs to go to jail.  That's not how a free society functions.  In order for the state to arrest you, you have to be guilty of violating a specific law.  Maybe following somebody in the rain is not usual.  Maybe only 5 in every 100 neighborhood watchers or local busy bodies would behave in such a manner.  Ok, so what?  What the hell does that have to do with _anything_?  The thing that is relevant is that no matter how "unusual" the activity may be, it is without question lawful.  And so long as Zimmerman behaving in a lawful manner, he has a right to respond with deadly force if he is attacked.

----------


## angelatc

> If what the witnesses say match up with Zimmerman, he is justified. If they don't, then he will be prosecuted. What we did not need was the dis-information coming from the media which is exactly what is being spewed on this thread.


LOL @ "dis-information."  If the cops and DA had done their jobs properly, it wouldn't have required a media circus to get the DA to look at the case and convene the Grand Jury.

----------


## kylejack

> This is the problem with the media and black panther position.  You seem obsessed about what is "normal".  If Zimmerman didn't behave in a "normal" way, then he needs to go to jail.  That's not how a free society functions.  In order for the state to arrest you, you have to be guilty of violating a specific law.  Maybe following somebody in the rain is not usual.  Maybe only 5 in every 100 neighborhood watchers or local busy bodies would behave in such a manner.  Ok, so what?  What the hell does that have to do with _anything_?  The thing that is relevant is that no matter how "unusual" the activity may be, it is without question lawful.  And so long as Zimmerman behaving in a lawful manner, he has a right to respond with deadly force if he is attacked.


I guess you think a woman should wait until she's actually being raped before spraying her mace. If I fear I'm about to get some grievous bodily harm, I'm going to at least try to kick my stalker's ass.

----------


## angelatc

> This is the problem with the media and black panther position.  You seem obsessed about what is "normal".  If Zimmerman didn't behave in a "normal" way, then he needs to go to jail.  That's not how a free society functions.  In order for the state to arrest you, you have to be guilty of violating a specific law.  Maybe following somebody in the rain is not usual.  Maybe only 5 in every 100 neighborhood watchers or local busy bodies would behave in such a manner.  Ok, so what?  What the hell does that have to do with _anything_?  The thing that is relevant is that no matter how "unusual" the activity may be, it is without question lawful.  And so long as Zimmerman behaving in a lawful manner, he has a right to respond with deadly force if he is attacked.


But, as Coastie has patiently pointed out again and again, he wasn't behaving in a lawful manner.  He got out of the car, when legally he was obligated to remove himself from the situation.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> whatever...I'm not saying you can't be seriously injured with fists. If you confront someone who you think is shady, you should be ready to fight, or don't confront them at all...


Sound personal safety advice.  But that's the same thing as telling a girl not to dress like a slut to prevent getting raped.  The advice is surely sound, but the fact somebody ignores it does not justify someone else from committing an act of aggression against them.  The girl that dressed slutty is just as entitled to shoot the man who is trying to rape her as the girl who dresses like a nun.  What Zimmerman did may have been risky and dangerous, but he's still entitled to defend himself under Florida Law if the guy he approaches to talk ends up attacking him.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> But, as Coastie has patiently pointed out again and again, he wasn't behaving in a lawful manner.  He got out of the car, when legally he was obligated to remove himself from the situation.


What in God's name are you talking about?  It is not illegal to get out of a car.  It is not illegal to approach a stranger.  It is not illegal to ask somebody what they are doing.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Ya mean being jumped as he was getting in his car ... Right ?


The quote used on Fox just now was he was "cold-cocked" from behind while getting back in his car.

----------


## azxd

> His point all along has been that because Zimmerman was carrying, he was legally obligated not to get out of the car in the first place, as you would be in the same circumstance.


This goes under the assumption that Zimmerman getting out of his car caused an escalation, and ignores the aspect of 6 witnesses stating that Zimmerman was attacked while returning to his car.

Why are you choosing to ignore this aspect ?

----------


## specsaregood

> The quote used on Fox just now was "he was cold-cocked from behind while getting back in his car".


pretty stupid to turn your back on somebody you found threatening enough to call the cops on.

----------


## azxd

> I think these folks are blinded by emotion right now. They condem George Zimmerman for checking the guy out, but, aren't they supposed to do that very thing? Suppose if Trayvon Martin was a bad guy and Zimmerman let him get away? Every one would rip him for not stoping the criminal! His very existence is, to stop criminals, to stop crime, before it happens. You can't have it both ways. This neighborhood has suffered numerous robberies over a short period of time, of course you have a right to defend your house. My neighborhood went ape $#@! crazy after one, old ladys crying in the street crazy. I feel for the community, it is a perfect example of the economic collapse and one that the media constantly ignores by playing up the good guy bad guy meme.


If Martin had been apprehended at a later time that evening raping someone (going for an extreme example) They'd probably be blaming Zimmerman for letting the guy get away ... I agree !!

----------


## coastie

> Same repsonse to you ... YA mean him getting in his car and being jumped, right ??
> That's what you're now refering to as engagement ... Isn't it ?
> 6 witnesses have stated this.
> 
> Why are you having such a difficult time realizing that the initial engagement was broken off, and the man who shot, was jumped ?


Not, it's not what I'm referring to as "engagement"-you're only twisting it that way. BIG difference. I've already stated a thousand times that Zimmerman started ALL OF THIS> It's you and your idiot clones that start the story at the fight and him shooting Martin.

This is how you're painting the picture-

 You completely and repeatedly ignore the fact that it was Zimmerman that started this by ENGAGING Martin in the first place, and that the douchebag made it known how he felt about these "$#@!ing coons" and that "they always get away", further showing his his predisposition of Martin and those that look like him.

Now, read closely:


According to Florida State Law, the very fact he was carrying a weapon means it was he that should've have shown prior restraint. In other words, he's not a cop, has no law enforcement powers, and therefore is his responsibility to do whatever he can to diffuse the situation, which he clearly did not. Martin, who, according to early reports, told his girlfriend he was ON THE PHONE WITH he was scared about the bozo following him.

He made contact with Martin, who then ran, and understandably so considering how MARTIN perceived the situation AT THAT TIME. Whether or not he "should've" ran is entirely irrelevant here.This is where it should've ended as far as Zimmerman is concerned, he should've left the scene and let the police handle it from there.

Everything that happened after this point is where you guys want to start the story.

I for one, do not believe for a minute this fat $#@! would've ever even approached Martin if not for his gun.

----------


## coastie

> If Martin had been apprehended at a later time that evening raping someone (going for an extreme example) They'd probably be blaming Zimmerman for letting the guy get away ... I agree !!


Yeah, cause that's how America works, we base right and wrong on hypotheticals.

----------


## kylejack

> The quote used on Fox just now was "he was cold-cocked from behind while getting back in his car".


Ha, certainly not. The altercation took place behind the townhomes.

----------


## coastie

> This goes under the assumption that Zimmerman getting out of his car caused an escalation, and ignores the aspect of 6 witnesses stating that Zimmerman was attacked while returning to his car.
> 
> Why are you choosing to ignore this aspect ?


Are you seriously mentally disabled? Re-read what you wrote. Zimmerman getting out of his car DID cause an escalation. THIS is where the prosecution(if there is one) is going to start, and end, this case.

----------


## azxd

> If someone was 6'9" *and 140 lbs* and he started a fight with you then *he* is not smart.  Not unless you can't really hold your own in your weight class.  Really, think of Manute Bol trying to fight Shaquel O'Neil.


I guess Sugar Ray Leonard should have never made it to the Olympics ... Started out as a featherweight, and did the Olympic thing as a light-middleweight LOL

Size means nothing during a fight.
Skill is what matters.

----------


## azxd

> That may have occurred based on the testimony. But I have a hard time believing that Zimmerman should have mortally wounded Martin, unless this kid had special ops training we weren't privy too. Sure, he probably beat up Zimmerman good but responding with lethal force, given what details we know, seems excessive and unwarranted. Now I'm certainly not saying that lethal force should be taken off the table when defending oneself, but in this case it seems to go above and beyond the context of the conflict.


Did you read my comment about working with a guy who did 5 years for manslaughter for hitting a guy one time ?

People are killed daily with nothing more than a hand ... It's a simple fact.
Those who bring a knife to a gun fight ... I feel sorry for them  NOT !

----------


## coastie

> I guess Sugar Ray Leonard should have never made it to the Olympics ... Started out as a featherweight, and did the Olympic thing as a light-middleweight LOL
> 
> *Size means nothing during a fight.*
> Skill is what matters.



I wouldn't say it means nothing-shows you've never been in a fight I suppose.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Ha, certainly not. The altercation took place behind the townhomes.


Could have been. No TIVO at the moment to rewind and get the quote exact (but they did emphasize the phrase "cold-cocked"). I was wondering how close to the car the grass was.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> This is how you're painting the picture-
> 
>  You completely and repeatedly ignore the fact that it was Zimmerman that started this by ENGAGING Martin in the first place, and that the douchebag made it known how he felt about these "$#@!ing coons" and that "they always get away", further showing his his predisposition of Martin and those that look like him.
> .


We ignore it because it is utterly irrelevant.  There is no law in Florida which prevents one from following another human being in order to ask them a question.  

I'd also point out that even the media manipulated tape has Zimmerman saying "$#@!ing unintelligible".  Sounds something like "ooh-nz" but could be goons,loons, coons, or some spanish word for all we know.  Only somebody with an agenda against Zimmerman would presume he says coons, or for that matter, that he was talking about Martin and not the Police.  That's the other thing you are missing- the context.  This neighborhood had been plagued with a string of recent unsolved robberies.  "They always get away" was a statement of fact, and an in indictment of the very police Zimmerman was calling, not Martin.

----------


## azxd

> Do you think it's normal to follow someone in the dark when it's raining to ask them a question? Neighborhood Watch are not supposed to get involved. They simply report to the police what they see. They're not police. Police are the fact-finders who get to the bottom of what's going on.


I have no idea what is normal for another individual, but I do understand that asking a question is not an assault.

----------


## azxd

> So that's a yes?


INterpret what you want ... And condemn those you feel it is appropriate to condemn.

----------


## moo

NOW zimmerman is claiming trayvon knocked him to the ground, broke his nose, bashed his head into the ground then reached for his gun. if trayvon was strong enough to do all of this damage then trayvon couldve easily snatched the gun from the grasp of a 200 something pound man & killed zimmerman. 

it's only when trayvon reached for the gun did zimmerman suddenly have the strength speed and agility to wrestle a gun out of the grasp of a 140lbs teenage boy...even after being brutally beat down to a pulp.

----------


## coastie

> I have no idea what is normal for another individual, but I do understand that asking a question is not an assault.


So you're ignoring (once again) what MARTIN'S perception of the situation was, *at that time*, and ASSUMING Zimmerman was full of good intentions. Roger that.

----------


## azxd

> What in God's name are you talking about?  It is not illegal to get out of a car.  It is not illegal to approach a stranger.  It is not illegal to ask somebody what they are doing.


That's why I told her to go to a CCW class.

----------


## AuH20

> *NOW zimmerman is claiming trayvon knocked him to the ground, broke his nose, bashed his head into the ground* then reached for his gun. if trayvon was strong enough to do all of this damage then trayvon couldve easily snatched the gun from the grasp of a 200 something pound man & killed zimmerman. 
> 
> it's only when trayvon reached for the gun did zimmerman suddenly have the strength speed and agility to wrestle a gun out of the grasp of a 140lbs teenage boy...even after being brutally beat down to a pulp.


Martin was on the football team. He wasn't exactly scrawny. Secondly, if he surprised Zimmerman from behind, the above isn't that far fetched.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> pretty stupid to turn your back on somebody you found threatening enough to call the cops on.


It would be interesting to know how that "conversation" went. George was walking away. Was he satisfied that Trayvon lived there? Was the conversation over? Or was he de-escalating by walking away? Not that we'll ever know the real answers to any of these questions.

----------


## azxd

> pretty stupid to turn your back on somebody you found threatening enough to call the cops on.


Gee ... I thought he called in someone suspicious.
How did it become threatening ? ... Oh, I get it ... You're mixing words intentionally

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Martin was on the football team. He wasn't exactly scrawny. Secondly, if he surprised Zimmerman from behind, the above isn't that far fetched.


And he is 17 years old.  Hardly a "boy" like the gold toothless, taken when he was 14 years old pictures the MSM has been shamelessly running with every time they feature this story.

----------


## specsaregood

> Gee ... I thought he called in someone suspicious.
> How did it become threatening ? ... Oh, I get it ... You're mixing words intentionally


I'm not mixing anything; to be "mixing" would require me to have used the word suspicious to describe Martin.  I wouldn't turn my back on somebody in that situation.  Would you?

----------


## azxd

> Not, it's not what I'm referring to as "engagement"-you're only twisting it that way. BIG difference. I've already stated a thousand times that Zimmerman started ALL OF THIS> It's* you and your idiot clones* that start the story at the fight and him shooting Martin.
> 
> This is how you're painting the picture-
> 
>  You completely and repeatedly ignore the fact that it was Zimmerman that started this by ENGAGING Martin in the first place, and that the douchebag made it known how he felt about these "$#@!ing coons" and that "they always get away", further showing his his predisposition of Martin and those that look like him.
> 
> Now, read closely:
> 
> 
> ...


I take it you feel you are loosing this argument, or you'd not be resorting to name calling ... Or perhaps it's just the emotional side of you coming out.
Which is it ?

As for restraint,
Gee ... He didn't try to make a citizens arrest, did he ?
He didn't just come up and shoot Martin, did he ?

Zimmerman was, per 6 witnesses, assaulted, and defended himself with an equal level of force as he returned to his car ... But you want him to go home after the initial event and leave his blockwatch duties.
Got it !!

----------


## specsaregood

> Gee ... I thought he called in someone suspicious.
> How did it become threatening ? ... Oh, I get it ... You're mixing words intentionally


So you don't think he thought the kid was a threat?  Why'd he feel the need to hunt him down if he wasn't a threat to anybody or anything?

----------


## azxd

> *Are you seriously mentally disabled?* Re-read what you wrote. Zimmerman getting out of his car DID cause an escalation. THIS is where the prosecution(if there is one) is going to start, and end, this case.

----------


## phill4paul

Will someone please link me to these *SIX WITNESSES* police report. I'd like to see the entire interview (not just the summary of statement) and whether or not the officers led the witnesses as they did the school teacher.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> ...defend Zimmerman getting a fair trial without stretching the truth in the process.


I'd have guessed that's what the majority of liberty-minded individuals would advocate: a fair trial for Zimmerman.  It's getting harder for me to believe that's possible with each passing hour.

----------


## kylejack

> Zimmerman was, per 6 witnesses, assaulted, and defended himself with an equal level of force as he returned to his car ... But you want him to go home after the initial event and leave his blockwatch duties.
> Got it !!


No, he was not returning to his car. The altercation took place behind the townhomes, where he had followed Trayvon. There's no street signs behind the townhomes.

----------


## AuH20

> 


I think you make a great point. Just because someone approaches or follows you and then proceeds to ask you questions, doesn't necessarily mean you have the right to pummel them.

----------


## azxd

> So you're ignoring (once again) what MARTIN'S perception of the situation was, *at that time*, and ASSUMING Zimmerman was full of good intentions. Roger that.


If you say so

----------


## jmdrake

> I'll try to remember that the next time I ask someone a question, and later get jumped LOL


 You mean the next time you try to pretend your a policeman and you try to intimidate and/or assault someone?  




> And the bolded part,
> I hope you remember that if/when you are assaulted.


I doubt you even know what the word assault means.  You're clearly confusing it with battery.  Regardless, if I pick a fight and lose, and from all sane indications that's what Zimmerman did, then that's my own fault.  If I decide to shoot someone under those circumstances I deserve to be prosecuted.  I hope *you* remember what all of this when someone kills your unarmed child and then claims "self defense".

----------


## coastie

> I take it you feel you are loosing this argument, or you'd not be resorting to nae calling ... Or perhaps it's just the emotional side of you coming out.
> Which is it ?


*Emotion. Stupidity tends to get me all riled up. It's a personal flaw.I'm not even arguing about what happened after the initial contact. Never was. You'd see that if you weren't so busy trying to re-arrange what I was saying into what you think I was saying
*




> As for restraint,
> Gee ... He didn't try to make a citizens arrest, did he ?
> He didn't just come up and shoot Martin, did he ?  *This has NOTHING to do with what I'm talking about. He should not have been there, period.*





> Zimmerman was, per 6 witnesses, assaulted, and defended himself with an equal level of force as he returned to his car ... But you want him to go home after the initial event and leave his blockwatch duties. *Again, I never said he was wrong at that point. I would've shot his ass too, IF the only thing that happened was I was just checking out a street sign, and was suddenly attacked out of the blue by someone.Got it !!*


* As I've said all along(for real, not what you twisted in your head), Zimmerman started all of this, which is the angle the prosecution will go with this, if there is one*

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Thats bs, on the 911 call, Zimmerman is clearly asking him a non threatening question and he responds by thinking Zimmerman is a white racist *and takes off running escolating* the situation. The second he refused to respond and took off, he became a perp.


My god...





> *Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be "preventing" a crime. If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter.* 
> 
> http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/wea...f_defense.html



That is the the current "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida.

In no state is it considered legal to pursue somebody and use deadly force against them.

Not to mention that Martin had *committed no crime at all*.

Even if he had just raped your daughter, *YOU CAN NOT LEGALLY FOLLOW SOMEBODY WHO IS FLEEING AND THEN USE DEADLY FORCE*.

----------


## jmdrake

> Martin was on the football team. He wasn't exactly scrawny. Secondly, if he surprised Zimmerman from behind, the above isn't that far fetched.


6'3" and 140 lbs is scrawny.  If he played HS football it was for a very sorry team.  Or maybe he played water boy.  In HS I was 6'1, 168 lbs and underweight.  6'3" and 140 lbs is near anorexic.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Martin was on the football team. He wasn't exactly scrawny. Secondly, if he surprised Zimmerman from behind, the above isn't that far fetched.


He approached Zimmerman from behind, knocking Zimmerman onto his back?

----------


## azxd

> You mean the next time you try to pretend your a policeman and you try to intimidate and/or assault someone?  
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt you even know what the word assault means.  You're clearly confusing it with battery.  Regardless, if I pick a fight and lose, and from all sane indications that's what Zimmerman did, then that's my own fault.  If I decide to shoot someone under those circumstances I deserve to be prosecuted.  I hope *you* remember what all of this when someone kills your unarmed child and then claims "self defense".


Oh,
I'm so emotionally distraught that you would bring my child into this ... LOL

I suspose you expect a knee-jerk response, now.

----------


## jmdrake

> My god...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the the current "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida.
> 
> In no state is it considered legal to pursue somebody and use deadly force against them.
> ...


_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again._

But I doubt the "stand your ground" law will survive thanks to the horrid way it's being twisted in this case.

----------


## coastie

> My god...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the the current "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida.
> 
> In no state is it considered legal to pursue somebody and use deadly force against them.
> ...


$#@!, what I've been saying for the last 15 pages...wait till you see their responses to your response, AF(I've said the same $#@! numerous times in this thread). Welcome to the $#@! show...

----------


## jmdrake

> Oh,
> I'm so emotionally distraught that you would bring my child into this ... LOL
> 
> I suspose you expect a knee-jerk response, now.


How is that any different from your emotionally laden comment about me being assaulted?  Get over yourself.  You were asking me to step into Zimmerman's shoes.  I asked you to step into Trayvon's parents' shoes.  No different.

----------


## onlyrp

is that shirtless pic even him? Not that I care, but are people actually sending out a fake photo to get expected responses?

----------


## azxd

> *Emotion. Stupidity tends to get me all riled up. It's a personal flaw.I'm not even arguing about what happened after the initial contact. Never was. You'd see that if you weren't so busy trying to re-arrange what I was saying into what you think I was saying
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *As I've said all along(for real, not what you twisted in your head), Zimmerman started all of this*, which is the angle the prosecution will go with this, if there is one[/B]


A personal flaw or a sign of maturity, perhaps ?
Matters not ... You're loosing the debate because of what you call a flaw.

----------


## MelissaWV

Seriously.  The story now is that Martin jumped Zimmerman from behind, knocked him to the ground (but on his back, because evidence shows that his back was wet and grass-stained).  There is no report of a corresponding injury from behind, rather a broken nose and a laceration of some sort to the back of his head.  

So these are some astounding gymnastics, here.

----------


## coastie

> A personal flaw or a sign of maturity, perhaps ?
> Matters not ... You're loosing the debate because of what you call a flaw.


How can I lose something you  already lost 20 pages ago? We're not even 'debating' the same thing, I'm laying out the facts of the law and how it's read, you're talking about...well, to be honest, i've lost track at this point.



 AF just even posted the stand your ground law in Florida.

Sheesh.

----------


## MelissaWV

> is that shirtless pic even him? Not that I care, but are people actually sending out a fake photo to get expected responses?


Eh it looks like him.  I'm not surprised.  There are probably skanky pictures on FB of half the girls who've been murdered this year.  It's part of the new mating ritual.

I seriously doubt it would be any more tasteful to post "Well she had a picture of her in a bikini eating a popsicle on FB" as a reason to think a rape charge should not be brought in a hypothetical case.

----------


## angelatc

> This goes under the assumption that Zimmerman getting out of his car caused an escalation, and ignores the aspect of 6 witnesses stating that Zimmerman was attacked while returning to his car.
> 
> Why are you choosing to ignore this aspect ?


I think the fact that Martin is dead clearly proves that Zimmerman's decision to get out of the car escalated the situation.  The fact that he chased the kid means he intended to escalate the situation.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> $#@!, what I've been saying for the last 15 pages...wait till you see their responses to your response, AF(I've said the same $#@! numerous times in this thread). Welcome to the $#@! show...


Thanks for the straw man.  Have you people even read about the case?  No is alleging you are allowed to follow somebody, then gun them down in cold blood.  Stand Your Ground applies to situations of self defense.  Zimmerman and Martin got in to a fight.  Zimmerman claims Martin started the fight.  Under Florida law, that would mean the shooting was a justifiable use of force and no crime was committed.

----------


## jmdrake

> I'd have guessed that's what the majority of liberty-minded individuals would advocate: a fair trial for Zimmerman.  It's getting harder for me to believe that's possible with each passing hour.


Before there can be a fair trial, the state has to actually agree to a.....*trial*.  That's what messed up about all of this.  People want to talk about what 6 witnesses supposedly said.  What witnesses?  Who are they?  Would they have any motive to lie on Zimmerman's behalf?  Do their stories actually add up?  The purpose of a trial, or at least a preliminary hearing, would be to get to the bottom of this.

----------


## azxd

> How can I lose something you  already lost 20 pages ago? We're not even 'debating' the same thing, I'm laying out the facts of the law and how it's read, you're talking about...well, to be honest, i've lost track at this point.
> 
> 
> 
>  AF just even posted the stand your ground law in Florida.
> 
> Sheesh.


Then you should probably stop with the name calling and present your facts to the DA in Florida

----------


## MelissaWV

> Before there can be a fair trial, the state has to actually agree to a.....*trial*.  That's what messed up about all of this.  People want to talk about what 6 witnesses supposedly said.  What witnesses?  Who are they?  Would they have any motive to lie on Zimmerman's behalf?  Do their stories actually add up?  The purpose of a trial, or at least a preliminary hearing, would be to get to the bottom of this.


Which is probably why there's a grand jury convening on April 10th.

* * *

So no one wants to respond as to how someone jumped/cold-cocked from behind landed on their back with no injuries consistent with being tackled from behind?

----------


## RonPaulMall

> I think the fact that Martin is dead clearly proves that Zimmerman's decision to get out of the car escalated the situation.  The fact that he chased the kid means he intended to escalate the situation.


"Escalating the situation" is neither here nor there.  Zimmerman is only guilty of a crime if he committed an "unlawful act" prior to the shooting.  So far there has been zero evidence introduced to suggest an unlawful act.

----------


## coastie

> Thanks for the straw man.  Have you people even read about the case?  No is alleging you are allowed to follow somebody, then gun them down in cold blood.  Stand Your Ground applies to situations of self defense.  Zimmerman and Martin got in to a fight.  Zimmerman claims Martin started the fight.  Under Florida law, that would mean the shooting was a justifiable use of force and no crime was committed.


Talk about straw men...And several of you here have said that exact thing. And, once again, you're ignoring what happened FIRST in this case,which is all I've been saying all along, which is where he violated stand your ground.

The prosecution is going to start there, not where you guys are.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Seriously.  The story now is that Martin jumped Zimmerman from behind, knocked him to the ground (but on his back, because evidence shows that his back was wet and grass-stained).  There is no report of a corresponding injury from behind, rather a broken nose and a laceration of some sort to the back of his head.  
> 
> So these are some astounding gymnastics, here.


FOX news has claimed that an unnamed Police source said that he was "cold-cocked" from behind. They had no other details. Don't you believe a Police source? 

I wonder if any of those homes had video surveillance going?

----------


## coastie

> "Escalating the situation" is neither here nor there.  Zimmerman is only guilty of a crime if he committed an "unlawful act" prior to the shooting.  So far there has been zero evidence introduced to suggest an unlawful act.


Escalting the situation is EVERYTHING here. Have you even read the law?

----------


## RonPaulMall

> So no one wants to respond as to how someone jumped/cold-cocked from behind landed on their back with no injuries consistent with being tackled from behind?


Your side is the one that traffics in rumors and innuendo.  I've never heard anyone with knowledge of the facts of the case suggesting some one was "cold cocked from behind".

----------


## angelatc

> Same repsonse to you ... YA mean him getting in his car and being jumped, right ??
> That's what you're now refering to as engagement ... Isn't it ?
> 6 witnesses have stated this.
> 
> Why are you having such a difficult time realizing that the initial engagement was broken off, and the man who shot, was jumped ?


For the same reason you're having such a difficult time realizing that the initial engagement was broken off when the man who ended up shot, was stalked.

----------


## MelissaWV

> FOX news has claimed that an unnamed Police source said that he was "cold-cocked" from behind. They had no other details. Don't you believe a Police source? 
> 
> I wonder if any of those homes had video surveillance going?


The more I think about it, the less this makes any sense.

He was not only tackled/cold-cocked from behind (leaving no injury), but he must've either rolled without getting his clothing dirty, or landed on his back, then proceeded to fight or call for help or whatever while struggling to get his weapon out.  In close quarters, I would have expected it to be a combination of Stand Your Ground and accidental discharge of a firearm, since the two were supposedly that close, and they were struggling for the gun.  That's not what's being said.

----------


## jmdrake

> Thanks for the straw man.  Have you people even read about the case?  No is alleging you are allowed to follow somebody, then gun them down in cold blood.  Stand Your Ground applies to situations of self defense.  Zimmerman and Martin got in to a fight.  Zimmerman claims Martin started the fight.  Under Florida law, that would mean the shooting was a justifiable use of force and no crime was committed.


 I take it you haven't actually read the text of the stand your ground law.

_(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony._

Here's where you are getting it wrong.

1) A claim by person A that person B started the fight isn't enough.  If it is then anyone who wants to can kill anyone else and claim that person started the fight.  How to assess that claim?  *Have a trial*!
2) Zimmerman has to prove that he reasonably thought he was in danger of death or serious bodily harm.  Trayvon was unarmed.  Were Trayvon's fists "deadly weapons"?  Arguable I suppose.  How to assess that for sure?  *Have a trial*.
3) Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon after police told him not to.  Does that make his (Zimmerman's) actions unlawful?  That's open to question.  How to answer that question?  *Have a trial!*

If the Florida "stand your ground law" is to be interpreted the way you claim it is, then it should be repealed.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Your side is the one that traffics in rumors and innuendo.  I've never heard anyone with knowledge of the facts of the case suggesting some one was "cold cocked from behind".


That is why I also used the word "jumped," which I have seen used quite repeatedly.  You have also stated he was attacked while walking back to his car.  Or is it now contended that he was walking towards his car and Martin jumped up from next to the car to punch Zimmerman in the nose?

----------


## angelatc

> "Escalating the situation" is neither here nor there.


That's not true.  His CCW permit contains that clause.  ANd last time I checked, stalking is illegal.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Escalting the situation is EVERYTHING here. Have you even read the law?


I've quoted the law in its entirety.  

_(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony_.

If Martin attacked Zimmerman, as Zimmerman says, then no crime was committed (other than the one committed by Martin, who can't be prosecuted on account of being dead).

----------


## Anti Federalist

> $#@!, what I've been saying for the last 15 pages...wait till you see their responses to your response, AF(I've said the same $#@! numerous times in this thread). Welcome to the $#@! show...


Oh I can imagine.

I would have done just what I said I was going to do right from the get go and stay the hell out of these threads all together.

But, I carry a sidearm, lots of people here do as well, and the disinformation I've seen thrown about will land people in prison if they follow it.

Just like my constant preaching about STFU when questioned by cops, my hope is that the information I'm posting, *which is straight from the State of Florida's web page on CCW and SYG*, will make people aware of what the law is, and keep a fellow patriot out of prison, instead of having them do something stupid like follow after somebody and then have to use deadly force.

----------


## coastie

And I'll say it, once again-I would've done the same thing Zimmerman did-IF that's all that happened. But it was not.

Zimmerman's gun is the only reason he was so bold as to confront the young man, as shown by his pussy history of calling the cops evreytime the wind blew in a different direction without first notifying him.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Which is probably why there's a grand jury convening on April 10th.
> 
> * * *
> 
> So no one wants to respond as to how someone jumped/cold-cocked from behind landed on their back with no injuries consistent with being tackled from behind?


As I said, "cold-cocked" was a term used on FOX, with no other details. Being punched in the back of the head does not necessarily mean you will be knocked to the ground by it.

----------


## moo

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/bro...,3584370.story

reports have been released that zimmerman likes to hit women too.

----------


## coastie

> I've quoted the law in its entirety.  
> 
> _(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony_.
> 
> If Martin attacked Zimmerman, as Zimmerman says, then no crime was committed (other than the one committed by Martin, who can't be prosecuted on account of being dead).


It's entirety? That's a helluva lot shorter than what I had to go over when i got my CCW here.

And again, you ignore what happened before, and start at the fight/shooting.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I've quoted the law in its entirety.  
> 
> _(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony_.
> 
> If Martin attacked Zimmerman, as Zimmerman says, then no crime was committed (other than the one committed by Martin, who can't be prosecuted on account of being dead).


If he followed after him, then he does *not* have that legal protection.

----------


## azxd

> I think the fact that Martin is dead clearly proves that Zimmerman's decision to get out of the car escalated the situation.  The fact that he chased the kid means he intended to escalate the situation.


Present your position to tthe Florida DA ... I doubt it will carry much weight, but ya never know.

----------


## angelatc

> Which is probably why there's a grand jury convening on April 10th.
> 
> * * *
> 
> So no one wants to respond as to how someone jumped/cold-cocked from behind landed on their back with no injuries consistent with being tackled from behind?


Weebles wobble but they don't fall down?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> It's entirety? That's a helluva lot shorter than what I had to go over when i got my CCW here.


It's not, he's hand picking a part of it and disregarding the rest and if you follow just that and use it to justify a deadly force incident, in Florida, you will more than likely go to jail.

----------


## MelissaWV

> As I said, "cold-cocked" was a term used on FOX, with no other details. Being punched in the back of the head does not necessarily mean you will be knocked to the ground by it.


But the guy was walking back to his car ... ??? ... on the ground on his back.  So he got punched, then turned around, and then got knocked to the ground?  It really doesn't make any sense.

----------


## azxd

> Which is probably why there's a grand jury convening on April 10th.
> 
> * * *
> 
> So no one wants to respond as to how someone jumped/cold-cocked from behind landed on their back with no injuries consistent with being tackled from behind?


Strange things happen in life ... Think about it.

----------


## coastie

> It's not, he's hand picking a part of it and disregarding the rest and if you follow just that and use it to justify a deadly force incident, in Florida, in will more than likely go to jail.


Oh I know

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> The more I think about it, the less this makes any sense.
> 
> He was not only tackled/cold-cocked from behind (leaving no injury), ...


The official Police report says that he was bleeding on the back of his head, with no specific reason for how that happened. A punch wouldn't necessarily result in bleeding, but could due to a ring or finger nail. 

Anyway, all speculation. We will never know the truth.

----------


## coastie

It is interesting, AF that the state never piss-tested Zimmerman.....

----------


## azxd

> For the same reason you're having such a difficult time realizing that the initial engagement was broken off when the man who ended up shot, was *stalked*.


Don't you mean followed while talking to 911

----------


## angelatc

> Present your position to tthe Florida DA ... I doubt it will carry much weight, but ya never know.


o 

I would prefer to have the DA present it to the Grand Jury.  Like I said, the DAs have more interest in protecting their conviction rates than actually letting a jury make the calls, which means they prefer not to pursue cases that they don't consider to be  slam dunks for the state.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Strange things happen in life ... Think about it.


Yes, and usually having a strange explanation for something results in a) a tox screening (routine, not done here), b) interviewing witnesses (not all were interviewed, and some were coached/led according to reports), c) forensics to determine what on earth happened, d) photographic documentation of injuries and hospitalizations, e) if something does not add up, an arrest, since the person admittedly shot someone else and the details do not totally add up.  It's a very strange case.

Thanks to the media, though, it's not going to die after the April 10th grand jury convenes.  There will also be those who have a dog in this hunt for some reason.  It's depressing that, even after there IS a grand jury hearing scheduled, people are still crying for blood.  They should be asking for justice, whatever that winds up being.

----------


## azxd

> The more I think about it, the less this makes any sense.
> 
> He was not only tackled/cold-cocked from behind (leaving no injury), but he must've either rolled without getting his clothing dirty, or landed on his back, then proceeded to fight or call for help or whatever while struggling to get his weapon out.  In close quarters, I would have expected it to be a combination of Stand Your Ground and accidental discharge of a firearm, since the two were supposedly that close, and they were struggling for the gun.  That's not what's being said.


Strange things happen in life.

----------


## coastie

> Don't you mean followed stalked while talking to 911


Yep, that's what she was getting at.

----------


## jmdrake

> Your side is the one that traffics in rumors and innuendo.  I've never heard anyone with knowledge of the facts of the case suggesting some one was "cold cocked from behind".


 Quit being ridiculous.  

http://www.mediaite.com/online/georg...inst-sidewalk/

----------


## RonPaulMall

> That's not true.  His CCW permit contains that clause.  ANd last time I checked, stalking is illegal.


I find it hard to believe you have ever read the Florida statute's concerning stalking.  Most stalking statutes I know of require an element of an ongoing pattern of behavior or repeated activity to trigger.  Following somebody for ten minutes for a specific purpose wouldn't qualify.  But I'm honest enough to admit I have never read Florida's stalking statute or the case law surrounding it.  If you have evidence that proves you point- provide it.

----------


## azxd

> That's not true.  His CCW permit contains that clause.  ANd last time I checked, stalking is illegal.


Since when is following considered stalking ... When you have 911 on the end of a phone and are making a report and also asking for assistance.

OOPS !!
That doesn't sit well with your stalking claim, does it ?

----------


## jmdrake

> Strange things happen in life ... Think about it.


Yeah.  Sometimes a kid walks to a store to get a soda and some skittles and is killed by someone claiming to be "protecting the neighborhood".  Go figure.

----------


## specsaregood

> Since when is following considered stalking ... When you have 911 on the end of a phone and are making a report and also asking for assistance.
> 
> OOPS !!
> That doesn't sit well with your stalking claim, does it ?


Which definition of "stalking" do you prefer?

----------


## azxd

> And I'll say it, once again-I would've done the same thing Zimmerman did-IF that's all that happened. But it was not.
> 
> Zimmerman's gun is the only reason he was so bold as to confront the young man, as shown by his pussy history of calling the cops evreytime the wind blew in a different direction without first notifying him.


Psychic much ?

----------


## jmdrake

> I've quoted the law in its entirety.  
> 
> _(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony_.
> 
> If Martin attacked Zimmerman, as Zimmerman says, then no crime was committed (other than the one committed by Martin, who can't be prosecuted on account of being dead).


Just because you quote the law doesn't mean you don't understand it.  Clearly you don't.  I've bolded the part you're ignoring.

----------


## coastie

> Since when is following considered stalking ... When you have 911 on the end of a phone and are making a report and also asking for assistance.
> 
> OOPS !!
> That doesn't sit well with your stalking claim, does it ?


How Martin felt at the time about being stalked or not is what's important here. Well-it's important if your looking at this with logic, anyway.

----------


## angelatc

> Don't you mean followed while talking to 911


What's with the smiley faces?  It amuses you that a kid is dead, and nobody can do anything about it?

Florida defines stalking as:

*Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.


*
Willfully - check
Maliciously - check
Repeatedly - check (First in the car, then on foot)

----------


## iGGz

[[]]

----------


## azxd

> Weebles wobble but they don't fall down?


LOL
Nice !!!

----------


## kylejack

> I've quoted the law in its entirety.  
> 
> _(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony_.
> 
> If Martin attacked Zimmerman, as Zimmerman says, then no crime was committed (other than the one committed by Martin, who can't be prosecuted on account of being dead).


Sorry, but _Zimmerman's lawyer_ said that SYG does not apply. They're going with a self-defense claim, not SYG.

----------


## angelatc

> Since when is following considered stalking ... When you have 911 on the end of a phone and are making a report and also asking for assistance.
> 
> OOPS !!
> That doesn't sit well with your stalking claim, does it ?


He was asking for assistance because he was being stalked.  Works fine for me.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Since when is following considered stalking ... When you have 911 on the end of a phone and are making a report and also asking for assistance.
> 
> OOPS !!
> That doesn't sit well with your stalking claim, does it ?


In all fairness, if someone approaches me at night who has been following me around, I am not going to pause to try to ascertain with whom they are speaking.  I am not even going to trust that they are actually on the phone.  I am going to get to a safer area before calling the police myself.  If the aforementioned is "asking questions" in the same sort of tone he's using on the 9-1-1 recording, you bet your butt I am not standing around in the dark to have a chitchat with them.  I am getting my "suspicious" self home.

And yeah, when I told my parents what happened, the word "stalking" might come into it.

Just as people are saying Zimmerman did not know anything for certain about Martin (Martin could have had a gun in that hoodie, or he could have been a boxer, or he could have been a drug dealer or or or), Martin could not know anything about Zimmerman, who was just a weird guy following him around in his car.

----------


## jmdrake

> Sorry, but _Zimmerman's lawyer_ said that SYG does not apply. They're going with a self-defense claim, not SYG.


Thanks for the info.  +rep.  Link below for the Google challenged.

http://www.clintonlindsay.com/2012/0...ermans-lawyer/

----------


## RonPaulMall

> But the guy was walking back to his car ... ??? ... on the ground on his back.  So he got punched, then turned around, and then got knocked to the ground?  It really doesn't make any sense.


How about he was walking back to his car and he encountered Martin, and was attacked.  Or he encountered Martin, they exchanged words, he was walking back to his car, Martin started yelling at him anew, and Zimmerman turned around and was attacked.  It could easily make sense.  It only doesn't make sense if you construct your own scenario based on the pitiful scrapes of information being leaked and then insist things couldn't have happened any other way.

----------


## angelatc

> I find it hard to believe you have ever read the Florida statute's concerning stalking.  Most stalking statutes I know of require an element of an ongoing pattern of behavior or repeated activity to trigger.  Following somebody for ten minutes for a specific purpose wouldn't qualify.  But I'm honest enough to admit I have never read Florida's stalking statute or the case law surrounding it.  If you have evidence that proves you point- provide it.


It was posted in another thread.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Thanks for the info.  +rep.  Link below for the Google challenged.
> 
> http://www.clintonlindsay.com/2012/0...ermans-lawyer/


FYI... they were going with SYG up until a fairly recent (yesterday? day before?) interview.

They must have actually read the law and seen that it was a stretch.

----------


## coastie

> Sorry, but _Zimmerman's lawyer_ said that SYG does not apply. They're going with a self-defense claim, not SYG.


Yep-because they'd lose. Well, his lawyer agrees with those of us who have half a brain here.

----------


## MelissaWV

> How about he was walking back to his car and he encountered Martin, and was attacked.  Or he encountered Martin, they exchanged words, he was walking back to his car, Martin started yelling at him anew, and Zimmerman turned around and was attacked.  It could easily make sense.  It only doesn't make sense if you construct your own scenario based on the pitiful scrapes of information being leaked and then insist things couldn't have happened any other way.


Well I could do like you, and just make it up out of information... that doesn't exist at all.

----------


## azxd

> Yes, and usually having a strange explanation for something results in a) a tox screening (routine, not done here), b) interviewing witnesses (not all were interviewed, and some were coached/led according to reports), c) forensics to determine what on earth happened, d) photographic documentation of injuries and hospitalizations, e) if something does not add up, an arrest, since the person admittedly shot someone else and the details do not totally add up.  It's a very strange case.
> 
> Thanks to the media, though, it's not going to die after the April 10th grand jury convenes.  There will also be those who have a dog in this hunt for some reason.  It's depressing that, even after there IS a grand jury hearing scheduled, pe*ople are still crying for blood.  They should be asking for justice*, whatever that winds up being.


Agreed, but some here have already had a trial in their heads and developed a verdict.

----------


## jmdrake

Also the author of the "Stand your ground" law says it doesn't apply in this case.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/2...-hearings.html

_“They got the goods on him. They need to prosecute whoever shot the kid,” said Peaden, a Crestview Republican who sponsored the deadly force law in 2005. “He has no protection under my law.”

Peaden and Baxley, R-Ocala, say their law is a self-defense act. It says law-abiding people have no duty to retreat from an attacker and can meet “force with force.” Nowhere does it say that a person has a right to confront another.

The 911 tapes strongly suggest Zimmerman overstepped his bounds, they say, when the Sanford neighborhood crime-watch captain said he was following Trayvon and appeared to ignore a police request to stay away.

“The guy lost his defense right then,” said Peaden. “When he said ‘I’m following him,’ he lost his defense.”

Peaden and Baxley said they didn’t know all the facts of the case, so their interpretations of what happened could change if new information arises during the investigation.
_

----------


## BamaAla

> Strange how so many people want to determine guilt or innocence without all of the facts.  Myself, I'll wait for the facts before I make up my mind.


Ain't it though! It's all happening in the strangest way too. You've got a former convict declaring guilt, the strongest anti-authority poster on the board advocating that Zimmerman cower in obedience when commanded by a telephone operator, and a woman a few posts above excoriating a guy for pushing a view despite not being at the scene when in fact she has been a party to the exact folly. 

As the coon-ass above me said, you're best served to hold your horses. Do you not remember another high profile Florida case recently in which everyone _KNEW_ the accused was guilty?

----------


## jmdrake

> Agreed, but some here have already had a trial in their heads and developed a verdict.


Some have tried and convicted Trayvon Martin in their head and declared him a "perp".    The rest of us are just asking that Zimmerman be charged and there be a trial.

----------


## azxd

> Originally Posted by angelatc
> 
> 
> That's not true.  His CCW permit contains that clause.  ANd last time I checked, stalking is illegal.
> 
> 
> I find it hard to believe you have ever read the Florida statute's concerning stalking.  Most stalking statutes I know of require an element of an ongoing pattern of behavior or repeated activity to trigger.  Following somebody for ten minutes for a specific purpose wouldn't qualify.  But I'm honest enough to admit I have never read Florida's stalking statute or the case law surrounding it.  If you have evidence that proves you point- provide it.


I also await a response to this.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Sorry, but _Zimmerman's lawyer_ said that SYG does not apply. They're going with a self-defense claim, not SYG.


Well, someone better inform the politicians and pundits that were attacking the SYG law today...

----------


## azxd

> Yeah.  Sometimes a kid walks to a store to get a soda and some skittles and is killed by someone claiming to be "protecting the neighborhood".  Go figure.


And sometimes people intentionally distort things in a feeble attempt to claim moral superiority.

----------


## coastie

> “They got the goods on him. They need to prosecute whoever shot the kid,” said Peaden, a Crestview Republican who sponsored the deadly force law in 2005. “He has no protection under my law.”
> 
> Peaden and Baxley, R-Ocala, say their law is a self-defense act. It says law-abiding people have no duty to retreat from an attacker and can meet “force with force.” Nowhere does it say that a person has a right to confront another.
> 
> The 911 tapes strongly suggest Zimmerman overstepped his bounds, they say, when the Sanford neighborhood crime-watch captain said he was following Trayvon and appeared to ignore a police request to stay away.
> 
> “The guy lost his defense right then,” said Peaden. *“When he said ‘I’m following him,’ he lost his defense.”*
> 
> Peaden and Baxley said they didn’t know all the facts of the case, so their interpretations of what happened could change if new information arises during the investigation.


Kewl, even the author of the law agrees with some of us. imagine that. And with that, i will leave this thread, tired of repeating myself, being affirmed(by the author(s) of the law, no less!), and then arguing with idiots again.

----------


## specsaregood

> Agreed, but some here have already had a trial in their heads and developed a verdict.


I don't think anybody here has proposed that he be sent to prison without a fair trial or that they would necessarily vote to convict with all the information comes out.   The unanimous position is that it should go to trial OR at the very least be heard by a grand jury.

----------


## moo

> FYI... they were going with SYG up until a fairly recent (yesterday? day before?) interview.
> 
> They must have actually read the law and seen that it was a stretch.


The new self defense claim is trayvon reached for zimmerman's gun. It doesn't matter who started the fight

----------


## RonPaulMall

> How Martin felt at the time about being stalked or not is what's important here. Well-it's important if your looking at this with logic, anyway.


Logic or emotion.  If "how Martin felt" is what is important, cite me the statute that says so.  Cite me that statute and case law in Florida that says what Zimmerman was doing constitutes "Stalking".  These are specific legal terms you are throwing around.  We don't charge people with crimes because Coastie thinks what somebody did is wrong.  We charge people based on statutes.  If the statute does not support the charge, the arrest is unlawful.

----------


## azxd

> Which definition of "stalking" do you prefer?


How about Florida Law, being as that is where this happened.

----------


## angelatc

> Some have tried and convicted Trayvon Martin in their head and declared him a "perp".    The rest of us are just asking that Zimmerman be charged and there be a trial.


Exactly.

----------


## MelissaWV

> The new self defense claim is trayvon reached for zimmerman's gun. It doesn't matter who started the fight


Interesting, but how did Martin know there was a gun?

----------


## angelatc

> The new self defense claim is trayvon reached for zimmerman's gun. It doesn't matter who started the fight


It does.  Zimmerman already had his gun out when chasing a kid who was trying to flee the situation?

----------


## moo

> Interesting, but how did Martin know there was a gun?


Good question. How did martin know where to reach?

----------


## MelissaWV

> Logic or emotion.  If "how Martin felt" is what is important, cite me the statute that says so.  Cite me that statute and case law in Florida that says what Zimmerman was doing constitutes "Stalking".  These are specific legal terms you are throwing around.  We don't charge people with crimes because Coastie thinks what somebody did is wrong.  We charge people based on statutes.  If the statute does not support the charge, the arrest is unlawful.


In all fairness, the law was posted in one of the other dozen threads about this.  It would get pretty redundant to go around and do the same thing in every related thread every time.

----------


## azxd

> What's with the smiley faces?  It amuses you that a kid is dead, and nobody can do anything about it?
> 
> Florida defines stalking as:
> 
> *Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> ...


Bias - Check

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Also the author of the "Stand your ground" law says it doesn't apply in this case.
> 
> [/i]


Good lord.  Are honestly citing a freaking politician?  You realize that it is almost unheard of for a politician to actually write a law?  Other people draft them for them.  The best you can hope for is the politician has a vague understanding of the law before he introduces it.  I've cited the statute itself.  You've cited a politician who ignores the statute entirely and admits he knows nothing about the case.  Show me where IN THE STATUTE it says anything that would justify the statute not being applicable.

----------


## kylejack

If Zimmerman brandished, he had already assaulted Martin.

----------


## kylejack

> Good lord.  Are honestly citing a freaking politician?  You realize that it is almost unheard of for a politician to actually write a law?  Other people draft them for them.  The best you can hope for is the politician has a vague understanding of the law before he introduces it.  I've cited the statute itself.  You've cited a politician who ignores the statute entirely and admits he knows nothing about the case.  Show me where IN THE STATUTE it says anything that would justify the statute not being applicable.


It's moot. They don't intend to use SYG as an affirmative defense, therefore it's irrelevant.

----------


## azxd

> He was asking for assistance because he was being stalked.  Works fine for me.


Are you really  that lost ?
Zimmerman dialed 911 ... Martin called his girlfriend, then dialed 911, or so it has been reported !!!

----------


## angelatc

> Logic or emotion.  If "how Martin felt" is what is important, cite me the statute that says so.


Probable cause and reasonable belief are both legal terms.  I don't find it at all unreasonable to believe that Martin had a "reasonable belief" that the man in the car could pose a threat to him, and was following him intending to do just that.

If Zimmerman had a "pizza" sign on the top of his car, reasonable belief wouldn't apply - it would be reasonable to believe that guy was looking for an address.

But being followed by a slow moving car in a bad neighborhood? It's reasonable to assume that nothing good will come from the encounter.

----------


## angelatc

> Zimmerman dialed 911 ... Martin called his girlfriend, then dialed 911, or so it has been reported !!!


You denying that young black men have a resistance to calling the police?  Or that 17 year olds aren't always the best judges of what to do?

----------


## RonPaulMall

> It's moot. They don't intend to use SYG as an affirmative defense, therefore it's irrelevant.


SYG is not an affirmative defense.  It is an immunity from prosecution under Florida's justifiable use of force Chapter.  SYG is the reason Zimmerman wouldn't be arrested in the first place, not something he'd raise as an affirmative defense at trial.

----------


## kylejack

> SYG is not an affirmative defense.  It is an immunity from prosecution under Florida's justifiable use of force Chapter.  SYG is the reason Zimmerman wouldn't be arrested in the first place, not something he'd raise as an affirmative defense at trial.


Well his lawyer who has a law degree and experience representing defendants in Florida says it doesn't apply.

----------


## azxd

> In all fairness, if someone approaches me at night who has been following me around, I am not going to pause to try to ascertain with whom they are speaking.  I am not even going to trust that they are actually on the phone.  I am going to get to a safer area before calling the police myself.  If the aforementioned is "asking questions" in the same sort of tone he's using on the 9-1-1 recording, you bet your butt I am not standing around in the dark to have a chitchat with them.  I am getting my "suspicious" self home.
> 
> And yeah, when I told my parents what happened, the word "stalking" might come into it.
> 
> Just as people are saying Zimmerman did not know anything for certain about Martin (Martin could have had a gun in that hoodie, or he could have been a boxer, or he could have been a drug dealer or or or), Martin could not know anything about Zimmerman, who was just a *weird guy* following him around in his car.


Your description ... YES ?

And if the reports are true, Martin was 100 yards from home, why didn't he go there ?

----------


## angelatc

> I also await a response to this.


I posted the definition earlier in the thread.

----------


## angelatc

> Your description ... YES ?
> 
> And if the reports are true, Martin was 100 yards from home, why didn't he go there ?


I have actually been in this situation.  I did not go home because I did not want the guy following me to know where I lived.

----------


## moo

> You denying that young black men have a resistance to calling the police?


Drug dealers and gangsters never call the police.

----------


## azxd

> FYI... they were going with SYG up until a fairly recent (yesterday? day before?) interview.
> 
> They must have actually read the law and seen that it was a stretch.


Is this based on a reporters speculation, or Zimmerman's lawyer ?

Citation please.

----------


## azxd

> Some have tried and convicted Trayvon Martin in their head and declared him a "perp".   *The rest of us* are just asking that Zimmerman be charged and there be a trial.


I was referencing those who claim Zimmerman murdered Martin ... Who are you speaking for ?

----------


## angelatc

> Bias - Check


So I am right, but it doesn't count because the definition supports my position, or something?

----------


## angelatc

> Is this based on a reporters speculation, or Zimmerman's lawyer ?
> 
> Citation please.


Good lord = have you read nothing on the case other than what's been posted in the thread?   The only reason we know there is a Stand Your Ground law in Florida is because the authorities cited it incessantly.

----------


## moo

> I was referencing those who claim Zimmerman murdered Martin ... Who are you speaking for ?


2 million people....and counting.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

Here is how I look at this.... Even *if* Trayvon was a drug dealing, gang banging, burglar who was casing a neighborhood Zimmerman lost Stand Your Ground, or ANY other Self Defense claim when he went after him. If Trayvon felt threatened by some big guy coming after him he would have the right to defend HIMSELF. Nobody saw the initial 'blows' get thrown. We will never know if Zimmerman grabbed Trayvon and Trayvon responded by kicking his ass until he was killed. We don't know if Trayvon got scared went after the guy kicking his ass and then being shot and killed. 

What do we know? We know that Trayvon told his girlfriend on the phone that he was being followed and he was going to walk faster. We know sometime AFTER that a witness saw Trayvon on Zimmerman. We know at some point after that Trayvon was shot.

All of the actions that we do know would never have happened if Zimmerman did not follow him after being told not too. 

I think that I am quite sure I know another thing..... If Zimmerman is not charged, convicted, and killed by death penalty we will see a east coast Florida "Rodney King" riot.

----------


## angelatc

> Drug dealers and gangsters never call the police.


That's not true either.

----------


## azxd

> Well, someone better inform the politicians and pundits that were attacking the SYG law today...


Gun grabbers use any opportunity being presented, and they twist situations to their advantage if possible.

They attempted the same when Congresswoman Giffords was shot, and they even tried to associate the shooting with the TEA Party, but you probably already know this.

----------


## angelatc

> Good lord.  Are honestly citing a freaking politician?  You realize that it is almost unheard of for a politician to actually write a law?  Other people draft them for them.


Prove that somebody else wrote the law.

----------


## azxd

> I don't think anybody here has proposed that he be sent to prison without a fair trial or that they would necessarily vote to convict with all the information comes out.   The unanimous position is that it should go to trial OR at the very least be heard by a grand jury.


This is true, but it's also obvious that bias exists with some, and they are formulating their conviction ... It started back on page one of this, or perhaps one of the other threads about this case when they (names not specified) made claim to the words murder, wanna be cop (cope hater bias) etcetera.

----------


## angelatc

> Gun grabbers use any opportunity being presented, and they twist situations to their advantage if possible.
> 
> They attempted the same when Congresswoman Giffords was shot, and they even tried to associate the shooting with the TEA Party, but you probably already know this.


The problem here is that while you're right - the gun grabbers use every available opportunity given to them - that having a CCW doesn't automatically exonerate you in shootings.   There's less respect for gun rights on the NRA forums than there is on these forums.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Well his lawyer who has a law degree and experience representing defendants in Florida says it doesn't apply.


I have a law degree.  I've drafted statutes that made their way in to Code of Virginia.  If that statement you made is actually from Zimmerman's lawyer, than Zimmerman needs new representation.  The lawyer you quoted says that the stand your ground clause is mostly about being attacked in your home.  That is so wrong it defies imagination that it could come from a criminal defense attorney's mouth.  Being attacked in your home is covered by an entirely different clause, 776.013 (1).  The Stand Your Ground 776.013 (3) was an amendment to the code passed in 2006 that goes beyond just a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle.  It applies whenever somebody is attacked "*in any other place* where he or she has a right to be".

----------


## angelatc

> This is true, but it's also obvious that bias exists with some, and they are formulating their conviction ... It started back on page one of this, or perhaps one of the other threads about this case when they (names not specified) made claim to the words murder, wanna be cop (cope hater bias) etcetera.


Of course it started on page 1 - look at the title of the thread!

----------


## angelatc

> I have a law degree.  I've drafted statutes that made their way in to Code of Virginia.  If that statement you made is actually from Zimmerman's lawyer, than Zimmerman needs new representation.  The lawyer you quoted says that the stand your ground clause is mostly about being attacked in your home.  That is so wrong it defies imagination that it could come from a criminal defense attorney's mouth.  Being attacked in your home is covered by an entirely different clause, 776.013 (1).  The Stand Your Ground 776.013 (3) was an amendment to the code passed in 2006 that goes beyond just a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle.  It applies whenever somebody is attacked "*in any other place* where he or she has a right to be".


But the intention of the stand your ground law was to strengthen self defense laws.  Previously, a person could be charged with choosing to defend oneself when there was an option to flee.    This ceased to be about that when Zimmerman got out of the car.

----------


## jmdrake

> And sometimes people intentionally distort things in a feeble attempt to claim moral superiority.


Yeah.  You have had a tendency to do that in this thread.  Again:

_Yeah. Sometimes a kid walks to a store to get a soda and some skittles and is killed by someone claiming to be "protecting the neighborhood". Go figure_

Where is the distortion?  Everyone agrees the kid went to the store to get soda and skittles.  Everyone agrees he was killed by someone claiming to be "protecting the neighborhood".  Those are the facts that cannot be gotten around just by your snarkiness.  Oh yeah, and the kid was unarmed.  That's a fact I left out.  Sorry.  Now who touched who first or who said what our who was walking where?  That's all speculation.  That's why we need *trials* or at the very least preliminary hearings.  A kid is dead for no good reason.  It can't be brushed aside just on a whim.

----------


## azxd

> You denying that young black men have a resistance to calling the police?  Or that 17 year olds aren't always the best judges of what to do?


Color of skin has nothing to do with this, unless you think it is imporant.

And 17,
Again,
If Martin was 100 yards from home, why didn't he go home ?

He might be alive if he had went home.
He might be alive if he hadn't took off running.

Many theories can be developed about life and death, but they're all just theories.

----------


## azxd

> Originally Posted by RonPaulMall
> 
> 
> SYG is not an affirmative defense.  It is an immunity from prosecution under Florida's justifiable use of force Chapter.  *SYG is t*he reason Zimmerman wouldn't be arrested in the first place, *not something he'd raise as an affirmative defense at trial*.
> 
> 
> Well his lawyer who has a law degree and experience representing defendants in Florida says it doesn't apply.


I guess you both agree, huh !!

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Prove that somebody else wrote the law.


Why?  I'm telling you, as somebody who has worked in the profession, that politicians rarely write their own bills.  This is fact.  Bills are usually drafted by either outside interest groups and then maybe they are either amended by Legislative Assistants (or Legislative Aides as they are called in some states) or they are drafted by the Legislative Assistants and then amended after being scrutinized by outside interests.  The only part of the process the politician himself is sure of participating in is the submitting of the finished bill.  If you are lucky, they'll read it first.  If you are really lucky, they'll fully understand it.  But most times they just rely on what their LA tells them it means or what the lawyers working for the National Manufacturers Association or whatever group it may be assures them it means.

----------


## jmdrake

> I was referencing those who claim Zimmerman murdered Martin ... Who are you speaking for ?


He should certainly be charged with murder.  2nd or 3rd degree murder perhaps, but it's still murder.  I'm curious.  Have you ever actually read a criminal indictment?  It doesn't waffle about the claim being made by the state.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Is this based on a reporters speculation, or Zimmerman's lawyer ?
> 
> Citation please.


Zimmerman's lawyer and his "best friend" have been unavoidably all over the news, and when asked if SYG would be part of the defense strategy, the lawyer said yes.

Today it is no longer part of the strategy.

If it applied, why would you not use it?  Well, more accurately, if it applied and you could easily present that it applies, why wouldn't you use it?




> George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch crime captain who shot dead 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, originally told police in a written statement that Martin* knocked him down with a punch to the nose, repeatedly slammed his head on the ground* and tried to take his gun, a police source told ABC News. 
> 
> Zimmerman had claimed he had called police about Martin, whom he found suspicious, then *went back to his car when Martin attacked him*, punching him.


I guess it was a rush from in front.  Thank you, article, for answering what people here could only answer with "stuff happens."  How Martin somehow got behind Zimmerman's car we'll never know.




> Martin's girlfriend had said in a recording obtained exclusively by ABC News that she heard Martin ask Zimmerman "why are your following me, and then the man asked, what are you doing around here." She then heard a scuffle break out and the line went dead.


There doesn't seem to be a problem there.  Martin asked a simple question, which Zimmerman is free not to answer, or to answer as he did.  The "scuffle" doesn't point to either one, because it's being witnessed via a phonecall.

That suspension was for...




> ABC News has also learned that Martin was staying in Sanford at the time because he'd been suspended from Krop High School in Miami after school officials found him with a baggy that they suspected contained marijuana. He was staying at his father's fiance's house in Sanford. 
> 
> Family spokesperson Ryan Julison confirmed to ABC News that Martin was suspended for *an "empty baggy that had contained pot."*


SYG used up until recently:




> Zimmerman claimed self defense and this weekend the lawyer counseling him, Craig Sonner, told ABC News that he was likely to *invoke Florida's controversial stand-your-ground law in his defense*.





> "He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man," Martin's friend said. "I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run, but he said he was not going to run." 
> 
> Eventually, he would run, said the girl, thinking that he'd managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin. 
> 
> "Trayvon said, 'What are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again, and he didn't answer the phone."


The Martin-got-pushed part is speculation, obviously, since it can "just fall" if you push someone very hard as well.




> violated major parts of the Neighborhood Watch Manual, which states "It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers. And they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles."


I'm sure that, while I've been doing this, those of you that know one way or another what happened have still been going at this.

----------


## azxd

> I have actually been in this situation.  I did not go home because I did not want the guy following me to know where I lived.


Noted

----------


## angelatc

> Color of skin has nothing to do with this, unless you think it is imporant.


Ron Paul says that the judicial system is racially biased.  The black community says the judicidal system is racially biased.  You say it isn't important?  Or that the kid wasn't brought up hearing messages about the prejudices in the judicial system?  




> And 17,
> Again,
> If Martin was 100 yards from home, why didn't he go home ?
> 
> He might be alive if he had went home.
> He might be alive if he hadn't took off running.
> 
> Many theories can be developed about life and death, but they're all just theories.


I already told you that. I have been in that situation.  Therefore a theory that I find incredibly likely is that he did not go home because he did not want the aggressor to know where he lived, which could likely expose his family to danger, either immediate or in the future.

----------


## Paulitics 2011

His drug use is irrelevant to the case.  Let's wait for ALL the facts before rendering judgement.

----------


## azxd

> So I am right, but it doesn't count because the definition supports my position, or something?


Perhaps, perhaps not ... I'm thinking that word "repeatedly" should be analyzed more carefully.

----------


## jmdrake

> Good lord.  Are honestly citing a freaking politician?  You realize that it is almost unheard of for a politician to actually write a law?  Other people draft them for them.  The best you can hope for is the politician has a vague understanding of the law before he introduces it.  I've cited the statute itself.  You've cited a politician who ignores the statute entirely and admits he knows nothing about the case.  Show me where IN THE STATUTE it says anything that would justify the statute not being applicable.


 I've cited the statute to YOU several times now and you keep ignoring what you don't want to see!

_(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony._

The important part is in bold.  Trayvon was *unarmed*.  Zimmerman should have to prove that he *reasonably* believed his life was in danger from a fist fight that his actions initiated.  That means having a trial.  It's also highly questionable if Zimmerman was engaged in a lawful activity after the police told him they didn't need him following Trayvon.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> But the intention of the stand your ground law was to strengthen self defense laws.  Previously, a person could be charged with choosing to defend oneself when there was an option to flee.    This ceased to be about that when Zimmerman got out of the car.


No, it didn't.  You are allowed to approach another being in this country.  What you are not allowed to do is commit an unlawful act against them.  Stand Your Ground would cease to apply only if Zimmerman did something unlawful prior to shooting Martin.  Walking up to someone is not unlawful.  Under your reading of the statute (and I hasten to call it that since there is really in the statute to support what you are saying) anytime a person approaches another person, the stand your ground law doesn't apply.  That is absurd.  It doesn't matter who among two people approaches the other prior to a fight.  The only thing that matters with respect to Stand Your Ground is who started the fight.

----------


## azxd

> The problem here is that while you're right - the gun grabbers use every available opportunity given to them - that having a CCW doesn't automatically exonerate you in shootings.   There's less respect for gun rights on the NRA forums than there is on these forums.


Who has claimed that a CCW exonerates one of anything ... If anything it makes you that much more subject to your local laws, because you are supposed to know what you can and cannot do defensively, along with where you can carry and were you may not.

Take a class, Angel.

----------


## azxd

> Of course it started on page 1 - look at the title of the thread!


Proving my point ... Thank You !!!

----------


## RonPaulMall

> I've cited the statute to YOU several times now and you keep ignoring what you don't want to see!
> 
> _(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony._
> 
> The important part is in bold.  Trayvon was *unarmed*.  Zimmerman should have to prove that he *reasonably* believed his life was in danger from a fist fight that his actions initiated.  That means having a trial.  It's also highly questionable if Zimmerman was engaged in a lawful activity after the police told him they didn't need him following Trayvon.


There is a witness that has Martin on top of Zimmerman, punching him, and Zimmerman screaming for help.  Of all the aspects of this case, the one least in doubt is the fact that Zimmerman was acting to reasonably prevent great bodily harm.





> It's also highly questionable if Zimmerman was engaged in a lawful activity after the police told him they didn't need him following Trayvon.


You can not possibly be this dense.  Please cite me that statute that says doing an otherwise legal activity becomes illegal if a police dispatcher tells you he doesn't _need_ you to do whatever it is you are planning to do.

----------


## jmdrake

> I have a law degree.  I've drafted statutes that made their way in to Code of Virginia.  If that statement you made is actually from Zimmerman's lawyer, than Zimmerman needs new representation.  The lawyer you quoted says that the stand your ground clause is mostly about being attacked in your home.  That is so wrong it defies imagination that it could come from a criminal defense attorney's mouth.  Being attacked in your home is covered by an entirely different clause, 776.013 (1).  The Stand Your Ground 776.013 (3) was an amendment to the code passed in 2006 that goes beyond just a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle.  It applies whenever somebody is attacked "*in any other place* where he or she has a right to be".


Most of the clauses in the "Stand Your Ground" law *are* about defense in the home.  So that defense attorney is right.  It is mostly about self defense in the home.  Outside the home the self defense aspect is more qualified.  If you're in your own home you don't have to argue that you thought you were in danger of death or serious bodily injury.  The person can just be a burglar.  Outside your home you do.

----------


## azxd

> Yeah.  You have had a tendency to do that in this thread.  Again:
> 
> _Yeah. Sometimes a kid walks to a store to get a soda and some skittles and is killed by someone claiming to be "protecting the neighborhood". Go figure_
> 
> Where is the distortion?  Everyone agrees the kid went to the store to get soda and skittles.  Everyone agrees he was killed by someone claiming to be "protecting the neighborhood".  Those are the facts that cannot be gotten around just by your snarkiness.  Oh yeah, and the kid was unarmed.  That's a fact I left out.  Sorry.  Now who touched who first or who said what our who was walking where?  That's all speculation.  That's why we need *trials* or at the very least preliminary hearings.  A kid is dead for no good reason.  It can't be brushed aside just on a whim.


I haven't read anyone writing ... Forget about it ... So I guess that trial will move forward.

----------


## jmdrake

> There is a witness that has Martin on top of Zimmerman, punching him, and Zimmerman screaming for help.  Of all the aspects of this case, the one least in doubt is the fact that Zimmerman was acting to reasonably prevent great bodily harm.


You must not have been in very many fights.  Most fist fights end up on the ground with someone punching someone else.  Following your stupid logic every bar fight is grounds for deadly force by whoever is getting beat up.





> You can not possibly be this dense.  Please cite me that statute that says doing an otherwise legal activity becomes illegal if a police dispatcher tells you he doesn't _need_ you to do whatever it is you are planning to do.


Who says what Zimmerman did was legal?  If Zimmerman put Trayvon in reasonable fear of imminent bodily contact that was harmful or offensive that's assault.  You're dense if you don't know that.  If Zimmerman so much as put his hand toward Trayvon that's assault.  Considering the amount of attitude Zimmerman was brimming with when talking to the cops that's quite likely.  Avoiding those kinds of situations is why the dispatcher told him not do do what he was doing.

----------


## seeker4sho

> http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-lineh...-a-drug-dealer


So, what is your point? The Constitution provides for "Due Process" for a reason. Smearing a 17 year old kid without a full investigation is not cool. If he was murdered then the murderer should be made to  pay the price, no free lynchings under any circumstances for either party. Read the Constitution.

----------


## jmdrake

> No, it didn't.  You are allowed to approach another being in this country.  What you are not allowed to do is commit an unlawful act against them.  Stand Your Ground would cease to apply only if Zimmerman did something unlawful prior to shooting Martin.  Walking up to someone is not unlawful.  Under your reading of the statute (and I hasten to call it that since there is really in the statute to support what you are saying) anytime a person approaches another person, the stand your ground law doesn't apply.  That is absurd.  It doesn't matter who among two people approaches the other prior to a fight.  The only thing that matters with respect to Stand Your Ground is who started the fight.


The right to meet "force with force" does not include the right to meet "force with deadly force just because you are losing a fist fight".  *That* is what is absurd.  And what's the definition of "starting it"?  Who actually lands the first punch?  Or would approaching someone in a threatening manner making it *look* like you are going to hit him count?  By all accounts the evidence shows that Trayvon was trying to avoid Zimmerman.  Maybe you think what Zimmerman did was honorable trying to "clean up the neighborhood" and all.  I don't.  Regardless you seem to be ignoring Trayvon's right of self defense.

----------


## azxd

> Ron Paul says that the judicial system is racially biased.  The black community says the judicidal system is racially biased.  You say it isn't important?  Or that the kid wasn't brought up hearing messages about the prejudices in the judicial system?  
> 
> 
> 
> I already told you that. I have been in that situation.  Therefore a theory that I find incredibly likely is that he did not go home because he did not want the aggressor to know where he lived, which could likely expose his family to danger, either immediate or in the future.


The judicial system has and will continue to be a problem, especially when people use it as an excuse to trump up charges under the guise of racial motivation.

----------


## cajuncocoa

Pardon the interruption while I post another article with information I hadn't seen before:

4:35 p.m. EST, March 26, 2012|By Rene Stutzman, Orlando Sentinel



> *Police: Zimmerman says Trayvon decked him with one blow then began hammering his head*
> 
> With a single punch, Trayvon Martin  decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed  the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman  and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and  battered, law enforcement authorities have revealed to the Orlando  Sentinel.
> 
> That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of  it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say. There have been  no reports that a witness saw that initial punch Zimmerman told police  about.
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman  has not spoken publicly about what happened Feb. 26. But that night,  and in later meetings, he described and re-enacted for police what he  says took place.
> ...


http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...l-rights-punch

----------


## azxd

> His drug use is irrelevant to the case.  Let's wait for ALL the facts before rendering judgement.


Whaa ... You mean the title of the thread might be in error.

----------


## azxd

> You must not have been in very many fights.  Most fist fights end up on the ground with someone punching someone else.  Following your stupid logic every bar fight is grounds for deadly force by whoever is getting beat up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who says what Zimmerman did was legal?  If Zimmerman put Trayvon in reasonable fear of imminent bodily contact that was harmful or offensive that's assault.  *You're dense if you don't know that*.  If Zimmerman so much as put his hand toward Trayvon that's assault.  Considering the amount of attitude Zimmerman was brimming with when talking to the cops that's quite likely.  Avoiding those kinds of situations is why the dispatcher told him not do do what he was doing.


Yea, everyone is supposed to assume that a total stranger is going to act all third grade and stop once a bloody nose is delivered.

And you're calling other people dense ... Unreal !!!

----------


## jmdrake

> The judicial system has and will continue to be a problem, especially when people use it as an excuse to trump up charges under the guise of racial motivation.


For the record I don't think Zimmerman should be charged with a hate crime.  Just murder in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree.  He killed someone over at best dubious circumstances.  That's enough to warrant charges in a sane world.

----------


## AFPVet

Keep in mind... this is exactly what the establishment wants... they want to divide us and trigger a race war.

----------


## moostraks

> Are you really  that lost ?
> Zimmerman dialed 911 ... Martin called his girlfriend, then dialed 911, or so it has been reported !!!


What is your point here? I had a house fire caused by a gas leak. I called my husband at work first, who I then asked to call the fire department because I don't like to deal with strangers. All folks do not have a knee jerk reaction to call authorities when it danger. Some of us might prefer those we know and trust for advice/ assistance over those we don't.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> For the record I don't think Zimmerman should be charged with a hate crime.  Just murder in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree.  He killed someone over at best dubious circumstances.  That's enough to warrant charges in a sane world.


I surely believe there must be enough evidence to justify this.  *Now* can we stop convicting the guy before the jury does?

----------


## jmdrake

> Yea, everyone is supposed to assume that a total stranger is going to act all third grade and stop once a bloody nose is delivered.


Most fist fight between strangers end without serious bodily injury.  And if your that afraid of getting beat up you shouldn't be on "block patrol" and out trying to accost suspects like your some kind of freaking cop.




> And you're calling other people dense ... Unreal !!!


Dense is you claiming the result of a possible murder not being prosecuted is somehow okay.  Again, using your twisted logic, murder charges can almost always be avoided.  Pick a fight with someone, let them get the best of you, then shoot them.  Or let your friend shoot them.  It doesn't matter.  Your friend can say "I was afraid my friend was going to be killed by a punch in the nose".

----------


## jmdrake

> I surely believe there must be enough evidence to justify this.  *Now* can we stop convicting the guy before the jury does?


Can we stop convicting Trayvon?

----------


## azxd

> Pardon the interruption while I post another article with information I hadn't seen before:
> 
> 4:35 p.m. EST, March 26, 2012|By Rene Stutzman, Orlando Sentinel
> http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...l-rights-punch


I totally believe the first sentence is possible ... People can be killed by the first blow, so never let some idiot talk you into thinking a fist is not a deadly weapon.

And the aspect of a shooting seems to be the issue for some ... Zimmerman could have just as easily stopped the threat with his bare hands or something else, and had the same final result.

----------


## azxd

> For the record I don't think Zimmerman should be charged with a hate crime.  Just murder in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree.  He killed someone over at best dubious circumstances.  That's enough to warrant charges in a sane world.


Why not involuntary manslaughter ?
That's what my past co-worker example received.

----------


## azxd

> Keep in mind... this is exactly what the establishment wants... they want to divide us and trigger a race war.


YES, and it provides ammo to remove firearms from the hands of law abiding citizens, or just declare some form of Martial Law.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Can we stop convicting Trayvon?


That's impossible...the young man is dead.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> The right to meet "force with force" does not include the right to meet "force with deadly force just because you are losing a fist fight".


Again with the straw men.  Losing a fight has nothing to do with anything.  Being attacked or not is what is relevant.  An attacker who has the tables turned on him and is losing a fight would have no right to self defense.  




> And what's the definition of "starting it"?  Who actually lands the first punch?  Or would approaching someone in a threatening manner making it *look* like you are going to hit him count?


Again, are you truly this dense?  Starting it would be pushing, shoving, grabbing, announcing "I'm going to kick your arse boy".  This is obvious stuff.  Stop pretending we are all in kindergarten.

Zimmerman's own account doesn't have him committing an unlawful act.  He followed Martin (legal), confronted him (legal), asked him a question (legal), and was then insulted and attacked (illegal).  For police to arrest anyone, or conclude that a crime was committed, they need to find evidence that Zimmerman started the fight.  Not that by his own lawful acts he put himself in to a position where a fight might occur, but that he started the fight.  Show evidence for that and you will be justified in asking for an arrest.  Don't provide any evidence and you are just joining the lynch mob.

----------


## azxd

> Most fist fight between strangers end without serious bodily injury.  And if your that afraid of getting beat up you shouldn't be on "block patrol" and out trying to accost suspects like your some kind of freaking cop.
> 
> 
> 
> *Dense is you* claiming the result of a possible murder not being prosecuted is somehow okay.  Again, using your twisted logic, murder charges can almost always be avoided.  Pick a fight with someone, let them get the best of you, then shoot them.  Or let your friend shoot them.  It doesn't matter.  Your friend can say "I was afraid my friend was going to be killed by a punch in the nose".

----------


## azxd

> Can we stop convicting Trayvon?


It's pretty hard to convict a dead person.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Very judgemental and *absolutely wrong* of you to suggest that a fist fight cannot end in death, and that a fist fight will not bring with it serious harm or death.


A fistfight that could have been *avoided*, had Zimmerman heeded the admonishment of the 911 dispatcher and stood down.

He remains unjustified, under the law as it stands right now, based on the facts I have seen so far.

CCW holders, do *not* follow the argument that is being thrown out here by some, thrown out recklessly, in my my opinion.

You will go to jail if you do.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Again with the straw men.  Losing a fight has nothing to do with anything.  Being attacked or not is what is relevant.  An attacker who has the tables turned on him and is losing a fight would have no right to self defense.  
> 
> 
> 
> Again, are you truly this dense?  Starting it would be pushing, shoving, grabbing, announcing "I'm going to kick your arse boy".  This is obvious stuff.  Stop pretending we are all in kindergarten.
> 
> Zimmerman's own account doesn't have him committing an unlawful act.  He followed Martin (legal), confronted him (legal), asked him a question (legal), and was then insulted and attacked (illegal).  For police to arrest anyone, or conclude that a crime was committed, they need to find evidence that Zimmerman started the fight.  Not that by his own lawful acts he put himself in to a position where a fight might occur, but that he started the fight.  Show evidence for that and you will be justified in asking for an arrest.  Don't provide any evidence and you are just joining the lynch mob.


Now there is an insult?  Where is that coming from, as the person on the phone at the time only heard the question by Martin and the answering question by Zimmerman before the struggle?

I also did not get an answer to why you have asserted he is in a gang.

----------


## azxd

> A fistfight that could have been *avoided*, had Zimmerman heeded the admonishment of the 911 dispatcher and stood down.
> 
> He remains unjustified, under the law as it stands right now, based on the facts I have seen so far.
> 
> CCW holders, do *not* follow the argument that is being thrown out here by some, thrown out recklessly, in my my opinion.
> 
> You will go to jail if you do.


This from someone who says don't talk to the cops LOL

But please,
Recap the facts for all to see ... Those who are ready to convict might have missed something.

----------


## MelissaWV

> There have been no reports that a witness saw that initial punch Zimmerman told police about


From the article someone posted a scant two pages ago.

Those of you saying "witnesses saw Martin start it!" and saying he insulted Zimmerman and threw the first punch... don't seem to have a whole lot to back that up.

----------


## azxd

> From the article someone posted a scant two pages ago.
> 
> Those of you saying "witnesses saw Martin start it!" and saying he insulted Zimmerman and threw the first punch... don't seem to have a whole lot to back that up.


Within all of this one thing is clear an altercation took place, and one individual is dead.

Does anyone want to wait for a trial, or are we to assume that this is just another page from _American History X_, and the one breathing did wrong ?

----------


## MelissaWV

> Within all of this one thing is clear an altercation took place, and one individual is dead.
> 
> Does anyone want to wait for a trial, or are we to assume that this is just another page from _American History X_, and the one breathing did wrong ?


Nope.  All I've been pointing out is that this is cloudy enough that the cops going "nothing to see here," which is the unfortunate result of the SYG legislation, should not stand.  It's going before a grand jury, who will get all of the evidence in an orderly fashion, and hear testimony within just a few months of the shooting.

I do think that it will never be enough, though, for people on both sides.

----------


## azxd

> Nope.  All I've been pointing out is that this is cloudy enough that the cops going "nothing to see here," which is the unfortunate result of the SYG legislation, should not stand.  It's going before a grand jury, who will get all of the evidence in an orderly fashion, and hear testimony within just a few months of the shooting.
> 
> *I do think that it will never be enough, though, for people on both sides*.


This I agree with, and here's a strange turn of events - Trayvon Martin's mother files Trademark papers

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Dense is you claiming the result of a possible murder not being prosecuted is somehow okay.  Again, using your twisted logic, murder charges can almost always be avoided.  Pick a fight with someone, let them get the best of you, then shoot them.  Or let your friend shoot them.  It doesn't matter.  Your friend can say "I was afraid my friend was going to be killed by a punch in the nose".


Yes, I guess I am "dense" for believing in probable cause prior to an arrest.  

Hypothetical for you:  Police arrive upon an accident scene.  Dead person at the side of the road by a traffic light.  Driver pulled over with a smashed window.  Driver says dead person ran out in front of his car.  Now, that surely could be what happened.  But there are other possibilities.  Driver could have ran a red light and struck dead person, in which case he'd be guilty of traffic violation.  Driver could have intentionally driven over dead person because he had a beef with him.  In that case it is murder.  Or, it could have been like he said and the person ran out in front of traffic.  By your standard, the driver should be arrested first and then we should look for evidence that suggests guilt, or we should just let a jury try and find such evidence.  My standard, or we might call the American Justice Standard, is that the police investigate the driver's story, evaluate the evidence, and try to come up with a theory as to what occurred.  If they honestly believe the driver committed a crime, and there is evidence such that this is a reasonable belief, then they have probable cause to make an arrest.  But if they find the driver's story credible, they believe it, and the evidence supports it, then they may not make an arrest.  




> Pick a fight with someone, let them get the best of you, then shoot them.  Or let your friend shoot them.  It doesn't matter.  Your friend can say "I was afraid my friend was going to be killed by a punch in the nose".


If you pick a fight with them, you have lost the right to self defense.  Again, you are responding to arguments that no one is making.

----------


## dannno

> A fistfight that could have been *avoided*, had Zimmerman heeded the admonishment of the 911 dispatcher and stood down.
> 
> He remains unjustified, under the law as it stands right now, based on the facts I have seen so far.
> 
> CCW holders, do *not* follow the argument that is being thrown out here by some, thrown out recklessly, in my my opinion.
> 
> You will go to jail if you do.


I don't think Zimmerman is completely in the right, but it does appear that Martin may have started the confrontation and started beating him in the head... 

Assuming he isn't lying, what would you have done? I think I would have shot him in the leg or something. You can die from a beating to the head, so a court may find him in the right.

I think a lot of the information that came out early was vague and you and pcosmar may have assumed that it was vague because the guy was trying to be a cop and so they were protecting him, but it looks like the real reason was because the media wanted to start some major racial confrontations.





> Zimmerman told police he got out of his SUV, but lost sight of Martin. As he walked back to his vehicle, he said Martin approached him from behind and asked him if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, the Sentinel reports.
> 
> Martin said something like “well you do now,” and punched him in the nose, Zimmerman told police. There has been no report of witnesses to that alleged initial blow.
> 
> As the older man fell to the ground, Martin jumped on him and started slamming his head into the sidewalk. In a 911 call from a neighbor, a man can be heard calling for help. Police say they believe it was Zimmerman’s voice, although Martin’s attorney insists it is the teen’s.
> 
> The Sentinel reports that one witness told police he was certain he saw Zimmerman on the ground with Martin on top, pounding him.
> 
> Read more on Newsmax.com: Trayvon Martin Death: Police Say Witnesses Back Zimmerman's Story
> Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!


http://www.newsmax.com/US/trayvon-ma...mo_code=E854-1

----------


## Anti Federalist

> This from someone who says don't talk to the cops LOL
> 
> But please,
> Recap the facts for all to see ... Those who are ready to convict might have missed something.



*Zimmerman got out of his SUV to follow Trayvon on foot. When a dispatch employee asked Zimmerman if he was following the 17-year-old, Zimmerman said yes. The dispatcher told Zimmerman he did not need to do that.*

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...l-rights-punch



*Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be "preventing" a crime. If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter.* 

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/wea...f_defense.html
*


Florida law also provides that the use of deadly force is not justified if the defendant is charged with an independent forcible felony, and the defendant was attempting to commit a felony or the defendant initially provoked the use of force against himself.*

http://www.criminaldefenseattorneyta...lfDefense.aspx



You are not legally justified in chasing after somebody, even if they DID commit a violent felony.

If you do and a fight breaks out after the fact, you will *NOT* have legal justification for shooting.

Period.

And "not talking to cops" is totally consistent with my message.

I'm trying to keep patriots out of prison.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

Just to clarify:




> http://www.sheriffs.org/content/nsa-...-nw-tragedy-fl
> 
> Alexandria, VA – For nearly four decades, the Neighborhood Watch Program (housed within the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA)) has worked to unite law enforcement agencies, private organizations, and individual citizens in a nation-wide effort to reduce crime and improve local communities.
> 
> 
> The purpose of the Neighborhood Watch Program is to enable citizens to act as the “eyes and ears” within their community and alert law enforcement immediately when they notice suspicious activity. However, the Neighborhood Watch Program does not in any way, shape, or form advocate citizens to take the law in their own hands. The success of the program has established Neighborhood Watch as the nation’s premier crime prevention and community mobilization program. Visible signs of the program are seen throughout America on street signs, window decals, community block parties and service projects.
> 
> "The alleged action of a “self-appointed neighborhood watchman” last month in Sanford, FL significantly contradicts the principles of the Neighborhood Watch Program,” stated NSA Executive Director Aaron D. Kennard, Sheriff (ret.).* “NSA has no information indicating the community where the incident occurred has ever even registered with the NSA Neighborhood Watch program.”*
> 
> “The Neighborhood Watch Program fosters collaboration and cooperation with the community and local law enforcement by encouraging citizens to be aware of what is going on in their communities and contact law enforcement if they suspect something – NOT take the law in their own hands,” continued Executive Director Kennard. “The alleged participant ignored everything the Neighborhood Watch Program stands for and it resulted in a young man losing his life. Our thoughts and prayers are with the family of Trayvon Martin during this terrible time.”


Zimmerman was NOT even a Neighborhood Watch "Captain" as there is none in that city per the National Sheriffs Association.

----------


## dannno

> From the article someone posted a scant two pages ago.
> 
> Those of you saying "witnesses saw Martin start it!" and saying he insulted Zimmerman and threw the first punch... don't seem to have a whole lot to back that up.


Ya I admit there's only one side to the story, but the question is why wasn't this information released earlier so that people could at least give him the benefit of the doubt that it might not have been just about killing a black kid? Probably because the media is trying to turn this into a huge racial dividing issue.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Assuming he isn't lying, what would you have done? I think I would have shot him in the leg or something. You can die from a beating to the head, so a court may find him in the right.


I probably would have shot him too.

That's not germane at all to what I am trying to make clear here.

Having a CCW does not make you a cop.

You do not have legal justification to use deadly force if you follow someone, even if they did commit a felony and it results in fight.

Unless someone can show that Martin attacked Zimmerman with no provocation or prior contact, then he remains unjustified, legally.

----------


## specsaregood

> Assuming he isn't lying, what would you have done?


If I had just killed somebody, I'd make sure to spin or lie in my story as to lessen my chances of going to prison.  that is what I would do.  dead men tell no tales to contradict you.

----------


## azxd

> *Zimmerman got out of his SUV to follow Trayvon on foot. When a dispatch employee asked Zimmerman if he was following the 17-year-old, Zimmerman said yes. The dispatcher told Zimmerman he did not need to do that.*
> 
> http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...l-rights-punch
> 
> 
> 
> *Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be "preventing" a crime. If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter.* 
> 
> http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/wea...f_defense.html
> ...


Yet you are ready to convict this man ... YES ?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> the strongest anti-authority poster on the board advocating that Zimmerman cower in obedience when commanded by a telephone operator


I should have stayed out of the whole damn thing from the get go, like I wanted to.

I will repeat once again, once the 911 dispatcher told him "we don't need you to do that" he *lost* his legal justification under CCW, Deadly Force and Stand Your Ground laws.

I am not commenting on whether the law or his actions are correct, just or valid.

I am stating what the *law* is, and, as I have said a million times before, like I consistently say about talking to cops, I am trying to keep people out of jail.

We have many CCW holders on this board, and if it gets into their heads that this was justified, it could be disastrous.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> You do not have legal justification to use deadly force if you follow someone, even if they did commit a felony and it results in fight.


In Florida, you absolutely do if they attack you and you were doing nothing unlawful.  I think you are confusing the fact pattern in this case with something it is not.  If Martin had robbed Zimmerman, and Zimmerman then followed him and shot him, he'd have committed a crime under Florida law.  That is NOT what is alleged.  Martin didn't commit a crime at all so far as we know.  Zimmerman was not chasing a criminal, he was following somebody he thought suspicious with the intention of asking what he was about (something he's perfectly entitled to do).  If you approach someone in a lawful manner, speak to them, and they respond by attacking you, you absolutely have the right to respond with deadly force under Florida law if you believe they pose a threat of great bodily harm. 

The only way Zimmerman could be charged with a crime is if he attacked Martin.  Or if he threatened to attack Martin or otherwise committed some sort of assault.  There is no evidence to support such a contention as of now, and that is why there has been no arrest.

----------


## azxd

> I probably would have shot him too.
> 
> That's not germane at all to what I am trying to make clear here.
> 
> Having a CCW does not make you a cop.
> 
> You do not have legal justification to use deadly force if you follow someone, even if they did commit a felony and it results in fight.
> 
> Unless someone can show that Martin attacked Zimmerman with no provocation or prior contact, then he remains unjustified, legally.


Who called Zimmerman a_ wanna be cop_ ?

Perhaps the same people who would take your CCW, or perhaps just those who think this is murder and not defense ... Yet will not wait for a trial.

----------


## MikeStanart

> Keep in mind... this is exactly what the establishment wants... they want to divide us and trigger a race war.



THIS.  THIS...  THIS!

I'm so sick of hearing about this.  Man  A shot Man B.  Enough Said.  Whether it was justified or not, a jury will decide.  I could care less about races;

the only people who do are the Racists.

----------


## azxd

> If I had just killed somebody, I'd make sure to spin or lie in my story as to lessen my chances of going to prison.  that is what I would do.  dead men tell no tales to contradict you.


Totally believable that you would state such a thing on a public forum

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Yet you are ready to convict this man ... YES ?


I'm not ready to do a damn thing, other than to make it clear to people what the law is.

I should have stayed out of the whole thing from the get go, like I wanted to.

We have a lot of CCW people here on the board, including myself.

I do not want to see people go to prison for following bad legal theory.

Right now, I am making no judgement on the merit, validity or morality of the law.

----------


## dannno

> If I had just killed somebody, I'd make sure to spin or lie in my story as to lessen my chances of going to prison.  that is what I would do.  dead men tell no tales to contradict you.


Also true, but so far none of his stories have contradicted witnesses.

----------


## azxd

> THIS.  THIS...  THIS!
> 
> I'm so sick of hearing about this.  Man  A shot Man B.  Enough Said.  Whether it was justified or not, a jury will decide.  I could care less about races;
> 
> the only people who do are the Racists.


Thank You !!!

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Who called Zimmerman a_ wanna be cop_ ?
> 
> Perhaps the same people who would take your CCW, or perhaps just those who think this is murder and not defense ... Yet will not wait for a trial.


I did.

Based on what's been presented, that is exactly what he was acting like.

And CCW, DF and SYG law in Florida *specifically* warns that you are *NOT* a "free lance" cop by virtue of having a CCW and you will *not* have the legal justification to use deadly force if you provoke or chase after somebody.

I do not know how much more clear I can make this.

----------


## specsaregood

> Totally believable that you would state such a thing on a public forum


Pfft, I wont be going around playing cop chasing unarmed kids that have done me no harm then killing them; so I'm not worried about it.

----------


## azxd

> I'm not ready to do a damn thing, other than to make it clear to people what the law is.
> 
> I should have stayed out of the whole thing from the get go, like I wanted to.
> 
> We have a lot of CCW people here on the board, including myself.
> 
> I do not want to see people go to prison for following bad legal theory.
> 
> Right now, I am making no judgement on the merit, validity or morality of the law.


Perhaps you should have.

As for people with a CCW, if they are going to rely on other peoples interpretation of laws that probably don't apply to them because of geographic location ... That's their problem.

If you wanna do this right, become State certified to conduct CCW classes, and charge less than everyone else in your area, so you can maximize your contact with those you wish to help.

Your current approach is not much different than what a prison lawyer might use.

Can you legally shoot someone in the back, and have it be a defensive act, and if so, in which States has this been proven in a court of law ?
If you can't answer this, stop giving advise about the law, because what works in your State probably doesn't work in all States ... Just sayin !!

----------


## azxd

> Originally Posted by azxd
> 
> 
> Who called Zimmerman a_ wanna be cop_ ?
> 
> Perhaps the same people who would take your CCW, or perhaps just those who think this is murder and not defense ... Yet will not wait for a trial.
> 
> 
> I did.
> ...


So your interpretation of how someone acted, based on speculation and scant slow to be revealed evidence is enough ... OK !!!

----------


## azxd

> Pfft, I wont be going around playing cop chasing unarmed kids that have done me no harm then killing them; so I'm not worried about it.


How is anyone to know this to be true ?
You've just admitted that if you killed someone you would lie about it ... Seems pretty simple to me.

You have admitted that you will lie to gain advantage in a bad situation.

----------


## specsaregood

> How is anyone to know this to be true ?
> You've just admitted that if you killed someone you would lie about it ... Seems pretty simple to me.
> You have admitted that you will lie to gain advantage in a bad situation.


Sure, I stated what everybody already knows.  As far as knowing it to be true? Because I won't be found in such a situation. herpderp

in reality, I wouldn't say a $#@!ing word to the cops.  doesn't matter if you lie or tell the truth, they still have to prove it.

----------


## MelissaWV

So I guess, to recap and summarize...

"Trayvon suspended from school for 10 days just before killed & may have been gang member"

He was suspended for having an empty baggie that supposedly used to contain marijuana.  His FB posts seem to indicate he MIGHT have been involved with pot.  I am sure those of you on the forum with me would absolutely think this a shocking and criminal charge.  Again, the baggie was even empty.  Wow.  What a gangsta.

He "may have been a gang member"?  I still have not heard anyone explain this one.  I heard one person try to tell me he was flashing gang signs in the pic where he's shirtless.  I had to break it to them that the particular sign he is flashing is not really exclusive to any particular gang.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Perhaps you should have.
> *
> As for people with a CCW, if they are going to rely on other peoples interpretation of laws that probably don't apply to them because of geographic location* ... That's their problem.
> 
> If you wanna do this right, become State certified to conduct CCW classes, and charge less than everyone else in your area, so you can maximize your contact with those you wish to help.
> 
> Your current approach is not much different than what a prison lawyer might use.
> 
> Can you legally shoot someone in the back, and have it be a defensive act, and if so, in which States has this been proven in a court of law ?
> If you can't answer this, stop giving advise about the law, because what works in your State probably doesn't work in all States ... Just sayin !!


I have quoted current *FLORIDA* law.

Unless you have something new, the shooter remains unjustified from a legal standpoint.

As for all the snark, I can't be CCW instructor because NH does not require a class for CCW.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> So your interpretation of how someone acted, based on speculation and scant slow to be revealed evidence is enough ... OK !!!


I have stated in every single post on the legality of this that I have based my opinion *on the facts as presented so far*.

I'm sorry that you've gotten so emotionally involved in this.

----------


## azxd

> I have quoted current *FLORIDA* law.
> 
> Unless you have something new, the shooter remains unjustified from a legal standpoint.
> 
> As for all the snark, *I can't be CCW instructor because NH does not require a class for CCW*.


Then start teaching classes anyway ... Call it an education in local laws if you want.

I'm waiting for that answer ... Which State(s) allow someone to be shot in the back and have it considered a defensive shoot ?

I'm not in Florida, so educate me ... I might want to move, and you are all I have ... Educate me !!!

And your shooter assumption is just that ... An assumption based on YOUR interpretation of Florida Law.

How about those other States ... What's the legal position ?

----------


## azxd

> I have stated in every single post on the legality of this that I have based my opinion *on the facts as presented so far*.
> 
> I'm sorry that you've gotten so emotionally involved in this.


I'm not emotionally involved ... Talk to the name callers if you want to approach the emotionally involved.

----------


## green73

> I guess I'm the only one who really doesn't give a $#@! about this case.


Could not $#@!ing care less.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Then start teaching classes anyway ... Call it an education in local laws if you want.
> 
> I'm waiting for that answer ... Which State(s) allow someone to be shot in the back and have it considered a defensive shoot ?
> 
> I'm not in Florida, so educate me ... I might want to move, and you are all I have ... Educate me !!!
> 
> And your shooter assumption is just that ... An assumption based on YOUR interpretation of Florida Law.
> 
> How about those other States ... What's the legal position ?


What makes you think I'm going to answer your snark by doing hours of legal research?

I already did that, last night, for free, to answer the specific questions on Florida law, so that hopefully, it dissuades somebody from acting on what, in my opinion, is reckless legal theory based on a misunderstanding of CCW law.

I am not interpreting anything, I have used direct quotes from the state's CCW website.

That information is consistent with what was taught to me as a Florida CCW holder.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I'm not emotionally involved ... Talk to the name callers if you want to approach the emotionally involved.


Then stop responding to me with a bunch of snark.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I will repeat once again, once the 911 dispatcher told him to "stand down" he *lost* his legal justification under CCW, Deadly Force and Stand Your Ground laws.


I am not being contentious with you, I am asking this because I really want clarification:  suppose someone felt threatened *after* the 911 dispatcher told him to stand down (and before the police arrive).  Does he *still* lose legal justification under CCW, etc.?

I'm not saying that this is what happened, or that it's what I believe about this situation in Florida...I am asking strictly as a hypothetical because I don't understand how it works.

----------


## phill4paul

> Assuming he isn't lying, what would you have done? I think I would have shot him in the leg or something.


  If I raise a firearm you will either desist or be dead. Leg shots and disarming shots are Hollywood. If I raise a firearm I will be *deadly* earnest that you desist in what it is you are doing. Otherwise, I will not raise a firearm. I'm not framing this statement with regards to this particular instance. I'm just giving advise to the use of firearms in general.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> I should have stayed out of the whole damn thing from the get go, like I wanted to.
> 
> I will repeat once again, once the 911 dispatcher told him to "stand down" he *lost* his legal justification under CCW, Deadly Force and Stand Your Ground laws.
> 
> I am not commenting on whether the law or his actions are correct, just or valid.
> 
> I am stating what the *law* is, and, as I have said a million times before, like I consistently say about talking to cops, I am trying to keep people out of jail.


You haven't _correctly_ stated what the law is, and you've done no better at getting the most basic facts of the case straight.  You even fail at punctuation.  Quotation marks are used to denote a direct quote, to to signify your own misleading spin on someone else's words.  Martin said the guy had taken off and he was following him.  The dispatcher said, "we don't need you to do that".

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I am not being contentious with you, I am asking this because I really want clarification:  suppose someone felt threatened *after* the 911 dispatcher told him to stand down (and before the police arrive).  Does he *still* lose legal justification under CCW, etc.?
> 
> I'm not saying that this is what happened, or that it's what I believe about this situation in Florida...I am asking strictly as a hypothetical because I don't understand how it works.


If you followed after someone, no.

If you were just minding your business after the call, yes.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> You haven't _correctly_ stated what the law is, and you've done no better at getting the most basic facts of the case straight.  You even fail at punctuation.  Quotation marks are used to denote a direct quote, to to signify your own misleading spin on someone else's words.  Martin said the guy had taken off and he was following him.  The dispatcher said, "we don't need you to do that".


You are correct.

Fixed.

That said, he still lacks legal justification.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> I did.
> 
> Based on what's been presented, that is exactly what he was acting like.
> 
> And CCW, DF and SYG law in Florida *specifically* warns that you are *NOT* a "free lance" cop by virtue of having a CCW and you will *not* have the legal justification to use deadly force if you provoke or chase after somebody.
> 
> 
> I do not know how much more clear I can make this.


You could be more clear by stop using quotation marks to denote your own personal interpretation of words different than the actual text, and you could be most clear of all by citing the specific statute which makes approaching someone and asking them a question while carrying a gun a crime in the state of Florida.  We've cited the actual laws, quoting the statutes in full and asking where you think Zimmerman violated the law.  You have responded by ignoring us and simply reiterating your mistaken interpretation of what the law says.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> You are correct.
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> That said, he still lacks legal justification.


Justifiable homicide only requires that Zimmerman be engaged in a lawful activity and located in a place he had the legal right to be and then of course for him to be attacked such that he feared great bodily harm.  If Zimmerman's account is true, all those criteria have been met and this was a justifiable use of force.

----------


## Stupified

> this is classic flat out ad hominem, what does a person's background have to do with what happened the moment before Zimmerman decided to shoot Trayvon?



Yep. It's something I would expect to be passed around by Fox News and the old widows that watch that $#@! and are fearful of young black men. If my grandmother saw the shirtless picture of Trayvon on the news she would probably decide then and there that he was guilty and Zimmerman was completely justified.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I am not being contentious with you, I am asking this because I really want clarification:  suppose someone felt threatened *after* the 911 dispatcher told him to stand down (and before the police arrive).  Does he *still* lose legal justification under CCW, etc.?
> 
> I'm not saying that this is what happened, or that it's what I believe about this situation in Florida...I am asking strictly as a hypothetical because I don't understand how it works.





> If you followed after someone, no.
> 
> If you were just minding your business after the call, yes.


Again, not trying to be contentious...did you mean to say he does not lose legal justification if he minds his own business?  And that he would lose justification if he follows (and, therefore, becomes the aggressor?)

----------


## dannno

> He "may have been a gang member"?  I still have not heard anyone explain this one.  I heard one person try to tell me he was flashing gang signs in the pic where he's shirtless.  I had to break it to them that the particular sign he is flashing is not really exclusive to any particular gang.



Every kid is a member of a "gang", the question is whether they are and to what extent they are organized criminally and violent. 

This kid had a grill..  How was he able to afford all that gold? Why was he missing so many teeth?



Whether he is technically "in a gang" or not isn't as important as whether he instigated a fight and instigated violence against Zimmerman. The grill doesn't help his case, imo, altho there certainly could be a valid explanation.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Ain't it though! It's all happening in the strangest way too.


You got that right. Every once in a while we get an incident that turns things around in unexpected ways.

While many are very concerned with parsing the details of this specific incident (which is often an interesting exercise in itself), it seems the big picture ramifications and fallout from this media-induced frenzy are being overlooked.

For example:

- Gun control or outright bans is the most obvious ramification.
- As we granting the Police some kind of ultimate and sole authority, as if we suddenly agree with those who want a disarmed and cowering society which depends upon the "authorities"?
- The above would leave us in a situation where we must call the Police (which we usually want to avoid), and thus we will need to increase their numbers and budgets. Beware asking the government to take care of you.
- Will Private Property rights go away? Can a person even _ask a question_ of a trespasser on their property, or does that justify the passer-by to give you a good beat-down?
- What about a small gated community where people have had robberies? As a resident of a Homeowners Association community, does asking a stranger a question within your community warrant a beat-down? Who patrols this no-mans land where the Police really don't want to take responsibility? Does every neighborhood have to hire it's own armed security, on top of the Police services that are already paid for? What power does private security have vs. official government security? 
- Do we want to further limit how we can defend ourselves?

These are all of the big picture issues (and proposed solutions) that may come out of this. The details of this particular incident will be disappear into obscurity. The laws and sentiments will remain for a long time.

----------


## Dr.3D

Suppose Zimmerman did back down only to be pursued and attacked by the one he had formerly been pursuing?   If I were being attacked by someone and in fear for my life, I would most certainly defend myself by any means possible.

Again, we don't have all of the facts in this case and can't decide who is guilty.  As for those who wish to place blame, I would suggest they also wait till all of the facts in this case are presented.   We don't want to claim someone is guilty, till they have been tried and found so by a court of law.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Suppose Zimmerman did back down only to be pursued and attacked by the one he had formerly been pursuing?   If I were being attacked by someone and in fear for my life, I would most certainly defend myself by any means possible.
> 
> Again, we don't have all of the facts in this case and can't decide who is guilty.  *As for those who wish to place blame, I would suggest they also wait till all of the facts in this case are presented.   We don't want to claim someone is guilty, till they have been tried and found so by a court of law.*


Too late.  He's already been tried in the court of public opinion.  Nothing short of a death penalty for Zimmerman will be sufficient, whether he was justified or not.

----------


## kylejack

Plenty of kids have grills, that doesn't make him a gangster. Lots of kids have them around here have them (Johnny Dang (a.k.a. TV Johnny) here in Houston is a Vietnamese businessman who is kind of the king of grills: http://www.tvjohnny.net/). Just because it's golden-colored doesn't mean it's made of gold.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Plenty of kids have grills, that doesn't make him a gangster. Lots of kids have them around here have them (Johnny Dang (a.k.a. TV Johnny) here in Houston is a Vietnamese businessman who is kind of the king of grills: http://www.tvjohnny.net/). Just because it's golden-colored doesn't mean it's made of gold.


No doubt.  But there is a reason the media is using pictures of the kid from when he was 14 rather than the pictures of the way he looks today.  Using the earlier pictures makes it seem like Zimmerman would be crazy to consider the kid a threat, even if the kid attacked him.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> The laws and sentiments will remain for a long time.


To clarify, "sentiment" includes the legal precedents that may be set by how this case is ruled, and on future cases based on new laws that might result from this case.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Again, not trying to be contentious...did you mean to say he does not lose legal justification if he minds his own business?  And that he would lose justification if he follows (and, therefore, becomes the aggressor?)


Yes, very simply put it's like this:

If Zimmerman sat in his car, on the phone with 911 and Martin came up, opened the door and starting beating him down, yes, he'd be justified.

If, as the facts seem to be right now, he followed Martin around, after being told not to, and that in turn led to an altercation that required deadly force, then no, he emerges unjustified as far as the law is concerned.

----------


## TheTexan

What if Zimmerman was practicing cartwheels in the grass when Trayvon was accidentally hurt because Zimmerman wasn't paying attention, and then Trayvon thought Zimmerman did it on purpose, and was like "Hey man that's not cool" and then Zimmerman was like "what you gonna do about it" and then he was all like "oh ya I'm gonna do something about it" and then Trayvon got shot.

This scenario is entirely supported by facts, discuss

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Justifiable homicide only requires that Zimmerman be engaged in a lawful activity and located in a place he had the legal right to be and then of course for him to be attacked such that he feared great bodily harm.  If Zimmerman's account is true, all those criteria have been met and this was a justifiable use of force.


That's just it.

What he was doing, following him around, after being told not to, was *not* lawful from a DF legal standpoint.

Again, you *cannot* use deadly force if the attack has stopped and the attacker is leaving or fleeing.

You *cannot* use deadly force to stop an attack that otherwise would not have happened had it not been for the victim's actions, in this case, following after after being told that "we don't need you to do that".

----------


## RonPaulMall

> If, as the facts seem to be right now, he followed Martin around, after being told not to, and that in turn led to an altercation that required deadly force, then no, he emerges unjustified as far as the law is concerned.


First, he was not told to not follow Martin.  Please stop repeating that lie.  Second, you incur no legal liability for simply following someone.  Zimmerman would have had to have committed some unlawful act for the killing to lose justification.  For example, grabbing Martin (battery) or saying, "I'm gonna get you sucka" (assault).  If all he did was follow Martin and ask him a perfectly reasonable question, he then he was acting lawfully and any attack by Martin could be answered with deadly force under Florida law.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> You could be more clear by stop using quotation marks to denote your own personal interpretation of words different than the actual text, and you could be most clear of all by citing the specific statute which makes approaching someone and asking them a question while carrying a gun a crime in the state of Florida.  We've cited the actual laws, quoting the statutes in full and asking where you think Zimmerman violated the law.  You have responded by ignoring us and simply reiterating your mistaken interpretation of what the law says.


In this case I am not suffering quotation fail, that is an *exact quote* from the State of Florida's CCW legal web page:




> Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?
> 
> A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:
> 
> *    Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
>     Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.*
> 
> Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, *manslaughter, or worse.*
> 
> ...


Was Martin walking away from Zimmerman, or attempting to walk away, when he made the 911 call?

Was Martin walking away from Zimmerman, or attempting to walk away, when dispatch told him, "we don't need you to do that" (meaning follow Martin)?

Did the fight occur after this conversation had taken place?

If the answers to these questions are yes, then Zimmerman had no legal justification to use deadly force.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Yes, very simply put it's like this:
> 
> If Zimmerman sat in his car, on the phone with 911 and Martin came up, opened the door and starting beating him down, yes, he'd be justified.
> 
> If, as the facts seem to be right now, he followed Martin around, after being told not to, and that in turn led to an altercation that required deadly force, then no, he emerges unjustified as far as the law is concerned.


Thanks for the explanation!

----------


## Anti Federalist

> First, he was not told to not follow Martin.  Please stop repeating that lie.  Second, you incur no legal liability for simply following someone.  Zimmerman would have had to have committed some unlawful act for the killing to lose justification.  For example, grabbing Martin (battery) or saying, "I'm gonna get you sucka" (assault).  If all he did was follow Martin and ask him a perfectly reasonable question, he then he was acting lawfully and any attack by Martin could be answered with deadly force under Florida law.


He was told "we don't need you to do that", as you correctly stated.

That seems very clear.

Once that happened, he lost his justification to use deadly force, especially since he *continued* to follow him around as Martin tried to leave.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Thanks for the explanation!


Quite welcome.

----------


## dannno

> Plenty of kids have grills, that doesn't make him a gangster. Lots of kids have them around here have them (Johnny Dang (a.k.a. TV Johnny) here in Houston is a Vietnamese businessman who is kind of the king of grills: http://www.tvjohnny.net/). Just because it's golden-colored doesn't mean it's made of gold.


Ya, maybe he just got in some harmless fights, lost some teeth and that was the cheapest way to fix them.. but it still makes him look suspicious.

----------


## coastie

> Ya, maybe he just got in some harmless fights, lost some teeth and that was the cheapest way to fix them.. *but it still makes him look suspicious.*


And why, exactly, is that? My best friend is black,  has a "grill"-and he also has 2 Master's Degrees.

----------


## moo

> Ya, maybe he just got in some harmless fights, lost some teeth and that was the cheapest way to fix them.. but it still makes him look suspicious.


black men with mouth jewelry are suspicious to you? why?

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> My god...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the the current "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida.
> 
> In no state is it considered legal to pursue somebody and use deadly force against them.
> ...


Not sure what any of this meant because the way you are framing this is incorrect. George Zimmerman has every right to do what he pleases in his own neighborhood. If he wants to follow a resident, he can. At no point did Zimmerman do anything wrong except stop following Martin. If he would have continued to pursue like he should've done, Martin would not be able to sneak up and he would'nt be put in the position to get caught off guard. Martin committed a crime(no bold necessary) when he attacked Zimmerman. Case closed. The last statement you made is almost laughable if not tragic. I have to admit from all the people on this board, your stance befuddles me the most.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> What makes you think I'm going to answer your snark by doing hours of legal research?
> 
> I already did that, last night, for free, to answer the specific questions on Florida law, so that hopefully, it dissuades somebody from acting on what, in my opinion, is reckless legal theory based on a misunderstanding of CCW law.
> 
> I am not interpreting anything, I have used direct quotes from the state's CCW website.
> 
> That information is consistent with what was taught to me as a Florida CCW holder.


Why are you focused on the CCW? Regardless of what Zimmerman was doing, at no point is he not allowed to defend himself from harm. You have done the very thing you claim to stop, a misunderstanding of Florida law.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Every kid is a member of a "gang", the question is whether they are and to what extent they are organized criminally and violent. 
> 
> This kid had a grill..  How was he able to afford all that gold? Why was he missing so many teeth?
> 
> ...
> 
> Whether he is technically "in a gang" or not isn't as important as whether he instigated a fight and instigated violence against Zimmerman. The grill doesn't help his case, imo, altho there certainly could be a valid explanation.


This was awful, even for you 

Why was he missing teeth?  I don't know.  Do you know that he is missing teeth?  Or are they capped?  Or is it an actual "piece" that goes over his teeth and is removable?  




> ...a grill (also front or golds) is a type of jewelry worn over the teeth. Grills are made of metal and are generally removable.


How could he afford it?  Well, how could he afford the snowboarding trip he was photographed on?  How could he afford the computer, the webcam, etc.?  There appear to be pot-related allegations, but nothing too solid.  However, I would be inclined to think that he didn't pay for all of that with "drug money."  It's likely that he either has some sort of income, or his parents gave him some money.  Pretty sure those ancient photos of him posing with a snowboard were not taken on a trip paid for with the proceeds from selling pot at school.

Since whether or not he was in a gang is not important, then perhaps it shouldn't be part of the topic, and part of the new set of assertions made about this person.  I noticed Zimmerman's left ear is pierced.  Perhaps it would do some good to paint Martin as homophobic, since there's that old idea that having just your left ear pierced might mark you as being homosexual.  

You've decided he's in a gang because he had some gold teeth in one photo.  It's just as logical.

----------


## pcosmar

> Not sure what any of this meant because the way you are framing this is incorrect. George Zimmerman has every right to do what he pleases in his own neighborhood. If he wants to follow a resident, he can. At no point did Zimmerman do anything wrong except stop following Martin. If he would have continued to pursue like he should've done, Martin would not be able to sneak up and he would'nt be put in the position to get caught off guard. Martin committed a crime(no bold necessary) when he attacked Zimmerman. Case closed. The last statement you made is almost laughable if not tragic. I have to admit from all the people on this board, your stance befuddles me the most.


And this is exactly why everyone should be armed at all times.

There are a lot of "zimmermans" out there.

Arm your wife,, arm your kids. teach them to shoot.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> And this is exactly why everyone should be armed at all times.
> 
> There are a lot of "zimmermans" out there.
> 
> Arm your wife,, arm your kids. teach them to shoot.


Unless it's just a fist fight, then it would be their fault for stopping an attack.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> No doubt.  But there is a reason the media is using pictures of the kid from when he was 14 rather than the pictures of the way he looks today.  Using the earlier pictures makes it seem like Zimmerman would be crazy to consider the kid a threat, even if the kid attacked him.


Manipulation of the emotions of the masses...the media excel at this.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> The last statement you made is almost laughable if not tragic. I have to admit from all the people on this board, your stance befuddles me the most.


Why?

If nothing at all, I am consistent with my stance against unlawfully applied force against people.




> Martin would not be able to sneak up and he would'nt be put in the position to get caught off guard.


This is a new angle that I am unaware of.

Everything I have seen indicated that Zimmerman got out of his car, followed Martin around a house, was told by 911 dispatch that "we don't need you to do that" then to where he and Martin started fighting, leading to the shooting.




> If he wants to follow a resident, he can


He can do whatever he wants.

However, if that can be considered a provocation, and after being told "we don't need you to do that", you can reasonably assume that to be the case, then he loses any legal justification to use deadly force under Florida law.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Why are you focused on the CCW? Regardless of what Zimmerman was doing, at no point is he not allowed to defend himself from harm. You have done the very thing you claim to stop, a misunderstanding of Florida law.


Because I saw a ton of incorrect information being thrown around as to what the law stated WRT to justification and use of deadly force.

I see a whole media inspired circus that has started up that, among other thing, will be used to discredit and try to roll back CCW and gun rights.

I don't really have much of an opinion on this matter beyond that.

My focus and point then is two fold:

A - Prevent fellow CCW holders from getting a head full of misinformation and ending up in prison.

B - Show that SYG laws had nothing at all to do with this case, based on the facts thus far.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Why
> 
> However, if that can be considered a provocation, and after being told "we don't need you to do that", you can reasonably assume that to be the case, then he loses any legal justification to use deadly force under Florida law.


Following somebody is not a "provocation".  That's what you don't seem to understand about this case. And the conversation with the dispatcher is meaningless.  The Dispatcher told Zimmerman he didn't have to follow Martin because dispatcher's have to be very careful regarding liability.  Following a suspicious character in inherently dangerous.  If you tell a dispatcher you are about to do something potentially dangerous (no matter how lawful it might be) they are always going tell you that you don't need to do that else it could be construed by a clever plaintiff's attorney after the fact that the police instructed their client to something that led to their client's injury or death.  
Martin's conversation with the dispatcher is utterly irrelevant to this case.  All it does is establish facts that Zimmerman himself testified to once the police showed up and sheds no light whatsoever on what happened once Zimmerman and Martin came face to face (which is the crux of the case in terms of whether a crime was committed by Zimmerman).

----------


## jmdrake

> I totally believe the first sentence is possible ... People can be killed by the first blow, so never let some idiot talk you into thinking a fist is not a deadly weapon.


 A pretzel can be a deadly weapon.  Just ask George W. Bush.  It's just *typically* not a deadly weapon.  The "idiot" is the person who thinks that just because something happens a certain way on occasion that's somehow the rule.  Fist fights are not typically charged as aggravated assaults for a reason.  That's because typically they don't result in death.




> And the aspect of a shooting seems to be the issue for some ... Zimmerman could have just as easily stopped the threat with his bare hands or something else, and had the same final result.


And that would have been more reasonable.  If they got into a scuffle and Zimmerman accidentally pulled off some "deadly ninja nerve punch" then we wouldn't be were we are in the conversation.  But that's not what happened.  Zimmerman unnecessarily initiated the whole thing, Trayvon got the better of him with physical force, Zimmerman escalated to deadly force.  Even assuming Zimmerman is 100% telling the truth (and I think he's not) he still didn't have grounds for deadly force IMO.  *You* think differently.  Fine.  Charge him and let him pray he has more of you on his jury than me.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> Why?
> 
> If nothing at all, I am consistent with my stance against unlawfully applied force against people.


I understand that. But what Zimmerman did was lawful judging by the accounts I've heard.

[/QUOTE]This is a new angle that I am unaware of.

Everything I have seen indicated that Zimmerman got out of his car, followed Martin around a house, was told by 911 dispatch that "we don't need you to do that" then to where he and Martin started fighting, leading to the shooting."[/QUOTE]

This is not the account I've heard.

[/QUOTE]He can do whatever he wants.[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

[/QUOTE]However, if that can be considered a provocation, and after being told "we don't need you to do that", you can reasonably assume that to be the case, then he loses any legal justification to use deadly force under Florida law.[/QUOTE]

The operator asked him to stop and he replied by saying OK. To me, it's a non issue. Zimmerman is not breaking any law by simply walking up to Martin and asking him a question in a non threatening way and it can be heard on the call. Asking some one to state their business is still legal in all states including Florida. Shooting someone that starts attacking you is still legal even in Florida. Neither the SYG or the CCW are of any relevance in this situation . He, in my opinion will be charged with a federal hate crime for the murder of the perpetrator of this crime.

----------


## LibForestPaul

> Because I saw a ton of incorrect information being thrown around as to what the law stated WRT to justification and use of deadly force.
> 
> I see a whole media inspired circus that has started up that, among other thing, will be used to discredit and try to roll back CCW and gun rights.
> 
> I don't really have much of an opinion on this matter beyond that.
> 
> My focus and point then is two fold:
> 
> A - Prevent fellow CCW holders from getting a head full of misinformation and ending up in prison.
> ...


bingo. this is not an accident, the bias reporting, the follow-up, the misinformation. easy enough agenda to spot, not sure why people here are falling for this. Zimmerman, black guy, gang...all of it is a smoke screen. gun-control, again, and again.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Following somebody is not a "provocation".  That's what you don't seem to understand about this case. And the conversation with the dispatcher is meaningless.  The Dispatcher told Zimmerman he didn't have to follow Martin because dispatcher's have to be very careful regarding liability.  Following a suspicious character in inherently dangerous.  If you tell a dispatcher you are about to do something potentially dangerous (no matter how lawful it might be) they are always going tell you that you don't need to do that else it could be construed by a clever plaintiff's attorney after the fact that the police instructed their client to something that led to their client's injury or death.  
> Martin's conversation with the dispatcher is utterly irrelevant to this case.  All it does is establish facts that Zimmerman himself testified to once the police showed up and sheds no light whatsoever on what happened once Zimmerman and Martin came face to face (which is the crux of the case in terms of whether a crime was committed by Zimmerman).


Florida:

Armed man approaches neighbor to complain about barking dogs.

Argument ensues.

Argument escalates until man with dogs started "threatening him (armed man) and made a movement as if he had a weapon".

Armed man shoots and kills man with dogs.

No justification, charged with second degree murder.


*Former Jackman man killed in Florida during argument about barking dog*

http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/F...rking-dog.html

by erin rhoda Staff Writer

A man who grew up in Jackman was shot to death in Florida two weeks ago, and the man accused of killing him told police they were arguing about a barking dog.
Family and friends are mourning the death of Dana A. Mulhall, 52, who graduated from Forest Hills Consolidated School in 1977. His neighbor in Florida, 65-year-old Paul Miller, of Flagler Beach, faces one charge of second degree murder in the March 14 shooting.
On Monday, Mulhall’s mother, Angela Mulhall, 75, of Moose River Plantation, spoke about the loss of her son, who ran his own landscaping business in Florida and called the mayor of Flagler Beach a friend.
“I don’t know how we’ve survived going through this on a daily basis. I don’t know where we find the strength, but we always do, somewhere, somehow,” she said.
Dan Cody, police chief of the Flagler Beach Police Department, said Monday in a phone interview that Miller gave the following account of the incident: He was sitting on his porch when Mulhall came home and complained about Miller’s barking dog. Miller went inside, got his 9 mm gun and stuck it in his pocket.
Then Miller walked to the approximately three-foot-high fence between them, where they argued. Miller told police that Mulhall was threatening him and made a movement as if he had a weapon.
“Mr. Miller felt like he had a weapon from the gestures he was making, and he shot him at that time,” Cody said.
Miller fired three shots— to Mulhall’s chest and legs. When Mulhall turned to run, Miller shot him twice on the back of his body, Cody said, though he didn’t know precisely where. Mulhall died at the scene and police did not find a weapon on him

----------


## jmdrake

> Unless it's just a fist fight, then it would be their fault for stopping an attack.


The point that pcosmar is making is that the world you and others seem intent on crafting is the world where one should shoot first and ask questions later because the other guy will and he'll get off without even a hearing as long as he can concoct a good enough story and is now "buddy buddy" with the cops.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> Following somebody is not a "provocation".  That's what you don't seem to understand about this case. And the conversation with the dispatcher is meaningless.  The Dispatcher told Zimmerman he didn't have to follow Martin because dispatcher's have to be very careful regarding liability.  Following a suspicious character in inherently dangerous.  If you tell a dispatcher you are about to do something potentially dangerous (no matter how lawful it might be) they are always going tell you that you don't need to do that else it could be construed by a clever plaintiff's attorney after the fact that the police instructed their client to something that led to their client's injury or death.  
> Martin's conversation with the dispatcher is utterly irrelevant to this case.  All it does is establish facts that Zimmerman himself testified to once the police showed up and sheds no light whatsoever on what happened once Zimmerman and Martin came face to face (which is the crux of the case in terms of whether a crime was committed by Zimmerman).


This.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> He, in my opinion will be charged with a federal hate crime for the murder of the perpetrator of this crime.


That there is now a lynch mob out for Zimmerman, I will not deny for a second, and there will be no justice done here now.

This was, in my opinion, a manslaughter type of situation.

There was an element of self defense, but with little or no legal justification.

That said, it's not Murder One, nor a federal felony "hate crime", the whole legal reasoning behind that being corrupt and wrong.

----------


## pcosmar

> Asking some one to state their business is still legal in all states including Florida.


It may be legal but it is $#@!ing stupid,, and rude.

Some bozo walks up to me, and starts demanding anything and I will tell them once to $#@! off.

If they touch me I will break something.
And don't even pull that gun within arms reach. Because at that point *I will be pissed*.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> The point that pcosmar is making is that the world you and others seem intent on crafting is the world where one should shoot first and ask questions later because the other guy will and he'll get off without even a hearing as long as he can concoct a good enough story and is now "buddy buddy" with the cops.


I will use the words of Delroy Lindo with my response. "You don't know me, you just think you do"

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Once that happened, he lost his justification to use deadly force, especially since he *continued* to follow him around as Martin tried to leave.


Well, we are finally starting to pin you down.  Please explain where in the statute the mere act of following someone invalidates its application:

_A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony._

The qualifications of the statute are fourfold.

*First, the person using force must not be engaged in an unlawful activity.*  According to Zimmerman's account, he followed Martin, and asked him a question.  No problems there. 

*Second, the person using force must be in place he is lawfully permitted to be.*   Zimmerman was in his own gated community, using the public streets and walkways.  So far, so good. 

*Third, the person using force must be facing an attack.*  Zimmerman claims that after asking Martin a question, Martin responded with an insult and then punched him in the face.  Attack threshold met. 

*Finally, the person using force must reasonably believe he is facing the threat of great bodily harm.*  Eyewitness has Martin on top of Zimmerman pummeling him.  Zimmerman had a bloody nose, swollen lip, and cuts on the back of his head when police examined him.  Great bodily harm is on the table.  

Now, all of this is of course dependent upon what Zimmerman reported being the truth.  On the surface, his story seemed credible.  Further investigation by the police revealed a fact pattern consistent with what Zimmerman had told them.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I see a whole media inspired circus that has started up that, among other thing, will be used to discredit and try to roll back CCW and gun rights.


You got that right. More gun control is the most likely big picture outcome.

I would add that some States (AZ for example) actually hold to the spirit and letter of the 2nd Amendment. No permits are required to carry.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> The point that pcosmar is making is that the world you and others seem intent on crafting is the world where one should shoot first and ask questions later because the other guy will and he'll get off without even a hearing as long as he can concoct a good enough story and is now "buddy buddy" with the cops.


That.

Non aggression means non aggression, unless you have *absolutely* no choice.

Zimmerman had numerous chances to break off this encounter, with absolutely no *imminent* risk to his life or limb and thus would have prevented *anything* from happening.

Hell, I complain when cops don't do that, I'm certainly not going give this guy a pass on it.

Two rules:

Mind your own business.

Keep your hands to yourself.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> You got that right. More gun control is the most likely big picture outcome.
> 
> I would add that some States (AZ for example) actually hold to the spirit and letter of the 2nd Amendment. No permits are required to carry.


That has passed the NH house.

----------


## pcosmar

> Following somebody is not a "provocation".


Following someone is Stalking. And that is a crime.
Someone being stalked, who is aware he is being stalked does have reason to be concerned, and a right to defend himself from assault.

Zimmerman was stalking the kid.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> there will be no justice done here now.


Amen.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Amen.


Yeah, I concur.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> You got your head in the sand. Race war concerns are real. There isn't anyone here promoting it, they're just admitting the unfortunate reality


Really?  You really believe that?

Millions of Americans are just going to up and kill millions of other Americans because of the color of their skin?

Stop living in fear.  It's not going to happen.  No one I know wants to hurt you.

----------


## moo

Zimmerman is obviously an informant for the police but what kind of information is he hiding?

----------


## moo

> Following someone is Stalking. And that is a crime.
> Someone being stalked, who is aware he is being stalked does have reason to be concerned, and a right to defend himself from assault.
> 
> Zimmerman was stalking the kid.


In that case The stand your ground law applies to trayvon, not zimmerman.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Hell, I complain when cops don't do that, I'm certainly not going give this guy a pass on it.


Yep. 

But it could be argued that Police should be held to a higher standard than George, as they are trained and operating with special powers. Even here on this board, no one really questions a Police involved shooting where the Cop was on the ground getting beat on.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> It may be legal but it is $#@!ing stupid,, and rude.
> 
> Some bozo walk up to me, and starts demanding anything and I will tell them once to $#@! off.
> 
> If they touch me I will break something.
> And don't even pull that gun within arms reach. Because at that point *I will be pissed*.


I agree with half of what you say and that is your right, tell me to $#@! off. If I touch you, beat my ass. If I pull a gun, take it from me and pistol whip my ass. What you consider stupid and rude, I consider people actually giving a $#@! about the community and not living scared, but living prepared and smart.

----------


## moo

> I agree with half of what you say and that is your right, tell me to $#@! off. If I touch you, beat my ass. I*f I pull a gun, take it from me and pistol whip my ass.* What you consider stupid and rude, I consider people actually giving a $#@! about the community and not living scared, but living prepared and smart.


trayvon was shot & killed but you want to be pistol whipped. LMAO!

----------


## jmdrake

> Why not involuntary manslaughter ?
> That's what my past co-worker example received.


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...m/manslaughter

_Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of another human being without intent. The absence of the intent element is the essential difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Also in most states, involuntary manslaughter does not result from a heat of passion but from an improper use of reasonable care or skill while in the commission of a lawful act or while in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony._

I think it's hard to argue that when Zimmerman pulled out his gun and shot Trayvon that he didn't intend to kill him.

_Voluntary Manslaughter

In most jurisdictions, voluntary manslaughter consists of an intentional killing that is accompanied by additional circumstances that mitigate, but do not excuse, the killing. The most common type of voluntary manslaughter occurs when a defendant is provoked to commit the Homicide. It is sometimes described as a heat of passion killing. In most cases, the provocation must induce rage or anger in the defendant, although some cases have held that fright, terror, or desperation will suffice._

----------


## RonPaulMall

> It may be legal but it is $#@!ing stupid,, and rude.
> 
> Some bozo walks up to me, and starts demanding anything and I will tell them once to $#@! off.


And this is essentially what his case is all about.  The media, and a large segment of America, think Zimmerman acted "stupid" and "rudely" and therefore, he should go to jail.  Doesn't matter there is no law against what he did.  He violated the sensibilities of the masses, and therefore needs to be punished.  This is the very definition of an authoritarian collectivist judicial system.  Go against the will of the state in thought, word, or deed, and you are a criminal.  

And btw, if the facts are what they appear to be, had Martin followed your lead and simply told Zimmerman to $#@! off, he'd still be alive today.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Let's assume the worst and that Martin committed a crime.

Was he trying to leave the area where Zimmerman was?


*Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be "preventing" a crime. If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter.* 

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/wea...f_defense.html



Actually, it looks to me like Zimmerman may be the one who committed the original felony, 'aggravated stalking' meaning stalking while carrying a deadly weapon.

776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; *aggravated stalking*; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...s/0776.08.html






> Well, we are finally starting to pin you down.  Please explain where in the statute the mere act of following someone invalidates its application:
> 
> _A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony._
> 
> The qualifications of the statute are fourfold.
> 
> *First, the person using force must not be engaged in an unlawful activity.*  According to Zimmerman's account, he followed Martin, and asked him a question.  No problems there. 
> 
> *Second, the person using force must be in place he is lawfully permitted to be.*   Zimmerman was in his own gated community, using the public streets and walkways.  So far, so good. 
> ...

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Zimmerman had numerous chances to break off this encounter, with absolutely no *imminent* risk to his life or limb and thus would have prevented *anything* from happening.
> 
> Hell, I complain when cops don't do that, I'm certainly not going give this guy a pass on it.
> 
> Two rules:
> 
> Mind your own business.
> 
> Keep your hands to yourself.


So if a Police Officer follows somebody on a public street, and then "confronts" them by asking them what they are doing, your position is the person being asked has the right to start beating the living $#@! out of the officer, and then if the officer shoots him the officer has no self defense claim?  I hate the cops more than anybody, but that is just insane.  Everybody has the perfect right to follow a stranger and ask them a question, even cops.  The stranger has the perfect right to tell them to buzz off.  They don't have the right to attack them.  If they do, the questioner has the right to respond with deadly force.

----------


## pcosmar

> *First, the person using force must not be engaged in an unlawful activity.*  According to Zimmerman's account, he followed Martin, and asked him a question.  No problems there.


Big problem there.
*Stalking*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking



> Stalking is a term commonly used to refer to unwanted and obsessive attention by an individual or group to another person. Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation* and may include following the victim in person and/or monitoring them.*


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stalking
1. To pursue by tracking stealthily.
2. To follow or observe (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement.
3. To go through (an area) in pursuit of prey or quarry.

http://www.aware.org/stalking/stalkgeninfo.shtml



> Fundamentally,* stalking is a series of actions that puts a person in fear for their safety.* The stalker may follow you, harass you, call you on the telephone, watch your house, send you mail you don't want, or act in some other way that frightens you.
> 
> The exact legal definition varies from state to state, but all states now have some kind of law against stalking. Virtually any unwanted contact between a stalker and their victim which directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can generally be referred to as stalking, whether or not it meets a state's exact legal definition.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Yep. 
> 
> But it could be argued that Police should be held to a higher standard than George, as they are trained and operating with special powers. Even here on this board, no one really questions a Police involved shooting where the Cop was on the ground getting beat on.


You're right, and that's why they *have* to be held to the higher standard because it is assumed that will be part of their job. Thus they get an enormous amount of power placed in their hands and should always be held accountable when it's abused.

And why just having a CCW does not make you a "free lance" cop.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> So if a Police Officer follows somebody on a public street, and then "confronts" them by asking them what they are doing, your position is the person being asked has the right to start beating the living $#@! out of the officer, and then if the officer shoots him the officer has no self defense claim?  I hate the cops more than anybody, but that is just insane.  Everybody has the perfect right to follow a stranger and ask them a question, even cops.  The stranger has the perfect right to tell them to buzz off.  They don't have the right to attack them.  If they do, the questioner has the right to respond with deadly force.


I just answered that.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> That.
> 
> Non aggression means non aggression, unless you have *absolutely* no choice.
> 
> Zimmerman had numerous chances to break off this encounter, with absolutely no *imminent* risk to his life or limb and thus would have prevented *anything* from happening.
> 
> Hell, I complain when cops don't do that, I'm certainly not going give this guy a pass on it.
> 
> Two rules:
> ...


But didn't he do that when he said OK? His original intent was non aggression when he approached and asked his question. He called 911 before the encounter and the conversation between him and Martin plays out, at that point Martin ran and the operator said stop following and he did. Then Martin came back and proceeded to beat his head against the concrete. That is the point when Zimmerman was completely justified to shoot.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> trayvon was shot & killed but you want to be pistol whipped. LMAO!


To any man I know, a pistol whipping is far worse than a gun shot regardless the outcome.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> And this is essentially what his case is all about.  The media, and a large segment of America, think Zimmerman acted "stupid" and "rudely" and therefore, he should go to jail.  Doesn't matter there is no law against what he did.  He violated the sensibilities of the masses, and therefore needs to be punished.  This is the very definition of an authoritarian collectivist judicial system.  Go against the will of the state in thought, word, or deed, and you are a criminal.  
> 
> And btw, if the facts are what they appear to be, had Martin followed your lead and simply told Zimmerman to $#@! off, he'd still be alive today.


No, nothing happened at all to him until this media/government circus sprang up, (which I remain convinced was pre-meditated and well planned and not accidental).

Which is a risk you take when you carry a firearm, that if you do have shoot someone, it may very well end up in a media/government lynch mob, if there is political hay to made or, god forbid, you just shot the relative of a High Party Official.

All along my intent has been to do nothing but give what my best considered opinion is on the CCW law in this case, to prevent people from acting rashly on bad information and ending up in prison.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> But didn't he do that when he said OK? His original intent was non aggression when he approached and asked his question. He called 911 before the encounter and the conversation between him and Martin plays out, at that point Martin ran and the operator said stop following and he did. *Then Martin came back and proceeded to beat his head against the concrete.* That is the point when Zimmerman was completely justified to shoot.


Again, I haven't seen that.

IF Martin came back, AFTER the call, AFTER Zimmerman was told "we don't need you to do that" and then proceeded to beat him down, then yes, he *was* justified.

----------


## moo

> But didn't he do that when he said OK? His original intent was non aggression when he approached and asked his question. He called 911 before the encounter and the conversation between him and Martin plays out, at that point Martin ran and the operator said stop following and he did. Then Martin came back and proceeded to beat his head against the concrete. That is the point when Zimmerman was completely justified to shoot.


zimmerman did not stop following him. he LIED. you can hear it in his voice he was still looking for him.

----------


## Danke

> Everybody has the perfect right to follow a stranger and ask them a question, even cops.  The stranger has the perfect right to tell them to buzz off.  They don't have the right to attack them.  If they do, the questioner has the right to respond with deadly force.


Seems pretty simple.

----------


## pcosmar

> Again, I haven't seen that.
> 
> IF Martin came back, AFTER the call, AFTER Zimmerman was told "we don't need you to do that" and then proceeded to beat him down, then yes, he *was* justified.


I think folks are just making $#@! up at this point.

----------


## jmdrake

> I will use the words of Delroy Lindo with my response. "You don't know me, you just think you do"


I never claimed to "know you".  What *you don't know* is the ideological corner you are painting yourself into.  Pcosmar's point, that you failed to address, is that if the result of Zimmerman not even being arrested, charged, or even taken to the station for questioning is somehow supposedly "correct" then the Trayvon's of the world should be armed with guns instead of with their fists and their skittles and be prepared to shoot first.  Think this *all* the way through.  There is decent evidence that Zimmerman put a hand on Trayvon.  (Trayvon's earpiece allegedly fell off).  Would that have been reason for Trayvon to shoot Zimmerman, especially if he had perceived correctly that Zimmerman had a gun?  If the self defense doctrine is cheapened too much then it won't mean anything.

----------


## Danke

> I think folks are just making $#@! up at this point.



:spit-take:

----------


## moo

when zimmerman first called the police, he was very descriptive, sentences were long & he was cooperative. zimmerman was paying attention to both trayvon and the dispatcher. when that dispatcher told zimmerman to stop following he became upset. his answers were very SHORT.
yea yea
yep
mmmok
he sounded distracted then when he finally caught up with trayvon he said "LET ME CALL YOU BACK" if trayvon was a danger to that neighborhood he would've stayed on that phone to have the dispatcher document everything that happened like the other 911 calls. 

they didn't say "LET ME CALL YOU BACK" they stayed on the phone to give out as much information as they could until they thought it was safe to hang up.

zimmerman didn't stay on the line because he found trayvon and didn't want to be recorded starting a fight.

----------


## Kregisen

It's insane that a story like this makes national headlines for an entire month when there are dozens of murders in this nation every day. If the media wasn't racist, they wouldn't only report stories where blacks are hurt by non-blacks. This is simply the truth, there's not really any refuting it. I see murders on the local news in phoenix every couple days. The media wants to live out their racism fetishes for whatever reason and it's b.s.

I don't know much about this story. From what I've read, according to police reports the kid started beating the man first. If that's true, is deadly force in self-defense warranted? I think if I was getting my head smashed into the ground, I would fear for my life and kill the person too. It's insane to see hundreds of people gathering in marches accross the country for something like this where there are real issues out there today.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I think folks are just making $#@! up at this point.


You may be right, I'll see if anybody posts anything credible to suggest that is what happened.

My understanding all along has been:

Martin was walking home, probably looking "thuggish".

Zimmerman spots him and starts to follow him through the neighborhood.

Zimmerman calls 911 and reports what he sees while following Martin around.

Zimmerman gets out of his car and starts following Martin on foot, they have some sort of non physical encounter, after which, Martin leaves.

Zimmerman follows Martin and at this point, 911 dispatch tells him "we don't need you to do that".

*It is at this point, if all of the above is correct, that Zimmerman loses his justification for any use of deadly force.*

There was no imminent threat to life or limb, the alleged aggressor was leaving the area and he was advised to not follow him.

Zimmerman catches up to Martin, there is a second confrontation that turns physical, Zimmerman is getting badly beaten, draws his weapon and shoots Martin dead.

----------


## jmdrake

> So if a Police Officer follows somebody on a public street, and then "confronts" them by asking them what they are doing, your position is the person being asked has the right to start beating the living $#@! out of the officer, and then if the officer shoots him the officer has no self defense claim?  I hate the cops more than anybody, but that is just insane.  Everybody has the perfect right to follow a stranger and ask them a question, even cops.  The stranger has the perfect right to tell them to buzz off.  They don't have the right to attack them.  If they do, the questioner has the right to respond with deadly force.


1) Why do you and others keep assuming that all Zimmerman did was "talk" to Trayvon?  Because Zimmerman said so?  You're just going to ignore the contradictory evidence?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...ath-phone-call

2) In the case of a police officer he's supposed to identify himself.  That at the very least puts the citizen on notice that he's being confronted by somebody armed.  There is no record or even any claim that I've seen of Zimmerman saying anything like.  "Excuse me.  I'm neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman.  I'm just out trying to make sure everyone is safe.  Could you tell me who you are?"  As far as Trayvon knew *Zimmerman* was a gang banger wondering why he (Trayvon) was on his "turf".

----------


## Anti Federalist

> 2) In the case of a police officer he's supposed to identify himself.  That at the very least puts the citizen on notice that he's being confronted by somebody armed.  There is no record or even any claim that I've seen of Zimmerman saying anything like.  "Excuse me.  I'm neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman.  I'm just out trying to make sure everyone is safe.  Could you tell me who you are?"  As far as Trayvon knew *Zimmerman* was a gang banger wondering why he (Trayvon) was on his "turf".


Valid point.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Zimmerman follows Martin and at this point, 911 dispatch tells him "we don't need you to do that".
> 
> *It is at this point, if all of the above is correct, that Zimmerman loses his justification for any use of deadly force.*


Again, completely, 100% utterly false.  Back up your statement with statutory language to support your assertion, or stop posting in this thread.  There is enough disinformation going around.  People like you are just egging the lynch mob on.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Young black men are by far the greatest danger to other young black men.




> It's insane that a story like this makes national headlines for an entire month when there are dozens of murders in this nation every day. If the media wasn't racist, they wouldn't only report stories where blacks are hurt by non-blacks. This is simply the truth, there's not really any refuting it. I see murders on the local news in phoenix every couple days. The media wants to live out their racism fetishes for whatever reason and it's b.s.
> 
> I don't know much about this story. From what I've read, according to police reports the kid started beating the man first. If that's true, is deadly force in self-defense warranted? I think if I was getting my head smashed into the ground, I would fear for my life and kill the person too. It's insane to see hundreds of people gathering in marches accross the country for something like this where there are real issues out there today.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> 1) Why do you and others keep assuming that all Zimmerman did was "talk" to Trayvon?  Because Zimmerman said so?  You're just going to ignore the contradictory evidence?
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...ath-phone-call


I assume it because that is what Zimmerman said and there is no evidence to contradict it.  I read the entire article you linked, and nothing in that article suggests Zimmerman's account is untrue.  The burden of probable cause falls on the state.  Without any evidence or reasonable belief Zimmerman committed a crime, they are prohibited from making an arrest.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist
> 
> Zimmerman follows Martin and at this point, 911 dispatch tells him "we don't need you to do that".
> 
> It is at this point, if all of the above is correct, that Zimmerman loses his justification for any use of deadly force.
> 			
> 		
> 
> Again, completely, 100% utterly false.  Back up your statement with statutory language to support your assertion, or stop posting in this thread.  There is enough disinformation going around.  People like you are just egging the lynch mob on.


From the state of Florida's CCW legal web page.


*Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be "preventing" a crime. If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter.*

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/wea...f_defense.html



I have in no way way "egged on" a lynch mob.

And I will not be told where and when I can post.

Get over yourself and your emotions.

----------


## Kregisen

> From the state of Florida's CCW legal web page.
> 
> 
> A. A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman. But, as stated earlier, deadly force is justified if you are trying to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
> 
> *The use of deadly force must be absolutely necessary to prevent the crime.*
> 
> *Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be "preventing" a crime. If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter.*
> 
> ...


This is not what your other post said. Your other post said if Martin walked away, and Zimmerman ran after him. If Martin then attacked Zimmerman after Zimmerman followed him a 2nd time, of course it is justified deadly force.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> No, nothing happened at all to him until this media/government circus sprang up, (which I remain convinced was pre-meditated and well planned and not accidental).


That's a crazy conspiracy! Politics never have a bearing on what stories are covered by our unbiased media.  Now excuse me while I do what millions of other outraged citizens are doing because of this story, and donate some money to the Obama re-election fund.




> zimmerman did not stop following him. he LIED. you can hear it in his voice he was still looking for him.


Wow, you're as good as the guy from the TV show "Lie to Me".

----------


## Anti Federalist

> This is not what your other post said. Your other post said if Martin walked away, and Zimmerman ran after him. If Martin then attacked Zimmerman after Zimmerman followed him a 2nd time, of course it is justified deadly force.


No, not if Zimmerman had followed.

If he was just sitting there in his car, or walking away, the second time, then it would be justified.

----------


## Kregisen

> No, not if Zimmerman had followed.
> 
> If he was just sitting there in his car, or walking away, the second time, then it would be justified.


Where do you get the information that says that if you follow a suspect a 2nd time and he attacks you, you are not justified in deadly force?

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> From the state of Florida's CCW legal web page.
> 
> 
> *Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be "preventing" a crime. If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter.*
> 
> http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/wea...f_defense.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Trayvon wasn't a criminal until he assaulted Zimmerman which is what the eye witness and police deptartment believe happend. Nothing before the point that Trayvon makes contact which is proven by the eye witness was a crime. Zimmerman was not wrong for asking questions, Martin was not wrong for being black or running away. The only thing that matters is who fired the first shot. If the eye witness who is also black was lying or recants his story, Zimmerman is dog meat. He won't last two days in the federal pen.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Where do you get the information that says that if you follow a suspect a 2nd time and he attacks you, you are not justified in deadly force?


You just quoted it.

Martin was leaving, he was walking away and no crime had been committed by him.

If you follow after somebody and then it results in a deadly encounter, when, had you just let them leave nothing would have happened, you don't have legal DF justification. You, in the eyes of the law have now become the instigator.

This is CCW law 101.

----------


## jmdrake

> I assume it because that is what Zimmerman said and there is no evidence to contradict it.  I read the entire article you linked, and nothing in that article suggests Zimmerman's account is untrue.  The burden of probable cause falls on the state.  Without any evidence or reasonable belief Zimmerman committed a crime, they are prohibited from making an arrest.


The article I linked to provides evidence that some kind of altercation occurred before Zimmerman was on the ground getting what may have been a well deserved beating.  If you can't see it...well you just can't see.  And there is probable cause for an arrest simply by the fact that Trayvon is dead.  Self defense is an affirmative defense.  It does *not* negate the initial probable cause.  As an attorney you should know that.  Sure at trial the state would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense.  But that's not the probable cause standard.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Trayvon wasn't a criminal until he assaulted Zimmerman which is what the eye witness and police deptartment believe happend. Nothing before the point that Trayvon makes contact which is proven by the eye witness was a crime. Zimmerman was not wrong for asking questions, Martin was not wrong for being black or running away. The only thing that matters is who fired the first shot. If the eye witness who is also black was lying or recants his story, Zimmerman is dog meat. He won't last two days in the federal pen.


I suspect this poor bastard is dog meat anyway.

It will all hinge on exactly when and where the second encounter took place.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> Where do you get the information that says that if you follow a suspect a 2nd time and he attacks you, you are not justified in deadly force?


Because both men retreated. The second that Zimmerman was told to stop and lost Martin, that encounter was a lawful encounter as both men exercised their right to jet. If Zimmerman continued to follow, and if that can be proven, then he is in big trouble.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> I suspect this poor bastard is dog meat anyway.
> 
> It will all hinge on exactly when and where the second encounter took place.


Agreed. I have a lot of respect for your opinion and knowledge.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Because both men retreated. The second that Zimmerman was told to stop and lost Martin, that encounter was a lawful encounter as both men exercised their right to jet. *If Zimmerman continued to follow, and if that can be proven, then he is in big trouble*.


Exactly.

If that's the case or not remains to be seen, but it seems to be, based on what's been released so far.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Agreed. I have a lot of respect for your opinion and knowledge.


Well thanks, and I yours.

This has become such a heated issue it's almost impossible to find out now what's going on, and that's why justice won't ever be done now.

Like I said all along, I want to make sure that our fellow CCW holders don't get in a bind, and that more gun control doesn't come out of this bloody mess.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> The article I linked to provides evidence that some kind of altercation occurred before Zimmerman was on the ground getting what may have been a well deserved beating.  If you can't see it...well you just can't see.  And there is probable cause for an arrest simply by the fact that Trayvon is dead.  Self defense is an affirmative defense.  It does *not* negate the initial probable cause.  As an attorney you should know that.  Sure at trial the state would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense.  But that's not the probable cause standard.


Obviously something occurred prior to them being on the ground.  They didn't just materialized there.  But "something" occuring is not evidence of a crime.  Zimmerman's account of what happened is Martin asking him if he had a problem, Zimmerman responding no, and Martin saying, "well, you do now" and then decking him".  

As to your amateur legal analysis, self defense is indeed an affirmative defense in many states.  But Florida's stand your ground statute is NOT an affirmative defense.  It is an immunity from prosecution.  If the police believe Zimmerman's account provides the best explanation for what happened, then the killing was justified and no crime was committed.  If Police think that's what happened, they have no probable cause and they are barred from making an arrest.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Because both men retreated. The second that Zimmerman was told to stop and lost Martin, that encounter was a lawful encounter as both men exercised their right to jet. If Zimmerman continued to follow, and if that can be proven, then he is in big trouble.


He was never told to stop.  Even if her were told to stop, that would have had to have been an order such that ignoring it would constitute a crime for the statute not to apply.  And we don't have to get in to that since he was never given an order, lawful or otherwise, to stop following Martin.  This is the essential error the lynch mob media is making.  They think it was _unwise_ for Zimmerman to follow Martin, especially after the dispatcher told him he didn't have to do it.  But it doesn't matter if his actions were _unwise_.  The only way they would invalidate the statutory condition is if they were _unlawful_.

----------


## Ender

> Trayvon wasn't a criminal until he assaulted Zimmerman which is what the eye witness and police deptartment believe happend. Nothing before the point that Trayvon makes contact which is proven by the eye witness was a crime. Zimmerman was not wrong for asking questions, Martin was not wrong for being black or running away. The only thing that matters is who fired the first shot. If the eye witness who is also black was lying or recants his story, Zimmerman is dog meat. He won't last two days in the federal pen.


Not sure Trayvon was the assaulter- I posted this on another thread but it seems to need reposting:

* Trayvon Martins Girlfriend Talks About Final Call*

    On Monday morning ABC News published an interview with a 16-year old girl who is believed to have been on the phone with Trayvon Martin moments before neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman shot him dead.

    He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man, Martins friend said told ABC News, in an interview with lawyers asking the questions because the girl is underage. I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run.

*ABC News verified phone records and the girls statements are believed to be accurate.*

    Trayvon said, What, are you following me for, and the man said, What are you doing here. Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again and he didnt answer the phone, the girl went on to say.

http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/...l_moments.html

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Not sure Trayvon was the assaulter- I posted this on another thread but it seems to need reposting:
> 
> * Trayvon Martin’s Girlfriend Talks About Final Call*
> 
>     On Monday morning ABC News published an interview with a 16-year old girl who is believed to have been on the phone with Trayvon Martin moments before neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman shot him dead.
> 
>     “He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man,” Martin’s friend said told ABC News, in an interview with lawyers asking the questions because the girl is underage. “I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run.”
> 
> *ABC News verified phone records and the girl’s statements are believed to be accurate.*
> ...


Her statements don't really add anything.  She says Trayvon must have been pushed because his earpiece fell off.  But his earpiece would also likely fall off if he took a swing at a guy then jumped on top of him and starting punching, and that's exactly what the only person who was actually at the scene of the altercation alleges.

----------


## moderate libertarian

If this CT is true, how can it be confirmed if media owners were in bed with Obama's handlers and masters?  

This was a synchronized chorus.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Let's assume the worst and that Martin committed a crime.
> 
> Was he trying to leave the area where Zimmerman was?
> 
> 
> *Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be "preventing" a crime. If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter.* 
> 
> http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/wea...f_defense.html


You keep trying to bring up this inapplicable law.  The law you are citing means that if Zimmerman saw Martin committing a crime (like robbing a house), he can't chase Martin down and shoot him dead.  Apprehending a criminal who is fleeing by using deadly force is not legal.  But that has nothing to do with the scenario in the case at hand.  Zimmerman was following Martin because he thought he was suspicious, and wanted to ascertain what he was up to, not because he was trying to "stop a fleeing criminal".  And he isn't alleging he used force to stop Martin from getting away.  Zimmerman says he used violent force because Martin attacked him after the two came face to face.   Nothing about the law you are citing is applicable to the facts in this case.  It covers an entirely different set of circumstances.   





> Actually, it looks to me like Zimmerman may be the one who committed the original felony, 'aggravated stalking' meaning stalking while carrying a deadly weapon.
> 
> 776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; *aggravated stalking*; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
> 
> http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...s/0776.08.html


I don't think I'm going out on a limb much to say I seriously doubt following someone once, for a period of about 15 minutes, with the express purpose of asking them who they are and what they are doing in your neighborhood, constitutes "stalking" under the laws of any state, much less Florida.  Use your head.

----------


## fr33

Chasing down a kid that last week sold drugs to willing buyers = an authoritarian dick

Chasing down a kid while not even knowing the kid sold drugs = a busy-body and likely racial profiler.

Stop chasing down people just because you don't recognize them.

----------


## squarepusher

Phil Hendrie did a comedy bit about a "Citizens Auxiliary Police" character Jay Santos, almost 15 years ago.  I uploaded it to youtube, check it out and tell me what you think.

----------


## jmdrake

> Obviously something occurred prior to them being on the ground.  They didn't just materialized there.  But "something" occuring is not evidence of a crime.  Zimmerman's account of what happened is Martin asking him if he had a problem, Zimmerman responding no, and Martin saying, "well, you do now" and then decking him".


There is evidence that Zimmerman pushed Trayvon.  *Just because you don't believe the evidence doesn't mean it isn't there*!  You assume Zimmerman is telling the truth.  I assume Trayvon's girlfriend was telling the truth.  She heard sounds of a scuffle.  And Zimmerman has not to my knowledge asserted that Trayvon decked him with no warning. 




> As to your amateur legal analysis, self defense is indeed an affirmative defense in many states.  But Florida's stand your ground statute is NOT an affirmative defense.  It is an immunity from prosecution.  If the police believe Zimmerman's account provides the best explanation for what happened, then the killing was justified and no crime was committed.  If Police think that's what happened, they have no probable cause and they are barred from making an arrest.


You're the one playing the amateur here, claiming that you know better than Zimmerman's attorney and the legislator who introduced the bill as to the legislative intent behind it.  You also misstated the facts when you disputed the defense attorney's claim that the stand your ground law was mostly about in home self defense.  Any honest reading of the statute proves you wrong.  And you're using circular reasoning.  If the police believe Zimmerman they are barred?  What a crock!  In any wrongful arrest lawsuit the internal belief of the arresting officer is *not* the standard.  It's the actual evidence.  The fact is that police have discretion on whether they should arrest and prosecutors have discretion on whether they should prosecute.  If a prosecutor looking at the facts of this case decided the police were wrong and prosecuted Zimmerman, Zimmerman would *not* win on a malicious prosecution lawsuit just based on the argument that the police decided not to arrest him.  You know that.  You *have* to know that.

Regardless, you're making a great case for the repeal of Florida's stand your ground law.

----------


## jmdrake

> Her statements don't really add anything.  She says Trayvon must have been pushed because his earpiece fell off.  But his earpiece would also likely fall off if he took a swing at a guy then jumped on top of him and starting punching, and that's exactly what the only person who was actually at the scene of the altercation alleges.


Link please.  Because I think you're just making that up.  Everything I've read from this anonymous witness indicates that he didn't see what happened prior to Trayvon being on top of Zimmerman and beating him up.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/new...erman-03232012

----------


## Sam I am

> Her statements don't really add anything.  She says Trayvon must have been pushed because his earpiece fell off.  But his earpiece would also likely fall off if he took a swing at a guy then jumped on top of him and starting punching, and that's exactly what the only person who was actually at the scene of the altercation alleges.


I think those statements are relevant.  If they are taken to be honest then it means that a physical confrontation happened before the verbal confrontation got too escalated, which is actually bad for the prosecution.

----------


## angelatc

> I suspect this poor bastard is dog meat anyway.
> 
> It will all hinge on exactly when and where the second encounter took place.


Here's a snippet of Florida Law for you to ponder.  It says the self defense argument is not available to those who:

1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

So it appears that there is indeed a duty to retreat for those who initially provoked the use of force.

----------


## angelatc

> He was never told to stop.  Even if her were told to stop, that would have had to have been an order such that ignoring it would constitute a crime for the statute not to apply.  And we don't have to get in to that since he was never given an order, lawful or otherwise, to stop following Martin.  This is the essential error the lynch mob media is making.  They think it was _unwise_ for Zimmerman to follow Martin, especially after the dispatcher told him he didn't have to do it.  But it doesn't matter if his actions were _unwise_.  The only way they would invalidate the statutory condition is if they were _unlawful_.


Here's some quotes from the Sanford Florida Neighborhood Watch Handbook:




> What you will not do is get physically involved with any activity you report or apprehension of any suspicious persons.


Here's an interesting section.  It specifically defines suspicious behavior.  Note that it does not include being black and walking.  It does include being under the influence of drugs.  Assuming that Zimmerman knew enough about the system to use lingo that would get a response, that would explain why Zimmerman pretended to know that Martin was on drugs.



> Gathering (loitering) for an extended or unusual period of time. (Possible burglary, arson, or drug dealing.)
> Behaving strangely. (Possibly on drugs or illegal activity.)
> With any sort of weapon(s). (Possibly planning any number of crimes.)
> Carrying, concealing or transporting anything unusual (Possible burglar carrying stolen property.)
> Looking into cars. (Possibly casing cars for theft of car or its contents.)
> Selling or conducting business on a street corner, park or other place where business is not licensed. 
> Running, especially if carrying something of value. (Possible suspect fleeing scene of crime.)
> Creating any type of disturbance (Disturbing the Peace or covering up noise of some other activity.)
> Going door to door, especially if someone goes to the rear of the residence. (Possibly casing the neighborhood.)
> Loiters around schools, parks or on your street. (Possible burglar, sex offense, drugs or arson)

----------


## specsaregood

> Here's an interesting section.  It specifically defines suspicious behavior.  Note that it does not include being black and walking.  It does include being under the influence of drugs.  Assuming that Zimmerman knew enough about the system to use lingo that would get a response, that would explain why Zimmerman pretended to know that Martin was on drugs.


I'd also suspect that saying that would get a quicker response from the police; based partly on the thought that they would have an easy bust on their hands no matter what.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Here's a snippet of Florida Law for you to ponder.  It says the self defense argument is not available to those who:
> 
> 1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
> (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
> (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
> (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
> 
> So it appears that there is indeed a duty to retreat for those who initially provoked the use of force.


Where have you been for the past 66 pages?  _Everybody_ agrees that if Zimmerman started the fight he'd have no justification for using deadly force and this would constitute a crime.  That is not what Zimmerman claims, however.  He claims after they exchanged a few words, Martin punched him in the face then got on top of him and started beating him.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Here's some quotes from the Sanford Florida Neighborhood Watch Handbook:


You sound like Obama and all the Leftists who insisted "Joe the Plumber" couldn't possibly be an actual plumber because he hadn't paid fees to the state to get a license to do plumbing work on his own.  I don't care what the Florida Neighborhood Watch Association has to say about this or that.  Putting together a neighborhood watch is up to a community, or a group of people within that community, or in the case of the busy body perhaps even just one person in that community.  They are under no obligation to follow the advice of some statewide NGO that wants some kind of cut of the action.  Their only obligation is that they act lawfully.   Show were Zimmerman did anything unlawful, and you have cause to make an arrest.  This other stuff is simply distraction.

----------


## Joshua2585

To me, it seems that the initiation doesn't necessarily have to be force. The fact that Zimmerman got out of his car, against the requests of the police and 911 operator, and advanced towards Martin and continued to follow him... that was the initiation of force. 

Trayvon was scared... hell, I would be too. It doesn't matter if Trayvon was a thug, covered in tattoos, and doing drug deals on his facebook page... this was murder. Zimmerman shouldn't have gotten out of his car. He is guilty of manslaughter imo.

----------


## kahless

> To me, it seems that the initiation doesn't necessarily have to be force. The fact that Zimmerman got out of his car, against the requests of the police and 911 operator, and advanced towards Martin and continued to follow him... that was the initiation of force. 
> 
> Trayvon was scared... hell, I would be too. It doesn't matter if Trayvon was a thug, covered in tattoos, and doing drug deals on his facebook page... this was murder. Zimmerman shouldn't have gotten out of his car. He is guilty of manslaughter imo.


So if I question someone in my neighborhood and they do not like it they are allowed to get on top of me and beat me to a point of breaking my nose and cracking my head open.  Then I should just let them take my life since I was wrong in questioning them?  

You could die from a blow to the head and if you are getting beaten where your life is in danger you should be allowed to defend yourself.

----------


## cajuncocoa

I'm confused as to why so many people here seem to think it's an act of provocation to get out of one's car.  If the situation had ended differently, and given the SYG law, would TM be justified in defending himself against (shooting, if he had a gun) GZ just because GZ got out of his car??

----------


## kahless

> I'm confused as to why so many people here seem to think it's an act of provocation to get out of one's car.  If the situation had ended differently, and given the SYG law, would TM be justified in defending himself against (shooting, if he had a gun) GZ just because GZ got out of his car??


If I go by some of the comments I have read, I would have been in my right to kill my new neighbor who did not know me, for questioning me one night when I took a late stroll.

I was pretty bent this jackass followed me to my house and questioned me.  But instead of beating him I handled it in a civilized manner, there was no physical altercation and no one got shot.

btw - my posts are only commenting on people's interpretation.  I am waiting for all the facts to come out before having an opinion but so far if Zimmerman's story is correct it sounds like self defense.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> Here's some quotes from the Sanford Florida Neighborhood Watch Handbook:


According to The National Sheriff's Association, who are in charge of the national neighborhood watch program the Sanford City program was NOT part of the program. 




> http://www.sheriffs.org/content/nsa-...-nw-tragedy-fl
> 
> NSA has no information indicating the community where the incident occurred has ever even registered with the NSA Neighborhood Watch program.


Now the article dose not mention this but the use of the Neighborhood Watch emblem, name, and logo could even be litigated against Sanford by the NSA if they choose too.

----------


## specsaregood

> If I go by some of the comments I have read, I would have been in my right to kill my new neighbor who did not know me, for questioning me one night when I took a late stroll.
> 
> I was pretty bent this jackass followed me to my house and questioned me.  *But instead of beating him I handled it in a civilized manner, there was no physical altercation and no one got shot.*


but it might not have gone so civilized if the guy used a racial slur to you, threatened you or called the police on you?

----------


## Joshua2585

No, I don't think it was just the fact that he approached him... it was the fact that the police arrived 2 minutes after Martin was shot dead. The police TOLD Zimmerman that they were on the way and to not get out of his car... and he ignored that.

----------


## kahless

> but it might not have gone so civilized if the guy used a racial slur to you, threatened you or called the police on you?


It is just words. Still no reason to put your hands on another human being.  If I got on top of him and started beating him, risking his life where he fears for his life then he has the right do what is necessary to save his life.

----------


## specsaregood

> It is just words. Still no reason to put your hands on another human being.  If I got on top of him and started beating him, risking his life where he fears for his life then he has the right do what is necessary to save his life.


He might have threatened him, he had the gun.  What if the kid thought the guy was gonna shoot him and thought it was his only opportunity to defend himself.   Fact is, we don't know what happened and it should be investigated.

----------


## kahless

> No, I don't think it was just the fact that he approached him... it was the fact that the police arrived 2 minutes after Martin was shot dead. The police TOLD Zimmerman that they were on the way and to not get out of his car... and he ignored that.


I could not find that in the transcript.  All I see is 911 saying, "We don’t need you to do that."  

Which is not the same as "do not do that" or "do not get out of your car".

----------


## angelatc

> According to The National Sheriff's Association, who are in charge of the national neighborhood watch program the Sanford City program was NOT part of the program.


That's not important to me.  I have no problem with a local police department developing their own program and protocols in lieu of kissing up to some self-important national sycophants.

----------


## RickyJ

> I guess I'm the only one who really doesn't give a $#@! about this case.


No you are not the only one, I also don't care, so much so that I just today found out what it was all about. I got tired of seeing all the posts on it around here so I decided to finally find out what it was all about. Looks like self-defense to me, but possibly not, either way it is nothing for a nation and Freedom forum such as this one to be concerned about, we have bigger problems like getting Ron Paul's message out there. The clock is ticking and time is running out, not just for this election, but for America. This story is just a distraction and we don't need any distractions right now.

I was going to give your post a plus rep, but I suppose I can't since it appears you have been banned. I hope it is a temp one and you will be back.

----------


## kylejack

If Zimmerman brandished before he was attacked, he had already assaulted Martin. Martin may have thought his best bet was to close the distance before Zimmerman could fire and kick his ass.

----------


## kahless

> He might have threatened him, he had the gun.  What if the kid thought the guy was gonna shoot him and thought it was his only opportunity to defend himself.   Fact is, we don't know what happened and it should be investigated.


It almost sounds like from the excerpt that he is worried the kid is packing.




> Zimmerman:  Now he’s staring at me. [00:48]
> 
> 911 dispatcher: OK, you said that’s 1111 Retreat View or 111?
> 
> Zimmerman: That’s the clubhouse.
> 
> 911 dispatcher: He’s near the clubhouse now?
> 
> Zimmerman: Yeah, now he’s coming toward me. He’s got his hands in his waist band. And he’s a black male.[1:03]
> ...

----------


## kylejack

Ridiculous. Zimmerman was sitting on Retreat View Circle. Of course he was coming toward him...it's the way into the neighborhood. Of course he was looking at him. He was probably wondering why this guy was sitting in his car staring at him.

Martin proceeded down Twin Trees past the clubhouse and to the sidewalk behind the townhomes.

----------


## specsaregood

> 911 excerpt.


which doesn't apply to anything I said.

----------


## angelatc

> I don't care what the Florida Neighborhood Watch Association has to say about this or that.  Putting together a neighborhood watch is up to a community, or a group of people within that community, or in the case of the busy body perhaps even just one person in that community.  They are under no obligation to follow the advice of some statewide NGO that wants some kind of cut of the action.  Their only obligation is that they act lawfully.   Show were Zimmerman did anything unlawful, and you have cause to make an arrest.  This other stuff is simply distraction.


Like it or not, being a trained member of a Neighborhood Watch program means he will be held to a different standard of behavior than you or I would.  The prosecution will say that his training meant that he certainly knew leaving the car would be considered an act of aggression.

----------


## AuH20

> If Zimmerman brandished before he was attacked, he had already assaulted Martin. Martin may have thought his best bet was to close the distance before Zimmerman could fire and kick his ass.


Agreed. If he brandished without any indication of violence from Martin, Zimmerman acted like an idiot.

----------


## kahless

> which doesn't apply to anything I said.


Edited. Was distracted.

----------


## bolil

"May have been"  I wasn't aware may have beens have become grounds for execution.  The entire article/issue is a distraction.  KONY 2012=2 minutes hate.  Zimmerman=2 minutes hate.  No one really knows what happens to have happened that night except that a teenager is dead.  He can join the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi teens somewhere on the other side.  Don't see much outrage over their murders... then again the iraqi teens are just collateral damage.  Can we refocus on $#@! that matters please?

----------


## angelatc

> "May have been"  I wasn't aware may have beens have become grounds for execution.  The entire article/issue is a distraction.  KONY 2012=2 minutes hate.  Zimmerman=2 minutes hate.  No one really knows what happens to have happened that night except that a teenager is dead.  He can join the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi teens somewhere on the other side.  Don't see much outrage over their murders... then again the iraqi teens are just collateral damage.  Can we refocus on $#@! that matters please?


Stop with the "we" already.  You decide what you want to talk about, and I'll decide what I want to talk about.

----------


## moo

We don't know if zimmerman really saw something in his waistband or his hand. he could've made that information up off the top of his head. i can read between the lines and say that's code for 
BLACK MAN WITH A GUN.
BLACK MAN WITH DRUGS.

----------


## bolil

> Stop with the "we" already.  You decide what you want to talk about, and I'll decide what I want to talk about.


Don't get your panties in a bunch... you can willingly exclude yourself from my we.  But hey, nothing flaunts ignorance better than an easily distracted individual.

----------


## bolil

> Stop with the "we" already.  You decide what you want to talk about, and I'll decide what I want to talk about.


Don't get your panties in a bunch... you can willingly exclude yourself from my we.  But hey, nothing flaunts ignorance better than an easily distracted individual.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Stop with the "we" already.  You decide what you want to talk about, and I'll decide what I want to talk about.


I haven't been in agreement with you on everything in this thread, but on this point...100%

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Like it or not, being a trained member of a Neighborhood Watch program means he will be held to a different standard of behavior than you or I would.  The prosecution will say that his training meant that he certainly knew leaving the car would be considered an act of aggression.


It seems like you don't understand the difference between a criminal action and a civil action.  In order for the prosecution to even bring charges against Zimmerman, there has to be probable cause he committed a crime.  Not adhering to the standards of some private watch organization he doesn't even subscribe to is not a criminal act.  As of this point, there is no evidence Zimmerman did anything that would constitute a criminal act.  That's why police haven't arrested him.  To arrest someone without probable cause is in itself a criminal act- on the part of the police!

----------


## cajuncocoa

> We don't know if zimmerman really saw something in his waistband or his hand. he could've made that information up off the top of his head. i can read between the lines and say that's code for 
> BLACK MAN WITH A GUN.
> BLACK MAN WITH DRUGS.


Congratulations, moo!  You finally posted something on which I can agree with you!!   

Well, the first four words anyway...which is why I struck down the rest of your post.

Thing is *WE DON'T KNOW*.  None of us *KNOW*.  You think you know how Zimmerman felt about Black people, but *YOU DON'T KNOW*.  You're *ASSUMING* (and you know what they say about ASS-U-ME).

----------


## bolil

This whole thing is ridiculous, that the people that understand the media (RPFERS) are caught up in it is... to say the least, disquieting.  How about the innocent autistic boy that was murdered by the cops?  That wasn't on Fox news so I guess its not worth discussing... right?  You all are getting your panties in a bunch over this killing, but it was not your decision.  Once again the media prevails over your autonomy.  Congratulations for, presumable, seeing the media for what it is (that is a strong force in nurturing division in the populace) and still eating the $#@! it puts on your plate, and then asking for more.  I applaud you.

----------


## specsaregood

> This whole thing is ridiculous, that the people that understand the media (RPFERS) are caught up in it is... to say the least, disquieting. .


It is a discussion forum, we like to debate/argue and fight with each other.  it is what it is.

----------


## bolil

http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/ Why don't you spend some time here, and let this instance of circumstantial evidence die?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> This whole thing is ridiculous, that the people that understand the media (RPFERS) are caught up in it is... to say the least, disquieting.  How about the innocent autistic boy that was murdered by the cops?  That wasn't on Fox news so I guess its not worth discussing... right?  You all are getting your panties in a bunch over this killing, but it was not your decision.  Once again the media prevails over your autonomy.  Congratulations for, presumable, seeing the media for what it is (that is a strong force in nurturing division in the populace) and still eating the $#@! it puts on your plate, and then asking for more.  I applaud you.


That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

Contrary to your beliefs, however, not everyone here is swallowing the msm line about this story.  If you read through the thread you would see that.  

Finally, I am no more willing to submit to your perceived authority over my autonomy with regard to what I should or should not be concerned about, than I am to the media.  There are elements of this story that could reverberate into changes in gun control legislation, etc.  That concerns me greatly.  

Sorry if you don't feel the same way.

----------


## sailingaway

> *I honestly don't know who was right or wrong here.* ..
> Pass.  I want no part in this.


Uh, yeah, that is why due process requires a judge and jury, and is why we are pissed about NDAA not allowing either.

I don't feel like judging these people without all the evidence in front of me, either.

----------


## angelatc

> http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/ Why don't you spend some time here, and let this instance of circumstantial evidence die?


Why don't we go there together?  If I'm a little late, go ahead and start without me.

----------


## angelatc

> Don't get your panties in a bunch... you can willingly exclude yourself from my we.  But hey, nothing flaunts ignorance better than an easily distracted individual.


Not even double posting?

----------


## angelatc

> This whole thing is ridiculous, that the people that understand the media (RPFERS) are caught up in it is... to say the least, disquieting.  How about the innocent autistic boy that was murdered by the cops?  That wasn't on Fox news so I guess its not worth discussing... right?  You all are getting your panties in a bunch over this killing, but it was not your decision.  Once again the media prevails over your autonomy.  Congratulations for, presumable, seeing the media for what it is (that is a strong force in nurturing division in the populace) and still eating the $#@! it puts on your plate, and then asking for more.  I applaud you.


Panties, unbunch thyselves. We're all fine - you're the one obsessing because we won't stop talking about something you think isn't worth discussing.

----------


## bolil

Its not that it isn't "worth" discussing, its that it wasn't your choice to do so.  Its just like the OWS.  They are even holding congressional hearing on this... seriously?  Was Trayvnor that much better than the people killed by cops this year?  You are incorrect that I don't think its worth discussing, I just think its a distraction.  Id rather talk about out of control police.  Co-opted by the media your will has been.  Just calling it as I see it.  Ill unbunch my panties now, I apologize for trying to be holier than thou/insulting.  Im definatly not holier... whent he kony thing went down I was all for forming a militia.  I am vulnerable to it too.

----------


## angelatc

> Its not that it isn't "worth" discussing, its that it wasn't your choice to do so.  Its just like the OWS.  They are even holding congressional hearing on this... seriously?  Was Trayvnor that much better than the people killed by cops this year?  You are incorrect that I don't think its worth discussing, I just think its a distraction.  Id rather talk about out of control police.  Co-opted by the media your will has been.  Just calling it as I see it.  Ill unbunch my panties now, I apologize for trying to be holier than thou/insulting.  Im definatly not holier... whent he kony thing went down I was all for forming a militia.  I am vulnerable to it too.


But this may well be an example of an out-of-control police force.  If they went lax on the investigation because they considered Martin enough of a scumbag to warrant the death penalty, that's just as abusive as if they had pulled the trigger.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Uh, yeah, that is why due process requires a judge and jury, and is why we are pissed about NDAA not allowing either.
> 
> I don't feel like judging these people without all the evidence in front of me, either.


Due Process requires more than just a judge and jury.  It also requires things like probable cause in order to make an arrest or press charges.  The probable cause standard is what the media and the black hordes want dispensed of in this case.  They want Zimmerman arrested despite a clear lack of probable cause he committed a crime, which under our system of justice, is just as egregious as denying him any other right.

----------


## bolil

Indirectly, yes.  Not like a guy with a badge shooting an autistic kid through a closed door though.  Again, what makes him so much better that he deserves a congressional hearing that will revolve around profiling and gun control (not pig brutality) and innocents murdered by cops are given a token article before the media drowns out their memories in nonsense like this.

----------


## jmdrake

> Due Process requires more than just a judge and jury.  It also requires things like probable cause in order to make an arrest or press charges.  The probable cause standard is what the media and the black hordes want dispensed of in this case.  They want Zimmerman arrested despite a clear lack of probable cause he committed a crime, which under our system of justice, is just as egregious as denying him any other right.


You aren't arguing for probable cause or due process.  Due process in this case means having a probable cause hearing to determine the veracity of the evidence that you blithely pretend doesn't exist.

----------


## cajuncocoa



----------


## iGGz

[[]]

----------


## TheTexan

This thread is longer than http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...her-car-window

----------


## moderate libertarian

> 



*I just counted, there are 10 threads related to "Trayvon Martin" on the first page of this forum.*  

As far as I see, this is the most informative thread on the subject.

----------


## moo

> I honestly thought this thread was going to end with this video, let's try again:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because no one knows $#@!.


this has already been talked about by civil rights leader dick gregory

----------


## iGGz

[[]]

----------


## iGGz

\\

----------


## TheNewYorker

> No, I don't think it was just the fact that he approached him... it was the fact that the police arrived 2 minutes after Martin was shot dead. The police TOLD Zimmerman that they were on the way and to not get out of his car... and he ignored that.


Police =/= 911 dispatcher

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

Not a gang member. He smoked weed, he listened to rap, he swore on the internet and wore a grill. Sounds like the average teenager to me. None of that is grounds for him being shot walking home in his own neighborhood with objects in both hands and being unarmed and none of that makes him a thug.

It's even funny to me how they say that kid is throwing up a gang sign. Yeah that is a gang sign: for MS-13 (A Hispanic gang that African-Americans can't join lol). I highly doubt he is throwing up a gang sign but instead making an M with his fingers for his name (which is clearly in the picture: Mario)

----------


## TheBlackPeterSchiff

LOL @ a gang member/drug dealer posting on twitter. MS13? Seriously....smh. This article seems like it was written by someone not privy to modern day urban culture. 

You guys need to stop it. I know the liberal media, anti-gun, and the race baiters have latched on to this story and are thumping their chests about it, but to even call this self defense is horse $#@!. 

Kid wasnt armed
Kid was screaming help (911 tapes)
Kid was not committing a crime

Hello? Now is this a cold blooded murder? I dont think so. I think this is a case of a guy, tasked with watching of his community, and seeing a kid that to him looked suspicious, he confronted him, they tussled, and Zimmerman felt the need to use deadly force when he didnt need to. He couldn't take an ass whooping, he didnt want to run away, so he decided to kill the kid. Heat of the moment type of deal. 

If Zimmerman was a cop you guys would be raging about the totalitarian police state.

Obviously Travon was not the heaven sent angel the media is making him out to be, what do you expect? Maybe...just maybe...he was your normal teen that thought he was a bad ass. But was he committing a crime?

----------


## BlackTerrel

> He was told "we don't need you to do that", as you correctly stated.
> 
> That seems very clear.
> 
> Once that happened, he lost his justification to use deadly force, especially since he *continued* to follow him around as Martin tried to leave.


+100%.  Thank you

----------


## BlackTerrel

It's really gotten to the reaching at straws portion when you're trying to justify killing an unarmed man.

None of this is $#@!ing relevant.

A.  Overzealous $#@! with a gun follows teenager with skittles and B.  ends up shooting him.  What could possibly happen between A and B that would justify it?

----------


## RonPaulMall

> You aren't arguing for probable cause or due process.  Due process in this case means having a probable cause hearing to determine the veracity of the evidence that you blithely pretend doesn't exist.


If you don't know the law, don't post about the law.  Probable Cause hearings exist because in order to make an arrest, the State first requires probable cause a crime was committed.  That hearing is to protect us against the very thing you and Sharpton's lynch mob are advocating- an arrest absent probable cause.  The police need to believe that George Zimmerman committed a crime in order for them to arrest him.  There is no evidence George Zimmerman committed a crime.  And as the police aren't racist lunatics like most of the people calling for Zimmerman's skin, that lack of evidence and corresponding belief that a crime occurred keeps them from making an arrest.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> A.  Overzealous $#@! with a gun follows teenager with skittles and B.  ends up shooting him.  What could possibly happen between A and B that would justify it?


Um, how about the very think George Zimmerman claims happened?  That gold toothed teen in a hoodie punched him in the face, then, as an eyewitness confirms, got on top of him and started pummeling him?

----------


## AFPVet

> Police =/= 911 dispatcher


E911 dispatchers are generally not certified law enforcement officers; however, it's not uncommon for law enforcement officers to hang out in communications. I used to hang out in communications while I was waiting on my shift sergeant since he had the car. We did have one dispatcher who was law enforcement certified as a reserve deputy just like myself. You never know sometimes.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> LOL @ a gang member/drug dealer posting on twitter. MS13? Seriously....smh. This article seems like it was written by someone not privy to modern day urban culture. 
> 
> You guys need to stop it. I know the liberal media, anti-gun, and the race baiters have latched on to this story and are thumping their chests about it, but to even call this self defense is horse $#@!. 
> 
> Kid wasnt armed
> Kid was screaming help (911 tapes)
> Kid was not committing a crime
> 
> Hello? Now is this a cold blooded murder? I dont think so. I think this is a case of a guy, tasked with watching of his community, and seeing a kid that to him looked suspicious, he confronted him, they tussled, and Zimmerman felt the need to use deadly force when he didnt need to. He couldn't take an ass whooping, he didnt want to run away, so he decided to kill the kid. Heat of the moment type of deal. 
> ...


This. +rep




> Um, how about the very think George Zimmerman claims happened?  That gold toothed teen in a hoodie punched him in the face, then, as an eyewitness confirms, got on top of him and started pummeling him?


Yeah, let's ignore the witness you keep forgetting: Mary Cutcher and how the police didn't like her story so they changed it. Then we can forget how one of them had a gun and the other was unarmed carrying candy and a can of tea.

----------


## nasaal

> This. +rep
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, let's ignore the witness you keep forgetting: Mary Cutcher and how the police didn't like her story so they changed it. Then we can forget how one of them had a gun and the other was unarmed carrying candy and a can of tea.


Or the fact that even if Zimmerman was getting pummeled, he had been following the kid even after being told not to on the phone.  If someone chases me like that, I imagine I'd hit them too.

----------


## specsaregood

> Or the fact that even if Zimmerman was getting pummeled, he had been following the kid even after being told not to on the phone.  If someone chases me like that, I imagine I'd hit them too.


or the liklihood that zimmerman had already brandished his gun, committing assault and giving the kid the right to defend himself.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Yeah, let's ignore the witness you keep forgetting: Mary Cutcher and how the police didn't like her story so they changed it. Then we can forget how one of them had a gun and the other was unarmed carrying candy and a can of tea.


She wasn't really a witness.  She just heard stuff.  Nothing about her story is inconsistent with Zimmerman's account either.  Why do we have to forget the fact one of them had a gun?  What relevance does that have to anything?   We have a right to bear arms in this country.  Martin should have known and anticipated the guy he attacked might be carrying a gun.  It is a lesson now learned, but at the price of his life.

----------


## moo

*trayvon's punch was so strong* that it broke his nose and knocked a 250 pound zimmerman to the ground and for zimmerman to have had his head bashed into the sidewalk for an entire minute and his face repeatedly punched for an entire minute, why did zimmerman only have 1 cut on his nose and small cuts on the back of his head and a swollen lip?

if trayvon had direct fist to face contact for an entire minute zimmerman wouldve had his teeth knocked out, or his jaw broken, or a busted lip, or black eyes, or knots on his face. if zimmerman had his head bashed into CEMENT, zimmerman would've been sent to the hospital to check for brain damage.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> She wasn't really a witness.  She just heard stuff.  Nothing about her story is inconsistent with Zimmerman's account either.  Why do we have to forget the fact one of them had a gun?  What relevance does that have to anything?   We have a right to bear arms in this country.  Martin should have known and anticipated the guy he attacked might be carrying a gun.  It is a lesson now learned, but at the price of his life.


It is completely inconsistent with his account. Nobody is saying anything about the right to bear arms. Neighborhood watch for one aren't supposed to carry guns, he was told to not follow him (or he wasn't needed to if you prefer), and he was the aggressor in the situation. Don't believe me? Take a look at this: 

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Grigg-piece%29

----------


## economics102

> He was told "we don't need you to do that", as you correctly stated.
> 
> That seems very clear.
> 
> Once that happened, he lost his justification to use deadly force, especially since he continued to follow him around as Martin tried to leave.


Wait a minute, it's illegal to follow someone you think is suspicious because the police tell you it's "unnecessary"? I'm not buying that on several levels.

And if Zimmerman's account of the incident is true, why doesn't he have the right to meet deadly force with deadly force? Of course, my belief is that ANY physical assault can justifiably be met with lethal self-defense, but even if you believe the response should be proportional, are you telling me that getting punched in the face and then having your head repeatedly slammed into the pavement isn't a potentially lethal attack? When people have their head slammed into the pavement, they can suffer serious concussions and even death. In the realm of hand-to-hand combat, that's the most serious kind of attack short of trying to snap someone's neck or something. And if someone is already punching you in the face and slamming your head in the pavement, what would make you presume they weren't going to continue the attack? The idea that Travyon Martin's assault (if Zimmerman's account is true) isn't ALSO lethal is RIDICULOUS -- of course it was! If you get your head slammed into pavement hard enough you have a decent chance of dying, just as you do if someone shoots you in the torso.

Another thing that is RIDICULOUS about this case -- that the "stand your ground" law is getting drawn into criticism here. Because again, if Zimmerman's account is true, he was PINNED TO THE GROUND getting beaten up, so the issue of the Stand Your Ground  law absolving him of a "duty to retreat" is totally irrelevant because retreat was not an option! The only relevance is in his initial confronting of Travyon, but there's nothing illegal about confronting someone in a public space!

----------


## loveshiscountry

> *trayvon's punch was so strong* that it broke his nose and knocked a 250 pound zimmerman to the ground and for zimmerman to have had his head bashed into the sidewalk for an entire minute and his face repeatedly punched for an entire minute, why did zimmerman only have 1 cut on his nose and small cuts on the back of his head and a swollen lip?
> 
> if trayvon had direct fist to face contact for an entire minute zimmerman wouldve had his teeth knocked out, or his jaw broken, or a busted lip, or black eyes, or knots on his face. if zimmerman had his head bashed into CEMENT, zimmerman would've been sent to the hospital to check for brain damage.


Do you actually think Zimmerman laid there with his hands at his side not protecting himself? I guess anything can happen but for those injuries you described to happen Zimmerman would have to lie still, head not moving, and not having his hands up defending himself.

----------


## Vegas Brian

A guy carrying a gun was unnecessarily pursuing another citizen, who by all accounts was not commiting a crime.

I fully support our right to bear arms; but with that comes responsibility.  Mr. Zimmerman appears to have acted recklessly by causing this situation, eventually resulting in another person's death.

----------


## moo

> Do you actually think Zimmerman laid there with his hands at his side not protecting himself? I guess anything can happen but for those injuries you described to happen *Zimmerman would have to lie still, head not moving, and not having his hands up defending himself.*


zimmerman never said he used his hands to protect his face. he said the only thing he did to protect himself was call for help and shoot trayvon.

----------


## cajuncocoa



----------


## cajuncocoa



----------


## cajuncocoa



----------


## AuH20

> A guy carrying a gun was unnecessarily pursuing another citizen, who by all accounts was not commiting a crime.
> 
> I fully support our right to bear arms; but with that comes responsibility.  Mr. Zimmerman appears to have acted recklessly by causing this situation, eventually resulting in another person's death.


Depends if it was concealed. If he was brandishing it, then you're correct. All these attacks on CCW and citizen watch are nothing more than a witch hunt.

----------


## cajuncocoa



----------


## cajuncocoa



----------


## cajuncocoa



----------


## AuH20

> 


So-called "Liberals" are mentally deranged in that they actively push this stuff.

----------


## moo

just your average american teenager.

----------


## farreri

> Um, how about the very think George Zimmerman claims happened?  *That gold toothed teen in a hoodie* punched him in the face, then, as an eyewitness confirms, got on top of him and started pummeling him?


So him having a gold tooth and being in a hoodie justifies him being KILLED?  Racist much?

----------


## farreri

I think the bottom line is that Zimmerman had every opportunity to NOT ENGAGE.  He was even TOLD TO NOT ENGAGE by the 9/11 dispatcher.

Zimmerman via manslaughter at the very least.

----------


## farreri

Btw, this thread, specifically the title, is an INSULT to the memory of Trayvon, who was just minding his business that night.  *I ask this thread be closed.*

----------


## AFPVet

Once more, we don't have all of the evidence... it's easy to play armchair quarterback when all you know is what the corporate media is telling you. This is why I am not voicing my opinion in these Trayvon threads.

----------


## farreri

> Once more, we don't have all of the evidence... it's easy to play armchair quarterback when all you know is what the corporate media is telling you. This is why I am not voicing my opinion in these Trayvon threads.


Isn't that what the OP is doing with the title of this thread?  And somehow trying to justify Trayvon's murder?

----------


## Danke

> He was told "we don't need you to do that", as you correctly stated.
> 
> That seems very clear.
> 
> *Once that happened*, he lost his justification to use deadly force, especially since he continued to follow him around as Martin tried to leave.


lol

You see, the thing is, he shouldn't have called the cops in the first place.

----------


## farreri

How was Zimmerman able to shot him square in the chest if Trayvon was allegedly pummeling his face and bashing the back of his head in the ground?  So this kid was so over-powering to this adult, but was unable to prevent him from pulling a gun?

----------


## Danke

> How was Zimmerman able to shot him square in the chest if Trayvon was allegedly pummeling his face and bashing the back of his head in the ground?  So this kid was so over-powering to this adult, but was unable to prevent him from pulling a gun?


Have you never been through self defense training armed with a handgun?

----------


## farreri

> Have you never been through self defense training armed with a handgun?


Please expand.  Not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or not.  Hard to tell sometimes.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Sure it can.

You just don't have legal justification to use deadly force anymore.





> Wait a minute, it's illegal to follow someone you think is suspicious because the police tell you it's "unnecessary"? I'm not buying that on several levels.
> 
> And if Zimmerman's account of the incident is true, why doesn't he have the right to meet deadly force with deadly force? Of course, my belief is that ANY physical assault can justifiably be met with lethal self-defense, but even if you believe the response should be proportional, are you telling me that getting punched in the face and then having your head repeatedly slammed into the pavement isn't a potentially lethal attack? When people have their head slammed into the pavement, they can suffer serious concussions and even death. In the realm of hand-to-hand combat, that's the most serious kind of attack short of trying to snap someone's neck or something. And if someone is already punching you in the face and slamming your head in the pavement, what would make you presume they weren't going to continue the attack? The idea that Travyon Martin's assault (if Zimmerman's account is true) isn't ALSO lethal is RIDICULOUS -- of course it was! If you get your head slammed into pavement hard enough you have a decent chance of dying, just as you do if someone shoots you in the torso.
> 
> Another thing that is RIDICULOUS about this case -- that the "stand your ground" law is getting drawn into criticism here. Because again, if Zimmerman's account is true, he was PINNED TO THE GROUND getting beaten up, so the issue of the Stand Your Ground  law absolving him of a "duty to retreat" is totally irrelevant because retreat was not an option! The only relevance is in his initial confronting of Travyon, but there's nothing illegal about confronting someone in a public space!

----------


## Brian4Liberty

This story came out yesterday. There have been questions about why Zimmerman was not arrested by the Police, and it appears that the DA didn't think they had a case.




> (CBS) SANFORD, Fla. - The lead investigator probing the deadly shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin wanted neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman arrested and charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting, ABC News reports.
> 
> Investigator Chris Serino of the Sanford, Fla. Police Department wanted the 28-year-old Zimmerman behind bars, but the state Attorney's Office said there was not enough evidence to lead to a conviction, sources told ABC.
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...atal-shooting/


The following is probably also relevant when it comes to how the Police handled the investigation:




> Police brought Zimmerman into the station for questioning for a few hours on the night of the shooting, said Zimmerman's attorney, even though he had requested medical attention first.
> 
> The police report noted Zimmerman was "bleeding from the nose and the back of the head."
> 
> CBS News reports that *the next day, detectives re-enacted the shooting with Zimmerman at the scene.*

----------


## UtahApocalypse

This has been my issue the entire time I have read about the case.

I am not arguing that Zimmerman is guilty, or innocent by self defense. 

I am arguing that a Jury needs to hear and decide the facts of the case.

----------


## oyarde

> This has been my issue the entire time I have read about the case.
> 
> I am not arguing that Zimmerman is guilty, or innocent by self defense. 
> 
> I am arguing that a Jury needs to hear and decide the facts of the case.


 I can see that point , but if I was the DA , I would probably done what the same , he has no real evidence and the witness & physical evidence support the survivors story.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> I can see that point , but if I was the DA , I would probably done what the same , he has no real evidence and the witness & physical evidence support the survivors story.


No witness saw the initial contact between Martin and Zimmerman.

----------


## farreri



----------


## oyarde

> No witness saw the initial contact between Martin and Zimmerman.


 And that is why we will never know .

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I can see that point , but if I was the DA , I would probably done what the same , he has no real evidence and the witness & physical evidence support the survivors story.


The DAs Office probably did what they do a thousand times a day and made a call on a case. The only thing that makes this different is the charlatans, exploiters and media frenzy surrounding it.

Doctors take patients off of life support and feeding tubes every day, but not every case turns into a Terri Schiavo style circus.

----------


## kahless

> I think the bottom line is that Zimmerman had every opportunity to NOT ENGAGE.  He was even TOLD TO NOT ENGAGE by the 9/11 dispatcher.
> 
> Zimmerman via manslaughter at the very least.


I could not find that in the transcript. All I see is 911 saying, "We don’t need you to do that." Which is not the same as "do not do that" or "do not get out of your car". 

So if I question someone in my neighborhood and they do not like it they are allowed to get on top of me and beat me to a point of breaking my nose and cracking my head open. Then I should just let them take my life since I was wrong in questioning them?

You could die from a blow to the head and if you are getting beaten where your life is in danger you should be allowed to defend yourself. 

If I go by some of the posts here I should have been able to kill a neighbor that followed me to my house recently and questioned me.  If I attacked him for doing so and he feared for his life he would have had every right to protect his life.

----------


## phill4paul

> This has been my issue the entire time I have read about the case.
> 
> I am not arguing that Zimmerman is guilty, or innocent by self defense. 
> 
> I am arguing that a Jury needs to hear and decide the facts of the case.


  This is pretty much my view. This investigation was screwed up from the start. From an officer leading a witness to a narcotics detective interviewing Zimmerman rather that the homicide detective. Malfeasance all around.

----------


## eduardo89

I don't know what to think about all this, honestly don't care. I just hope Zimmerman (D-FL) gets a fair trial and that these threads all die.

----------


## kylejack

> just your average american teenager.


Not him. He's lighter skinned.

----------


## oyarde

> The DAs Office probably did what they do a thousand times a day and made a call on a case. The only thing that makes this different is the charlatans, exploiters and media frenzy surrounding it.
> 
> Doctors take patients off of life support and feeding tubes every day, but not every case turns into a Terri Schiavo style circus.


 Yep

----------


## farreri

> I could not find that in the transcript. All I see is 911 saying, "We don’t need you to do that." Which is not the same as "do not do that" or "do not get out of your car".


Trying to get off on a technicality?  Zimmerman FAILED the 9/11 dispatchers recommendation to STAND DOWN.  He called for police, they were on their way.




> So if I question someone in my neighborhood and they do not like it they are allowed to get on top of me and beat me to a point of breaking my nose and cracking my head open.


Zimmerman HAD A GUN.  He obviously felt empowered by HAVING A GUN by approaching Trayvon AFTER he called police saying he looked like he was "on drugs" and up to no good.

Is that what you would have done if you had a gun, approach the person you just called police on for looking like they were on drugs and up to no good?





> Then I should just let them take my life since I was wrong in questioning them?


You are assuming Zimmerman's version, the guy with a criminal record, was true and Trayvon was going to take his life.




> You could die from a blow to the head and if you are getting beaten where your life is in danger you should be allowed to defend yourself.


Who had a gun, a criminal record, and who approached who?

----------


## armstrong

Once more, we don't have all of the evidence... it's easy to play armchair quarterback when all you know is what the corporate media is telling you. This is why I am not voicing my opinion in these Trayvon threads.


This !!!!!!!!!!

----------


## farreri

Trayvon would still be alive if Zimmerman didn't go out WITH A GUN and try to play Sheriff.

*Watch*men don't go out and confront people while carrying a gun.

----------


## kahless

> The DAs Office probably did what they do a thousand times a day and made a call on a case. The only thing that makes this different is the charlatans, exploiters and media frenzy surrounding it.
> 
> Doctors take patients off of life support and feeding tubes every day, but not every case turns into a Terri Schiavo style circus.


I do not have all the facts but perhaps they did make the right call based on the witnesses and evidence or lack there of which is maybe the reason why the "left" and the media picked this case to run with.  

I think they picked this case over all others since they can make it last through the election cycle and make the Presidential campaign all about race again to ensure an Obama victory.  

They will use this opportunity to pass more gun control laws, limit the ability of neighborhood watch organizations, add anti-stalking laws making it impossible for private security firms and communities to provide their own security without local law enforcement.   In addition of course additional laws to favor minority groups.

Liberty folks should be worried over how they are going to exploit this case since they are going to use it to deny your right to defend yourself when the economic collapse comes.  It is a power grab to take your guns and to consolidate power with government law enforcement away from individuals and private organizations.

----------


## palm

This isn't about race.

----------


## moo

Well it seems like someone at that police dept knows how to do their job. I was beginning to think EVERYONE would end up losing their jobs.

----------


## farreri

> *Neighborhood watch*
> 
> *Some residents* of his gated townhouse community *declared that Zimmerman was known for being strict* and that he *went door to door asking them to be on the lookout for "young black men who appear to be outsiders"*, while others regarded him as normal, helpful and passionate about neighborhood security, having supposedly thwarted a previous burglary attempt.[31] The community reportedly experienced numerous instances of burglary, theft, and one shooting during the previous year, with 402 calls made to the police."[31] According to the Miami Herald, Zimmerman had placed 46 of those calls since the beginning of 2011, "to report disturbances, break-ins, windows left open and other incidents; nine of those times, he saw someone or something suspicious".[31] The Herald described Zimmerman as "mild-mannered", but *"fixated on crime and focused on young, black males."*[31]
> 
> Sanford police chief Bill Lee stated, "Mr. Zimmerman was not acting outside the legal boundaries of Florida Statute by carrying his weapon when this incident occurred."[44]
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trayvon...hborhood_watch


Oh and look...




> *Against the Sanford police*
> *Previous incidents with racial issues*
> 
> News reports noted that *the police department of the city of Sanford has faced previous allegations of racial prejudice*.[90] In 2011, chief of police Brian Tooley was forced from office after declining to prosecute a police lieutenant's son for beating up a homeless black man, in an incident caught on video. After the footage went viral on YouTube, the perpetrator, Justin Collison, was arrested.[90][91][92] *The officer in charge of that case was also in charge of the Trayvon Martin shooting scene*.[45] In 2005, two parking lot security guards, one the son of a Sanford police department veteran and the other a volunteer for the department, shot a black teen, Travares McGill, in the back, killing him. The guards asserted self-defense, and the case was dismissed in court.[90][93]
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trayvon..._racial_issues


Don't forget, Trayvon was MINDING HIS OWN BUSINESS that night.


[Edit]Zimmerman's criminal past...




> *George Zimmerman*, Trayvon Martins killer, *had prior brushes with the law*
>  Thu, Mar 22, 2012
> 
> A woman accused the man who fatally shot Trayvon Martin of domestic violence, it emerged Wednesday, as a fuller picture of George Zimmerman began to take shape.
> 
> In 2005, a woman filed a petition for an injunction against Zimmerman, *claiming that he came to her house and became violent when she told him to leave*, the Orlando Sentinel reports. Zimmerman, 21 at the time, filed a petition of his own in response.
> 
> Just a month before that, the paper reports, Zimmerman was at a bar near the University of Central Florida when a friend was arrested on suspicion of serving minors. *Zimmerman became profane and pushed a law enforcement agent* who tried to escort him away. He was arrested after a short struggle. That arrest had been reported previously.
> 
> ...

----------


## kahless

> Trying to get off on a technicality?  Zimmerman FAILED the 9/11 dispatchers recommendation to STAND DOWN.  He called for police, they were on their way.


"We don’t need you to do that."  Is not the same as "do not do that" or "do not get out of your car". 




> Zimmerman HAD A GUN.  He obviously felt empowered by HAVING A GUN by approaching Trayvon AFTER he called police saying he looked like he was "on drugs" and up to no good.


First off you did not answer the question. Secondly, so he had a gun which he had every right to carry.  If someone is in my neighborhood there is no law against me approaching him for a discussion.




> Is that what you would have done if you had a gun, approach the person you just called police on for looking like they were on drugs and up to no good? You are assuming Zimmerman's version, the guy with a criminal record, was true and Trayvon was going to take his life. Who had a gun, a criminal record, and who approached who?[


If someone is in my private community where we have had break ins there is no law that prevents CCW holders from asking questions while carrying.  Your responses clearly indicate you have an issue with people being allowed to own guns and denying peoples right to carry. 

Unless I missed something I understand his criminal record is related to a domestic disturbance.  Not sure about his case but domestic disputes involving police are typically just a ploy to gain the upper hand in separation, divorce or child support proceeding.  Regardless it is irrelevant to this incident.

----------


## William R

> Oh and look...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget, Trayvon was MINDING HIS OWN BUSINESS that night.



Walter Williams on profiling and watching out for young black men. 

http://townhall.com/columnists/walte...3/28/profiling

----------


## Indy Vidual

I'm hoping to see 50 more threads about this, thank you for bringing us one step closer.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> 


Well, that cartoon is a good summary of how some of the spin has been.

The following gives a little more detail into to how the Police handled the investigation. Seems they did take George back to the scene and made him re-enact what happened.




> Police brought Zimmerman into the station for questioning for a few hours on the night of the shooting, said Zimmerman's attorney, even though he had requested medical attention first.
> 
> The police report noted Zimmerman was "bleeding from the nose and the back of the head."
> 
> CBS News reports that the next day, detectives *re-enacted the shooting with Zimmerman at the scene*.

----------


## dannno

> Don't forget, Trayvon was MINDING HIS OWN BUSINESS that night.


I'm sorry, but there is not a single person in the world besides Zimmerman who knows what Trayvon did that night because Trayvon is dead. How the $#@! do you know he was minding his own business?? Maybe he was initially, but after Zimmerman started watching him it is very possibly that Trayvon became upset and decided to $#@! with him. Apparently he came up behind Zimmerman, verbally and then physically attacked him. There is ZERO EVIDENCE that is not what happened. In fact, some EYE WITNESSES saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, beating his head in. Therefore, in a court of law, unless more evidenc is presented you CANNOT convict Zimmerman without ignoring innocent until proven guilty.

----------


## moo

> I'm sorry, but there is not a single person in the world besides Zimmerman who knows what Trayvon did that night because Trayvon is dead. How the $#@! do you know he was minding his own business?? Maybe he was initially, but after Zimmerman started watching him it is very possibly that Trayvon became upset and decided to $#@! with him. Apparently he came up behind Zimmerman, verbally and then physically attacked him. There is ZERO EVIDENCE that is not what happened. In fact, some EYE WITNESSES saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, beating his head in. Therefore, in a court of law, unless more evidenc is presented you CANNOT convict Zimmerman without ignoring innocent until proven guilty.


So trayvon punched zimmerman in the nose while zimmerman's back was turned. WOW. that's a chuck norris type of move.

----------


## farreri

> "We don’t need you to do that."  Is not the same as "do not do that" or "do not get out of your car".


But he did do that, didn't he?  And now an INNOCENT teenager is dead.




> Secondly, so he had a gun which he had every right to carry.  If someone is in my neighborhood there is no law against me approaching him for a discussion.


Except when you are out trying to play Sheriff.

And again, why would you, WITH A GUN, approach someone you just called police about?




> If someone is in my private community where we have had break ins there is no law that prevents CCW holders from asking questions while carrying.  *Your responses clearly indicate you have an issue with people being allowed to own guns and denying peoples right to carry*.


No, but now I know why a lot of you are siding with Zimmerman, you're AFRAID this incident is going to curb gun rights.  Am I way off-base with thinking that?




> Unless I missed something I understand his criminal record is related to a domestic disturbance.  Not sure about his case but domestic disputes involving police are typically just a ploy to gain the upper hand in separation, divorce or child support proceeding.  Regardless it is irrelevant to this incident.





> *George Zimmerman*, Trayvon Martins killer, *had prior brushes with the law*
>  Thu, Mar 22, 2012
> 
> A woman accused the man who fatally shot Trayvon Martin of domestic violence, it emerged Wednesday, as a fuller picture of George Zimmerman began to take shape.
> 
> In 2005, a woman filed a petition for an injunction against Zimmerman, *claiming that he came to her house and became violent when she told him to leave*, the Orlando Sentinel reports. Zimmerman, 21 at the time, filed a petition of his own in response.
> 
> Just a month before that, the paper reports, Zimmerman was at a bar near the University of Central Florida when a friend was arrested on suspicion of serving minors. *Zimmerman became profane and pushed a law enforcement agent* who tried to escort him away. He was arrested after a short struggle. That arrest had been reported previously.
> 
> ...


See, he was trying to play Sheriff.

----------


## kahless

> I'm sorry, but there is not a single person in the world besides Zimmerman who knows what Trayvon did that night because Trayvon is dead. How the $#@! do you know he was minding his own business?? Maybe he was initially, but after Zimmerman started watching him it is very possibly that Trayvon became upset and decided to $#@! with him. Apparently he came up behind Zimmerman, verbally and then physically attacked him. There is ZERO EVIDENCE that is not what happened. In fact, some EYE WITNESSES saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, beating his head in. Therefore, in a court of law, unless more evidenc is presented you CANNOT convict Zimmerman without ignoring innocent until proven guilty.


^This.

It is not about justice, it is about legislation. I believe the intent is to use this case to pass more gun control legislation, eliminate concealed carry and more rights for minority groups.  

Here are few things scary things I am getting out of some of these posters.

1.  911:  "We do not need you to that".  Now means if you speak to a person after that, they attack you and you try to defend your life, you are guilty of manslaughter.  

2.  You are not allowed to approach anyone in your neighborhood.  That is now considered stalking and they have a right to kill you. 

3.  Concealed carry means you are a criminal if you speak to anyone while carrying.

4.  Domestic dispute on your record means you are probably a cold blooded killer.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> This isn't about race.


I agree that it *shouldn't* have been about race, but Sharpton, Jesse, Spike Lee and Obama -- with his "looks like me" comment -- have taken it down that road.  There's no turning back now.

----------


## AuH20

First, it's a gated community. Secondly, I'm pretty certain that young black males not affiliated with the neighborhood aren't walking around a gated community peddling candy at night. Just a wild guess on my part. ROFL This is common sense not racism. If people want to become angry, than change the federal crime statistics.

----------


## misterx

White, black, purple, green, police don't bring charges against their own. The officer's son wouldn't have been charged no matter who he beat up, so that case is irrelevant. As far as looking out for "young black men", maybe in some of the recent burglaries witnesses had stated that they saw a "young black man". If that's the case, it would make sense to be looking for that person rather than an asian guy.

----------


## dannno

> So trayvon punched zimmerman in the nose while zimmerman's back was turned. WOW. that's a chuck norris type of move.


You are consistently and purposefully obfuscating, I vote ban.

----------


## farreri

> No, but now I know why a lot of you are siding with Zimmerman, you're AFRAID this incident is going to curb gun rights.  Am I way off-base with thinking that?


Apparently I'm not...




> It is not about justice, it is about legislation. *I believe the intent is to use this case to pass more gun control legislation*, eliminate concealed carry and more rights for minority groups.

----------


## farreri

> Maybe he was initially, but after Zimmerman started watching him it is very possibly that Trayvon became upset and decided to $#@! with him. *Apparently he came up behind Zimmerman*, verbally and then physically attacked him. There is ZERO EVIDENCE that is not what happened.


What's the evidence that this DID happen?

----------


## Toureg89

i stopped late one night at gas station here in CBerry that was close to questionable apartment complexes. while there, when a friend and i were fueling, a man sprinted at us. 

i felt like pulling, but i knew legally i had not right to do it yet because we had not yet been attacked. 

at the very moment it looked like the guy was going to run into my friend, he ran along the side of the car, past it, and out of the area into a larger shopping center. 

had that man at the last moment actually attacked us, right up until the point he would have attacked us, he would have been *minding his own business.*

i WAS minding my own business when i got pulled over in a neighborhood i was new to (miamia) trying to look for the way out. the cops didnt pull me over cuz i looked like i was minding my own business, they pulled me over because it looked like i might have just stolen the car...

----------


## kahless

> But he did do that, didn't he?  And now an INNOCENT teenager is dead.


You do not know if he was an INNOCENT teenager.  There are witnesses that seem to indicate otherwise.




> Except when you are out trying to play Sheriff.
> 
> And again, why would you, WITH A GUN, approach someone you just called police about?


He had a CCW and has every right to talk to someone.  That does not mean he was pointing a gun at him.  Unless there are witnesses at this point we really do not know the truth do we.  Trayvon was not shot until he was on top of Zimmerman beating him.  




> No, but now I know why a lot of you are siding with Zimmerman, you're AFRAID this incidenct is going to curb gun rights.  Am I way off-base with thinking that?


Your posts clearly indicate you are anti-gun.  I am not siding with anyone since we do not know all the facts.  However, I am leaning towards Zimmerman based on witnesses but really do not know without all the facts.

Your posts clearly show an agenda that is not about justice in this case.  Sounds like you got your marching orders from moveon.org.

----------


## farreri

> White, black, purple, green, police don't bring charges against their own. The officer's son wouldn't have been charged no matter who he beat up, so that case is irrelevant. As far as looking out for "young black men", maybe in some of the recent burglaries witnesses had stated that they saw a "young black man". If that's the case, it would make sense to be looking for that person rather than an asian guy.


Why did you make is sound singular when it was plural?

"young black *men* who appear to be outsiders"
"fixated on crime and focused on young, black male*s*."

----------


## pcosmar

> First, it's a gated community.


Yes it is, and he was living there. (temporally at least)
His Father lived there, He was a guest in his fathers home.
He had a *Right to be there* and to walk to and from the candy store unmolested.

----------


## AuH20

> Yes it is, and he was living there. (temporally at least)
> His Father lived there, He was a guest in his fathers home.
> He had a *Right to be there* and to walk to and from the candy store unmolested.


Weren't he and his father visiting someone who lived in the community?

----------


## coastie

> Well, that cartoon is a good summary of how some of the spin has been.
> 
> The following gives a little more detail into to how the Police handled the investigation. *Seems they did take George back to the scene and made him re-enact what happened.*


How convenient for his side of the story.

----------


## farreri

> i stopped late one night at gas station here in CBerry that was close to questionable apartment complexes. while there, when a friend and i were fueling, a man sprinted at us. 
> 
> i felt like pulling, but i knew legally i had not right to do it yet because we had not yet been attacked. 
> 
> at the very moment it looked like the guy was going to run into my friend, he ran along the side of the car, past it, and out of the area into a larger shopping center. 
> 
> had that man at the last moment actually attacked us, right up until the point he would have attacked us, he would have been *minding his own business.*


Talk about apples & oranges.  Trayvon was not walk or running towards Zimmerman that started all this.  It was the OTHER WAY AROUND.  Zimmerman was out looking "out" for trouble.




> i WAS minding my own business when i got pulled over in a neighborhood i was new to (miamia) trying to look for the way out. the cops didnt pull me over cuz i looked like i was minding my own business, they pulled me over because it looked like i might have just stolen the car...


Was Zimmerman a cop?

----------


## kahless

> Why did you make is sound singular when it was plural?
> 
> "young black *men* who appear to be outsiders"
> "fixated on crime and focused on young, black male*s*."


If the history shows young white men coming into your neighborhood and there are break-ins then that is who you look out for.  Why should it be any different for black youths or that of any other race.

----------


## Toureg89

and you know that because you were there and were a witness? i dont claim to know what happened. 

that wasnt the point. my point is the phrase *minding your own business* (on a french keyboard, so i cant find qutotation marks) could be applied to any number of people right up to the point they commit a crime.

----------


## fletcher

I don't know what happened, but you're quoting Wikipedia?  Seriously?  Just for fun, see where the Wikipedia quotes lead.  I'll tell you where.  Those 'quotes' are just the writings of an author of an article in a newspaper.  They are not quotes from anyone that knows Zimmerman or has talked to him.  They are nothing more than the opinion of a 'journalist'.

----------


## pcosmar

> Weren't he and his father visiting someone who lived in the community?


No, his father was a resident.
or did you think "Gated Community" meant *White Only.*

----------


## AuH20

> If the history shows young white men coming into your neighborhood and there are break-ins then that is who you look out for.  Why should it be any different for black youths or that of any other race.


Right? It's like a farmer who's henhouse is repeatedly attacked by foxes but he's not allowed to keep a vigilant eye for any attacks. It's utter nonsense. As long as you're not violating the rights of those in your territory, who cares what you're looking for? Is this the film Minority Report where now our inner analyzation skills are up for scrutiny?

----------


## misterx

> Talk about apples & oranges.  Trayvon was not walk or running towards Zimmerman that started all this.  It was the OTHER WAY AROUND.  Zimmerman was out looking "out" for trouble.
> 
> 
> Was Zimmerman a cop?


You're absolutely right. People should not be allowed to defend their own neighborhoods. We need big government to do that. If big government isn't doing it, we should just learn to accept that our homes will be burglarized once a week. 

This kid was found at school with what was most likely stolen jewelry in his backpack. Unless of course he was planning on proposing to multiple girls. He very likely was casing homes that night as Zimmerman suspected, and very likely was one of the people that had burglarized the neighborhood before. It's a good chance that Zimmerman actually prevented a burglary that night, and kept another innocent person from being harmed. It's unfortunate that Trayvon lost his life, but if he had not attacked Zimmerman it would not have happened. Zimmerman was well within his rights to ask him what he was up to in his gated community in the middle of the night when he didn't recognize him as someone who lived there. A reasonable person would have explained the situation to Zimmerman and there would have been no conflict. Unless of course that person was doing something they weren't supposed to be doing.

----------


## AuH20

> No, his father was a resident.
> or did you think "Gated Community" meant *White Only.*


I think it was his father's fiance that lived there. I don't think he was the de facto resident or they would have probably known the father as well as the kid.

----------


## dannno

> What's the evidence that this DID happen?


Innocent until proven guilty.

----------


## pcosmar

> You're absolutely right. People should not be allowed to defend their own neighborhoods. We need big government to do that. If big government isn't doing it, we should just learn to accept that our homes will be burglarized once a week.


Neighborhood watch is just that. *Watch.*
Not hunt down and kill anyone you don't know.

If there was an actual crime being committed it would be different.
Walking back home from the store is NOT A CRIME.

----------


## Indy Vidual

This _seems to be_ the most important issue for America:

----------


## pcosmar

> I don't think


That is becoming apparent.. with many here.

----------


## Indy Vidual

> Neighborhood watch is just that. *Watch.*
> Not hunt down and kill anyone you don't know.
> 
> If there was an actual crime being committed it would be different.
> Walking back home from the store is NOT A CRIME.


This guys sign is pretty good:

----------


## kahless

> Neighborhood watch is just that. *Watch.*
> Not hunt down and kill anyone you don't know.
> 
> If there was an actual crime being committed it would be different.
> Walking back home from the store is NOT A CRIME.


1. You do not know if he was hunting him down to kill him.  What evidence do you have to prove that?

2. Talking to people in your neighborhood is not a crime.

3. Talking to someone in your neighborhood does not give the person you approached the right to attack you and beat you.

----------


## AuH20

> This guys sign is pretty good:


Except when you go through TSA checkpoints in airports and on highways.

----------


## dannno

> He had a *Right to be there* and to walk to and from the candy store unmolested.


He didn't have a right to come up behind Zimmerman after they had almost 5 minutes of non-contact, ask him if he had a problem, when Zimmerman said "No", Trayvon said, "Well you do now!" and decked him and got him on the ground and started bashing his head in.

Until there is proof that didn't happen, Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch guy who was suspicious of this guy and then was attacked by him.

----------


## dannno

> Neighborhood watch is just that. *Watch.*
> Not hunt down and kill anyone you don't know.
> 
> If there was an actual crime being committed it would be different.
> Walking back home from the store is NOT A CRIME.


I know you came to the party late, but have you really only heard the propaganda MSM version, or is there a reason that is the version you choose to believe??

----------


## pcosmar

> 1. You do not know if he was hunting him down to kill him.  What evidence do you have to prove that?
> 
> 2. Talking to people in your neighborhood is not a crime.
> 
> 3. Talking to someone in your neighborhood does not give the person you approached the right to attack you and beat you.


You are right, I don't KNOW.

I do suspect.
I can read his past history of violence,, and his history in the neighborhood,  the 911 calls,

The guy was a major buttinski,, and had an attitude concerning blacks..

I certainly am not going to defend the shooting of an unarmed man.

----------


## kahless

> You are right, I don't KNOW.
> 
> I do suspect.
> I can read his past history of violence,, and his history in the neighborhood,  the 911 calls,
> 
> The guy was a major buttinski,, and had an attitude concerning blacks..
> 
> I certainly am not going to defend the shooting of an unarmed man.


His past history of violence was just a domestic dispute getting kicked out of his house, right?

----------


## pcosmar

> I know you came to the party late,


No I didn't. I have been following it from "Breaking News".

I was questioning this $#@! from the very first,,, from his initial 911 call of a "suspicious person".
*
What the $#@! is that exactly?*  And what crime is it?

----------


## pcosmar

> His past history of violence was just a domestic dispute getting kicked out of his house, right?


You do have a google search capability on your computer don't you?

There is a great deal of info available.

----------


## misterx

> You are right, I don't KNOW.
> 
> I do suspect.
> I can read his past history of violence,, and his history in the neighborhood,  the 911 calls,
> 
> *The guy was a major buttinski*,, and had an attitude concerning blacks..
> 
> I certainly am not going to defend the shooting of an unarmed man.


We could use more people who look out for their neighbors. Do you really think it's justifiable to knock someone to the ground and bash their head against the concrete for being a "buttinsiki"?

----------


## dannno

> No I didn't. I have been following it from "Breaking News".
> 
> I was questioning this $#@! from the very first,,, from his initial 911 call of a "suspicious person".
> *
> What the $#@! is that exactly?*  And what crime is it?


I actually worded that wrong.. I meant some of this information came to the party late, and you were on top of this when it was all first coming out, and when the propaganda campaign began a few days ago.. but then some media outlets started reporting Zimmerman's side of the story, which was about 40 pages into the thread that you were active on for the first 20 pages, and which has been mostly corroborated by witnesses. This side of the story shows Zimmerman 'stalking' Trayvon to some extent, and then losing him, and then Trayvon coming up behind him, yelling at him then attacking him for following him earlier.

So you came to the party, left, then came back later or something. I dunno.

I don't think Zimmerman was a great guy by any means or his actions were perfect, but if Trayvon actually instigated and attacked him then it sounds like they were both in the wrong.

----------


## AuH20

This is what I can't understand. Why is everyone walking on eggshells because it's a young black male? It was essentially an escalated dispute that happens every ten minutes in this country. People kill each other after heated play sessions of Playstation 3 for Christ's sake. The blatant attempts at trying to tie this to a racial angle, aside from the Police Department's incompetence, is laughable at best. 1. It was a gated community which is technically a private property conglomerate via the home owner's assocation contract 2. This particular neighborhood had a documented history of break-ins and home burglaries. Of course, an unfamiliar Martin should have been contacted. Now what happened after is the fault of Martin and Zimmerman for acting rashly, especially Zimmerman for anteing up with lethal force.

----------


## moo

what if trayvon was a 6'0 140 pound white teenage female who played basketball?
what if zimmerman found her to be suspicious too. now let that play out in your head & come back with the same response of "he had a right to follow her & talk to her"

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> How convenient for his side of the story.


On the one hand, they could have just been going through the motions. On the other hand, it means that they did do some investigating. People have wondered and theorized on the exact locations and timing of events. If it was an honest investigation, they must have found out exact details like that.

----------


## pcosmar

> I actually worded that wrong.. I meant some of this information came to the party late, and you were on top of this when it was all first coming out, and when the propaganda campaign began a few days ago.. but then some media outlets started reporting Zimmerman's side of the story, which was about 40 pages into the thread that you were active on for the first 20 pages, and which has been mostly corroborated by witnesses. This side of the story shows Zimmerman 'stalking' Trayvon to some extent, and then losing him, and then Trayvon coming up behind him, yelling at him then attacking him for following him earlier.
> 
> So you came to the party, left, then came back later or something. I dunno.
> 
> I don't think Zimmerman was a great guy by any means or his actions were perfect, but if Trayvon actually instigated and attacked him then it sounds like they were both in the wrong.


OK.,, Then let me make this perfectly clear.
I followed the story from the start. 
I think this "new story" of Zimmerman is bull$#@!. I believe he is a lying sack of $#@! that is trying to duck and cover now that the story has blown up past his cop buddies that covered for him initially.
I think (my opinion) that he has been itching to shoot someone and finally got the chance.
I think he started the fight for that excuse.

----------


## dannno

> Trayvon would still be alive if Zimmerman didn't go out WITH A GUN and try to play Sheriff.
> 
> *Watch*men don't go out and confront people while carrying a gun.


Um, apparently, um, Trayvon CONFRONTED Zimmerman and attacked him.. There is no evidence that isn't what happened, so there is no evidence to convict Zimmerman on..

I'm not opposed to this going to trial, but I am opposed to people assuming that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon when there is no evidence to support it.

----------


## coastie

> On the one hand, they could have just been going through the motions. On the other hand, it means that they did do some investigating. People have wondered and theorized on the exact locations and timing of events. If it was an honest investigation, they must have found out exact details like that.



True....just hard to believe there would not be prejudice there, as it's possible Zimmy knew the cops investigating him, seeing as how he got training from them for the hood watch..

----------


## mac_hine

Anyone care to hear Peter Schiff's take on this?



I tend to agree with much of what Peter said. Although I do think it was foolish of Zimmerman to follow Martin after he was explicitly told not to by 911 dispatch. As tragic as the death of Martin is, to me, the race baiting and divide and conquer tactics currently being employed by the media are worse. I get the feeling that TPTB are itching for a race war. This needs to be sorted out in court, and people need to stop making wild, baseless accusations.

Here is another clip which I also agree with:

----------


## moo

> Um, apparently, um, Trayvon CONFRONTED Zimmerman and attacked him.. There is no evidence that isn't what happened, so there is no evidence to convict Zimmerman on..
> 
> I'm not opposed to this going to trial, but I am opposed to people assuming that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon when there is no evidence to support it.


why isn't there any evidence to support zimmerman attacking trayvon?

----------


## maskander

> why isn't there any evidence to support zimmerman attacking trayvon?


Because he murdered the only true witness.

----------


## Bruno

> So trayvon punched zimmerman in the nose while zimmerman's back was turned. WOW. that's a chuck norris type of move.


According to his account, he said something to him, so Zimmerman turned around.  Thank you for showing yourself among the many who like to act is if they were there and have who already made up their minds without at least hearing all the versions of the story.




> I think it was his father's fiance that lived there. I don't think he was the de facto resident or they would have probably known the father as well as the kid.


True, and according to the account I read it was a mixed-race community (their words not mine), and his first time visting there.  He was only there due to the suspension from school.

----------


## moo

> According to his account, he said something to him, so Zimmerman turned around.  Thank you for showing yourself among the many who like to act is if they were there and have who already made up their minds without at least hearing all the versions of the story.


ohhh so zimmerman wasn't attacked from behind. that's so sad even his defenders don't know what to believe.

----------


## moo

> Because he murdered the only true witness.


exactly.

----------


## misterx

> what if trayvon was a 6'0 140 pound white teenage female who played basketball?
> what if zimmerman found her to be suspicious too. now let that play out in your head & come back with the same response of "he had a right to follow her & talk to her"


Then she probably would not have been able to knock Zimmerman to the ground and pin him down. Also, the police report says he was 160 lbs and I think 6'2".

----------


## misterx

> ohhh so zimmerman wasn't attacked from behind. that's so sad even his defenders don't know what to believe.


The point is Trayvon approached Zimmerman, not the other way around. It doesn't matter which direction Zimmerman was facing when Trayvon hit him.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> what if trayvon was a 6'0 140 pound white teenage female who played basketball?
> what if zimmerman found her to be suspicious too. now let that play out in your head & come back with the same response of "he had a right to follow her & talk to her"


Of course in that case, George should have been arrested and taken to jail! You can not talk to girls in public! That would be "disorderly conduct":

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...derly-conduct.

----------


## cajuncocoa

Is this man a white Hispanic? 					(AFP/GETTY IMAGES) 				

Fox News contributor Bernard Goldberg is lashing out at the New York Times for its coverage of the Trayvon Martin case. His gripe? The papers stylebook. Let Goldberg describe his concern: 

The national media doesnt do stories on black-on-black crime. . . . They dont do stories on black-on-white crime. . . .  The New York Times, in almost a caricature of a liberal media, refers  to George Zimmerman as a white Hispanic.  I guarantee you that if  George Zimmerman did something good  if he finished first in his high  school graduating class when he was younger  they wouldnt refer to him  as a white Hispanic, hed just be a Hispanic. . . . Hes only a white Hispanic because they need the word white to further the story line, which is, _White, probably racist vigilante shoots an unarmed black kid_.National Reviews Jonah Goldberg advances a twin argument,  blasting the use of the white Hispanic term: Its the way the blame  for Martins death belongs squarely at the feet of the system. And  the system is a white thing, dont you know?


 Heres an example of what Goldberg and Goldberg are citing: Mr.  Zimmerman, 28, a white Hispanic, told the police that he shot Trayvon in  self-defense after an altercation. That line comes from a March 22 New York Times news story about a development in the case. 


 The formulation is indeed an eyebrow-lifter. How often does such a  term get tossed about? A Nexis search of the New York Times for white  Hispanic over the past five years turns up 112 results. Yet that number  is deceptively large.


  A great deal of the language turns up looking like the following (from a March 2007 story on crime in Denver): 
Once hailed as the Harlem of the West for its jazz scene,  the historic black business enclave and its surroundings have given way  to an influx of professionals, most of them white, and Hispanic  immigrants.Or the following (from a March 2008 story on the Democratic presidential primary):
Clinton advisers said her decisive victory in Ohio and her  narrow one in Texas   where exit polls showed her winning the votes of  women, whites and Hispanics in an extremely close race . . .Or the following (from a November 2008 story on gang assaults): 
They also said that the defendants were not racist and  pointed to the young mens friends, black, white and Hispanic, filling  the courtroom seats.A January 2011 New York Times story on demographics does use the term  white Hispanic, but not in the main text of the story. This sentence  comes from a graphics box or caption: For Asians and white Hispanics,  the rates of intermarriage have remained static or decreased since  1980.


 And a piece from February 2011 carries this line: And reclassifying  large numbers of white Hispanic students as simply Hispanic has the  potential to mask the difference between minority and white students  test scores, grades and graduation rates  the so-called achievement  gap, a target of federal reform efforts that has plagued schools for  decades.


 Q.E.D.: Use of the term in the New York Times archives is rare. Phil  Corbett, the papers standards editor, concedes that white Hispanic  and white and Hispanic are not very commonly used. That said,  Corbett notes: 
Our guidelines say we mention race or ethnicity if and only  if its pertinent to the story. Given that this is being investigated as  a possible civil-rights case and has stirred protests in part because  of concerns about racial elements, it seems clear that race and  ethnicity are pertinent, for both people involved.Yet determining how to describe Zimmerman requires some thinking.  There are no absolute, clear-cut rules on this, writes Corbett via  e-mail. People often treat white, black and Hispanic as three parallel  categories, but its not always that simple. As you know, Hispanic  people can be different races. As I understand it, Zimmermans father is  a non-Hispanic white, and his mother is a Peruvian immigrant.


 White Hispanic and other such terms, relates Corbett, didnt work  too well. Some readers seemed to find them distracting or confusing, or  to wonder whether we were trying to make some larger point (we  werent). Eventually we decided that simply calling him Hispanic was  probably clear enough, especially since by now most readers are familiar  with him and the case. So thats what weve mostly been doing.


 And as for the bigger-picture conspiracies alleged by Goldberg and  Goldberg? To suggest that our coverage of this story or our description  of Mr. Zimmerman is intended to serve an agenda or push a political  view is simply ridiculous. Its just false, responds Corbett.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...fngS_blog.html

----------


## kahless

> ..His past history of violence...





> His past history of violence was just a domestic dispute getting kicked out of his house, right?





> You do have a google search capability on your computer don't you?
> 
> There is a great deal of info available.


No I demand you do it and make me a sandwich also, bitch! 

My point was it did not look all that violent to me, seems that the domestic stuff went both ways but unsure there, there was speeding and pushing a cop inside a bar.  Kind of why I put the question mark there since could be something I missed and you brought it up.

----------


## Stupified

The Trayvon Martin that's still alive (and where those pictures came from).





And there you go.

----------


## moo

> The point is Trayvon approached Zimmerman, not the other way around. It doesn't matter which direction Zimmerman was facing when Trayvon hit him.


then trayvon's dna would be on zimmerman's face. where is the dna evidence?

----------


## moo

"I have a question. The lead investigator stated that he wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter based on Zimmerman's unconvincing story; so why didn't he charge him? Since when is every arrest followed up with a call to the State’s Attorney's office at 8-9pm at night? The incident happened around 7:17pm on a Sunday night. Why was the State's Attorney needed to make a decision at 9-10pm? If there are any cops reading this, is this a normal practice to call the State's Attorney's office before you charge someone with a crime, even after the lead investigator has already determined there is reasonable doubt? Can you say, cover up?"

----------


## Liberty74

> Don't forget, Trayvon was MINDING HIS OWN BUSINESS that night


Riiiiight. Martin minding his own business in a gated neighborhood in which he did not live. 

Listen, the dude got caught somewhere he did not belong. He attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman defended himself. The end!

It has nothing to do with color unless you are claiming blacks hate latinos.

----------


## Bruno

> ohhh so zimmerman wasn't attacked from behind. that's so sad even his defenders don't know what to believe.


I'm only trying to defend truth, not Zimmerman.  I would be glad to see him go to trial to get it all sorted out.  

But I don't understand what is sad about him not being attacked from behind?  Where are you going with that?

----------


## Liberty74

> According to his account, he said something to him, so Zimmerman turned around.  Thank you for showing yourself among the many who like to act is if they were there and have who already made up their minds without at least hearing all the versions of the story.
> 
> 
> 
> True, and according to the account I read it was a mixed-race community (their words not mine), and his first time visting there.  He was only there due to the suspension from school.


That's because so many are brainwashed already by the media to believe Martin was shot because of his color, hoodie and candy. PLEASE! 

If Martin hadn't trespassed and first attacked Zimmerman, he would still be alive.

----------


## Bruno

> I'm only trying to defend truth, not Zimmerman.  I would be glad to see him go to trial to get it all sorted out.  
> 
> But I don't understand what is sad about him not being attacked from behind?  Where are you going with that?





> I think it was his father's fiance that lived there. I don't think he was the de facto resident or they would have probably known the father as well as the kid.


You may have been watching too much TV lately.  Cops aren't in the practice of doing a DNA kit on someone's face every time there is a shooting and reports of a fight.  That opportunity it likely lost.  You can argue that they should have/could have, sure, but to say because they don't have DNA that it didn't happen is ridiculous.

----------


## farreri

(Article links sources.)

*Killer of Trayvon Martin is son of retired Virginia State Supreme Court Judge* - Baltimore liberal | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/liberal-in-b...#ixzz1qRlhMRKe

Some points of interest:

- ABC News reports:

*The lead homicide investigator* in the shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin *recommended that neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter* the night of the shooting, multiple sources told ABC News.

    But Sanford, Fla., Investigator Chris Serino was instructed to not press charges against Zimmerman because the state attorney's office headed by Norman Wolfinger determined there wasn't enough evidence to lead to a conviction, the sources told ABC News.


- Hinterland Gazette:

    It should be noted that *George Zimmerman may have received favorable treatment from the police because of his family*. ‎According to court records, *his father is retired Supreme Court Magistrate Judge* Robert Zimmerman and *his mother* Gladys Zimmerman *was a court clerk*. Connections in the legal community run deep and go far.


- RollingOut.com:

    According to a records search on George, *he was previously arrested for domestic violence, resisting an officer without violence and most shockingly, resisting an officer with violence  a  felony charge* that surely could have landed him in prison.

    All three of those arrests, however, were mysteriously closed with no semblance of charges for the Florida resident. So how was someone with a violent past including that of battery against an officer able to carry a 9 mm handgun? Maybe thats a question Robert Zimmerman should answer.


And check this out:

- *Witness: Sanford police "Blew us off" in teen slaying*

witness Mary Cutcher said she knew the truth. Cutcher said police only took a two or three sentence statement from her, but it took about 30 minutes to tell WFTV the story.

"*The cries stopped as soon as the gun went off, so I know it was the little boy*," Cutcher said.

According to a partial police report, Cutcher is one of six witnesses that Sanford police took a statement from.

Cutcher said it was short, and police never questioned her in detail until after she repeatedly reached out to them.

"Blew us off, and I called him back again and I said, "I know this was not self-defense. There was no punching, no hitting going on at the time, no wrestling,'" Cutcher said.

Cutcher said she believes whatever confrontation there was, it ended before they got to her backyard.

She also said she believes Zimmerman continued to chase Martin as he tried to get home.

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/witnes...slaying/nLSqk/

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> You do not know if he was an INNOCENT teenager.  There are witnesses that seem to indicate otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> He had a CCW and has every right to talk to someone.  That does not mean he was pointing a gun at him.  Unless there are witnesses at this point we really do not know the truth do we.  Trayvon was not shot until he was on top of Zimmerman beating him.  
> 
> 
> 
> Your posts clearly indicate you are anti-gun.  I am not siding with anyone since we do not know all the facts.  However, I am leaning towards Zimmerman based on witnesses but really do not know without all the facts.
> ...


Witnesses who didn't see the start of the conflict. So we have two witnesses: we have one witness *who refuses to be named* that says Zimmerman was being punched by Trayvon. Then we have another witness who says that they heard a young voice screaming for help (in her words "crying"), a gunshot, then no more screaming. They went to check it out and found Zimmerman on top of Martin with his knees pinning his arms to the ground. Why doesn't anyone take into account that witness? The one who is named and went on national television to talk about how the Sanford PD lied about the statement she gave? How about his girlfriend who heard him ask someone why they were following him on his cellphone? 

.

----------


## eduardo89

This couldn't have been posted in one of the 57 existing threads?

----------


## moo

> Riiiiight. Martin minding his own business in a gated neighborhood in which he did not live. 
> 
> Listen, *the dude got caught somewhere he did not belong*. He attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman defended himself. The end!
> 
> It has nothing to do with color unless you are claiming blacks hate latinos.


You need to read your constitution.

----------


## farreri

> This couldn't have been posted in one of the 57 existing threads?


Tons of pro-Zimmerman threads.  Just thought I'd balance it a little in honor of the SLAIN teenager who only had Skittles and an Iced Tea drink and was just trying to go home.

----------


## Sam I am

I'm pretty sure, that if I really tried, I could find someone whom i could cause to strike me without laying a hand on them.  


If I went out, with the sole purpose of causing someone to hit me first, so I could shoot them with a gun, would I be able to claim self defense?

----------


## coastie

> The lead homicide investigator in the shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin recommended that neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting, multiple sources told ABC News.
> 
> But Sanford, Fla., Investigator Chris Serino was instructed to not press charges against Zimmerman because the state attorney's office headed by Norman Wolfinger determined there wasn't enough evidence to lead to a conviction, the sources told ABC News.
> 
> 
> - Hinterland Gazette:
> 
> It should be noted that George Zimmerman may have received favorable treatment from the police because of his family. ‎According to court records, his father is retired Supreme Court Magistrate Judge Robert Zimmerman and his mother Gladys Zimmerman was a court clerk. Connections in the legal community run deep and go far.





Imagine that.

We had a little douche nozzle in the area when I was younger with similar charges that always disappeared, also had family in the system.




> According to a records search on George, he was previously arrested for domestic violence, resisting an officer without violence and most shockingly, resisting an officer with violence — a felony charge that surely could have landed him in prison.


Wow, so in other words, ole Georgie should've never been carrying a weapon(legally) in Florida. The laws SPECIFICALLY exclude you for ALL THREE of the offenses he committed.

----------


## AuH20

> Tons of pro-Zimmerman threads.  Just thought I'd balance it a little in honor of the SLAIN teenager who only had Skittles and an Iced Tea drink and was just trying to go home.


Pro-Zimmerman? More like Anti-Lynching of Zimmerman. No one here is excusing Zimmerman of possible criminal behavior.

----------


## eduardo89

> Tons of pro-Zimmerman threads.  Just thought I'd balance it a little in honor of the SLAIN teenager who only had Skittles and an Iced Tea drink and was just trying to go home.


I guess innocent until proven guilty means nothing to you.

----------


## specsaregood

I'd be interested in what his phone records show.  Did he find time to call mommy and daddy immediately after the shooting?  prior to the cops releasing him for the evening?

----------


## coastie

> I'd be interested in what his phone records show.  Did he find time to call mommy and daddy immediately after the shooting?  prior to the cops releasing him for the evening?


Ooooohhhhhhh, that would be juicy.

----------


## farreri

> I guess innocent until proven guilty means nothing to you.


Yes, innocent until proven guilty BOTH WAYS.  But of course, one of the witnesses, the teenager carrying nothing but Skittles and an Iced Tea, is dead.

Trayvon would be alive if Zimmerman wouldn't have disregarded the dispatchers advice to not follow.

----------


## moo

daddy probably taught him exactly how to kill & use the SYG law. he's been practicing stalking for years & he's finally found the nerve to do it.

----------


## coastie

> daddy probably taught him exactly how to kill & use the SYG law. he's been practicing stalking for years & he's finally found the nerve to do it.


He didn't use SYG, his own damn defense isn't even trying that one....

----------


## specsaregood

> daddy probably taught him exactly how to kill & use the SYG law.


This incident has NOTHING to do with the SYG laws.

----------


## eduardo89

> This incident has NOTHING to do with the SYG laws.


Shhhhh! It doesn't fit his narrative.

----------


## dannno

> So him having a gold tooth and being in a hoodie justifies him being KILLED?  Racist much?


Wow, you are completely farkin ridiculous.. how convenient that you left out the part that said:




> *punched him in the face, then, as an eyewitness confirms, got on top of him and started pummeling him*


RIGHT AFTER the gold teeth and hoodie comment!!

The fact that the kid had gold teeth and a hoodie was what caused Zimmerman to scope out this guy. Trayvon then apparently got pissed he was being scoped on and decided to get in a fight with him.

----------


## dannno

> I think the bottom line is that Zimmerman had every opportunity to NOT ENGAGE.  He was even TOLD TO NOT ENGAGE by the 9/11 dispatcher.
> 
> Zimmerman via manslaughter at the very least.


Dude, don't you know how to read?? How many times do we have to say that the story is Trayvon came up behind him and enganged HIM. Verbally, and then physically. There is zero, absolutely no evidence that Zimmerman engaged Trayvon, only that he was scoping him out FIVE MINUTES EARLIER.

----------


## dannno

> I'm pretty sure, that if I really tried, I could find someone whom i could cause to strike me without laying a hand on them.  
> 
> 
> If I went out, with the sole purpose of causing someone to hit me first, so I could shoot them with a gun, would I be able to claim self defense?


They would have to do more than just hit you.

But I suppose you could, if you wanted to be a dick.

Not sure why anybody would want to do that, not to mention run the risk of being prosecuted for murder by a jury anyway. If you started the confrontation you might not get away with it. The story here is that Trayvon started the actual confrontation and the attack, unprovoked, 5 minutes after he had been scoping him out.

----------


## moo

> This incident has NOTHING to do with the SYG laws.


he got off with an interview and a bandaid all because he cried wolf.

----------


## specsaregood

> he got off with an interview and a bandaid all because he cried wolf.


you want the kid to lose more support from people saying there should be an investigation?  push the SYG angle, see what happens.

----------


## moo

this is for you danno. these pictures were taken 9 days before his death.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> you want the kid to lose more support from people saying there should be an investigation?  push the SYG angle, see what happens.


Agree big time with that.

----------


## AlexanderY

> daddy probably taught him exactly how to kill & use the SYG law. he's been practicing stalking for years & he's finally found the nerve to do it.


Oh noes!

That must mean that the courts must be biased against Black people. I guess this invalidates the entire judicial system.

Quick, throw a cinder block through the front window of a business and loot it!

Let's completely disregard the fact that thousands of black kids get murdered every day and the most likely culprit is almost always other Black people.

Wait, it's about Zimmerman not even being tried for his "crimes."

Never mind the fact that in Detroit 70% of all murders go unsolved and no one is arrested.

----------


## dannno

> ohhh so zimmerman wasn't attacked from behind. that's so sad even his defenders don't know what to believe.


I never said he was attacked from behind. This is the exact quote you have been referring to:




> Apparently he came up behind Zimmerman, verbally *and then* physically attacked him.


So Trayvon came up behind Zimmerman and verbally attacked him: 

T: "Do you have a problem?" Z: "No" T: "You do now!"

AND THEN physically attacked him.

When you attack somebody verbally, from behind, it would be assumed that they would turn around. Then you could physically attack them from the front. If you understood the english language a little bit better you could have read between the lines and picked up on that.

----------


## moo

> you want the kid to lose more support from people saying there should be an investigation?  push the SYG angle, see what happens.


there's the door. you know how to use it.

----------


## WarNoMore

> They would have to do more than just hit you.
> 
> But I suppose you could, if you wanted to be a dick.
> 
> Not sure why anybody would want to do that, not to mention run the risk of being prosecuted for murder by a jury anyway. If you started the confrontation you might not get away with it. The story here is that Trayvon started the actual confrontation and the attack, unprovoked, 5 minutes after he had been scoping him out.


That's one of the stories. Told by the shooter and some unnamed witness. Another witness says the cries for help sounded like they were coming from a young man, then a shot was fired, and when she looked out she saw Zimmerman on top of the kid and had the kid pinned to the ground. Not sure why he would need to shoot him at that point. oh he was reaching for his gun, lol. Did he actually grab it? Are his fingerprints on the gun? I don't buy Zimmerman's story. I want this to go to trial and let's see what else comes out.

----------


## specsaregood

> there's the door. you know how to use it.


And there it is.  YOUR agenda is not justice, your agenda is to make people powerless to defend themselves.   I would like to make sure justice is carried out -- whatever the result -- you on the otherhand don't care one bit about the dead kid.

----------


## iGGz

\\

----------


## jmdrake

> Pro-Zimmerman? More like Anti-Lynching of Zimmerman. No one here is excusing Zimmerman of possible criminal behavior.


Some have.  I've seen repeated statements from some here that there was no probable cause against Zimmerman because Trayvon must fully instigated the fight since that's the only crime Trayvon might of committed and the police determined there was no probable cause.  Yes it's obviously stupid circular reasoning, but I've seen it.  I've seen our resident sexologist drugologist harp in on Trayvon having a few gold teeth, likely because he didn't want to make marijuana look bad for allegedly hanging with Trayvon.  I've seen people repeatedly claiming that "all 6 witnesses said the same thing" even though Mary Crutcher's public statement disagrees with what the police said she said and despite the fact that Trayvon's girlfriend counts as a witness to the conversation she and Trayvon were having the moment contact with Zimmerman occurred.  Apparently to some people witnesses only count if the bolster the "Trayvon was the criminal here" argument.  So yes.  There have been pro-Zimmerman threads.  Some people have acted like saying that Zimmerman should get a trial instead of getting off scott free is "lynching" Zimmerman.  I'm glad you are willing to concede that Zimmerman had possible criminal behavior.  I'm willing to concede that Zimmerman might be innocent and Trayvon might be the criminal.  Now can we all agree that both made some stupid decisions?  Can we all agree that not everytime Zimmerman or Trayvon farted in public is relevant?  The OP is relevant in that it sheds light on the fact that not all of the police were just willing to blow this whole thing off and not charge Zimmerman as he *should* have been charged irrespective of the "Stand Your Ground" statute.  To me that's more important than Zimmerman's daddy being a judge, although that fact does explain why even (allegedly) assaulting a police officer was wiped off Zimmerman's record.

----------


## moo

> I never said he was attacked from behind. This is the exact quote you have been referring to:
> 
> 
> 
> So Trayvon came up behind Zimmerman and verbally attacked him: 
> 
> T: "Do you have a problem?" Z: "No" T: "You do now!"
> 
> AND THEN physically attacked him.
> ...


THIS IS A NEW ONE. Trayvon verbally attacked zimmerman by saying "do you have a problem?" "you do now"
 omg this is hilarious but i'll play with this story too.

there is no evidence of trayvon verbally attacking anyone but what we do have is zimmerman verbally attacking trayvon by calling him an $#@! and a COON so trayvon had the right to SYG & defend himself from zimmerman's verbal attacks.

----------


## jmdrake

> daddy probably taught him exactly how to kill & use the SYG law. he's been practicing stalking for years & he's finally found the nerve to do it.





> He didn't use SYG, his own damn defense isn't even trying that one....





> This incident has NOTHING to do with the SYG laws.





> Shhhhh! It doesn't fit his narrative.





> he got off with an interview and a bandaid all because he cried wolf.





> you want the kid to lose more support from people saying there should be an investigation?  push the SYG angle, see what happens.


I agree with those that say the "Stand Your Ground" law is not applicable to this case. But _misapplication_ of the SYG law is the only plausible reason why this case was initially dropped without charges or even a proper investigation.  (Well the daddy-judge thing fits into that too).  Just look at the discussions here.  I've seen (some) Zimmerman defenders _repeatedly_ cite to the SYG law and (wrongly) claim that because of it there was no probable cause against Zimmerman.  When I pointed out that under self defense, probably cause must be established first and _then_ self defense can be brought up.  Self defense doesn't negate probable cause.  It negates reasonable doubt.  One of my main arguments against the lenient treatment Zimmerman received is that if this is the correct reading of the SYG law then it's difficult to defend the SYG law.  That's what really makes this otherwise unimportant case important.  Trust me.  There _will_ be an attempt in the next Florida legislature to amend or repeal SYG and this case will be cited in the legislative arguments.

----------


## moo

> And there it is.  YOUR agenda is not justice, your agenda is to make people powerless to defend themselves.   I would like to make sure justice is carried out -- whatever the result -- you on the otherhand don't care one bit about the dead kid.


i push the BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY angle. 
repeal the stand your ground law.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> Wow, you are completely farkin ridiculous.. how convenient that you left out the part that said:
> 
> 
> 
> RIGHT AFTER the gold teeth and hoodie comment!!
> 
> The fact that the kid had gold teeth and a hoodie was what caused Zimmerman to scope out this guy. Trayvon then apparently got pissed he was being scoped on and decided to get in a fight with him.


For the last time: Those teeth come out,they fit right over your teeth,he did not have gold teeth.

----------


## moo

> Oh noes!
> 
> That must mean that the courts must be biased against Black people. I guess this invalidates the entire judicial system.
> 
> Quick, throw a cinder block through the front window of a business and loot it!
> 
> Let's completely disregard the fact that thousands of black kids get murdered every day and the most likely culprit is almost always other Black people.
> 
> Wait, it's about Zimmerman not even being tried for his "crimes."
> ...


didn't you make a thread titled "Trayvon Martin was Caught with Women's Jewelry and a "Burglary Tool" in Earlier Suspension"
aren't you one of those weirdos who tried to criminalize & dehumanize a dead teenager? yea that's you.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Zimmerman's dad a retired State Supreme Court Judge


I actually attempted to verify this with a Google search yesterday. It mostly shows up in random blogs, not more legitimate news sources. It's either being covered-up pretty well by the mainstream media, or it's just a rumor.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> I'm sorry, but there is not a single person in the world besides Zimmerman who knows what Trayvon did that night because Trayvon is dead. How the $#@! do you know he was minding his own business?? Maybe he was initially, but after Zimmerman started watching him it is very possibly that Trayvon became upset and decided to $#@! with him. Apparently he came up behind Zimmerman, verbally and then physically attacked him. There is ZERO EVIDENCE that is not what happened. In fact, some EYE WITNESSES saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, beating his head in. Therefore, in a court of law, unless more evidenc is presented you CANNOT convict Zimmerman without ignoring innocent until proven guilty.


I guess we'll never know because the other person who could tell us what happened stop breathing a while ago. Maybe if Zimmerman had listened to the police dispatcher he wouldn't be caught up in a murder case of an unarmed person. Also, why do you keep leaving out the other witnesses?

Edit: Verbally assaulted him? lol you said earlier that he asked him if he had a problem then when he said no Martin hit him and said you do now. How is that verbal assault in anyone's mind?

----------


## specsaregood

> i push the BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY angle. 
> repeal the stand your ground law.


it sounds to me like you are happy that the kid was killed, it gives you an excuse to push your agenda.   how does one become such a heartless monster?

----------


## RiseAgainst

I can't believe some of the stuff I see coming from supposed "liberty" activists.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> I can't believe some of the stuff I see coming from supposed "liberty" activists.


Well, according to some on this forum (very few), race relations are at an all time low and it's us against them don't ya know?

----------


## jmdrake

> Wow, you are completely farkin ridiculous.. how convenient that you left out the part that said:
> 
> 
> 
> RIGHT AFTER the gold teeth and hoodie comment!!
> 
> The fact that the kid had gold teeth and a hoodie was what caused Zimmerman to scope out this guy. Trayvon then apparently got pissed he was being scoped on and decided to get in a fight with him.


  Dannno, I love you bro, but *you* are being ridiculous!  Do you *honestly think* that Zimmerman could see Trayvon's gold tooth, from his car *in the dark!*  And I've noticed that you want to harp on the gold tooth.  Why not the residue of weed Trayvon supposedly had on him from at least one account?  Is that because you are pro drugs?  So it's okay to stereotype people with gold teeth and make outlandish statements about how he must have lost his teeth in "gang fights" and/or got gold teeth to be "menacing"?  And you have the nerve to say someone else is being ridiculous?

I guess Dru Down got all his teeth knocked out too.  And his hair straight because it got pulled out in a fight.

----------


## Ender

> Riiiiight. Martin minding his own business in a gated neighborhood in which he did not live. 
> 
> Listen, the dude got caught somewhere he did not belong. He attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman defended himself. The end!
> 
> It has nothing to do with color unless you are claiming blacks hate latinos.


What are you talking about?

Martin was visiting his father's girlfriend, with his father; he had been inside her house, left to go the store for some skittles and was on his way back. He belonged there as much as Zimmerman.

Also:

FLORIDA
From the Florida NWIntro Booklet:
http://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/on...rev610.pdf.pdf

*Neighborhood Watch is an “Eyes and Ears” Program!*
Neighborhood Watch is not a vigilante program. Participants, as private citizens, are only to report their observations of suspicious activity to law enforcement; not to take action themselves. The confrontation, apprehension and/or detention of any suspicious persons observed by participants should be handled by a trained law enforcement officer, empowered to perform law enforcement duties, as outlined under Florida law.

----------


## moo

> it sounds to me like you are happy that the kid was killed, it gives you an excuse to push your agenda.   how does one become such a heartless monster?


what agenda is that?

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

It couldn't be posted in the other threads because those who are defending Zimmerman won't acknowledge that there are other witnesses and want to use the kid's background of suspension against him without taking into account Zimmerman's background because if Zimmerman loses his court case our 2nd amendment rights will be stripped from us. I don't know why we even have to discuss this any longer.  This is from lewrockwell.com 



> Martin, an unarmed teenager with no criminal record, was headed to his father’s home in the Miami Gardens gated community. Although he was described by Zimmerman to the police as a "suspicious individual," Martin had an unqualified legal right to be where he was.
> 
> In his 911 call, Zimmerman told a police dispatcher that "There’s a real suspicious guy. This guy looks like he’s up to no good, on drugs or something…. These a**holes always get away." Zimmerman actively pursued Martin, after being specifically instructed that this was unnecessary.
> 
> When Martin noticed Zimmerman, the teenager – who was speaking to a girlfriend via cellphone – made reference to being ".... hounded by a strange man on a cellphone who ran after him, cornered him, and confronted him," as summarized in an ABC News report.
> 
> "Why are you following me?" Martin asked Zimmerman. A few moments later, Zimmerman shot Martin with his 9 millimeter handgun. Several witnesses reported hearing the teenager cry for help before the shot was fired.
> 
> "They’re wrestling right in the back of my porch," one witness told a police dispatcher. "The guy’s yelling help and I’m not going out."
> ...

----------


## jmdrake

> They would have to do more than just hit you.
> 
> But I suppose you could, if you wanted to be a dick.
> 
> Not sure why anybody would want to do that, not to mention run the risk of being prosecuted for murder by a jury anyway. If you started the confrontation you might not get away with it. The story here is that Trayvon started the actual confrontation and the attack, unprovoked, 5 minutes after he had been scoping him out.


That's the story you're running with.  That story has not been proven.  And no, despite false claims by you and others, all of the witnesses do *not* agree with that story.  I tell you what Dannno.  Give me your witness list.  Who are the "6 witnesses" you and others claim all back up Zimmerman's story and a summary of their statements.  I only know of 3 witnesses, the anonymous witness *who admits he didn't see the start of the fight*, Mary Crutcher *who says police didn't want to hear her whole story*, and Trayvon's girlfriend, who was talking to Trayvon on the phone, and who's testimony implicates Zimmerman as starting the fight.  I'm willing to admit that we don't know the full story and that the "just us" system should run its course.  Can you do the same?  Or are you going to stick to your "I saw gold teeth so Trayvon must have been guilty of assault" argument?

----------


## moo

it sounds to me that specsaregood will not support trayvon martin if the STAND YOUR GROUND LAW IS REPEALED but has the AUDACITY use trayvon as a shield to say i'm pushing an agenda.

----------


## jmdrake

> How many times do we have to say that the story is .......

----------


## specsaregood

> And I've noticed that you want to harp on the gold tooth.  Why not the residue of weed Trayvon supposedly had on him from at least one account?  Is that because you are pro drugs?


Also, wasn't the "appears to be on drugs" comment part of what made him "suspicious" enough to call 911 about?

----------


## jmdrake

> I actually attempted to verify this with a Google search yesterday. It mostly shows up in random blogs, not more legitimate news sources. It's either being covered-up pretty well by the mainstream media, or it's just a rumor.


For what it's worth, the blog in the OP links to this from CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/22/justic...man/index.html

_"The portrayal of George Zimmerman in the media, as well as the series of events that led to the tragic shooting, are false and extremely misleading," his father, a retired magistrate judge, wrote in a letter published in the Orlando Sentinel. "Unfortunately, some individuals and organizations have used this tragedy to further their own causes and agendas."_

So no.  It's not just a blog rumor.

----------


## jmdrake

> it sounds to me that specsaregood will not support trayvon martin if the STAND YOUR GROUND LAW IS REPEALED but has the AUDACITY use trayvon as a shield to say i'm pushing an agenda.


It sounds to me like your playing with straw men and red herrings.  You clearly stated in this thread that you wanted "stand your ground" repealed.  That by definition is "an agenda".  I'm curious though.  What do you think the legal standard should be?

----------


## kylejack

> Dude, don't you know how to read?? How many times do we have to say that the story is Trayvon came up behind him and enganged HIM. Verbally, and then physically. There is zero, absolutely no evidence that Zimmerman engaged Trayvon, only that he was scoping him out FIVE MINUTES EARLIER.


Sure there's evidence. The altercation happened behind the townhomes, so no, Zimmerman was not just following him five minutes earlier. He was following him right then, or just moments before. Furthermore, the girlfriend says that Trayvon walked fast, then ran, then she heard the conversation "Why are you following me?" "What are you doing here?"

----------


## MelissaWV

The flipping-the-bird pic was blurred and backlit.  It looked a bit like him to me, but it also didn't matter.

I am sure that the people who used this to paint him as a "thug" are going to backtrack now.

Nahhh.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> For what it's worth, the blog in the OP links to this from CNN.
> ...
> So no.  It's not just a blog rumor.


Yeah, it seems that specific CNN article is the root, as most blogs eventually refer to it. But it doesn't come up anywhere else. It should be a well known fact at this point. It very well may be true, but like I said, the MSM is keeping a lid on it.

And that CNN article refers to a Orlando Sentinel article that I can not find.

For instance, this article raises questions, but no definitive answers:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...-Arrest-George

----------


## jmdrake

> Then she probably would not have been able to knock Zimmerman to the ground and pin him down. Also, the police report says he was 160 lbs and I think 6'2".


Interesting:

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news...e-reports.html

That report says he was 6'0" and 160 lbs and Zimmerman was 5'9" and...he's weight's not listed?  WTF?  Anyhow, I've seen people here drone on and on about how Trayvon was "6 inches taller than Zimmerman".  Well...maybe not.  And Zimmerman outweighed Trayvon by....well we can't tell because the stupid Sanford cops didn't record his weight.  And these are the people who'e investigation we are supposed to trust?

----------


## AME3

The pictures coming out are in resonse to the 12 and 14 year old pictures which have been presented to portray the victim as being a younger defenseless child and are dishonest. The truth will always eventually prevail where as lies fall apart.


> The flipping-the-bird pic was blurred and backlit.  It looked a bit like him to me, but it also didn't matter.
> 
> I am sure that the people who used this to paint him as a "thug" are going to backtrack now.
> 
> Nahhh.

----------


## moderate libertarian

Here is my speculation  since everyone is entitled to their own speculation on this.

This is a tragic incidence and parents of the victim had the full right to press for a thorough investigation as they are.


This however  did not  warrant Obama to stoke the issue by invoking his unborn look alike son, his inserting himself in the middle of this could be "race card" politics that his handlers may have instructed him to play. 

 Probably over zealous watching by a cop wannabe and even some racial bias could have been involved  but this is not a gripping black white race war story that some are trying to make it out to be.  If recent reports are factual, the shooter himself is a minority, a young man with hispanic-jewish heredity whereas victim is an african-american teen. Best for all sides/media/Obama advisors to take a breath and support a thorough investigation to ensure justice.

----------


## moderate libertarian

Here is my speculation since everyone is entitled to their own speculation on this.

This is a tragic incidence and parents of the victim had the full right to press for a thorough investigation as they are.


This however did not warrant Obama to stoke the issue by invoking his unborn look alike son, his inserting himself in the middle of this could be "race card" politics that his handlers may have instructed him to play. 

Probably over zealous watching by a cop wannabe and even some racial bias could have been involved but this is not a gripping black white race war story that some are trying to make it out to be. If recent reports are factual, the shooter himself is a minority, a young man with hispanic-jewish heredity whereas victim is an african-american teen. Best for all sides/media/Obama advisors to take a breath and support a thorough investigation to ensure justice.

----------


## moderate libertarian

So many different threads on this.  Here is my speculation since everyone is entitled to their own speculation on this.

This is a tragic incidence and parents of the victim had the full right to press for a thorough investigation as they are.


This however did not warrant Obama to stoke the issue by invoking his unborn look alike son, his inserting himself in the middle of this could be "race card" politics that his handlers may have instructed him to play. 

Probably over zealous watching by a cop wannabe and even some racial bias could have been involved but this is not a gripping black white race war story that some are trying to make it out to be. If recent reports are factual, the shooter himself is a minority, a young man with hispanic-jewish heredity whereas victim is an african-american teen. Best for all sides/media/Obama advisors to take a breath and support a thorough investigation to ensure justice.

----------


## moderate libertarian

So many different threads on this.  Here is my speculation since everyone is entitled to their own speculation on this.

This is a tragic incidence and parents of the victim had the full right to press for a thorough investigation as they are.


This however did not warrant Obama to stoke the issue by invoking his unborn look alike son, his inserting himself in the middle of this could be "race card" politics that his handlers may have instructed him to play. 

Probably over zealous watching by a cop wannabe and even some racial bias could have been involved but this is not a gripping black white race war story that some are trying to make it out to be. If recent reports are factual, the shooter himself is a minority, a young man with hispanic-jewish heredity whereas victim is an african-american teen. Best for all sides/media/Obama advisors to take a breath and support a thorough investigation to ensure justice.

----------


## dannno

> THIS IS A NEW ONE. Trayvon verbally attacked zimmerman by saying "do you have a problem?" "you do now"
>  omg this is hilarious but i'll play with this story too.
> 
> there is no evidence of trayvon verbally attacking anyone but what we do have is zimmerman verbally attacking trayvon by calling him an $#@! and a COON so trayvon had the right to SYG & defend himself from zimmerman's verbal attacks.


A verbal assault is a threat of violence.

Calling somebody an $#@! or a coon is not a threat of violence. Telling somebody they have a problem, and insinuating that they are that problem, and then proceeding to come at them and violently attack them is a verbal assault followed by a physical attack. It's basically like saying, "I'm going to beat your ass".

----------


## dannno

> Also, why do you keep leaving out the other witnesses?



I'm not leaving out the other witnesses. The other visual witnesses corroborated Zimmerman's story without contradicting it. They saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman beating his head in. The only witness who contradicted his story was a verbal witness, she *thought* she heard one of them screaming but didn't see it happen so there is no way to know who it was for certain.

----------


## moderate libertarian

> This isn't about race.


Both victim and shooter are of minority races, not a "black white" race issue. That ofcourse does not exclude all racial bias. It probably involves as much racial bias as was behind US invasion of Iraq.

----------


## dannno

> *Neighborhood Watch is an “Eyes and Ears” Program!*
> Neighborhood Watch is not a vigilante program. Participants, as private citizens, are only to report their observations of suspicious activity to law enforcement; not to take action themselves. The confrontation, apprehension and/or detention of any suspicious persons observed by participants should be handled by a trained law enforcement officer, empowered to perform law enforcement duties, as outlined under Florida law.

----------


## farreri

The Jane Velez-Mitchell show (HLN) are showing surveillance video of Zimmerman getting out of cop car at police station in handcuffs and also a little bit in the station.  The show hosts comment Zimmerman's nose and back of head LOOK UNINJURED and mention no appearance of blood on his clothes and I concur on their observations.  Zimmerman appears in the video to walk and act like he is uninjured.

[Edit] *George Zimmerman on Police Surveillance*
03/28/2012  Tapes show neighborhood watchman on night of Trayvon Martin killing. 
http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/georg...lance-16024475


If Trayvon was wailing on Zimmerman so bad -- allegedly broke Zim's nose and injured the back of  his head -- that Zim thought it necessary to use DEADLY FORCE against Trayvon, why wasn't Zimmerman taken away in an ambulance, just in case?

Zim brought into station in handcuffs.  Looks uninjured.  Zim's dad is a retired State Supreme judge and mom's a court clerk.  Zim released.  Hmmm.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> The Jane Velez-Mitchell show (HLN) are showing surveillance video of Zimmerman getting out of cop car at police station in handcuffs and also a little bit in the station.


So he was arrested? Hadn't heard that.

----------


## farreri

> So he was arrested? Hadn't heard that.


I hadn't heard that either.  Going in with handcuffs means arrested, not "taken into custody"?

But why not brought in by an ambulance if he supposedly sustained a "life threatening" beating?

----------


## coastie

> So he was arrested? Hadn't heard that.



Someone else just posted a seperate thread on this, but some people here get all pissy becasue they don't want to see more threads. Advice to thoseONT $#@!ING READ THEM THEN(including you mods).

Anyway, here is surveilance video of Zimmerman arriving at the police station.

NOT A $#@!ING SCRATCH ON HIM. SURPRISE.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/georg...lance-16024475

----------


## farreri

> NOT A $#@!ING SCRATCH ON HIM. SURPRISE.
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/georg...lance-16024475


Not looking good for self-appointed "Sheriff" Zimmerman.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

Do you know what a $#@! barometer is, dannno? Measures the $#@! pressure in the air. You can feel it. Listen, dannno. You hear that? The sounds of the whispering winds of $#@!? You can hear it.

----------


## coastie

> Not looking good for self-appointed "Sheriff" Zimmerman.


Never was, no matter how some here want to pretend he was defending himself. Looks real beat up to me.

Where's the blood all over his shirt? I've had, have given, and have seen many broken noses. Every time there was blood on the shirt.

Where's the laceration on the back of his head?

----------


## loveshiscountry

> zimmerman never said he used his hands to protect his face. he said the only thing he did to protect himself was call for help and shoot trayvon.


Where did you read this? That sounds dumb to not ward off blows.

----------


## coastie

> I'm not leaving out the other witnesses. The other visual witnesses corroborated Zimmerman's story without contradicting it. They saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman beating his head in. The only witness who contradicted his story was a verbal witness, she *thought* she heard one of them screaming but didn't see it happen so there is no way to know who it was for certain.


Respond after this, please....

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/georg...lance-16024475

And please...point out the Zimmerman with his head beat in, with a broken nose because I'm failing to see him here....

----------


## farreri

> Never was, no matter how some here want to pretend he was defending himself. Looks real beat up to me.
> 
> Where's the blood all over his shirt? I've had, have given, and have seen many broken noses. Every time there was blood on the shirt.
> 
> Where's the laceration on the back of his head?


Where's his bandages on his nose and back of head?!?!?!

Supposedly he got wailed on so bad he had to use deadly force.

----------


## coastie

> Where did you read this? That sounds dumb to not ward off blows.


He didn't have to ward off blows, here is Zimmerman arriving at the police station that night:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/georg...lance-16024475

That look like someone who was pinned down getting hit in the head?  How about someone with a broken nose?

The mods delete any new threads on this, so I'm trolling all the threads with this stuff, which is HUGE.

----------


## coastie

> Where's his bandages on his nose and back of head?!?!?!
> 
> *Supposedly* he got wailed on so bad he had to use deadly force.



And he did not. manslaughter, say goodbye and meet murder charges.

----------


## BamaAla

> So-called "Liberals" are mentally deranged in that they actively push this stuff.


Then they are mentally deranged. I talked to a buddy of mine yesterday who is pushing the hell out of it. I'm sure his students are being inundated with it too (he's an attorney and a professor in the political science department at UAHuntsville.) Get your defense of "Stand Your Ground" laws ready because I promise a full frontal attack is on the way.

----------


## pcosmar

> The pictures coming out are in resonse to the 12 and 14 year old pictures which have been presented to portray the victim as being a younger defenseless child and are dishonest. The truth will always eventually prevail where as lies fall apart.


And the pictures coming out of Zimmerman at the police station show NO BLOOD. no injuries.

Somebody been bullshittin'.

----------


## coastie

> And the pictures coming out of Zimmerman at the police station show NO BLOOD. no injuries.
> 
> Somebody been bullshittin'.


Wow, whodathunkit?

Here's the video:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/georg...lance-16024475

----------


## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

These forums are quickly becoming the Trayvon Martin forums and while it is great that people are concerned or involved, we should not allow one issue to dominate the atmosphere of the forums. So from this point forward please post any breaking news updates and/or commentary about this issue in this thread.

----------


## coastie

Zimmerman not beat up in police surveilance video:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/georg...lance-16024475

SURPRISE!!!!(well, for some).

----------


## coastie

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/georg...lance-16024475

Zimmerman arrives at Police Station with not a scratch on him. Pops popcorn while eagerly awaiting his defenders to arrive.

----------


## farreri

On Nancy Grace:

Funeral Director says he saw NO marks on Trayvon's hands, knuckles, or anything other part on his body that indicated Trayvon was the aggressor.

----------


## coastie

Bbbbbbbbbut, bbbbbbut, he was defending himself from that evil black gold grill havin thug!!!!!  


/s

----------


## coastie

> These forums are quickly becoming the Trayvon Martin forums and while it is great that people are concerned or involved, we should not allow one issue to dominate the atmosphere of the forums. So from this point forward please post any breaking news updates and/or commentary about this issue in this thread.


Gen Pol is for this type of stuff, and this is noway "dominating the atmosphere of the forums". The atmosphere of Gen Pol, maybe, but not the forums as a whole. Just sayin.

----------


## pcosmar

> These forums are quickly becoming the Trayvon Martin forums and while it is great that people are concerned or involved, we should not allow one issue to dominate the atmosphere of the forums. So from this point forward please post any breaking news updates and/or commentary about this issue in this thread.


*Liberty Forums: General Politics*
Political news and discussion.

I understand the frustration over so many threads. and consolidating is a good idea.
But this is (like it or not) a major political story, and the media and politicians will be pushing several issues. (2nd Amendment and racial issues)

Not to mention the distraction from all the other $#@! they are doing.

----------


## moderate libertarian

If this new official thread, in that case:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4318863

----------


## Anti Federalist

> He didn't have to ward off blows, here is Zimmerman arriving at the police station that night:
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/georg...lance-16024475
> 
> That look like someone who was pinned down getting hit in the head?  How about someone with a broken nose?
> 
> The mods delete any new threads on this, so I'm trolling all the threads with this stuff, which is HUGE.


He doesn't look fat and out of shape.

He doesn't look beat up at all.

He looks like he's under arrest.

He does not look white.

----------


## farreri

> He doesn't look fat and out of shape.
> 
> He doesn't look beat up at all.
> 
> He looks like he's under arrest.
> 
> He does not look white.


He also looks like he could take on a tall SKINNY kid.  I'm Trayvon's weight and 7 inches shorter and I'm thin.

----------


## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

> Gen Pol is for this type of stuff, and this is noway "dominating the atmosphere of the forums". The atmosphere of Gen Pol, maybe, but not the forums as a whole. Just sayin.


I understand and agree GP is for this type of stuff and while it is a major story at the moment it is still a tremendous amount of threads on one subject and many of them contain the same information. I have also had a lot of complaints about it all so I thought the most diplomatic way to handle it was to give everyone a thread to use for all information for this story where everyone can post all the information about all of this without others feeling like the forums are cluttered with numerous threads on the same topic. I hope everyone can understand the reasoning for that.

----------


## coastie

> I understand and agree GP is for this type of stuff and while it is a major story at the moment it is still a tremendous amount of threads on one subject and many of them contain the same information. I have also had a lot of complaints about it all so I thought the most diplomatic way to handle it was to give everyone a thread to use for all information for this story where everyone can post all the information about all of this without others feeling like the forums are cluttered with numerous threads on the same topic. I hope everyone can understand the reasoning for that.


No worries.

----------


## squarepusher

This guys dad is a judge, people in the law system know how to manipulate it.  "He came at me and attacked, I was defending myself" he knows to say the key words to keep his actions not under scrutiny.

----------


## moo

well folks. this what happens when the $#@! has hit the fan. its obvious to everyone that 
zimmerman called trayvon a coon
zimmerman was the aggressor
zimmerman had trayvon pinned to the ground
trayvon was heard crying for help
zimmerman killed trayvon

this was a hate crime and premeditated.

----------


## coastie

> well folks. this what happens when the $#@! has hit the fan. its obvious to everyone that 
> zimmerman called trayvon a coon
> zimmerman was the aggressor
> zimmerman had trayvon pinned to the ground
> trayvon was heard crying for help
> zimmerman killed trayvon
> 
> this was a hate crime and premeditated.


//

----------


## farreri

From ABC news...

*Trayvon Martin Video Shows No Blood or Bruises on George Zimmerman*

March 28, 2012

A police surveillance video taken the night that Trayvon Martin was shot dead *shows no blood or bruises on George Zimmerman*, the neighborhood watch captain *who says he shot Martin after he was punched in the nose, knocked down and had his head slammed into the ground*.

The surveillance video, which was obtained exclusively by ABC News, shows Zimmerman arriving in a police cruiser. As he exits the car, his hands are cuffed behind his back. Zimmerman is frisked and then led down a series of hallways, still cuffed.

Zimmerman, 28, is wearing a red and black fleece and his face and head are cleanly shaven. *He appears well built, hardly the portly young man depicted in a 2005 mug shot* that until a two days ago was the single image the media had of Zimmerman.

The initial police report noted that Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of the head and nose, and after medical attention it was decided that he was in good enough condition to travel in a police cruiser to the Sanford, Fla., police station for questioning.

His lawyer later insisted that Zimmerman's nose had been broken in his scuffle with 17-year-old Martin.

In the video an officer is seen pausing to look at the back of Zimmerman's head, but no abrasions or blood can be seen in the video and *he did not check into the emergency room following the police questioning*. 

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/trayvon-mar...7#.T3Oy8ltVGVs

----------


## kylejack

> So he was arrested? Hadn't heard that.


No, detained. He was interviewed for ~4 hours and released.

----------


## coastie

Oh man, this is really going to blow up with the race baiters now...

----------


## RiseAgainst

Thanks for consolidating Jimmy.

The video seems to indicate there has been a LOT of misinformation going around, mostly about Zimmerman.

----------


## dannno

So the witnesses that saw Zimmerman getting his head bashed in by Trayvon were lying? Or judged wrong? Or were coerced? Has anybody here seen this video yet?

----------


## coastie

> No, detained. He was interviewed coached for ~4 hours and released.


Something happened while you were typing there, maybe you were distracted? I fixed it for you though.

----------


## coastie

> So the witnesses that saw Trayvon bashing Zimmermans head in were lying?


Obviously, did you even watch the video???

----------


## dannno

> Obviously, did you even watch the video???


No, I can't watch youtube at work.

----------


## pcosmar

> So the *witnesses* that saw Trayvon bashing Zimmermans head in were lying?


witnesses? Can you elaborate?

And yes,, it would appear that he has no appearance of being in a fight.

----------


## moo

i think focus should be turned to the sanford police department

----------


## coastie

> No, I can't watch youtube at work.


He has not a scratch on him-and most certainly doesn't have a broken nose.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> He has not a scratch on him-and most certainly doesn't have a broken nose.


Also seems very fit for someone who was portrayed as "fat" and "out of shape"...

----------


## farreri

> No, I can't watch youtube at work.


No blood, no bruises, no bandages.

*Trayvon Martin Video Shows No Blood or Bruises on George Zimmerman*
March 28, 2012
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/trayvon-mar...7#.T3O1vltVGVs

----------


## moo

> No, I can't watch youtube at work.


watch it full screen, repeatedly.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/georg...lance-16024475

----------


## coastie

> On Nancy Grace:
> 
> Funeral Director says he saw NO marks on Trayvon's hands, knuckles, or anything other part on his body that indicated Trayvon was the aggressor.


And also this^

----------


## pcosmar

> He has not a scratch on him-and most certainly doesn't have a broken nose.


I have had mine broken,, it turns on like a faucet.

----------


## coastie

> On Nancy Grace:
> 
> Funeral Director says he saw NO marks on Trayvon's hands, knuckles, or anything other part on his body that indicated Trayvon was the aggressor.


And also this^

----------


## coastie

> I have had mine broken,, it turns on like a faucet.


Every one I've given or seen, and the one I've had sure as hell did.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> So the witnesses that saw Zimmerman getting his head bashed in by Trayvon were lying? Or judged wrong? Or were coerced? Has anybody here seen this video yet?


The video is shot from far away.  Doesn't really add much of anything to the story since he obviously would have been treated at the scene and all the blood wiped away.  But I'm sure Spike Lee will find it damning.  Maybe he can use it to terrorize some more old people.

----------


## AlexanderY

> The initial police report noted that Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of the head and nose, and *after medical attention it was decided that he was in good enough condition to travel in a police cruiser* to the Sanford, Fla., police station for questioning.
> 
> Link: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/trayvon-mar...7#.T3O3C6sV1Ww


LRN2Read

----------


## farreri

> The video is shot from far away.  Doesn't really add much of anything to the story since he obviously would have been treated at the scene and all the blood wiped away.  But I'm sure Spike Lee will find it damning.  Maybe he can use it to terrorize some more old people.


Did you see any blood, bruises, or bandages on Zimmerman in that video?  yes or no

----------


## hardrightedge

You can see the officer checking out the back of his head at the end of the video...too grainy to see if he has a broken nose...

----------


## cajuncocoa

> He doesn't look fat and out of shape.
> 
> He doesn't look beat up at all.
> 
> He looks like he's under arrest.
> 
> He does not look white.


Something doesn't add up. 

I'm more concerned about points #1 and #4...how do we know this is really him?

----------


## coastie

> The video is shot from far away.  Doesn't really add much of anything to the story since he *obviously* would have been treated at the scene and all the blood wiped away.  But I'm sure Spike Lee will find it damning.  Maybe he can use it to terrorize some more old people.




You have either a.) never had or seen someone with a broken nose, or b.) never been in a situation like this. First responders do not "wipe all the blood away"-are you serious? I've been on 20 some cases where people were bleeding all over the place, and we never cleaned them up to even remotely look that good, or cleaned them up at all.  That's a GRAY shirt he has on there-if it had been black or dark blue, I would give you that. Broken noses bleed-a LOT-where's the blood? Hwere's the "laceration" on the back of his head?

Eagerly awaiting the mental gymnastics you'll put on display here next.....

----------


## pcosmar

> LRN2Read


NO BLOOD on a white $#@!ing shirt.
not so much as a band-aid on the back of his head.

Somebody been lyin'.

----------


## coastie

> LRN2Read


I guess the EMT's gave him a new shirt, too.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> No, detained. He was interviewed for ~4 hours and released.


Is it typical to put someone in handcuffs if they're *not* being arrested?  Serious question.

----------


## coastie

> Is it typical to put someone in handcuffs if they're *not* being arrested?  Serious question.


Yes, I've done it 100's of times.


ETA: OK, maybe not hundreds of times, but dozens at least.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> Respond after this, please....
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/georg...lance-16024475
> 
> And please...point out the Zimmerman with his head beat in, with a broken nose because I'm failing to see him here....


He looks in shape to me...not even close tot he 250 pound fat un-athletic guy people were selling him as.

Edit: His nose doesn't look broken and I can't see any wound to the back of his head.

----------


## cajuncocoa

FYI, my hubby got his nose broken in a fight with his brother when he was in his early 20s....said it didn't bleed much at all.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> The video is shot from far away.  Doesn't really add much of anything to the story since he obviously would have been treated at the scene and all the blood wiped away.  But I'm sure Spike Lee will find it damning.  Maybe he can use it to terrorize some more old people.


They must have put him on a diet and in a tanning booth, too.

----------


## coastie

> FYI, my hubby got his nose broken in a fight with his brother when he was in his early 20s....said it didn't bleed much at all.


Than it wasn't "broken" as the term usually described. You break that cartilage, it's gonna bleed-and besides, even the cops initially said he was bleeding from his nose.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Edit: Verbally assaulted him? lol you said earlier that he asked him if he had a problem then when he said no Martin hit him and said you do now. How is that verbal assault in anyone's mind?


Assault occurs anytime you create in another person an apprehension of imminent fear.  Saying, "You got (a problem) now" and moving towards someone would qualify as assault.  Hitting them would make it assault and battery.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Than it wasn't "broken" as the term usually described. You break that cartilage, it's gonna bleed-and besides, even the cops initially said he was bleeding from his nose.


His doctor said it was broken...maybe Zimmerman's nose was "broken" in a similar way that my hubby's was.

----------


## kylejack

> Is it typical to put someone in handcuffs if they're *not* being arrested?  Serious question.


Yeah, especially early in the investigation when it isn't clear what happened. Police need at least reasonable suspicion to detain, and probable cause to arrest.

----------


## eduardo89

> Is it typical to put someone in handcuffs if they're *not* being arrested?  Serious question.


Yes.

----------


## moo

evidence on cops pants @ 0:39

----------


## coastie

> His doctor said it was broken...maybe Zimmerman's nose was "broken" in a similar way that my hubby's was.


Fair enough. Did he have any lacerations that mysteriously disappeared later as well?

----------


## kylejack

> His doctor said it was broken.


Maybe, maybe not. That's just what the lawyer said. His doctor is prohibited from revealing that per HIPAA.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> The video is shot from far away.  Doesn't really add much of anything to the story since he obviously would have been treated at the scene and all the blood wiped away.  But I'm sure Spike Lee will find it damning.  Maybe he can use it to terrorize some more old people.


Good god man, it isn't about Spike Lee or all the stupid race hustling.

Can't you see we can rise above all that and come out looking like the good guys in all of this by just maintaining some consistency with simple ethics and morality?

I've maintained all along that Zimmerman didn't have legal justification to use deadly force.

I support the unequivocal right to keep and bear arms, and I also condemn the unjust use of force no matter who wields it.

It's called the Non Aggression Principle and it is liberty philosophy 101

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Fair enough. Did he have any lacerations that mysteriously disappeared later as well?


I don't see how it would be possible to see lacerations given the vantage point and lack of quality in that video. 

IMO, this video raises more questions than it answered.

----------


## coastie

> Good god man, it isn't about Spike Lee or all the stupid race hustling.
> 
> Can't you see we can rise above all that and come out looking like the good guys in all of this by just maintaining some consistency with simple ethics and morality?
> 
> I've maintained all along that Zimmerman didn't have legal justification to use deadly force.
> 
> I support the unequivocal right to keep and bear arms, and I also condemn the unjust use of force no matter who wields it.
> 
> It's called the Non Aggression Principle and it is liberty philosophy 101


There you go making sense again...But now he's running to change into his work-out clothes-those mental gymnastics can get one quite hot and sweaty.

----------


## moo

> Where did you read this? That sounds dumb to not ward off blows.


trayvon didn't lay a finger on zimmerman.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Good god man, it isn't about Spike Lee or all the stupid race hustling.
> 
> Can't you see we can rise above all that and come out looking like the good guys in all of this by just maintaining some consistency with simple ethics and morality?
> 
> I've maintained all along that Zimmerman didn't have legal justification to use deadly force.


So your strategy for "rising above" it is to join in with Al Sharpton, Spike Lee, and Obama and try to lynch a young Hispanic kid without a shred of evidence suggesting he committed a crime?  Good luck with that.  I think I'll stay on the side of due process, law, and liberty.  If probable cause ever emerges that Zimmerman committed a crime, I will be the first to call for his arrest.  Until then, I stand with the victim against the mob.

----------


## coastie

> I don't see how it would be possible to see lacerations given the vantage point and lack of quality in that video. 
> 
> IMO, this video raises more questions than it answered.


There TWO different angles, neither of which show any laceration on the back of his head. But, i know, I know...the camera just _happens_ to not show it, right?

----------


## coastie

> So your strategy for "rising above" it is to join in with Al Sharpton, Spike Lee, and Obama and try to lynch a young Hispanic kid without a shred of evidence suggesting he committed a crime?  Good luck with that.  I think I'll stay on the side of due process and law.



Mental gymnastics. Check. Note how you will be the ONLY one that will get that out of what AF posted. I'll bet you're a real hit with the ladies.

----------


## hardrightedge

> There TWO different angles, neither of which show any laceration on the back of his head. But, i know, I know...the camera just _happens_ to not show it, right?


pause the video at 52

----------


## cajuncocoa

> There TWO different angles, neither of which show any laceration on the back of his head. But, i know, I know...the camera just _happens_ to not show it, right?


Depends on the laceration, perhaps.  Look, I'm not saying he's innocent; just trying to give him the benefit of the doubt...innocent until proven guilty, right?

----------


## coastie

> Depends on the laceration, perhaps.  Look, I'm not saying he's innocent; just trying to give him the benefit of the doubt...innocent until proven guilty, right?


Right, however, the narrative that this started with was that Zimmerman was being pummeled by Martin, and that obviously did not happen here.

The funeral director even just said on Nancy grace that Martin's body showed absolutely NO SIGNS OF A PHYSICAL ALTERCATION OF ANY KIND.

----------


## moo

> Depends on the laceration, perhaps.  Look, I'm not saying he's innocent; just trying to give him the benefit of the doubt...innocent until proven guilty, right?


but you still REFUSE to give trayvon the benefit of the doubt even with the PROOF staring at you in your FACE. why?

----------


## AlexanderY

> Good god man, *it isn't about Spike Lee or all the stupid race hustling.*
> 
> Can't you see we can rise above all that and come out looking like the good guys in all of this by just maintaining some consistency with simple ethics and morality?
> 
> I've maintained all along that Zimmerman didn't have legal justification to use deadly force.
> 
> I support the unequivocal right to keep and bear arms, and I also condemn the unjust use of force no matter who wields it.
> 
> It's called the Non Aggression Principle and it is liberty philosophy 101


Wrong, it's always been about race hustling. 

You've got to be blind not to notice it.

Why do you think this story got so much media attention?

----------


## coastie

> Wrong, it's always been about race hustling. 
> 
> You've got to be blind not to notice it.
> 
> Why do you think this story got so much media attention?


You and RonPaulMall must have went to the same school, as even basic comprehension escapes the both of you in the same spectacular manner.

----------


## pcosmar

> pause the video at 52


Pause this,,,

I have been in more than one or two fights in my life. And I am a smallish man.

That man right there was NOT in a fight. $#@!,, little girls can do more damage than that guy has.

And a broken nose would have discolored that shirt.. 
Seriously.

The man was very obviously Lying about being in a fight,, let alone a fight for his life.

----------


## hardrightedge

> Pause this,,,
> 
> I have been in more than one or two fights in my life. And I am a smallish man.
> 
> That man right there was NOT in a fight. $#@!,, little girls can do more damage than that guy has.
> 
> And a broken nose would have discolored that shirt.. 
> Seriously.
> 
> The man was very obviously Lying about being in a fight,, let alone a fight for his life.


I don't give a $#@! how many fights you've been in...you can see the cop checking the back of his head...

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Right, however, the narrative that this started with was that Zimmerman was being pummeled by Martin, and that obviously did not happen here.
> 
> The funeral director even just said on Nancy grace that Martin's body showed absolutely NO SIGNS OF A PHYSICAL ALTERCATION OF ANY KIND.


Funeral Director who is being paid by the Martin family and likely serves an exclusively black customer base.  How about waiting till what the medical examiner has to say?  And there is an _eyewitness_ who saw Martin pummeling Zimmerman.

----------


## coastie

> Funeral Director who is being paid by the Martin family and* likely serves an exclusively black customer base*.  How about waiting till what the medical examiner has to say?  And there is an _eyewitness_ who saw Martin pummeling Zimmerman.


Do some research on how reliable eyewitness testimony tends to be, then get back to me.

There's the race thing again, interjected by you-AGAIN.

----------


## AlexanderY

> but you still REFUSE to give trayvon the benefit of the doubt even with the PROOF staring at you in your FACE. why?


The article claims that he was treated at the scene.




> trayvon didn't lay a finger on zimmerman.


The police report stated that "_When police arrived less than two minutes later, Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose, had a swollen lip and had bloody lacerations to the back of his head_"

Obviously, if he was cleaned up at the scene, it's not going to be evident, especially in that grainy video.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Do some research on how reliable eyewitness testimony tends to be, then get back to me.


I don't have to.  To arrest Zimmerman the police need probable cause that a crime was committed.  We don't even have to consider all the evidence that supports Zimmerman's account.  Show me a single shred of evidence that contradicts it.  The burden of proof is on the State, not the citizen.  First, they have to obtain probable cause that a crime was committed, then they need to prove that allegation beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury.  The state hasn't even found evidence of a crime yet.

----------


## coastie

> The article claims that he was treated at the scene.
> 
> 
> 
> The police report stated that "_When police arrived less than two minutes later, Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose, had a swollen lip and had bloody lacerations to the back of his head_"
> 
> Obviously, if he was cleaned up at the scene, it's not going to be evident, especially in that grainy video.


Again, are you an EMT? Been involved in Search and Rescue and trained as a first responder and EMT? I am/have.

They don't clean you up to the point you look like you were just pulled off your living room couch....and they damn sure don't give a clean shirt to wear.

----------


## pcosmar

> I don't give a $#@! how many fights you've been in...you can see the cop checking the back of his head...


I see a cop looking at the back of his head,,, at nothing.

No band-aid. No visible scratch or discoloration.. Certainly no gash that would require stitches.

Nothing.

----------


## moo

> Funeral Director who is being paid by the Martin family and likely serves an exclusively black customer base.  How about waiting till what the medical examiner has to say?  And there is an _eyewitness_ who saw Martin pummeling Zimmerman.


the witness lied. if zimmerman's parents can pay off an entire police department then i'm sure they can pay off a few civilians like joe oliver.

----------


## coastie

> I don't have to.  To arrest Zimmerman the police need probable cause that a crime was committed.  We don't even have to consider all the evidence that supports Zimmerman's account.  *Show me a single shred of evidence that contradicts it.*  The burden of proof is on the State, not the citizen.  First, they have to obtain probable cause that a crime was committed, then they need to prove that allegation beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury.  The state hasn't even found evidence of a crime yet.


http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/georg...lance-16024475

I think this more than qualifies as a "shred". You asked, you shall receive.

----------


## pcosmar

> I don't have to.  To arrest Zimmerman the police need probable cause that a crime was committed.  We don't even have to consider all the evidence that supports Zimmerman's account.  Show me a single shred of evidence that contradicts it.  The burden of proof is on the State, not the citizen.  First, they have to obtain probable cause that a crime was committed, then they need to prove that allegation beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury.  The state hasn't even found evidence of a crime yet.


How about a dead body and a smoking gun?

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Yeah, it seems that specific CNN article is the root, as most blogs eventually refer to it. But it doesn't come up anywhere else. It should be a well known fact at this point. It very well may be true, but like I said, the MSM is keeping a lid on it.


Well no one is denying it.  The media isn't pushing it as the issue - but it is certainly is one of them and likely has to do with why he has gotten off.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> but you still REFUSE to give trayvon the benefit of the doubt even with the PROOF staring at you in your FACE. why?


What proof is it that is staring me in the face?  The better question is, what is it that I will learn about this case tomorrow that I don't know today?  Every day more information comes out about this case.  To me, this video raises more questions than it answers.  It doesn't PROVE anything. 

I like the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" (by a court of law, not by a few members of a message board).

----------


## AlexanderY

> the witness lied. *if zimmerman's parents can pay off an entire police department* then i'm sure they can pay off a few civilians like joe oliver.


Oh Lawdy, it's a conspiracy!

----------


## BlackTerrel

> This couldn't have been posted in one of the 57 existing threads?


Did you complain about the pro-Zimmerman threads?




> Pro-Zimmerman? More like Anti-Lynching of Zimmerman. No one here is excusing Zimmerman of possible criminal behavior.


No there are quite a few who are.  Read the threads.

----------


## moo

> What proof is it that is staring me in the face?  The better question is, what is it that I will learn about this case tomorrow that I don't know today?  Every day more information comes out about this case.  To me, this video raises more questions than it answers.  It doesn't PROVE anything. 
> 
> I like the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" (by a court of law, not by a few members of a message board).


you don't want to admit you were wrong and that's sad. you're an adult, not a child. act your age and not your shoe size.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Right, however, the narrative that this started with was that Zimmerman was being pummeled by Martin, and that obviously did not happen here.
> 
> The funeral director even just said on Nancy grace that Martin's body showed absolutely NO SIGNS OF A PHYSICAL ALTERCATION OF ANY KIND.


Nancy Grace was also certain that Casey Anthony would be convicted.

----------


## pcosmar

> Oh Lawdy, it's a conspiracy!


That is looking very likely.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> you don't want to admit you were wrong and that's sad. you're an adult, not a child. act your age and not your shoe size.


Resorting to insults usually means you've lost the argument.

----------


## moo

> Oh Lawdy, it's a conspiracy!


aren't you the same person who participated in the smear campaign against a dead teenager?

----------


## coastie

> Nancy Grace was also certain that Casey Anthony would be convicted.



I didn't say she said that, as quite clearly indicated in the first 6 words before the name "Nacy grace" in my quote, THAT YOU EVEN POSTED.. Keep grasping, there's plenty of straws to go around.

----------


## coastie

> Resorting to insults usually means you've lost the argument.


Unfortunately for you, that isn't the case here.

----------


## moo

> Resorting to insults usually means you've lost the argument.


it's ok cajun. you can leave now.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> This however did not warrant Obama to stoke the issue by invoking his unborn look alike son, his inserting himself in the middle of this could be "race card" politics that his handlers may have instructed him to play


Obama didn't stoke the issue.  He said that it needed to be investigated and justice should be served - that is all.  And the comment you are referring to was made to the victim's parents over the loss of their son.




> If recent reports are factual, the shooter himself is a minority, a young man with hispanic-jewish heredity whereas victim is an african-american teen. Best for all sides/media/Obama advisors to take a breath and support a thorough investigation to ensure justice.


I was kind of going to ignore it but I think this is the third time you've mentioned it so might as well explain yourself.  Which "recent reports" say he is Hispanic-Jewish?  Because I've seen a lot of reports of his background but the only one that references Jewishness is you.  In fact some of the pro-Zimmerman threads and interviews with his friends described him as devoutly Catholic and a former altar boy.

You appear to have a bit of a one track mind.

----------


## Pericles

That would be very interesting information, and possibly explain a great deal.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> it's ok cajun. you can leave now.


you going somewhere moo?  I'm not.

----------


## moo

> you going somewhere moo?  I'm not.


good. here's tonights homework lesson
http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/georg...lance-16024475

----------


## coastie

> good. here's tonights homework lesson
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/georg...lance-16024475


Bah, irrelevant to those three. That's evidence that ZImmeramn is lying/therefore they'll twist something about race out of it.

----------


## AlexanderY

> aren't you the same person who participated in the smear campaign against a dead teenager?


Campaign, no.

I'm just aware of the agenda being pushed by MSM and the race hustlers. 

The media blew this story up and portrayed it as "little innocent Trayvon" and "Evil White Zimmerman."

Justice for Trayvon was the last thing on the mind of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and MSM picked up on this story.

I simply debunked the "innocent little trayvon" myth being propagated by the media.

The media portrayed Trayvon as a martyr in order to stir up the civil right crowd* making blacks feel victimized* by "the system" and "whitey"(even though Blacks are most often victimized by their own race, not anyone else). 

Now, we could just imagine what will happen when the civil rights crowd doesn't get their way.

----------


## AuH20

> Campaign, no.
> 
> I'm just aware of the agenda being pushed by MSM and the race hustlers. 
> 
> The media blew this story up and portrayed it as "little innocent Trayvon" and "Evil White Zimmerman."
> 
> Justice for Trayvon was the last thing on the mind of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and MSM picked up on this story.
> 
> I simply debunked the "innocent little trayvon" myth being propagated by the media.
> ...


Correct. They went hard after Zimmerman with the usual racial bile instead of the Police Department which screwed up the investigation. The race hustlers as usual tried to make this larger than it was, rather concentrating on the task at hand.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Unfortunately for you, that isn't the case here.


Unfortunately for me....what?  I should apologize for not wanting to convict a man based on information coming through from the MSM??  Don't hold your breath.  

I've previously mentioned that I am not a "Zimmerman supporter", as moo likes to say...I am just advocating for a FAIR trial, *if* a crime has been committed.  You may be right; perhaps he lied....thing is, I can't tell that from that video.  If you can, maybe your crystal ball is better than mine.

----------


## coastie

> Resorting to insults usually means you've lost the argument.





> Unfortunately for you, that isn't the case here.





> *Unfortunately for me....what?  I should apologize for not wanting to convict a man based on information coming through from the MSM??  Don't hold your breath.*  
> 
> I've previously mentioned that I am not a "Zimmerman supporter", as moo likes to say...I am just advocating for a FAIR trial, *if* a crime has been committed.  You may be right; perhaps he lied....thing is, I can't tell that from that video.  If you can, maybe your crystal ball is better than mine.


As I said earlier, some of you here need basic reading comprehension, where in those two quotes on page 118 did I ask you to apologize?

----------


## moo

> Campaign, no.
> 
> I'm just aware of the agenda being pushed by MSM and the race hustlers. 
> 
> The media blew this story up and portrayed it as "little innocent Trayvon" and "Evil White Zimmerman."
> 
> Justice for Trayvon was the last thing on the mind of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and MSM picked up on this story.
> 
> I simply debunked the "innocent little trayvon" myth being propagated by the media.
> ...


TBH i really don't give a damn about your opinion of anything.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> As I said earlier, some of you here need basic reading comprehension, where in those two quotes on page 118 did I ask you to apologize?


I didn't say you ASKED me to apologize.

----------


## AlexanderY

> TBH i really don't give a damn about your opinion of anything.


I'm aware.

Everyone here knows where I stand.




> i push the BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY angle. 
> *repeal the stand your ground law.*

----------


## moo

> I'm aware.
> 
> Everyone here knows where I stand.


*REPEAL THE STOP AND FRISK LAWS TOO*

----------


## coastie

> I didn't say you ASKED me to apologize.






> Unfortunately for me....what?  *I should apologize for not wanting to convict a man based on information coming through from the MSM??  Don't hold your breath. * 
> 
> I've previously mentioned that I am not a "Zimmerman supporter", as moo likes to say...I am just advocating for a FAIR trial, *if* a crime has been committed.  You may be right; perhaps he lied....thing is, I can't tell that from that video.  If you can, maybe your crystal ball is better than mine.


You sure implied so.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You sure implied so.


Stop being paranoid.  Can we move on now?

----------


## BlackTerrel

Putting this all into one thread just makes it impossible to follow - not sure what the point of that was.  Now I can't even tell who I'm discussing the issue with and who wrote something in other threads.

----------


## moo

i think the sanford police department should be cleaned out. there is too much corruption for this to have happened to trayvon and nobody else.

----------


## coastie

> Stop being paranoid.  Can we move on now?



I'm not being paranoid....and where would you like to go? I'll bring the condoms, you bring the rubber sheets and gerbils.

Bad joke, just trying to inject some humor into it, I'm really not mad about anything.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> How about a dead body and a smoking gun?


That Zimmerman killed Martin is uncontested.  The question is whether he killed him unlawfully.  Zimmerman's account of the killing, along with all the evidence to come to light thus far, points towards what would be a justifiable use of force under Florida law.

----------


## moo

> Putting this all into one thread just makes it impossible to follow - not sure what the point of that was.  Now I can't even tell who I'm discussing the issue with and who wrote something in other threads.


they did it because this is a topic that certain people do not want to see being discussed so frequently.

----------


## moderate libertarian

What is happening to America? 


This is in today's news. I don't recall such a racial tension in America ever during Bush Presidency:
*
Be advised, video contains violent language:*




> *Jonatha Carr, FAU Student, Will Not Face Charges After Violent Outburst In Classroom (VIDEO)* 
> 
>  03/27/2012 3:41 pm Updated: 03/27/2012 4:20 pm


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1382362.html

http://www.youtube.com/v/NghQUcrX9Ew

----------


## coastie

> That Zimmerman killed Martin is uncontested.  The question is whether he killed him unlawfully.  Zimmerman's account of the killing, along with *all the evidence to come to light thus far*, points towards what would be a justifiable use of force under Florida law.


ALL of the evidence? Except for the evidence that points other wise, but that's no matter and doesn't count, right?

----------


## moo

zimmerman's father has made a statement and its being aired on msnbc right now

----------


## coastie

> What is happening to America? 
> 
> 
> This is in today's news. I don't recall such a racial tension in America ever during Bush Presidency:
> *
> Be advised, video contains violent language:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Holy good God, someone get that girl some Xanax, valium and a shot of Jager, stat.

Joking aside...Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

ETA: Hate Crime? Hello Justice Dept./AG Holder....er,wait..... I think we've found why there will be no charges here, as that would be racist.

----------


## coastie

> zimmerman's father has made a statement and its being aired on msnbc right now


Play by Play.Ready? Go.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> ALL of the evidence? Except for the evidence that points other wise, but that's no mater and doesn't count, right?


No.  Literally all the evidence.  The only thing I can think of that goes against Zimmerman is the woman who claims to have heard a "younger" voice screaming.  And I think the credibility of a person who claims to be able to discern the difference between a 17 year old and 28 year old scream speaks for itself.  The police investigated.  Their investigation didn't uncover a crime.  It still hasn't.  Maybe some day evidence will arise pointing towards a criminal act, but our under our system of law, until that day comes, George Zimmerman must remain free.

----------


## moo

zimmerman's judge said while zimmerman had his gun out trayvon said "you're going to die tonight"

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> Funeral Director who is* being paid by the Martin family and likely serves an exclusively black customer base.*  How about waiting till what the medical examiner has to say?  And there is an _eyewitness_ who saw Martin pummeling Zimmerman.


You're obviously just doing this to create more fighting. Why haven't you been banned yet? I suppose if the medical examiner is black we can't believe him or at least according to you we can't.

----------


## coastie

> zimmerman's judge said while zimmerman had his gun out trayvon said "you're going to die tonight"


Engrish? What the hell does that even mean? Who the hell is Zimmerman's judge?

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> Campaign, no.
> 
> I'm just aware of the agenda being pushed by MSM and the race hustlers. 
> 
> The media blew this story up and portrayed it as "little innocent Trayvon" and "Evil White Zimmerman."
> 
> Justice for Trayvon was the last thing on the mind of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and MSM picked up on this story.
> 
> I simply debunked the "innocent little trayvon" myth being propagated by the media.
> ...


You're obviously ignorant of your surroundings. I live in the South and I can tell you that blacks are disproportionately victimized by "the system". Even RP has talked about this...why are you denying it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistake...#Ronald_Cotton

That was in my home state.

----------


## moo

> Engrish?


basically his father is still sticking with the story of trayvon having zimmerman pinned down but the video must've been damning to bring his father out of hiding. i believe zimmerman is saying his last goodbyes.

----------


## coastie

> You're obviously just doing this to create more fighting. Why haven't you been banned yet? I suppose if the medical examiner is black we can't believe him or at least according to you we can't.


Lets hope none of the cops are black, because then that would mean (by his logic) that there would be a cover up at the police dept.

----------


## coastie

> basically his father is still sticking with the story of trayvon having zimmerman pinned down but the video must've been damning to bring his father out of hiding. i believe zimmerman is saying his last goodbyes.


Grammar escapes you...you're still not making any sense.

----------


## moderate libertarian

> Holy good God, someone get that girl some Xanax, valium and a shot of Jager, stat.
> 
> Joking aside...Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
> 
> ETA: Hate Crime? Hello Justice Dept./AG Holder....er,wait..... I think we've found why there will be no charges here, as that would be racist.



This is  like the 3rd meltdown incidence in news  in last couple of days. It seems more and more people are living in pressure cookers.

----------


## coastie

> This is  like the 3rd meltdown incidence in news  in last couple of days. It seems more and more people are living in pressure cookers.


Wow. And I can't carry at school in Florida....

----------


## moo

> You're obviously just doing this to create more fighting. Why haven't you been banned yet? I suppose if the medical examiner is black we can't believe him or at least according to you we can't.


so true

----------


## moo

> Grammar escapes you...you're still not making any sense.


my grammar is just fine.

----------


## coastie

> my grammar is just fine.


I wasn't being a dick here, I'm being serious. Neither one of your responses made any sense whatsoever-grammatically or other wise..

WHo said you're going to die tonight? Martin or Zimmerman? It's not clear from what you wrote, and that's an odd thing for Martin to say to someone pointing a gun at him while he's holding an Arizona tea and a bag of skittles.....

----------


## moo

> I wasn't being a dick here, I'm being serious. Neither one of your responses made any sense whatsoever-grammatically or other wise..
> 
> WHo said you're going to die tonight? Martin or Zimmerman? It's not clear from what you wrote, and that's an odd thing for Martin to say to someone pointing a gun at him while he's holding an Arizona tea and a bag of skittles.....


trayvon told zimmerman he was going to die tonight. zimmerman claimed that trayvon reached for his gun.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> No, detained. He was interviewed for ~4 hours and released.


"Am I being detained? Am I under arrest?" 




> Well no one is denying it.  The media isn't pushing it as the issue - but it is certainly is one of them and likely has to do with why he has gotten off.


I refrained from posting that info a couple of days ago because I could not confirm it via Google. If it is true, it is an obvious and common reason for officials to "cover up".

It looks like multiple threads have been merged together.

Everybody sing!

----------


## coastie

> trayvon told zimmerman he was going to die tonight. zimmerman claimed that trayvon reached for his gun.



SO Zimmerman had his gun out and was pointing it at Trayvon? Or the other way around? You appear to have said both.




> zimmerman's judge said *while zimmerman had his gun out trayvon said "you're going to die tonight"*


And




> basically his father is still sticking with the story of trayvon having zimmerman pinned down *but the video must've been damning to bring his father out of hiding. i believe zimmerman is saying his last goodbyes.*


Why would he need to do that if it was the other way around? I'm so confused now.

----------


## phill4paul

> trayvon told zimmerman he was going to die tonight. zimmerman claimed that trayvon reached for his gun.


  Then how about links to back this up? WTF dude?

----------


## coastie

> Then how about links to back this up? WTF dude?


I asked him earlier for play by play, I believe Zimmerman's dad was on TV, or something.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> ...I believe Zimmerman's dad was on TV, or something.


Is his Dad really a retired Judge?

----------


## Ender

> No.  Literally all the evidence.  The only thing I can think of that goes against Zimmerman is the woman who claims to have heard a "younger" voice screaming.  And I think the credibility of a person who claims to be able to discern the difference between a 17 year old and 28 year old scream speaks for itself.  The police investigated.  Their investigation didn't uncover a crime.  It still hasn't.  Maybe some day evidence will arise pointing towards a criminal act, but our under our system of law, until that day comes, George Zimmerman must remain free.


I am a musician and a voice teacher and I can clearly tell the difference in ages/quality in voices. The voice is actually easy to "read"- most people just don't listen.

My take on what I heard was that the crying voice did not match the speaking voice of Zimmerman.

----------


## coastie

> Is his Dad really a retired Judge?


Dunno_ i have no TV, moo was watching something on it and doing a play by play.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Dunno_ i have no TV, moo was watching something on it and doing a play by play.


I just saw part of the interview. No label on his father. No mention of whether he was a Judge. This may be the strangest aspect of this story. How can the MSM completely bury this?

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

I don't know why everyone is saying the media lied to them because they used the only photos available at the time. If you ever get shot don't be surprised if they use an old photo from a yearbook, an arrest, or the one the DMV has on file.

----------


## kezt777

I have not weighed in on this issue, and I cannot possibly read 123 pages of comments anyway  My only thoughts all along are that I was not there so I have no idea what happened. Hopefully someone else does and the right things will happen in response. I believe Trayvon's family has the right to dig deep into this because it is their life, their child, their family. If they want to stand on the rooftops and scream about it, that is perfectly okay. But what is driving me insane is stories such as Spike Lee re-tweeting an address that was reported as Zimmerman's home address, when it really was an elderly couple who's name is not even Zimmerman!!! I was totally shocked and did not want to believe that Spike Lee would be so stupid as to re-tweet that without even checking - but sure enough, 3 hours ago he posted an apology on his twitter to that couple. I saw it myself 5 seconds ago on his twitter page. He removed the former tweet.

BUT - even if it was Zimmerman's address, WTF was Spike thinking? I feel that comes dangerously close to inciting violence. The original tweet from some other guy is still up and it says 'EVERYONE REPOST THIS' probably over 100 times because he posted it to everyone on his list, and then I saw that he replied to some people saying 'YES ITS HIS ADDRESS ZIMMERMANS ADDRESS'. All of those posts are still viewable from March 23rd and then all day today he is apologizing for it being the wrong one. But again - what is the point exactly of posting that address, even if it was the right one? What could that information do in the wrong hands? Does anyone else live with Zimmerman? If it was correct, would those people be in danger too after Spike Lee and lord only knows how many others re-tweeted that address over the past several days?? As it happens, it was not correct. The dude that Spike got it from claimed that he 'retweeted' the wrong address - however I went allllll the way back through his tweets and when I finally got to the very first reference, there is no 're-tweeted from......' on it. It is a straight forward typed out twitter tweeter. It was not a 're-tweet' at all according to his page. But all that aside, where does the 'do not incite violence' part come in in regards to 'free speech'? I remember when the congresswoman was shot, the leftist news was constantly posting images from Republican sites showing a cross-hairs on 'targets' around Arizona, and claiming that was inciting violence. How about hundreds or thousand of people, including celebrities, posting the supposed home address of a man that many are branding a child murderer? When is the line crossed?

So that's my take on this, and my concern. A whole bunch of people around the world discussing a matter that none of them saw or actually know anything about. I watched the video and I certainly did not see any blood or injuries on Zimmerman, but I am not going to guess one way or the other about what happened. I suffered a broken nose when I was 18, in a fight with my friend's ex bf, and I was gushing blood all over the place. It was filling my hands and I had to pour it on the ground and catch some more. I went home without a single blob of blood on my shirt or jacket - not even on my jeans. And it did not start gushing blood until several moments after I was punched. It was weird. And I did not get a black eye at all. All that happened was the cartilage broke and slid to the side and my nose is still crooked with a noticeable lump on the right, to this very day, but I had no bruises at all despite being punched in the nose repeatedly. It was a very fun night, let me tell you!!! 

No I did not have him on top of me and then me shooting him, and still manage to get away with no blood on my clothing. That seems to be a strange part of this story, after seeing the video. But I can also tell you that it is almost impossible to remember every detail in the right order during a heightened situation. We think we remember things right but it's very difficult to do. Maybe Zim ended up on top (I have heard that story too) and then pulled the trigger as he was getting away. Maybe we watch too many movies and assume that blood would spray all over zimmerman, but we are not forensics experts and do not know all of the tricks of the trade. MY friend shot himself in the calf with a hunting rifle and the only blood was a little bit around the hole in his jeans where the bullet entered. The rest was on the back of his leg where the bullet exited - that was a total mess. But he did not have blood on the front of either shoe somehow - not visible to the eye anyway. I was punched and had a broken nose pouring blood, but had nothing on my clothing at all, and no bruises or black eyes. You just never know what is going to show up when there is an altercation, and people do not always remember the right order of events in any situation, especially a stressful one, so differing stories do not always signal a Guilty verdict either. 

I just hope for the sake of everyone involved, the truth is found and if there is need for justice, it will be served.

----------


## coastie

> I just saw part of the interview. No label on his father. No mention of whether he was a Judge. This may be the strangest aspect of this story. *How can the MSM completely bury this?*


Look what the MSM is doing to the guy these forums are named after....

----------


## farreri

*CNN Isolates Audio of Zimmerman 911 Call: Racial Slur Now Very Likely*

Posted on March 22, 2012

But in recent days, both the accusation of racism and its defense have come to hinge on a tiny portion of the recorded 911 call, in which Zimmerman sounds like he utters the phrase *fking coons* under his breath while following Martin. Coon is, of course, a racial slur for African Americans. 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/cnn-...w-very-likely/



Both the CNN news guy and the CNN sound engineer both kinda agree it sounds like "coons" and I agree.  You can definitely hear a "kah" sound before the "oons."  

Sounds like Zimmerman said "coons."

----------


## farreri

That report saying a guy witnessed Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman?

Report came from a *FOX* affiliate!

According to Tampa Bay Fox affiliate WTVT-TV, what the witness says he saw could bolster Zimmermans claim that he shot Martin in self-defense:

_The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: help, helpand I told him to stop and I was calling 911, he said.

    Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.

    The witness only wanted to be identified as John, and didnt not want to be shown on camera._

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/repo...rge-zimmerman/

*Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman*
Published : Friday, 23 Mar 2012; Updated: Monday, 26 Mar 2012
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/new...erman-03232012



Who would have guessed?!

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> That report saying a guy witnessed Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman?
> 
> Report came from a *FOX* affiliate!
> 
> According to Tampa Bay Fox affiliate WTVT-TV, what the witness says he saw could bolster Zimmermans claim that he shot Martin in self-defense:
> 
> _The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: help, helpand I told him to stop and I was calling 911, he said.
> 
>     Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.
> ...



I would be on top of some dude that was following me with a gun in his waistband too. The fact is NOBODY saw the initial contact. Did Zimmerman try to grab Trayvon? we don't know nobody saw it. Did Trayvon run up and tackle Zimmerman? We dont know, nobody saw it. 

My point is everyone keeps bringing up the fact that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman as proof that the shooting was justified. We don't know though HOW they got to that point. If Zimmerman made the first move and Trayvon was defending himself then the shooting was not self defense. We don't know though

----------


## Tod

I nominate this song (with new lyrics, of course) as the official Trayvon song:

Trayvon, by Buddy Holly and the Crickets

----------


## Kade

Everyone single one of you know damn well that if this was a white teenager, things would be different.

I couldn't go through all the comments here, but I got the flavor. There is not much I can add to the debate, because I know about as much as can be possible without being there. I'll minimize this whole thing instead. The fact remains that an unarmed kid is dead, and the man who chased him, and then shot him, ought to be questioned properly by authorities who are going to take the incident seriously.

----------


## jmdrake

> Someone else just posted a seperate thread on this, but some people here get all pissy becasue they don't want to see more threads. Advice to thoseONT $#@!ING READ THEM THEN(including you mods).
> 
> Anyway, here is surveilance video of Zimmerman arriving at the police station.
> 
> NOT A $#@!ING SCRATCH ON HIM. SURPRISE.
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/georg...lance-16024475


Interesting.  That confirms something else that I was wondering about.  There was no report of Zimmerman's *shirt* being bloody.  Think about it.  Supposedly Trayvon was on top of him raining down blows on Zimmerman's face and Zimmerman somehow got his gun *out of his waistband* (how when Trayvon would have been sitting on it) and shot Trayvon in the chest.  But.....wouldn't Trayvon's blood have spilled out all over Zimmerman?  

Now, consider the alternative.  Mary Crutcher said when she saw Zimmerman he was on top of Trayvon and hand Trayvon's arms pinned down.  Trayvon was already dead or dying by this point.  Consider this possibility.  Trayvon and Zimmerman fight.  Who started it?  *It doesn't matter*.  Zimmerman, who weighs more and looks from the above linked video like he can handle himself in a fight, manages to throw Trayvon off of him.  Not difficult to imagine with Zimmerman outweighing Trayvon by somewhere between 80 and 100 lbs.  Now Zimmerman pulls out his gun.  Trayvon sees it and starts pleading for his life.  (Mary Crutcher said the cries she heard sounded like a child.  While Trayvon was a teenager, that's closer to being a child than Zimmerman).  Zimmerman, now pissed, shoots Trayvon anyway.  That scenario fits Mary Crutcher's testimony.  It fits the anonymous witness' testimony.  He only saw the *middle* of the fight.  He didn't see the start nor the end.  This scenario fits the physical evidence of Zimmerman not being bloody.  This scenario would also make Zimmerman possibly guilty of *first* degree murder.

Now Zimmerman defenders, explain the lack of blood on his shirt before you post anything else about there not being probable cause of a crime.

----------


## moo

i dont think we will be reading anything from the zimmerman defenders. the surveillance video really stopped that "I AM GEORGE ZIMMERMAN" movement their tracks.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> *Everyone single one of you know damn well that if this was a white teenager, things would be different.
> *
> I couldn't go through all the comments here, but I got the flavor. There is not much I can add to the debate, because I know about as much as can be possible without being there. I'll minimize this whole thing instead. The fact remains that an unarmed kid is dead, and the man who chased him, and then shot him, ought to be questioned properly by authorities who are going to take the incident seriously.


Incorrect. Whenever a white person is robbed, beaten, shot, stabbed, or murdered by a black person you can be sure to find it on the DrudgeReport, FoxNews, CNN, etc. (a kid who was set on fire by a black kid and it was on Drudge for days, whenever there was a flash mob in Philadelphia, whenever an old white man gets robbed by a young black male, etc.)

Seriously go to www.drudgereport.com right now and tell me how many of the articles are favorable towards Zimmerman.

This one is extremely telling (they link to this video on Drudge and the video only has 2,000 views, so it isn't even popular) 




There are white people just like there are black people who want to make all of this out to be an us against them scenario and do so by showing the NBPP on TV saying that "crackers" need to die, doing 18 stories on Spike Lee re-tweeting an address, etc. 

Edit: I read your post the wrong way but I stand by my statement that the media wants us to be against each other instead of getting along.

----------


## moostraks

> Incorrect. Whenever a white person is robbed, beaten, shot, stabbed, or murdered by a black person you can be sure to find it on the DrudgeReport, FoxNews, CNN, etc. 
> 
> Seriously go to www.drudgereport.com right now and tell me how many of the articles are favorable towards Zimmerman.


I think I took his response differently. That if Trayvon had been white, the police and/or prosecutor would have handled the case differently because then he would have been just a kid with skittles trying to keep warm in a jacket rather then a wannabe gansta who was casing the 'hood who should have known better than to be wearing his jacket the wrong way.

----------


## Ender

> i dont think we will be reading anything from the zimmerman defenders. the surveillance video really stopped that "I AM GEORGE ZIMMERMAN" movement their tracks.


Wrong.

All Zimmerman supporters are using it to say that there is a bump on the back of his head. Looks like a cowlick to me- but hey- what do I know?

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> I think I took his response differently. That if Trayvon had been white, the police and/or prosecutor would have handled the case differently because then he would have been just a kid with skittles trying to keep warm in a jacket rather then a wannabe gansta who was casing the 'hood who should have known better than to be wearing his jacket the wrong way.


Ah, I see.

----------


## moo

> Wrong.
> 
> All Zimmerman supporters are using it to say that there is a bump on the back of his head. Looks like a cowlick to me- but hey- what do I know?


well they need to ask which one of his cop buddies inflicted those wounds on zimmerman because trayvon's hands didn't show any signs of being in a fight.

----------


## Danke

Not a scratch...

----------


## cajuncocoa

> i dont think we will be reading anything from the zimmerman defenders. the surveillance video really stopped that "I AM GEORGE ZIMMERMAN" movement their tracks.


Yep, looks like it did.

----------


## AuH20

> Not a scratch...


That looks like a gash. Secondly, why would all the witnesses lie? The witnesses are all closet white supremacists? ROFL The Trayvon cultists are far out there saying there was no struggle.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> That looks like a gash.


Photoshop?

----------


## Danke

> Photoshop?


Obviously...

----------


## cajuncocoa

I'm now wondering if the people on this board would have preferred the police to have beaten the living $#@! out of George Zimmerman and thrown his ass in Gitmo.  Who needs a trial?

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> Not a scratch...


Since when do wounds heal so quickly? Looks like it already has a scab. If that is a fresh wound it also looks incredibly perfect to have been made by slamming his head against the ground. Also that doesn't prove why his shirt is so clean, why his back isn't wet, and why his nose isn't broken.

----------


## AuH20

So I just heard that Martin's body laid in the county morgue for 3 days without any identification or possession by the parents? What the hell was wrong with his parents?

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> So I just heard that Martin's body laid in the county morgue for 3 days without any identification or possession by the parents? What the hell was wrong with his parents?


You obviously didn't hear correctly then: 

The morning after the incident, Tracy Martin called missing persons and the police to report his son as missing. Officers were dispatched to the home, where they showed the father a crime scene photograph of Martin for identification purposes. Martin's body had been taken to the medical examiner's office as a John Doe and unidentified for 24 hours.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Obviously...


Just trying to help the "guilty before proven innocent" movement.

----------


## jmdrake

> Not a scratch...


Ummmm...from the above caption:

*The Daily Caller enhanced the lower image to show additional detail*

So the D.C. *admits* they "enhanced" the photo and yet that's being taken as "evidence"?  And where's the bruises?  Where's the evidence of the broken nose?

Why don't you watch the entire video instead of one "enhanced" frame?

http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/...rtin-shot.html

Oh yeah, and I thought the police never arrested Zimmerman because they were *soooooo* sure there was no probable cause?  Yet here's video of him being arrested?

And why does the police report not include Zimmerman's weight?

Edit: Just looked at the video again myself.  There is *no gash*.

----------


## moo

> That looks like a gash. Secondly, why would all the witnesses lie? The witnesses are all closet white supremacists? ROFL The Trayvon cultists are far out there saying there was no struggle.


http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/03...trayvons-hands
there were no injuries on trayvon's hands so like i said before, which one of his cop friends gave zimmerman those injuries.

----------


## Danke

> Why don't you watch the entire video instead of one "enhanced" frame?


I did, why do you think I didn't?

And I saw in that video the cop examine the wound on the back of his head.

----------


## palm

GET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER ITGET OVER IT\


WE HAVE AN ELECTION TO WIN! THIS IS THERE WEAPON!


PHONE FROM HOME!

----------


## jmdrake

> That looks like a gash. Secondly, why would all the witnesses lie? The witnesses are all closet white supremacists? ROFL The Trayvon cultists are far out there saying there was no struggle.


^That was a fake picture.  This is taken from the actually police video.



Don't take my word for it.  Watch the video yourself.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/n...,5032520.story

And quit pretending that all of the witnesses back up Zimmerman.  Mary Cutcher (also white) does not.

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=mary+cutche...on+martin#seen

----------


## Kade

> Incorrect. Whenever a white person is robbed, beaten, shot, stabbed, or murdered by a black person you can be sure to find it on the DrudgeReport, FoxNews, CNN, etc. (a kid who was set on fire by a black kid and it was on Drudge for days, whenever there was a flash mob in Philadelphia, whenever an old white man gets robbed by a young black male, etc.)
> 
> Seriously go to www.drudgereport.com right now and tell me how many of the articles are favorable towards Zimmerman.
> 
> This one is extremely telling (they link to this video on Drudge and the video only has 2,000 views, so it isn't even popular) 
> 
> There are white people just like there are black people who want to make all of this out to be an us against them scenario and do so by showing the NBPP on TV saying that "crackers" need to die, doing 18 stories on Spike Lee re-tweeting an address, etc. 
> 
> Edit: I read your post the wrong way but I stand by my statement that the media wants us to be against each other instead of getting along.


No, it is not incorrect my gentle brained friend. Citing the fact that there is oversight in any interracial crime is negligent to the simple fact that in most of the cases you can mention, the person is sought for a crime. As Moostraks says below you:




> I think I took his response differently. That if Trayvon had been white, the police and/or prosecutor would have handled the case differently because then he would have been just a kid with skittles trying to keep warm in a jacket rather then a wannabe gansta who was casing the 'hood who should have known better than to be wearing his jacket the wrong way.


This is correct. If a white person is robbed, mugged, etc from a black person, authorities generally attempt to prosecute the offending criminal. If the role was reversed, Zimmerman may not be a free man right now. I don't understand why you would disagree with this... but I can understand the need for a burden of proof...

I don't think I ever recall a case of a black man killing a white teenager and being able to claim self defense to completely avoid prosecution. I may be wrong, but I would like to see the evidence of it.

----------


## jmdrake

> I did, why do you think I didn't?
> 
> And I saw in that video the cop examine the wound on the back of his head.


Fine.  Then do me a favor, watch it again and tell me where you see the supposed wound that isn't there on the picture I posted.  Cause I just watched it again *and it ain't there*.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

I think most of the people who are sticking up for Zimmerman are only doing so because he is the one who had the gun and if he gets convicted then they think this case can be used to take away all of our gun rights. Some here have expressed concern that "Stand Your Ground" laws will be repealed and similar things like that.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I think most of the people who are sticking up for Zimmerman are only doing so because he is the one who had the gun and if he gets convicted then they can use this case to somehow take away all of our gun rights.


Speaking only for myself, I'm not "sticking up for Zimmerman", I'm sticking up for justice.  If they find evidence and probable cause, arrest his ass and let a jury sort it out.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> No, it is not incorrect my *gentle brained friend*. Citing the fact that there is oversight in any interracial crime is negligent to the simple fact that in most of the cases you can mention, the person is sought for a crime. As Moostraks says below you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is correct. If a white person is robbed, mugged, etc from a black person, authorities generally attempt to prosecute the offending criminal. If the role was reversed, Zimmerman may not be a free man right now. I don't understand why you would disagree with this... but I can understand the need for a burden of proof...
> 
> I don't think I ever recall a case of a black man killing a white teenager and being able to claim self defense to completely avoid prosecution. I may be wrong, but I would like to see the evidence of it.


Gee, thanks for the insult. If you had taken the time to read what I wrote at the end after I read Moostraks post in reply to mine: 

Edit: I read your post the wrong way but I stand by my statement that the media wants us to be against each other instead of getting along.

----------


## jmdrake

> Speaking only for myself, I'm not "sticking up for Zimmerman", I'm sticking up for justice.  If they find evidence and probable cause, arrest his ass and let a jury sort it out.


Except they did arrest him.  And the lead investigator wanted to charge him.  And then someone found out his daddy was a retired judge......

----------


## Danke

> Fine.  Then do me a favor, watch it again and tell me where you see the supposed wound that isn't there on the picture I posted.  Cause I just watched it again *and it ain't there*.


Well, I saw it many times in the video.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> And quit pretending that all of the witnesses back up Zimmerman.  Mary Cutcher (also white) does not.
> 
> http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=mary+cutche...on+martin#seen


She was not an eyewitness, and nothing about her account contradicts Zimmerman's story.  Except that is, her claim that the voice she heard screaming was "younger", which is just bizarre.  First, how does one discern the difference between a 17 year olds scream and a 28 year olds scream?  Second, how did she even know one of the people involved was younger than the other?   Third, why do the police say this weird account isn't the story she told them at the time they interviewed her.  I think the best explanation for her comments are that she was manipulated by the media coverage and decided to change her story.  The "younger voice" story was born out of the grade school photo the media plastered on TV screens which caused her to assume Martin was a young, possibly prepubescent teen.  But that is besides the point.  Concocted or not, she adds nothing to the narrative.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> She was not an eyewitness, and nothing about her account contradicts Zimmerman's story.  Except that is, her claim that the voice she heard screaming was "younger", which is just bizarre.  First, how does one discern the difference between a 17 year olds scream and a 28 year olds scream?  Second, how did she even know one of the people involved was younger than the other?   Third, why do the police say this weird account isn't the story she told them at the time they interviewed her.  I think the best explanation for her comments are that she was manipulated by the media coverage and decided to change her story.  The "younger voice" story was born out of the grade school photo the media plastered on TV screens which caused her to assume Martin was a young, possibly prepubescent teen.  But that is besides the point.  Concocted or not, she adds nothing to the narrative.


Yeah....

Her hearing screams is a media fabrication brought on by the photo of a young boy.  Why can't you just accept that those were the only photos they could get at the time? There is no conspiracy.

----------


## moo



----------


## cajuncocoa

> Except they did arrest him.  And the lead investigator wanted to charge him.  And then someone found out his daddy was a retired judge......


Thought he was only detained, not arrested.

----------


## coastie

> Thought he was only detained, not arrested.


Detaining usually doesn't involve a trip to the police station in handcuffs.

It is common to detain someone-_at the scene_-in handcuffs. Not so much to take the whole ride, that's an arrest.

----------


## jmdrake

> She was not an eyewitness, and nothing about her account contradicts Zimmerman's story.


Yes she was.  She wasn't an eyewitness to the entire event *but nobody was*.  She witnessed the immediate aftermath.  And she was an "earwitness" of what she heard.  




> Except that is, her claim that the voice she heard screaming was "younger", which is just bizarre.  First, how does one discern the difference between a 17 year olds scream and a 28 year olds scream?  Second, how did she even know one of the people involved was younger than the other?   Third, why do the police say this weird account isn't the story she told them at the time they interviewed her.  I think the best explanation for her comments are that she was manipulated by the media coverage and decided to change her story.  The "younger voice" story was born out of the grade school photo the media plastered on TV screens which caused her to assume Martin was a young, possibly prepubescent teen.  But that is besides the point.  Concocted or not, she adds nothing to the narrative.


That's *your* explanation.  Let it go to a jury and find out.  Or even a grand jury.  (Glad that it's gotten that far now at least).  And how do you explain away the fact that the lead investigator wanted Zimmerman charged?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-mar...ry?id=16011674

Come on and admit it.  Your rush to judgement of Trayvon is just as bad as Al Sharpton's rush to judgment of Zimmerman.  The most likely explanation now of why Zimmerman was not charged, despite conflicting testimony and despite the fact that the lead investigator wanted to charge him, is because Zimmerman's dad was a retired judge.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-22/j...?_s=PM:JUSTICE

That's also the best explanation as to why Zimmerman's earlier charge of assaulting a police officer was expunged.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/n...,1508238.story

There's probable cause to charge Zimmerman.  Period.  The lead investigator's advice should have been followed.  If in the course of the trial the state isn't able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt then Zimmerman should be set free.  But short circuiting the justice system is just as bad as a rush to judgment.

----------


## jmdrake

> Thought he was only detained, not arrested.





> Detaining usually doesn't involve a trip to the police station in handcuffs.
> 
> It is common to detain someone-_at the scene_-in handcuffs. Not so much to take the whole ride, that's an arrest.


^This.  Zimmerman was initially arrested, the lead investigator wanted him charged, somebody overruled him, and things went downhill from there.  The fact that there was an earlier statement that police declined to arrest Zimmerman because they "saw how bloody he was" has been debunked by this video.  Zimmerman wasn't bloody and he was arrested.  The "gash" that Daily Caller "enhanced" looks like a shadow and can only be "seen" for a fleeting second on the video.  If you watch the entire video it is clear that there is no gash.  Zimmerman lied.  And the police force went along with it.

----------


## AlexanderY

You guys are still discussing this?

Again, try *reading* the article.

Let's all read it together.




> The initial police report noted that Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of the head and nose, and *after medical attention* it was decided that he was in good enough condition to travel in a police cruiser to the Sanford, Fla., police station for questioning.


If he received medical treatment at the scene, given the quality of the video, you're probably not going to see any scar or scab in detail.

It's pretty obvious why there isn't any blood on his face.

Instead of just constantly rushing to judgment and resorting to emotional pleas, let the justice system handle it.

----------


## moo

> You guys are still discussing this?
> 
> Again, try *reading* the article.
> 
> Let's all read it together.
> 
> 
> 
> If received medical treatment at the scene, given the quality of the video, you're probably not going to see any scar or scab in detail.
> ...


aren't you the same guy who participated in the smear campaign of a dead teenager?

----------


## jmdrake

> Well, I saw it many times in the video.


You saw *what*?  A shadow that appears on his head for 1 second?  Because that's all I saw.  No gash.

----------


## coastie

> You guys are still discussing this?
> 
> Again, try *reading* the article.
> 
> Let's all read it together.
> 
> 
> 
> If he received medical treatment at the scene, given the quality of the video, you're probably not going to see any scar or scab in detail.
> ...


Yes, because not only do EMT's treat injuries nowadays, they also clean you all up nice and pretty.

----------


## AuH20

> You saw *what*?  A shadow that appears on his head for 1 second?  Because that's all I saw.  No gash.


This will be resolved in the trial. If there were injuries like the police and witnesses attest, they were photographed with great detail.

----------


## jmdrake

> You guys are still discussing this?
> 
> Again, try *reading* the article.
> 
> Let's all read it together.
> 
> 
> 
> If he received medical treatment at the scene, given the quality of the video, you're probably not going to see any scar or scab in detail.
> ...


And the reason there is no bruising on the face is.....?

And the reason the lead investigator's decision to charge Zimmerman was overruled is....?

It's funny how the same folks who want everybody to know what Travyon Martin tweeted about what he ate for breakfast all of a sudden just want to let the justice system handle it when the facts being discussed are actually about the case.

----------


## jmdrake

> This will be resolved in the trial. If there were injuries like the police and witnesses attest, they were photographed with great detail.


Yep. And that's why people like RonPaulMall (and maybe Dannno) are wrong when they say there is no probable cause and no reason for a trial.  I hate to single them out, but that's what's driving these inexhaustible threads.  I care more about the process than I do the eventual verdict.  It seems you do as well.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Detaining usually doesn't involve a trip to the police station in handcuffs.
> 
> It is common to detain someone-_at the scene_-in handcuffs. Not so much to take the whole ride, that's an arrest.


I asked that question last night -- in this thread, I believe -- if it is customary to handcuff someone if they are only brought in for questioning vs. being arrested, and was told it was.

----------


## dannno

> aren't you the same guy who participated in the smear campaign of a dead teenager?


Banned, praise the Gourd!

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes, because not only do EMT's treat injuries nowadays, they also clean you all up nice and pretty.

----------


## dannno

> Yep. And that's why people like RonPaulMall *(and maybe Dannno) are wrong when they say there is no probable cause and no reason for a trial.*  I hate to single them out, but that's what's driving these inexhaustible threads.  I care more about the process than I do the eventual verdict.  It seems you do as well.


I always said there should be a trial where the facts could come out, I just wasn't taking the position that Zimmerman saw a black kid and decided to hunt him down and shoot him. I believe there was an altercation, and to what extent he was not initially attacked by Trayvon, and to what extent Zimmerman may have provoked the incident in question still needed to be determined.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Detaining usually doesn't involve a trip to the police station in handcuffs.
> 
> It is common to detain someone-_at the scene_-in handcuffs. Not so much to take the whole ride, that's an arrest.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...78#post4319278

It was you who answered me, too!

----------


## kylejack

> 


Close, a little further down the path (about 5 houses).

Zimmerman's father is bizarrely claiming that Zimmerman walked all the way to where Twin Trees picks up again, and then turned around.

----------


## cajuncocoa

https://twitter.com/#!/KillZimmerman

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> Detaining usually doesn't involve a trip to the police station in handcuffs.
> 
> It is common to detain someone-_at the scene_-in handcuffs. Not so much to take the whole ride, that's an arrest.


 Actually many agencies policy is you are cuffed if transported in a police car. I was a homicide witness before and was cuffed when taken to the station

----------


## coastie

> Actually many agencies policy is you are cuffed if transported in a police car. I was a homicide witness before and was cuffed when taken to the station



Then you sir, were in fact arrested.

One does not have to be charged with a crime to be arrested.

----------


## dannno

Ugh, I keep hearing "where's the broken nose?" in this thread..

All I remember hearing is that he was punched in the nose and it was bleeding. I gave somebody a bloody nose one time and after it stopped bleeding you couldn't really tell they were hurt if you were more than a few feet away. You can get punched in the face and not have it readily apparent right away, sometimes bruising might show up the next day.

It didn't appear in the police video that he had been in a fight, but better evidence would be if they took actual pictures.

I mean, obviously Zimmerman didn't literally have his head "bashed in", but if he was on the grass he still could have been punched in the face repeatedly and still looked like he did in the police video from the station.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

This case has been the perfect storm for many groups. Not the least is the establishment.

- Establishment Law enforcement: How many thousands of cases exist where the *Police* (of some form) have shot and killed an unarmed person? An unarmed person that never assaulted or battered them in any way, shape or form? *This is not one of those cases.* Conveniently, this is a mundane who has done the shooting, not the Police. As a matter of fact, this case has many people granting new authority to the Police in various ways, and at the same time there is the desire to take rights away from mundanes. Very convenient indeed.

- Establishment Favoritism: George was not law enforcement, but apparently his father was a retired Judge. This is an inconvenient fact that must be downplayed, if not completely buried. The case isn't perfect, but it can be spun. They can not allow this to be about the establishment or related favoritism.

- Diversion and distraction: Nothing better than an emotional race case to distract the masses. This is a benefit to many (who knows what we have been distracted from? We've been distracted!). That includes the current Administration. Best to keep it simple, black and white. But George was not exactly white. Another inconvenient fact. One that was "overlooked" for a quite a while, and is still overlooked by many. Just spin it.

- Charlatans: Nothing like a good tragedy to make some money and celebrity. Calling Al Sharpton.

- Gun grabbers: Once again, the perfection of this particular case is that George was not law enforcement. Perfect, as the gun grabbers want the Police and soldiers to be the only people with guns (with the exception that only the most trusted soldiers can have guns in the physical presence of the elite). This would not be possible with a Police shooting.

- SYG Law: Once again, a great case to repeal laws and take rights away from mundanes. This would not be possible with a Police shooting.

- Presidential Politics: Never waste a tragedy. This will get out the voters and donors for Obama's re-election.

- Racial Profiling: Once again, how convenient for the Police. In one fell swoop, with hardly anyone noticing, the entire concept (and guilt?) of "racial profiling" has been shifted from the government to the mundanes! This would not be possible with a Police shooting.

- Private and semi-private property rights: Apparently it is now some kind of assault to ask someone on your property, or in your gated community, any questions. Can you even say "hello"? Probably not, if the person you say "hello" to takes offense at your obvious insult.

- Thought crime: The dream of the Orwellian's. George was thinking incorrectly before the shooting. It's on the tape. That is a crime in itself! The shooting is just a secondary crime. The first crime is the thought crime.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Double post error...

----------


## kylejack

> Ugh, I keep hearing "where's the broken nose?" in this thread..
> 
> All I remember hearing is that he was punched in the nose and it was bleeding. I gave somebody a bloody nose one time and after it stopped bleeding you couldn't really tell they were hurt if you were more than a few feet away. You can get punched in the face and not have it readily apparent right away, sometimes bruising might show up the next day.
> 
> It didn't appear in the police video that he had been in a fight, but better evidence would be if they took actual pictures.
> 
> I mean, obviously Zimmerman didn't literally have his head "bashed in", but if he was on the grass he still could have been punched in the face repeatedly and still looked like he did in the police video from the station.


There seems to be no blood at all on the front of his light-colored T-shirt.

----------


## jmdrake

> Ugh, I keep hearing "where's the broken nose?" in this thread..
> 
> All I remember hearing is that he was punched in the nose and it was bleeding. I gave somebody a bloody nose one time and after it stopped bleeding you couldn't really tell they were hurt if you were more than a few feet away. You can get punched in the face and not have it readily apparent right away, sometimes bruising might show up the next day.
> 
> It didn't appear in the police video that he had been in a fight, but better evidence would be if they took actual pictures.
> 
> I mean, obviously Zimmerman didn't literally have his head "bashed in", but if he was on the grass he still could have been punched in the face repeatedly and still looked like he did in the police video from the station.


Dannno, the original story for why Zimmerman wasn't charged was that he was so bloodied up that the police believed his story that he was in fear of his life.  Now we see no blood and no bruises.  And we find out that the lead investigator *did* want to charge him.  And you don't think that's important?  Yet you think gold capped teeth are?

----------


## Anti Federalist

I'm just going to pop in here briefly to state again what the law is regarding use of deadly force.

This is pretty much the same in all 50 states.

The use of deadly force is only justified legally, to stop an imminent attack that will lead to death or severe bodily injury.

Outside of that, there is no legal justification.

If you follow after somebody that may or may not have committed a crime, and use deadly force, you will not have legal justification.

If you continue or provoke an altercation that leads to the use of deadly force, you will not be justified.

----------


## dannno

> There seems to be no blood at all on the front of his light-colored T-shirt.


Why would you assume there would be a lot of blood? Was Trayvon trained in boxing or any martial arts?  He was very tall, but also very skinny.

----------


## specsaregood

> There seems to be no blood at all on the front of his light-colored T-shirt.


Yeah, I would expect to see blood on his shirt if he shot somebody at such close proximity that he was getting beat-up.
Or even blood if he tried to render first aid immediately afterwards.

----------


## dannno

> I'm just going to pop in here briefly to state again what the law is regarding use of deadly force.
> 
> This is pretty much the same in all 50 states.
> 
> The use of deadly force is only justified legally, to stop an imminent attack that will lead to death or severe bodily injury.
> 
> Outside of that, there is no legal justification.
> 
> If you follow after somebody that may or may not have committed a crime, and use deadly force, you will not have legal justification.
> ...


What if you are patrolling private property, or public, for that matter, and somebody attacks you because you are patrolling?

The reason the cops told Zimmerman not to follow Trayvon was for his own safety, there is nothing illegal about patrolling a neighborhood.

----------


## specsaregood

> What if you are patrolling private property, or public, for that matter, and somebody attacks you because you are patrolling?
> 
> The reason the cops told Zimmerman not to follow Trayvon was for his own safety*, there is nothing illegal about patrolling a neighborhood.*


straw man alert!

Yeah for his own safety because the guy he called about appeared to "be on drugs".  like marijuana.  face it dannno, trayvon could have been you.  somebody doesn't like you smoking a little mj and ends up killing you.

----------


## dannno

> Dannno, the original story for why Zimmerman wasn't charged was that he was so bloodied up that the police believed his story that he was in fear of his life.  Now we see no blood and no bruises.  And we find out that the lead investigator *did* want to charge him.  And you don't think that's important?  Yet you think gold capped teeth are?



All of this needs to be investigated, but maybe there is some evidence that shows his injuries better. Maybe they let him clean up and change his clothes before they took him in, but after taking some photographs. 

The only reason gold capped teeth are important is because it shows that Zimmerman was following him because he looked menacing in general, not just because he was black. I think it is unfair for the media to portray him as he looked several years ago. It also is unfair because they portray him as someone who is too small to attack Zimmerman when he is 6'3".

I think my main point in all of this is that there's a good chance (although I could be wrong) that Trayvon could have easily stopped the confrontation from occurring if he just went home instead of trying to start an altercation with the neighborhood watch thug... or if he had simply gone up to Zimmerman and told him that he lived there and to stop following him..

I think both of them wanted a confrontation and they both got it.

That doesn't take all of the responsibility off Zimmerman, but it could take it from 2nd degree to manslaughter, or even self defense if the evidence leaned that direction.

----------


## specsaregood

> The only reason gold capped teeth are important is because it shows that Zimmerman was following him because he looked menacing in general, not just because he was black.


Was he wearing gold capped teeth the evening he was shot?

----------


## azxd

Ignorance is futile

----------


## dannno

> Was he wearing gold capped teeth the evening he was shot?


Not sure, but I still maintain that anybody who wears them is going for a thuggish look, it's not "just mouth jewelry". There is a way that guys like that walk and act, they stand out. White, black, latino, asian, race is irrelevant. They may not actually be looking for a fight, but they walk and act like they are tough as a way to deter other people from messing with them. 

Since I know it's usually a front I don't let it bother me, myself, but I understand how a neighborhood watch person might be cautious of them.

----------


## cajuncocoa

*KillZimmerman Twitter advocates violence against Martins killer* 




> This image accompanies a "Kill Zimmerman" Twitter account, started on March 24, 2012.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 		 		On March 24 a KillZimmerman Twitter account began publishing  calls for violence against George Zimmerman, the self-appointed  neighborhood watch captain who shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon  Martin on Feb. 26.
> 
> ...



Read more:  http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/ki...#ixzz1qX9AxPBk

Zimmerman is done.  I'd like someone to tell me how he could possibly get a fair trial after all of this.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> What if you are patrolling private property, or public, for that matter, and somebody attacks you because you are patrolling?
> 
> The reason the cops told Zimmerman not to follow Trayvon was for his own safety, there is nothing illegal about patrolling a neighborhood.


Nope, nothing illegal about it all.

If you use deadly force after following somebody you remain unjustified, legally, in using deadly force however.

----------


## kylejack

> Why would you assume there would be a lot of blood? Was Trayvon trained in boxing or any martial arts?  He was very tall, but also very skinny.


Because when you've got a bloody nose from someone punching you in the face (as he claims through his father) you get blood on your shirt. Personal experience.

----------


## azxd

Compliments of Drudge

----------


## dannno

> The initial police report noted that Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of the head and nose, and *after medical attention* it was decided that he was in good enough condition to travel in a police cruiser to the Sanford, Fla., police station for questioning.
> 			
> 		
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/WN/trayvon-mar...7#.T3O3C6sV1Ww
> 
> LRN2Read



Whoa, I missed that from earlier.. 

Ya, it is very possible that after receiving medical attention they let him change his clothes and then took him down to the station, since, apparently he wasn't "under arrest". That would explain his clean clothes.

I still don't know where the "broken nose" comes from that people kept talking about for 3 pages straight.. I never remember hearing anything about that. They just said he punched him in the nose, it was bleeding, and witnesses saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman punching him in the face. Maybe he didn't hit him hard enough to $#@! up his face too much, but he was blasting him so fast that Zimmerman couldn't get him off and got scared so he shot him.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> Ugh, I keep hearing "where's the broken nose?" in this thread..
> 
> All I remember hearing is that he was punched in the nose and it was bleeding. I gave somebody a bloody nose one time and after it stopped bleeding you couldn't really tell they were hurt if you were more than a few feet away. You can get punched in the face and not have it readily apparent right away, sometimes bruising might show up the next day.
> 
> It didn't appear in the police video that he had been in a fight, but better evidence would be if they took actual pictures.
> 
> I mean, obviously Zimmerman didn't literally have his head "bashed in", but if he was on the grass he still could have been punched in the face repeatedly and still looked like he did in the police video from the station.


Wait...he was on the grass? Then what was his head being bashed into?

----------


## dannno

> If you use deadly force after following somebody you remain unjustified, legally, in using deadly force however.


Why? You are saying if you are patrolling private property and you get attacked you can't defend yourself?

According to Zimmerman, he was walking around and Trayvon came up behind him and said, "Do you have a problem?!" Zimmerman said, "No." and Trayvon said, "You do now!" and attacked him.

I'm not saying that is what happened, I have no idea, but it could have been what happened.

----------


## kylejack

> I still don't know where the "broken nose" comes from that people kept talking about for 3 pages straight.. I never remember hearing anything about that. They just said he punched him in the nose, it was bleeding, and witnesses saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman punching him in the face. Maybe he didn't hit him hard enough to $#@! up his face too much, but he was blasting him so fast that Zimmerman couldn't get him off and got scared so he shot him.

----------


## kylejack

> Wait...he was on the grass? Then what was his head being bashed into?


They were on the sidewalk behind the townhomes, half on grass and half on sidewalk.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> All of this needs to be investigated, but maybe there is some evidence that shows his injuries better. Maybe they let him clean up and change his clothes before they took him in, but after taking some photographs. 
> 
> *The only reason gold capped teeth are important is because it shows that Zimmerman was following him because he looked menacing in general*, not just because he was black. I think it is unfair for the media to portray him as he looked several years ago. It also is unfair because they portray him as someone who is too small to attack Zimmerman when he is 6'3".
> 
> I think my main point in all of this is that there's a good chance (although I could be wrong) that Trayvon could have easily stopped the confrontation from occurring if he just went home instead of trying to start an altercation with the neighborhood watch thug... or if he had simply gone up to Zimmerman and told him that he lived there and to stop following him..
> 
> I think both of them wanted a confrontation and they both got it.
> 
> That doesn't take all of the responsibility off Zimmerman, but it could take it from 2nd degree to manslaughter, or even self defense if the evidence leaned that direction.


Ughhh 

He was not wearing them at the time of the murder, they fit over your teeth, he wore them in one picture. Stop acting like he was wearing them at that moment and that was reason for him to be suspicious. 

The kid walking home from the store during a break in an NBA game (which I'm sure he was going back home to watch) took his time to start a confrontation with an armed man he didn't know? 

Also, his lawyer is the one who said his nose was broken. 

Edit:  Here is a photo of what a grill is. The man in the photo is R&B (if you want to call it that) artist Nelly. They pop right off

----------


## dannno

> Wait...he was on the grass? Then what was his head being bashed into?


The ground, I suppose, but it would explain why the scrapes/bruises on the back of the head were not as apparent in the grainy police video.

----------


## azxd

Where is Ron Paul speaking today, and has he made a statement about this incident ?

----------


## dannno

> Ughhh 
> 
> He was not wearing them at the time of the murder, they fit over your teeth, he wore them in one picture. Stop acting like he was wearing them at that moment and that was reason for him to be suspicious.


He could have worn them a lot, but not necessarily that night. Were they his or did they belong to a friend? If they were his, I imagine he wore them a lot more than once. My point was later on in that post about the thug mentality and how it shows through even when they are just walking and in how they interact.

Wearing the gold teeth in the past is merely evidence of that mentality. There is nothing illegal about acting like that, but if you are walking around in a gated neighborhood you are probably going to attract some attention. 





> Also, his lawyer is the one who said his nose was broken.


Is there evidence that it wasn't broken? If you receive medical attention for a broken nose, is it apparent in a grainy video a few hours afterward?

----------


## dannno

> Where is Ron Paul speaking today, and has he made a statement about this incident ?


I still haven't gotten to watch it yet..

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...artin-Shooting

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> He could have worn them a lot, but not necessarily that night. Were they his or did they belong to a friend? If they were his, I imagine he wore them a lot more than once. My point was later on in that post about the thug mentality and how it shows through even when they are just walking and in how they interact.
> 
> Wearing the gold teeth in the past is merely evidence of that mentality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there evidence that it wasn't broken? If you receive medical attention for a broken nose, is it apparent in a grainy video a few hours afterward?


I have white friends who bought those stupid things when they were popular and wore them. Nobody thought anyone wearing those were thugs (black or white) and made fun of them and even if he was wearing them it doesn't mean he was trying to be a thug. This kid looks so thuggish in that picture of him on a horse and this one holding a baby: 



Zimmerman should have done what was asked of him: nothing.

----------


## dannno

> I have white friends who bought those stupid things when they were popular and wore them. Nobody thought anyone wearing those were thugs (black or white) and made fun of them.


That's because you knew their pussy asses before they put them in so it was funny..

----------


## azxd

> I still haven't gotten to watch it yet..
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...artin-Shooting


Thanks Dannno

People should heed his words, IMO.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Where is Ron Paul speaking today, and has he made a statement about this incident ?


Yes. He said he doesn't have the facts and that they are changing daily. It's up to a Jury to hear the evidence and come up with a verdict, and he's not on the jury.

----------


## Stupified

> This guys sign is pretty good:



Does the flag symbolize blind patriotism?

If so, that man is my hero.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Why? You are saying if you are patrolling private property and you get attacked you can't defend yourself?
> 
> According to Zimmerman, he was walking around and Trayvon came up behind him and said, "Do you have a problem?!" Zimmerman said, "No." and Trayvon said, "You do now!" and attacked him.
> 
> I'm not saying that is what happened, I have no idea, but it could have been what happened.


The use of deadly force is only justified, legally, to stop an unprovoked, unwarranted and unforeseen attack that will result in death or severe bodily harm to you or another person.

*If there is any question whatsoever about that*, you risk losing legal justification and could be jailed or sued.

If you follow around after somebody and it leads to a fight, you do not have legal justification for the use of deadly force.

You can save your life, of course, and do what you need to do, if it comes down to it, but you won't walk away from prosecution.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> The use of deadly force is only justified, legally, to stop an unprovoked, unwarranted and unforeseen attack that will result in death or severe bodily harm to you or another person.
> 
> *If there is any question whatsoever about that*, you risk losing legal justification and could be jailed or sued.
> 
> If you follow around after somebody and it leads to a fight, you do not have legal justification for the use of deadly force.
> 
> You can save your life, of course, and do what need to do, if it comes down to it, but you won't walk away from prosecution.


Unless the victim is Black and your father was a high up judge.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

Thread should end with what AF said. 132 pages is enough

----------


## jmdrake

> All of this needs to be investigated, but maybe there is some evidence that shows his injuries better. Maybe they let him clean up and change his clothes before they took him in, but after taking some photographs.


Cleaning up and changing close doesn't erase bruises. 




> The only reason gold capped teeth are important is because it shows that Zimmerman was following him because he looked menacing in general, not just because he was black. I think it is unfair for the media to portray him as he looked several years ago. It also is unfair because they portray him as someone who is too small to attack Zimmerman when he is 6'3".


Except that it would have been impossible to see gold teeth from a distance in the dark.  Zimmerman said that Trayvon looked like he was on drugs, not that he looked like he had gold teeth.  I know you do not want to go there because you are pro drugs, but it's the truth.  And it's a sad reflection on you.  You are fine with stereotyping gold teeth because you don't where gold teeth.  Sorry to get personal, but it's starting to tick me off that you of all people are ready to judge someone based on something as trivial as gold teeth.  Yeah some people who wear gold teeth are thugs.  And some people who smoke pot are thugs.  And some folks who have cats on their head may be thugs too.  Oh, and according to the police report Trayvon was only 6'0" and Zimmerman was 5'9".  Also the video shows a rather buff (as opposed to fat) Zimmerman.  From what I've seen now if I had to put my money on a fight between Zimmerman and Trayvon just based on physical appearance I would definitely put it on Zimmerman.  And lastly, there's been no report of Zimmerman going to the hospital.  If his head was bashed on the sidewalk so bad that he had a gash (a gash that couldn't be seen until it was "enhanced" by Daily Caller) then he would have needed to go to the emergency room to check for a possible concussion and/or get stitches.  There's been no evidence of any of that.




> I think my main point in all of this is that there's a good chance (although I could be wrong) that Trayvon could have easily stopped the confrontation from occurring if he just went home instead of trying to start an altercation with the neighborhood watch thug... or if he had simply gone up to Zimmerman and told him that he lived there and to stop following him..


If Trayvon thought Zimmerman was the criminal and up to no good maybe he didn't want Zimmerman to know where he lived.




> I think both of them wanted a confrontation and they both got it.
> 
> That doesn't take all of the responsibility off Zimmerman, but it could take it from 2nd degree to manslaughter, or even self defense if the evidence leaned that direction.


If the shot occurred when Travyon was under Zimmerman and not the other way around then it's back up to 1st degree murder regardless of who/what initiated the conflict.  That's why Mary Cutcher's testimony is important.  It's not conclusive in itself, but it does raise questions as does Zimmerman's appearance the the current lack of an emergency room report for him.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Unless the victim is Black and your father was a high up judge.


The more I think about this, the more I think it was his father's police connections that were the determining factor here.

I am thinking he could have shot a white person and "skated" as well.

As if we don't have enough problems with "real" cops gunning people down indiscriminately, now we have to worry about "pseudo" and self appointed cops doing the same thing.

See Something Shoot Something.

----------


## Stupified

> The more I think about this, the more I think it was his father's police connections that were the determining factor here.
> 
> I thinking he could have shot a white person and "skated" as well.
> 
> As if we don't have enough problems with "real" cops gunning people down indiscriminately, now we have to worry about "pseudo" and self appointed cops doing the same thing.
> 
> See Something Shoot Something.



Put a sticker on the back of your vehicle that says "I support the Highway Patrol (or your local PD)" and you're instantly exempt from traffic tickets. Put one of those stickers on your guns and what happens??

----------


## jmdrake

> The more I think about this, the more I think it was his father's police connections that were the determining factor here.
> 
> I thinking he could have shot a white person and "skated" as well.
> 
> As if we don't have enough problems with "real" cops gunning people down indiscriminately, now we have to worry about "pseudo" and self appointed cops doing the same thing.
> 
> See Something Shoot Something.


+rep.  George Zimmerman previously hit a cop and got away with it.  Mundanes get charged with assault for making faces at a police dog.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> +rep.  George Zimmerman previously hit a cop and got away with it.  Mundanes get charged with assault for making faces at a police dog.


Charged and *convicted*.

----------


## Anti Federalist

And don't you dare point your finger.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...inting-at-cops.

----------


## AuH20

> The more I think about this, the more I think it was his father's police connections that were the determining factor here.
> 
> I am thinking he could have shot a white person and "skated" as well.
> 
> As if we don't have enough problems with "real" cops gunning people down indiscriminately, now we have to worry about "pseudo" and self appointed cops doing the same thing.
> 
> See Something Shoot Something.


But there are witnesses. There is only so much manipulation that you can pull off from the police department's perspective, especially with the specter of the internal affairs as well as social advocacy groups keeping a close eye on such obfuscation. 

That's why I'm led to believe that there was an altercation of some sort. That obviously doesn't excuse Zimmerman from a potential manslaughter charge but it certainly erases the sensationalistic meme that he "hunted down" an "innocent black youth" with the intention of ending his life, largely because he was African-American. That type of illogical tripe simply doesn't fly unless Zimmerman is proved to be a closet sociopath with a casuality list as long as my arm.

----------


## kahless

> +rep.  George Zimmerman previously hit a cop and got away with it.  Mundanes get charged with assault for making faces at a police dog.


No end to exaggerating the facts or the unknown of the case.  From what I read, when he was 20 he was in a bar and interfered with the police questioning a friend and pushed the cop.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> No end to exaggerating the facts or the unknown of the case.  From what I read, when he was 20 he was in a bar and interfered with the police questioning a friend and pushed the cop.


One news station at one point used the term "police agent" to describe the person that George got in a tussle with. You have to wonder if it was a bureaucrat rather than an actual Police Officer.

Here's another article on it:




> In 2005, Zimmerman was arrested for an assault on an officer and resisting arrest after an incident in a local bar. Zimmerman explained that the case was born out of mistaken identity.
> 
> "I was in an altercation with an undercover officer that was taking part in a ATF sting for underage drinking," Zimmerman wrote in the application obtained by CNN. "He never told me he was an officer and assaulted me first ."
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/23/justic...man/index.html

----------


## awake

The 'never let a crisis go to waste crowd' has moved in on this story - sadly. With every Tom, Dick and Harry spouting the culprit, I'm surprised that Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin isn't somehow irrefutable evidence of global warming. I'm sure the angle is being worked on though.

I am thinking the truth won't be known for many years. The raging sea of opinions needs to calm so that the truth can be heard.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I am thinking the truth won't be known for many years.


Fixed that for you.

----------


## BamaAla

> Ugh, I keep hearing "where's the broken nose?" in this thread..
> 
> All I remember hearing is that he was punched in the nose and it was bleeding. I gave somebody a bloody nose one time and after it stopped bleeding you couldn't really tell they were hurt if you were more than a few feet away. You can get punched in the face and not have it readily apparent right away, sometimes bruising might show up the next day.
> 
> It didn't appear in the police video that he had been in a fight, but better evidence would be if they took actual pictures.
> 
> I mean, obviously Zimmerman didn't literally have his head "bashed in", but if he was on the grass he still could have been punched in the face repeatedly and still looked like he did in the police video from the station.




I watched a Pacers game the other night and Tyler Hansbrough got hacked going in for a layup. He lay on the floor for a few minutes then got up with no blood in sight...he has a broken nose. Our resident doctors may want to rethink their claims that every time a nose is broken it is supposed to look like a fricking bull fight.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> "I was in an altercation with an undercover officer that was taking part in a ATF sting for underage drinking," Zimmerman wrote in the application obtained by CNN. "He never told me he was an officer and assaulted me first ."


On second thought, the undercover agent on an underage sting would be someone under 21 (would they really be a full-fledged Officer?). Perhaps this is where George started disliking people younger than himself...

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I watched a Pacers game the other night and Tyler Hansbrough got hacked going in for a layup. He lay on the floor for a few minutes then got up with no blood in sight...he has a broken nose. Our resident doctors may want to rethink their claims that every time a nose is broken it is supposed to look like a fricking bull fight.


It's not just our resident Doctors, it's pundits on TV saying the same thing.

I have avoided saying it, but yeah, a lot of blood is not necessary with a broken nose. Especially for people who have past experience taking blows to the nose.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> That's why I'm led to believe that there was an altercation of some sort.


No doubt.

All I am saying, and all I will continue to say on the subject, is that, "Fellow CCW holders be warned: if you use deadly force be prepared to justify it legally and know that there is an *extremely* limited legal window in which you can claim justifiable self defense with deadly force and that, based on what I have seen so far, GZ did not have legal justification."

----------


## kahless

> No doubt.
> 
> All I am saying, and all I will continue to say on the subject, is that, "Fellow CCW holders be warned: if you use deadly force be prepared to justify it legally and know that there is an *extremely* limited legal window in which you can claim justifiable self defense with deadly force and that, based on what I have seen so far, GZ did not have legal justification."


The 911 operators said "we do not need you to do that", which is not the same as "do not do that".  So lets say he tried to find where the kid went, the kid comes up, attacks him and he fears for his life.  Why would he be guilty for defending his life in that scenario?

----------


## dannno

> The 911 operators said "we do not need you to do that", which is not the same as "do not do that".  So lets say he tried to find where the kid went, the kid comes up, attacks him and he fears for his life.  Why would he be guilty for defending his life in that scenario?


Ya, I mean, I completely understand where AF is coming from with the legal advice...as we have seen in many of his threads anybody who uses a gun, even in completely 100% legitimate self-defense circumstances is taking a really big risk...

I just don't see how somebody patrolling private property is necessarily looking for a 'fight' when they are really just trying to prevent robberies from occurring.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> The 911 operators said "we do not need you to do that", which is not the same as "do not do that".  So lets say *he tried to find where the kid went*, the kid comes up, attacks him and he fears for his life.  Why would he be guilty for defending his life in that scenario?


He's not a cop, and has no legal authority to be finding out where anybody went, outside his own home of course.

He continued contact, after being advised not to, which resulted in an altercation that would never have taken place otherwise.

And again, he's not guilty of "defending his life".

What has happened is he lost the *legal* authority to claim justifiable use of deadly force.

Follow his lead, and you will be placed in extreme jeopardy of being charged *and* convicted with felony manslaughter, or worse.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> I watched a Pacers game the other night and Tyler Hansbrough got hacked going in for a layup. He lay on the floor for a few minutes then got up with no blood in sight...he has a broken nose. Our resident doctors may want to rethink their claims that every time a nose is broken it is supposed to look like a fricking bull fight.


If the cartilage broke then there will be blood.

----------


## BamaAla

> *He's not a cop, and has no legal authority to be finding out where anybody went, outside his own home of course.*
> 
> He continued contact, after being advised not to, which resulted in an altercation that would never have taken place otherwise.
> 
> And again, he's not guilty of "defending his life".
> 
> What has happened is he lost the *legal* authority to claim justifiable use of deadly force.
> 
> Follow his lead, and you will be placed in extreme jeopardy of being charged *and* convicted with felony manslaughter, or worse.


We don't know that yet. If you're right, he is probably in trouble. However, as I said back on like page 3 of the original thread, Florida like most other states extends arrest powers to people that reasonably believe that they have witnessed a felony or certain misdemeanors. Absent all the details, we really don't know what legal grounds he stands on and we have 1000+ posts of conjecture and media/politicians that are doing nothing more than tainting any potential jurors.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> We don't know that yet. If you're right, he is probably in trouble. However, as I said back on like page 3 of the original thread, Florida like most other states extends arrest powers to people that reasonably believe that they have witnessed a felony or certain misdemeanors. Absent all the details, we really don't know what legal grounds he stands on and we have 1000+ posts of conjecture and media/politicians that are doing nothing more than tainting any potential jurors.


He didn't witness a felony or misdemeanor. He says he saw someone who "appeared to be on drugs". He should've just gone home and let the police deal with it and he wouldn't be caught up in all of this.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Ya, I mean, I completely understand where AF is coming from with the legal advice...as we have seen in many of his threads anybody who uses a gun, even in completely 100% legitimate self-defense circumstances is taking a really big risk...
> 
> I just don't see how somebody patrolling private property is necessarily looking for a 'fight' when they are really just trying to prevent robberies from occurring.


If GZ was just walking down the street, and happened upon Martin with, I don't know, a bag of stolen swag and a crowbar, and said "What the hell are you doing?" and TM immediately assaulted him in the manner claimed, then there would be a stronger case for GZ.

But, according to everything I've seen, that was not the case here.

GZ and TM both broke contact, GZ continued to pursue contact after TM had left, which then resulted in the fight.

And that means, right or wrong, your claim to legal use of deadly force goes right out the window.

----------


## kahless

> He's not a cop, and has no legal authority to be finding out where anybody went, outside his own home of course.


It was a neighborhood watch in a private community.




> He continued contact, after being advised not to, which resulted in an altercation that would never have taken place otherwise.


"We do not need you to do that", is not the same as "being advised not to".





> And again, he's not guilty of "defending his life".
> 
> What has happened is he lost the *legal* authority to claim justifiable use of deadly force.


So I am skeptical of that since *"if"* his story is correct, he was attacked and you have someone on top of you I do not see why you cannot defend your life at that point.

----------


## Danke

A bouncer in a bar the other night wanted to see my ID, I told him he had no legal authority!  Then I punched him in the nose.  I showed him.

----------


## nobody

So much for innocent until proven guilty.  Where is any of our Justice system?  The rule of law seems to have all but disappeared. We now rule by public opinion.  Or we could say MSM opinion.  When the process fails; LAW breaks down.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> It was a neighborhood watch in a private community.
> 
> 
> 
> *"We do not need you to do that", is not the same as "being advised not to".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I am skeptical of that since *"if"* his story is correct, he was attacked and you have someone on top of you I do not see why you cannot defend your life at that point.


Nitpicking. They clearly didn't want him involved in anything and basically told him to just go home and let the officers handle it.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> He's not a cop, and has no legal authority to be finding out where anybody went, outside his own home of course.
> 
> He continued contact, after being advised not to, which resulted in an altercation that would never have taken place otherwise.
> 
> And again, he's not guilty of "defending his life".
> 
> What has happened is he lost the *legal* authority to claim justifiable use of deadly force.
> 
> Follow his lead, and you will be placed in extreme jeopardy of being charged *and* convicted with felony manslaughter, or worse.


In terms of the law, you don't have the slightest clue of what you are talking about. It isn't against the law to follow someone and then initiate a conversation with them.  But as others have pointed out, authorities often disregard the law when it comes to people exercising their gun rights.  Zimmerman was lucky the police chose to follow the law in his case.  And even then he's still got the President of the United States calling for his lynching.  

Anytime you exercise your 2nd Amendment rights, you will be viewed as an enemy of the state.  Zimmerman's biggest mistake was constantly calling the police in the first place.  You should never talk to the police unless forced to by law, and that goes double for anybody who carries a gun.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> So I am skeptical of that since *"if"* his story is correct, he was attacked and you have someone on top of you I do not see why you cannot defend your life at that point.


You can.

Just don't count on being able to use justifiable deadly force as a defense against prosecution.

If you follow after, provoke, incite or otherwise are responsible for creating a situation where deadly force is used, even if only marginally responsible, you will open yourself up to criminal charges.

Again, this is CCW law 101 and was one the first things taught to me.

----------


## Anti Federalist

How many years have you held a Florida CCW card?






> In terms of the law, you don't have the slightest clue of what you are talking about. It isn't against the law to follow someone and then initiate a conversation with them.  But as others have pointed out, authorities often disregard the law when it comes to people exercising their gun rights.  Zimmerman was lucky the police chose to follow the law in his case.  And even then he's still got the President of the United States calling for his lynching.  
> 
> Anytime you exercise your 2nd Amendment rights, you will be viewed as an enemy of the state.  Zimmerman's biggest mistake was constantly calling the police in the first place.  You should never talk to the police unless forced to by law, and that goes double for anybody who carries a gun.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> In terms of the law, you don't have the slightest clue of what you are talking about. It isn't against the law to follow someone and then initiate a conversation with them.  But as others have pointed out, authorities often disregard the law when it comes to people exercising their gun rights.  Zimmerman was lucky the police chose to follow the law in his case. * And even then he's still got the President of the United States calling for his lynching. * 
> 
> Anytime you exercise your 2nd Amendment rights, you will be viewed as an enemy of the state.  Zimmerman's biggest mistake was constantly calling the police in the first place.  You should never talk to the police unless forced to by law, and that goes double for anybody who carries a gun.


Obama was asked to comment after being criticized for not commenting yet. He made some generic comments about the case and one stupid comment about how if he had a son he would look like TM. He didn't call for anyone's lynching unless you think a trial in a court of law is a lynching.

----------


## jmdrake

> No end to exaggerating the facts or the unknown of the case.  From what I read, when he was 20 he was in a bar and interfered with the police questioning a friend and pushed the cop.


 There's no end to people who don't know the law pretending to be lawyers.  "Pushing" anyone = battery.  He made contact with a cop during a police investigation and under normal circumstances he would have been prosecuted for that.

----------


## jmdrake

> Obama was asked to comment after being criticized for not commenting yet. He made some generic comments about the case and one stupid comment about how if he had a son he would look like TM. He didn't call for anyone's lynching unless you think a trial in a court of law is a lynching.


+rep!  And the pro Zimmerman side accuses others of exaggeration?    OMG!  The president of the U.S. expresses sympathy with the parents of a dead child.  What's this world coming too?

----------


## jmdrake

> In terms of the law, you don't have the slightest clue of what you are talking about. It isn't against the law to follow someone and then initiate a conversation with them.  But as others have pointed out, authorities often disregard the law when it comes to people exercising their gun rights.  Zimmerman was lucky the police chose to follow the law in his case.  And even then he's still got the President of the United States calling for his lynching.  
> 
> Anytime you exercise your 2nd Amendment rights, you will be viewed as an enemy of the state.  Zimmerman's biggest mistake was constantly calling the police in the first place.  You should never talk to the police unless forced to by law, and that goes double for anybody who carries a gun.


Zimmerman's biggest mistake was getting out of the car.  Even if Zimmerman was in his "rights" (and looking at all of the evidence I don't think that's the case) it was still a stupid thing to do.  If we believe Zimmerman's story then the only reason he isn't dead is because Trayvon wasn't packing.  And that would be a good result?  Really, by any reasonable view of the facts Zimmerman's an idiot.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

Lets forget the broken nose, and bashed head for a minute.....

How is it that he shot Trayvon Martin, who was ON TOP of him at close range and blood defied gravity not getting on Zimmerman?

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

//

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> *+rep!*  And the pro Zimmerman side accuses others of exaggeration?    OMG!  The president of the U.S. expresses sympathy with the parents of a dead child.  What's this world coming too?


Think I can get that now? Sam I am neg repped me for the same post.

----------


## dannno

> Lets forget the broken nose, and bashed head for a minute.....
> 
> How is it that he shot Trayvon Martin, who was ON TOP of him at close range and blood defied gravity not getting on Zimmerman?


Because he received medical attention and I believe was allowed to change his clothes after the altercation, before going into the police station.

He probably pushed him off as he was shooting him, so I would imagine any splatter would have occurred no matter who was on top, as long as he got him off right away the blood pouring out of him would have gone onto the ground.

----------


## AuH20

> +rep!  And the pro Zimmerman side accuses others of exaggeration?    OMG!  The president of the U.S. expresses sympathy with the parents of a dead child.  What's this world coming too?


Not just express sympathy. Injects himself into a extremely delicate case by stating that he could be his son. Completely out of line without having a trial conducted. If he wants to talk after the trial, more power to him but this calculated jab was political chicanery.

----------


## Danke

> Not just express sympathy. Injects himself into a extremely delicate case by stating that he could be his son. Completely out of line without having a trial conducted. If he wants to talk after the trial, more power to him but this calculated jab was political chicanery.


This could be his daughter:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highsc...103322121.html

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> This could be his daughter:
> 
> http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highsc...103322121.html


Because his daughters play sports? She wouldn't even need to attack her opponent: a drone would blow them up

----------


## jmdrake

> Not just express sympathy. Injects himself into a extremely delicate case by stating that he could be his son. Completely out of line without having a trial conducted. If he wants to talk after the trial, more power to him but this calculated jab was political chicanery.


Why?  Seriously why?  Let's say for the sake of argument that not only does Zimmerman get off but that somehow he _should_ get off.  And?  It's clear to me that, despite the disgusting smear campaign that wants to make issues over fake gold teeth, Trayvon wasn't a bad kid.  Maybe he lost his temper and punched out someone that he knew was following him and wrongly thought was threatening him.  Does that mean that he deserved to die?  Does that mean that it's a good thing that he died?  That's why I said a few posts down that the stupidest thing Zimmerman did was to get out of the car.  If Zimmerman had been the one dead that wouldn't be a good result either.  There is nothing wrong at all with the president of the United States or anyone else expressing sympathy with parents who lost a child over no explicable reason.  None whatsoever.  Shame on the right for pretending so.

----------


## kahless

Just to be clear I am not taking sides here but I see a disturbing trend from some people posting.

1. Pushing a sacred government agent, whom was undercover, in a bar, because of mistaken identity, while defending a friend of yours, means you have a violent past. 

2. You are not allowed to approach anyone in your neighborhood and question them since that is now considered stalking. You are not allowed to defend your life *"if"* you are attacked in this scenario. 

In other words we must secede our security to government officials since people have no right to police their own neighborhoods.

3.  When a sacred government official (911 operator) says "We don’t need you to do that." we should interpret it as an "do not do that" or do not get out of your car". 

If you speak to a person after that, and *"if"* they attack you and you try to defend your life, you are guilty.

In other words we must surrender all authority for our protection and that of our neighbors to government even when our masters do not explicitly instruct us otherwise.

----------


## jmdrake

> Because he received medical attention and I believe was allowed to change his clothes after the altercation, before going into the police station.


And the medical report of this medical attention is......?

And was the changed shirt collected by the police as evidence.....?

Lots of speculation in your statement.




> He probably pushed him off as he was shooting him, so I would imagine any splatter would have occurred no matter who was on top, as long as he got him off right away the blood pouring out of him would have gone onto the ground.


If he was standing over Trayvon before shooting him, as Mary Cutcher says he was standing over Trayvon after the shooting, there would be no blood spatter on him at all.  At least not on his shirt.

----------


## Danke

> Because his daughters play sports?


Or his would be son walks around off the sidewalks behind condos in a private community?

----------


## jmdrake

> Just to be clear I am not taking sides here but I see a disturbing trend from some people posting.
> 
> 1. Pushing a sacred government agent, whom was undercover, in a bar, because of mistaken identity, while defending a friend of yours, means you have a violent past.


Right.  Let's ignore the assault and resisting arrest charges that got plead down and instead look at Trayvon's fake gold teeth because everyone with fake gold teeth wears them to look "menacing" and/or because he lost his teeth in a bar fight.  

The "disturbing trend" is that *you* can't see the double standard of Zimmerman, who's dad is a retired state supreme court judge, getting lenient treatment that others do *not* get.

----------


## jmdrake

> Think I can get that now? Sam I am neg repped me for the same post.


There ya go sport.

----------


## AuH20

> Why?  Seriously why?  Let's say for the sake of argument that not only does Zimmerman get off but that somehow he _should_ get off.  And?  It's clear to me that, despite the disgusting smear campaign that wants to make issues over fake gold teeth, Trayvon wasn't a bad kid.  Maybe he lost his temper and punched out someone that he knew was following him and wrongly thought was threatening him.  Does that mean that he deserved to die?  Does that mean that it's a good thing that he died?  That's why I said a few posts down that the stupidest thing Zimmerman did was to get out of the car.  If Zimmerman had been the one dead that wouldn't be a good result either.  There is nothing wrong at all with the president of the United States or anyone else expressing sympathy with parents who lost a child over no explicable reason.  None whatsoever.  Shame on the right for pretending so.


He didn't just say he felt sorry for the loss. He made it personal by making an inappropriate, emotionally charged claim with the power of the presidency behind it. And then he even went as far to say that he's going to explore options to send down his crooked justice department down there. Meanwhile, he altogether  ignored the deaths of the British travelers who were savagely killed in Florida. Not even a private reply to their family, as opposed to his big grandiose press conference in the Rose Garden.

 Secondly, no one is saying Martin should have died. But let's have a trial and get all the cards on the table before we sentence Zimmerman to first degree homicide based largely on manufactured racial hysteria. That's all I ask.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> Just to be clear I am not taking sides here but I see a disturbing trend from some people posting.
> 
> 1. Pushing a sacred government agent, whom was undercover, in a bar, because of mistaken identity, while defending a friend of yours, means you have a violent past. 
> 
> 2. You are not allowed to approach anyone in your neighborhood and question them since that is now considered stalking. You are not allowed to defend your life *"if"* you are attacked in this scenario. 
> 
> In other words we must secede our security to government officials since people have no right to police their own neighborhoods.
> 
> *3.  When a sacred government official (911 operator) says "We dont need you to do that." we should interpret it as an "do not do that" or do not get out of your car".* 
> ...


Yes

----------


## kahless

> Right.  Let's ignore the assault and resisting arrest charges that got plead down and instead look at Trayvon's fake gold teeth because everyone with fake gold teeth wears them to look "menacing" and/or because he lost his teeth in a bar fight.  
> 
> The "disturbing trend" is that *you* can't see the double standard of Zimmerman, who's dad is a retired state supreme court judge, getting lenient treatment that others do *not* get.


I did not bring up anything about gold teeth, his Dad, etc which has nothing to do with what I posted.

My point is that in your quest you risk our liberties in the process with that kind of thinking.

----------


## jmdrake

> He didn't just say he felt sorry for the loss. He made it personal by making an inappropriate claim. And then he even went as far to say that he's going to explore options to send down his crooked justice department down there. Meanwhile, he altogether  ignored the deaths of the British immigrants who were savagely killed. Not even a peep, as opposed to his big grandiose press conference in the Rose Garden.


It's not an "inappropriate claim".  Trayvon could have been anyone's son.  I explained that in great detail, but I guess you just weren't paying attention or chose to ignore what I was saying.  I'll say it again.  Even if Trayvon was in the wrong (and based on all the evidence I don't think he was but I can see why others would disagree), then what he did was at most a stupid mistake by a frightened kid.  It's the kind of mistake I could see myself making had I been in his shoes.  It's the kind of mistake I could see my sons making when they get to be his age.  It's dark.  You're in a less than perfect neighborhood.  You have no idea why this guy keeps following you.  You feel threatened.  Do you wait for him to get the jump on you or do you do a preemptive strike?  Tough call.  I've been in the situation where it's late at night and someone wanted to "talk" to me.  I'm sure the person was a drug dealer.  He kept his distance and I was able to get into my house safely.  If he got within striking range would I have waited to see if everything was really cool?  I don't know.  Everyone talks about how "thuggish" Trayvon looked with the grill?  Well Zimmerman looks thuggish to me.  So no.  The comments weren't inappropriate.  Had I been president I would have made them myself.  *You* think they were and that's your *opinion* and you are certainly entitled to it.  As for the British case, I don't defend that.  William Griggs did a great article about other unarmed men, black and white, attacked and or killed by police without justification.  Those cases haven't gotten the media attention they deserve either.




> Secondly, no one is saying Martin should have died. But let's have a trial and get all the cards on the table before we sentence Zimmerman to first degree homicide based largely on manufactured racial hysteria. That's all I ask.


Sure.  Let's have a trial.  But saying "They could have been my son" doesn't negate having a trial.  And some of the people speaking out against the "manufactured racial hysteria" *are creating it*.  I would like to think that anyone, black or white, could look at this tragedy, think "This could have been my son" and think of ways to avoid it.  It sounds like Zimmerman broke every neighborhood watch rule known to man.  And if he was within the rules, those rules should be changed.  Neighborhood watch is supposed to make the community safer.  He made the community decidedly *less* safe with his cowboy antics.  The police are trained to wait for backup.  He should have done as much himself.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> He didn't call for anyone's lynching unless you think a trial in a court of law is a lynching.


A trail in a case for which there is no probable cause that crime was committed?  Yes, that would constitute a lynching.  And a President shouldn't be commenting on an ongoing state criminal investigation.  Disgusting that he would do so, but not surprising.  Just a typical politician race baiting in order to distract people from his own crimes and whip up his base for the upcoming election.

----------


## jmdrake

> I did not bring up anything about gold teeth, his Dad, etc which has nothing to do with what I posted.
> 
> My point is that in your quest you risk our liberties in the process with that kind of thinking.


 The "lets defend Zimmerman no matter what" side is the one risking our liberties.  And "that kind of thinking"?  Are you the freaking thought police now?  I will reitierate what you ignored in your response to me.  

*The "disturbing trend" is that you can't see the double standard of Zimmerman, who's dad is a retired state supreme court judge, getting lenient treatment that others do not get.*

I am *not* suggesting that government agents should be sacred.  Quite the opposite.  *Zimmerman is the son of a government agent*.  And *that's* why he got special treatment.  He should *not* get special treatment.  And yeah, pushing someone in a bar that's asking your friend questions does suggest violence.  That's how fights get started.  Maybe Zimmerman pushed Trayvon?  If so then Zimmerman is the one who initiated the battery.  Regardless, my point is that he got special treatment.

----------


## jmdrake

> A trail in a case for which there is no probable cause that crime was committed?  Yes, that would constitute a lynching.  And a President shouldn't be commenting on an ongoing state criminal investigation.  Disgusting that he would do so, but not surprising.  Just a typical politician race baiting in order to distract people from his own crimes and whip up his base for the upcoming election.


The police investigators disagree with you.  I know that has to be tough for you since you based your argument against probable cause on the "fact" that the police didn't charge him.  They tried to but they were blocked by their superiors.  I'm sure Zimmerman's retired judge dad had nothing to do with that.

----------


## kahless

> The "lets defend Zimmerman no matter what" side is the one risking our liberties.  And "that kind of thinking"?  Are you the freaking thought police now?  I will reitierate what you ignored in your response to me.  
> 
> *The "disturbing trend" is that you can't see the double standard of Zimmerman, who's dad is a retired state supreme court judge, getting lenient treatment that others do not get.*
> 
> I am *not* suggesting that government agents should be sacred.  Quite the opposite.  *Zimmerman is the son of a government agent*.  And *that's* why he got special treatment.  He should *not* get special treatment.  And yeah, pushing someone in a bar that's asking your friend questions does suggest violence.  That's how fights get started.  Maybe Zimmerman pushed Trayvon?  If so then Zimmerman is the one who initiated the battery.  Regardless, my point is that he got special treatment.


I said quite clearly I am not taking sides here. "that kind of thinking" was a poor choice of words on my part.  To be more to the point, to seek justice through the rule of law is one thing but taking it one step further in your quest by promoting the authoritarian values I listed may equate to political action.  

Is that what you really want?

----------


## jmdrake

> I said quite clearly I am not taking sides here. "that kind of thinking" was a poor choice of words on my part.  To be more to the point, to seek justice through the rule of law is one thing but taking it one step further in your quest by promoting the authoritarian values I listed may equate to political action.  
> 
> Is that what you really want?


Okay.  Let me put it another way.  How is pointing out the fact that Zimmerman may have gotten special treatment by being the son of a judge, and that I think if he got such special treatment that is wrong, "promoting authoritarian values"?  And how is pointing out that Zimmerman actual does have evidence of having a temper "promoting authoritarian values"?  If he shoved someone in a bar, and the evidence is that he did, that is a form of violence.  Maybe it's "acceptable violence" to you, but it's still violence and it does raise the question of whether he just passively waited for Trayvon to hit him.

As for "what I want", I would like the "Stand Your Ground" law to survive.  The best way for it to survive is for people not to believe that it leads to the "If you shoot someone and make some strained argument about how you were being beat up and were in fear of your life you'll get away no matter what and their won't even be a trial because you have complete immunity" scenario.  So what do *you* want?

----------


## AlexanderY

> *The "disturbing trend" is that you can't see the double standard of Zimmerman, who's dad is a retired state supreme court judge, getting lenient treatment that others do not get.*


His father was a magistrate for the *Virginia* State Supreme Court. 

What's that got to do with a case in *Florida*?

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> Or his would be son walks around off the sidewalks behind condos in a private community?


I was asking a serious question. Do his daughters play sports? But in response to yours Martin wasn't walking off the sidewalk

----------


## jmdrake

> His father was a magistrate for the *Virginia* State Supreme Court. 
> 
> What's that got to do with a case in *Florida*?


Do you honestly think that his influence ends in Virginia?  Do you think that retired judges don't make and form contacts with the bar in the state the move to?  The fact is that the state's attorney quickly stepped in on this case and overruled local law enforcement's decision to charge Zimmerman.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Just to be clear I am not taking sides here but I see a disturbing trend from some people posting
> 
> 2. You are not allowed to approach anyone in your neighborhood and question them since that is now considered stalking. You are not allowed to defend your life *"if"* you are attacked in this scenario. 
> 
> 3.  When a sacred government official (911 operator) says "We don’t need you to do that." we should interpret it as an "do not do that" or do not get out of your car". 
> 
> If you speak to a person after that, and *"if"* they attack you and you try to defend your life, you are guilty.
> 
> In other words we must surrender all authority for our protection and that of our neighbors to government even when our masters do not explicitly instruct us otherwise.


If 3 preceded 2, then yes.

This is all value neutral to me.

I'm not making a point about whether the law is right or just.

It just is what it is.

If you use deadly force against somebody, your window of justification is *tiny*, if you wish to avoid prosecution.

ETA - Even *after* SYG and CD laws have been passed. The reason those laws were passed is because, even in gun "friendly" states, your window of justification was *infinitesimal*. Under the law prior to that, and it still is the law in many states, you were *required* to run away, before using deadly force. If you did not and could have, you'd be prosecuted.

Like I already stated, I'm thinking that the father's influence is the key factor here.

If it were you or I, we'd be cooling our heels in prison right now.

The Huttaree spent two years in prison for much, much, much less.

----------


## kahless

> Okay.  Let me put it another way.  How is pointing out the fact that Zimmerman may have gotten special treatment by being the son of a judge, and that I think if he got such special treatment that is wrong, "promoting authoritarian values"?


A push in bar by someone who was undercover. Even if he got special treatment, to go from a push to murder is a stretch.

Like I said I am not taking sides here and just pointing out the hypocrisy in those 3 points regardless of the what anyone believes are the facts of the case.

I am not pretending to know if he is guilty or innocent.  I do have some concerns with people promoting restrictions of our liberties in their quest, particularly #2.

Number 3 can depend on the situation.  If you are shooting a fleeing person that is one thing. Trying to keep an eye at a distance to relay that information to authorities and then getting attacked is another.

----------


## dannno

> And the medical report of this medical attention is......?
> 
> And was the changed shirt collected by the police as evidence.....?
> 
> Lots of speculation in your statement.


Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way aroun

The news report said he was treated medically before going into the station, so if he was in fact bloody then it would make sense for them to allow him to change his clothes before going down to the station.





> If he was standing over Trayvon before shooting him, as Mary Cutcher says he was standing over Trayvon after the shooting, there would be no blood spatter on him at all.  At least not on his shirt.


In pulp fiction there was blood spatter, but that was after a headshot and it wasn't real. I guess my main point was that just because Trayvon was on top of him when he shot him doesn't mean he couldn't immediately push him off and get minimal amounts of blood on him, even though he ended up probably changing anyway.

----------


## maskander

People are still talking about this?

Guilty, Put me on a jury, he's guilty as day.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way aroun
> 
> The news report said he was treated medically before going into the station, so if he was in fact bloody then it would make sense for them to allow him to change his clothes before going down to the station.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In pulp fiction there was blood spatter*, but that was after a headshot and it wasn't real. I guess my main point was that just because Trayvon was on top of him when he shot him doesn't mean he couldn't immediately push him off and get minimal amounts of blood on him, even though he ended up probably changing anyway.



"You gotta have an opinion. Do you think God came down from Heaven and intervened or...*gunshot*"

----------


## BamaAla

> Do you honestly think that his influence ends in Virginia?  Do you think that retired judges don't make and form contacts with the bar in the state the move to?  The fact is that the state's attorney quickly stepped in on this case and overruled local law enforcement's decision to charge Zimmerman.


Maybe the attorney saw no case. Police are what they are, but they aren't trial attorneys. I may be way off base, but aren't you 3L or a recent graduate? Surely you have seen cases with far more evidence thrown aside because the attorney didn't think they could get a conviction or even a plea on some significantly reduced charge like ag assault. 

I certainly can't speak to the motivations of the people's attorney, but I'm more inclined to believe the lack of a case more likely than any back slapping. I mean the entire case is circumstantial and recent history shows that Florida juries don't want to convict in those cases. To add, like kahless, I'm not picking sides, but any time there is a rush to judgment and a circus like this, it is good to interject alternative theories and ideas.

With that said, there is a grand jury and they will return a true bill and we will get a trial out of this. Buckle up because this will dwarf the Anthony trial.

----------


## AuH20

> People are still talking about this?
> 
> *Guilty, Put me on a jury, he's guilty as day.*


Probably but guilty of what? Homicide? Manslaughter? I'm strongly of the mind he's likely guilty of manslaughter based on the police report I read. But I speculate that the race hustlers and their herd want 1st degree homicide and no less, along with a mea culpa from every Caucasian in America to boot.

----------


## Danke

> Do you wait for him to get the jump on you or do you do a preemptive strike?  Tough call.


Oh definitely, preemptive strike...

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

//

----------


## bolil

yawn.  Lets just bomb Florida and call the guilty punished.

----------


## kahless

> Just to be clear I am not taking sides ....
> ..
> 2. You are not allowed to approach anyone in your neighborhood and question them since that is now considered stalking. You are not allowed to defend your life *"if"* you are attacked in this scenario. 
> ...
> 3.  When a sacred government official (911 operator) says "We dont need you to do that." we should interpret it as an "do not do that" or do not get out of your car". 
> ...





> I did not bring up anything about gold teeth, his Dad, etc which has nothing to do with what I posted.
> 
> My point is that in your quest you risk our liberties in the process....


Jmmdrake, I have more than several posts where I say I am not taking sides and do not know whether he is innocent or guilty.  I see the negative rep. for that last line and apologize if that really offended you since that was not my intention.

That comment was generalization not solely directed at you but those that support restrictions such as if I follow someone in my neighborhood and question them that makes me a criminal stalker.

I already posted that I was pissed off and actually still a little bent when a new neighbor who did not know who I was followed me home and questioned me. I however defend his right to do so.

----------


## jmdrake

> Maybe the attorney saw no case. Police are what they are, but they aren't trial attorneys. I may be way off base, but aren't you 3L or a recent graduate? Surely you have seen cases with far more evidence thrown aside because the attorney didn't think they could get a conviction or even a plea on some significantly reduced charge like ag assault.
> 
> I certainly can't speak to the motivations of the people's attorney, but I'm more inclined to believe the lack of a case more likely than any back slapping. I mean the entire case is circumstantial and recent history shows that Florida juries don't want to convict in those cases. To add, like kahless, I'm not picking sides, but any time there is a rush to judgment and a circus like this, it is good to interject alternative theories and ideas.
> 
> With that said, there is a grand jury and they will return a true bill and we will get a trial out of this. Buckle up because this will dwarf the Anthony trial.


I'm a recently law graduate.  And I've *never* seen an AG weigh in on a case the night of the incident.  Yes my experience is limited.  But this is just odd.  And typically these things aren't handled by the AG, who is an elected official, but by some assistant AG much lower on the totem pole.  And the state attorney which is as high as you can go.  Imagine Eric Holder stepping in on the night of an arrest and saying "Let this guy go".  Why did the state attorney even know about the case so quickly?  Sure wheeling and dealing happens, but rarely at this high of a level and never this quickly.

----------


## jmdrake

> Jmmdrake, I have more than several posts where I say I am not taking sides and do not know whether he is innocent or guilty.  I see the negative rep. for that last line and apologize if that really offended you since that was not my intention.
> 
> That comment was generalization not solely directed at you but those that support restrictions such as if I follow someone in my neighborhood and question them that makes me a criminal stalker.
> 
> I already posted that I was pissed off and actually still a little bent when a new neighbor who did not know who I was followed me home and questioned me. I however defend his right to do so.


Okay.  My bad.  I'll +rep you and offset it when I get more ammo.  I think most of us want the process to work itself out.  I hope that happens.  I hope Zimmerman gets a fair hearing that answers all of the questions, or at least as many as can be answered, and if there is probable cause a fair trial.  I agree that following someone in your neighborhood isn't a crime, but the way Zimmerman did it doesn't seem smart.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> That Zimmerman killed Martin is uncontested.  The question is whether he killed him unlawfully.  Zimmerman's account of the killing, along with all the evidence to come to light thus far, points towards what would be a justifiable use of force under Florida law.


If you really think ALL the evidence points to that you are really seeing just want you to see.

----------


## jmdrake

> Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way aroun


Right.  Trayvon is innocent of assaulting Zimmerman until proven guilty.  You're ready to convict him off some gold teeth.




> The news report said he was treated medically before going into the station, so if he was in fact bloody then it would make sense for them to allow him to change his clothes before going down to the station.


And if Zimmerman is raising the *affirmative defense* of self defense (his lawyer has already the SYG law doesn't apply so they must not be using it) then he needs to provide all of the evidence needed to raise that affirmative defense including the clothes.




> In pulp fiction there was blood spatter, but that was after a headshot and it wasn't real. I guess my main point was that just because Trayvon was on top of him when he shot him doesn't mean he couldn't immediately push him off and get minimal amounts of blood on him, even though he ended up probably changing anyway.


Possible.  Unlikely but possible.  However I see that you are ignoring the reason for the point I made.  Remember that *you* said:

_He probably pushed him off as he was shooting him, so I would imagine any splatter would have occurred no matter who was on top, as long as he got him off right away the blood pouring out of him would have gone onto the ground._ 

So I rebutted *your* claim that you would "imagine any splatter would have occurred no matter who was on top".  My point is that if Zimmerman was standing over Trayvon he had a *much much lower* chance of getting blood splattered on him then if Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman.  Why are you belaboring the obvious?

----------


## RonPaulMall

> I'm a recently law graduate.  And I've *never* seen an AG weigh in on a case the night of the incident.  Yes my experience is limited.  But this is just odd.  And typically these things aren't handled by the AG, who is an elected official, but by some assistant AG much lower on the totem pole.  And the state attorney which is as high as you can go.  Imagine Eric Holder stepping in on the night of an arrest and saying "Let this guy go".  Why did the state attorney even know about the case so quickly?  Sure wheeling and dealing happens, but rarely at this high of a level and never this quickly.


I hope you didn't graduate law school in Florida.  The State Attorney is not the highest office in Florida.  Every Judicial District has a State Attorney's Office.  The AG is an elected cabinet position.  Pam Bondi is the current AG.

----------


## jmdrake

> A push in bar by someone who was undercover. Even if he got special treatment, to go from a push to murder is a stretch.


Not in this case.  In this case we know Zimmerman killed Trayvon.  The question is was the killing lawful?  If Zimmerman started the fight by breaking the law, even a little bit, then SYG clearly doesn't apply and self defense may not apply either.

----------


## jmdrake

> I hope you didn't graduate law school in Florida.  The State Attorney is not the highest office in Florida.  Every Judicial District has a State Attorney's Office.  The AG is an elected cabinet position.  Pam Bondi is the current AG.


It wasn't Florida.  In my state the state's attorney is the highest elected official.  But okay, this is just a local district attorney.  The point still stands.  Usually in these cases it's a lower level assistant DA that works up the case.  Now do you want to talk about the fact that  you were wrong on your assertion that the police decided there was no probable cause to arrest or charge Zimmerman?

----------


## dannno

> Right.  Trayvon is innocent of assaulting Zimmerman until proven guilty.  You're ready to convict him off some gold teeth.


I didn't want to convict him of anything, just make the point that Zimmerman had reasonable suspicion to follow him and make sure he wasn't about to break into somebody's house, as compared to a 14 year old little kid as pictured in the media, with some skittles and iced tea. 





> And if Zimmerman is raising the *affirmative defense* of self defense (his lawyer has already the SYG law doesn't apply so they must not be using it) then he needs to provide all of the evidence needed to raise that affirmative defense including the clothes.


I have no issue with that, I would be more suspicious if they came out and said unequivocally that all of this evidence had been destroyed, or they didn't at least take photos or something to document it.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Right.  Trayvon is innocent of assaulting Zimmerman until proven guilty.  You're ready to convict him off some gold teeth.


Trayvon has not been charged with anything.  If he was, those of us defending the rule of law and due process would be just as forceful in defending his right's as Zimmerman's.  






> And if Zimmerman is raising the *affirmative defense* of self defense (his lawyer has already the SYG law doesn't apply so they must not be using it) then he needs to provide all of the evidence needed to raise that affirmative defense including the clothes.


I hope you aren't taking the Bar in Florida, or else you have some serious brushing up to do.  Any justifiable use of force that falls under s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 provides an immunity from criminal prosecution.  Like the majority of anti-Zimmerman posters in this thread, you are simply ignorant of Florida law and applying standards from either your home state or whatever it is you _think_ the law should be.  

According to s. 776.032 (2):

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency *may not arrest* the person for using force *unless* it determines that there is *probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful*.

----------


## KingRobbStark

Yall niggas are very observant.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> It wasn't Florida.  In my state the state's attorney is the highest elected official.  But okay, this is just a local district attorney.  The point still stands.  Usually in these cases it's a lower level assistant DA that works up the case.  Now do you want to talk about the fact that  you were wrong on your assertion that the police decided there was no probable cause to arrest or charge Zimmerman?


I don't know that to be true.  It seems he _was_ never arrested, which would indicate to me even if they were inclining in that direction they had enough doubt to at least ask somebody in the SA's office before moving forward.  I work from the perspective of the statute and the law.  This is a Podunk town that probably has a police force even less sophisticated than the already low sophistication level of your average cop.  If the police wanted to arrest him, they were wrong.  The important thing is more what the police are supposed to do under the law rather than what they actually did or wanted to do.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Trayvon has not been charged with anything.  If he was, those of us defending the rule of law and due process would be just as forceful in defending his right's as Zimmerman's.  
> 
> I hope you aren't taking the Bar in Florida, or else you have some serious brushing up to do.  Any justifiable use of force that falls under s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 provides an immunity from criminal prosecution.  Like the majority of anti-Zimmerman posters in this thread, you are simply ignorant of Florida law and applying standards from either your home state or whatever it is you _think_ the law should be.  
> 
> According to s. 776.032 (2):
> 
> (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency *may not arrest* the person for using force *unless* it determines that there is *probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful*.


From someone who has passed the Florida bar, is a pro gun defense attorney.

Analysis of Florida's New Self Defense Law

http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/An...fense-Law.html

Self defense of the home in Florida:
Chapter 776 of the Florida statutes specifies what you can or can’t do in lawful self defense. The Chapter is entitled “Justifiable Use of Force”. Self defense is generally a complete defense to crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm or improper exhibition of a weapon; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; murder, homicide; manslaughter; and many other misdemeanors and felonies where you are defending yourself, your family, home, etc. Self defense may either be thru the use of “deadly force”, or the use of “non-deadly force”. The difference is often critical in what you can or can’t do. There are three sections of Chapter 776 which are really key to home defense. As a general rule, a person may use deadly force to defend their home from an assailant who is committing or trying to commit a “forcible felony”. A forcible felony generally includes the more serious crimes (burglary, aggravated assault, aggravated battery, sexual attacks, robbery, murder, homicide, etc.), or an attempt to commit them. The defenses are mostly contained in Florida Statutes 776.012; 776.013; and 776.032. Here’s how it works.

Florida Statute 776.013 states that a person defending their home or occupied vehicle from an "unlawful" forceful entry or attempted forceful entry by another may use deadly force to stop the invasion or attempted invasion of the property. In such instances they need not retreat before using deadly force, they need not warn the intruder of their intent to shoot, and there is an absolute presumption that the person attempting the entry was doing so with the intent to commit a violent act (i.e. "forcible felony"), and that the defender is presumed to be acting in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself. In other words – no arrest or prosecution is technically "legal" if someone without a right of entry or ownership is trying to break in, and you shoot them. In theory – the police and prosecution cannot try to show your fear was unreasonable, or that the intent of the assailant was not to do you or a family member severe injury. Of course, there are some limitations to this statute. The statute states that in order to take advantage of its protections you can’t be engaged in unlawful activity when the incident occurs, the defender must be aware that someone has broken into the house or occupied vehicle, or is attempting to do so, and the person entering the home or occupied vehicle does not have a right or invitation to do so. Anyone legally in the home or occupied vehicle may protect it. However, don’t go shooting at police officers in the performance of their duties. Using force or deadly force against a police officer who enters or is trying to entry a home or vehicle is not protected by the statute, and is highly illegal.

You may also use a lesser degree of force, “non-deadly force”, which is force that will not usually cause death or great bodily injury, to stop almost any crime so long as a firearm or other deadly weapon is not used by you. If you do use a firearm or other deadly weapon – the law gets complicated, and you may not be acting legally unless you are trying to stop a forcible felony. Under any circumstance, the use of force must be reasonable, and the degree of force used should not be excessive. Using excessive force can be a crime, and even a felony.

----------


## jmdrake

> Trayvon has not been charged with anything.  If he was, those of us defending the rule of law and due process would be just as forceful in defending his right's as Zimmerman's.


And so far Zimmerman hasn't either.  But you and others are complaining about him being "tried" in public opinion.  You're doing the same to Trayvon.  In fact I'm pretty sure that *you* called him a perp.






> I hope you aren't taking the Bar in Florida, or else you have some serious brushing up to do.  Any justifiable use of force that falls under s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 provides an immunity from criminal prosecution.  Like the majority of anti-Zimmerman posters in this thread, you are simply ignorant of Florida law and applying standards from either your home state or whatever it is you _think_ the law should be.


If you've taken the bar in Florida you should be disbarred.  

Section 776.012 includes a duty to retreat.

Section 776.013 is the "stand your ground" law *which Zimmerman's attorney says they aren't using*.  That means he's defending Zimmerman under typical self defense law.

Section 776.031 only applies to preventing forcible felonies.  Simple assault, what you've accused Trayvon of, isn't a felony.  Well...maybe it is in Florida.

----------


## Anti Federalist

More from a *real* Florida attorney, who is a real pro gun activist:


While George Zimmerman could lawfully follow Trayvon Martin -- even if the police dispatcher told him not to – *he had no legal right to stop him,  question him,  or put his hands on him.*   While he could lawfully “ask” Trayvon to voluntarily  stop and talk to him – Trayvon had every right to refuse, and keep walking.  Maybe Trayvon thought Zimmerman was a criminal about to rob him?   Did Zimmerman have his firearm out as he followed?  Not real smart as this was not his own property – but “common” property of the apartment/condo complex where  anyone has a right to be as long as they have some type lawful purpose. 

If George Zimmerman laid hands on Trayvon Martin to stop him – even if it was just a slight grab.  Such is a “battery” under the law – and now George Zimmerman has just become the illegal “aggressor”,  and in most instances cannot use self defense unless he fully attempts to RETREAT, and makes clear his intention to disengage, and not be involved anymore.   *Yes – for some purposes – a “modified”  “retreat rule”  still exists in Florida under Florida Statute 776.041.  That section of the law says a person acting illegally (an “aggressor”) must,  before using self defense, either clearly surrender, or in good faith withdraw from physical contact with the other, and clearly indicate to the other person that he desires to withdraw and terminate any use of force.* 

So . . .  how does the law apply to Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman?

Damn if I know!   Still not enough facts out there!

*If George Zimmerman overreacted – he’ll pay the price.   That’s a lesson that everyone should take to heart!  Having a firearm is a very serious responsibility.   It should be used only as a last clear method of survival – or in the most grievous of situations.  Anything else is just too damn risky!   That’s why I wrote my book – to keep you out of trouble.*
Hope this article shed some more light. 

http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/mm...Store_Code=FFL

----------


## Danke

> More from a *real* Florida attorney, who is a real pro gun activist:
> 
> 
> While George Zimmerman could lawfully follow Trayvon Martin -- even if the police dispatcher told him not to  *he had no legal right to stop him,  question him,  or put his hands on him.*   While he could lawfully ask Trayvon to voluntarily  stop and talk to him  Trayvon had every right to refuse, and keep walking.  Maybe Trayvon thought Zimmerman was a criminal about to rob him?   Did Zimmerman have his firearm out as he followed?  Not real smart as this was not his own property  but common property of the apartment/condo complex where  anyone has a right to be as long as they have some type lawful purpose. 
> 
> If George Zimmerman laid hands on Trayvon Martin to stop him  even if it was just a slight grab.  Such is a battery under the law  and now George Zimmerman has just become the illegal aggressor,  and in most instances cannot use self defense unless he fully attempts to RETREAT, and makes clear his intention to disengage, and not be involved anymore.   *Yes  for some purposes  a modified  retreat rule  still exists in Florida under Florida Statute 776.041.  That section of the law says a person acting illegally (an aggressor) must,  before using self defense, either clearly surrender, or in good faith withdraw from physical contact with the other, and clearly indicate to the other person that he desires to withdraw and terminate any use of force.* 
> 
> So . . .  how does the law apply to Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman?
> 
> ...


Ya, if if if.  We don't know what happened.

Why should cops have a greater right to do the above said mentioned actions? Do they work *for* us?  Our employees?

----------


## Anti Federalist

More:

Thursday, March 22, 2012
The unfortunate Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman shooting case 

http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/mm...Store_Code=FFL

My earlier article on the blog about this case specified exactly what I thought the issues were -- but this is no longer "a case" -- it is more of a public media lynching.   That's not to say that George Zimmerman acted legally -- or will not wind up with a conviction, and very long jail sentence -- it is to say -- that at this point nobody really knows exactly what happened -- and from a racial standpoint -- a lot of people have decided that they don't really care about the law, or Due Process  -- just arrest the SOB -- no matter what!

Now . . .  (here's where I get the hate mail) . . . if this was a black man -- and the white community were raising the same arguments -- the black community would justifiably be screaming that they were being denied THEIR Due Process rights -- this was a public media lynching of one of theirs,  and the conduct of police and government was racially charged.   And again -- so I'm absolutely clear where I'm coming from -- I'm not saying the family and community shouldn't DEMAND a complete investigation!  Here,  a fine, young, unarmed man has been fatally shot -- and his family and friends have an absolute right to have this case investigated to the hilt!  If I was his father,  I would demand nothing less!

But,  the problem is that the law works in a way designed to protect ALL OF US!   If a responding police officer is given only evidence that is consistent with self defense -- how does he "legally" make an arrest???  Of course,  the answer is:   he can't!   If he does -- speedy trial will begin to run -- the arrested person will be released by the magistrate judge and dismissed -- and the case will have suffered a blow that it might not recover from.

So -- what do you do?

Well . . .  until you have "probable cause" to believe the law was broken  (ie:  that a reasonable man would believe that a crime was committed by the defendant based on the evidence at hand) . . .  you take statements,  gather the physical evidence, continue your investigation . . . and if it turns out that there is evidence CONTRARY to what the individual claiming self defense has claimed -- and that evidence is sufficient that a reasonable person would believe that George Zimmerman VIOLATED the law -- then arrest the SOB!   Otherwise -- you DON'T go arresting INNOCENT PERSONS because the decedent is a minority, and the person claiming self defense isn't!!

I think that goes back to the Magna Carta -- and the beginnings of our society.   Aren't you "presumed" to be innocent?   Isn't that a cornerstone of our society?   Shouldn't we actually have "evidence" before we go arrest someone -- or should we just ask if anyone is pissed off at him or her -- and then -- screw the evidence or lack of evidence  -- just make the arrest, and let them rot in jail???   Kinda Middle Ages -- isn't it?

So . . .  yeah.   Everyone who has a cross to burn in this case is already at the rally.   You have a loving family distraught by the death of a loving son -- where there is virtually no information released as to WHY an arrest wasn't made.  How frustrating is that?

You have a lot of people whose perception is that the failure to arrest Zimmerman was only because he is white -- and the kid was black.   You have those who are anti-gun,  and will jump on the band wagon and say ANYTHING to intrude on your Second Amendment rights.   You have those who NEED to keep in the public eye -- and therefore say whatever is needed to keep them there, in the spotlight   And still others -- who want to be in the public eye -- and who really don't care whether their information is correct or incorrect -- so as long as it gets them on the air,  sounds good, and espouses their particular outlook in life.

I've listened to all of them.   I'm astounded at the lack of understanding.   The lack of information.  The complete misunderstanding on how the self defense laws really work -- including lawyers, legislators, and law enforcement.  They really don't have a clue! Plus -- there is a complete failure to understand that without Due Process -- the rights of EVERYONE are at stake -- and my general amazement that even now -- government -- the Sanford Police Department -- the State Attorneys Office -- are still keeping the BASIC information of WHY the initial investigation concluded the case was one of self defense!!!   How the hell is keeping all of this a secret from the public -- in anyone's best interest  -- is totally beyond me! 

*While I have no problem with Sanford Police Department not making an initial arrest -- I am absolutely taken aback by the failure to inform the public of  -- at least -- the basics!   What information was given that made it appear it was a case of self defense?*   At least then -- we might understand why an arrest wasn't made!

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Section 776.031 only applies to preventing forcible felonies.  Simple assault, what you've accused Trayvon of, isn't a felony.  Well...maybe it is in Florida.


I've accused Trayvon of nothing, and neither Zimmerman's account nor the eyewitnesses is consistent with "simple" assault.  It was an assault and battery.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Ya, if if if.  We don't know what happened.
> 
> Why should cops have a greater right to do the above said mentioned actions? Do they work *for* us?  Our employees?


No, they do not, and I think that fact has become glaringly clear.

They are special, immune and above the law.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Still some justice to found in the land.
> 
> *NH man who stopped suspected burglar cleared*
> February 23, 2012
> 
> http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-2...-hampshire-man
> 
> A prosecutor has dropped a criminal charge against a New Hampshire man who helped catch a suspected burglar by firing his gun into the ground.
> 
> ...


George as an old man?

----------


## Danke

> More:
> 
> Thursday, March 22, 2012
> The unfortunate Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman shooting case 
> 
> http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/mm...Store_Code=FFL
> 
> My earlier article on the blog about this case specified exactly what I thought the issues were -- but this is no longer "a case" -- it is more of a public media lynching.   That's not to say that George Zimmerman acted legally -- or will not wind up with a conviction, and very long jail sentence -- it is to say -- that at this point nobody really knows exactly what happened -- and from a racial standpoint -- a lot of people have decided that they don't really care about the law, or Due Process  -- just arrest the SOB -- no matter what!
> 
> ...


But they did release a statement why they didn't arrest.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> George as an old man?


And see what I mean?

This case was in the back of my mind as well, as well as the Ward Bird case.

http://freewardbird.org/about/

You have *got* to know what the law is and understand it and train with it in mind if you are going to carry a sidearm.

We are a pretty much a full blown police state, they are just salivating at the prospect of putting otherwise productive people in prison.

Don't make it easy for the bastards.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> But they did release a statement why they didn't arrest.


I assume that the facts that Gutmacher is alluding to here, were not presented in the press release.

----------


## jmdrake

> I've accused Trayvon of nothing, and neither Zimmerman's account nor the eyewitnesses is consistent with "simple" assault.  It was an assault and battery.


Depending on the state it could be called a simple assault.  But let's go with assault and battery.  It's still not a felony.  Trayvon didn't use a weapon and there was no serious bodily injury to Zimmerman.  And you're just being dishonest when you say you haven't accused Trayvon of anything.  You've *repeatedly* accused him.  Your whole defense of Zimmerman is based on the belief that Trayvon must have committed a crime (unprovoked attack) so that Zimmerman was justified in shooting him.  Without the crime by Trayvon,  Zimmerman's shooting was unjustified.

----------


## Zippyjuan

I would like to just look at some of the basic info.  The guy sees a kid walking on the street.  He calls 9/11 and says that there is a suspicious looking person going down the street.  The kid sees the guy looking at him and starts to run away.  On the 9/11, Zimmerman confirms this.  The police hear muffling on the conversation and ask Zimmerman if he is going after the kid.  He says yes- they ask him not to.  For this to be a claim of self defense he is allowed to stand his ground.  Is running after the kid with a gun in his (Zimmerman's) hand, is there a reason he could expect to believe that he was in immenant danger?  If he felt so, why would he run AFTER the boy? There is another 9/11 call from a witness of the confrontation itself. They said (and you can hear) that somebody is screaming. The voice is high pitched to I am willing to believe that it was more likely Trayvon screaming-not Zimmerman's whose voice is fairly low on his calls. You hear a gunshot and things get quiet- the screaming stops. 

Other than walking down the street carrying something in his hand, there appears to be no crime the kid might have been suspscted of (nor is there any evidence that there was anything he did that night other than to go out in the rain to get a snack). 

Later on Zimmerman was claiming that the kid was punching him, beating him and broke his nose. Video of Zimmerman being taken into the police station shows no obvious injuries (granted the footage does not offer a lot of detail) but nor is there any blood on his shirt which you might expect if his nose had been broken. 

In my opinion, there is no justifable reason that Zimmerman should have gone after the kid (espically after he had been explicitly told NOT to!) in the first place and I am definately not conviced that there was any justifiable reason for Zimmerman to have shot the kid or for Zimmerman to have somehow felt that he was in danger. IF he was in danger, it was becasue of his own actions- not those of the kid.   I believe Zimmerman should be arrested for killing Trayvon.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't know that to be true.  It seems he _was_ never arrested, which would indicate to me even if they were inclining in that direction they had enough doubt to at least ask somebody in the SA's office before moving forward.


Did you not see the video where Zimmerman was let out of the police car *with his hands handcuffed behind his back*?  Come on dude.  You're starting to just get comical with your denials.

Edit:  And maybe you're going to say that in Florida you can be put in a police car in handcuffs without being arrested.  By the legal definition of arrest is:

_An arrest may occur (1) by the touching or putting hands on the arrestee; (2) by any act that indicates an intention to take the arrestee into custody and that subjects the arrestee to the actual control and will of the person making the arrest; or (3) by the consent of the person to be arrested. There is no arrest where there is no restraint, and the restraint must be under real or pretended legal authority. However, the detention of a person need not be accompanied by formal words of arrest or a station house booking to constitute an arrest._

Even if the police don't say "I'm putting you under arrest", if they've restrained your liberty, and handcuffs count as a restraint, that's an arrest.  Where did you pass the bar again?

----------


## Danke

> I would like to just look at some of the basic info.  The guy sees a kid walking on the street.  He calls 9/11 and says that there is a suspicious looking person going down the street.  The kid sees the guy looking at him and starts to run away.  On the 9/11, Zimmerman confirms this.  The police hear muffling on the conversation and ask Zimmerman if he is going after the kid.  He says yes- they ask him not to.  For this to be a claim of self defense he is allowed to stand his ground.  Is running after the kid with a gun in his (Zimmerman's) hand, is there a reason he could expect to believe that he was in immenant danger?  If he felt so, why would he run AFTER the boy? There is another 9/11 call from a witness of the confrontation itself. They said (and you can hear) that somebody is screaming. The voice is high pitched to I am willing to believe that it was more likely Trayvon screaming-not Zimmerman's whose voice is fairly low on his calls. You hear a gunshot and things get quiet- the screaming stops. 
> 
> Other than walking down the street carrying something in his hand, there appears to be no crime the kid might have been suspscted of (nor is there any evidence that there was anything he did that night other than to go out in the rain to get a snack). 
> 
> Later on Zimmerman was claiming that the kid was punching him, beating him and broke his nose. Video of Zimmerman being taken into the police station shows no obvious injuries (granted the footage does not offer a lot of detail) but nor is there any blood on his shirt which you might expect if his nose had been broken. 
> 
> In my opinion, there is no justifable reason that Zimmerman should have gone after the kid (espically after he had been explicitly told NOT to!) in the first place and I am definately not conviced that there was any justifiable reason for Zimmerman to have shot the kid or for Zimmerman to have somehow felt that he was in danger. IF he was in danger, it was becasue of his own actions- not those of the kid.   I believe Zimmerman should be arrested for killing Trayvon.


Yes, *Your* interpretation has been repeated ad nauseum.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Sorry if I was repeating- I haven't read all 140+ pages.

----------


## Danke

> Sorry if I was repeating- I haven't read all 140+ pages.


NP.

Nobody really knows exactly what happen that night.

But many want to fry a private citizen for actions that a cop would be given a pass.

----------


## jmdrake

> George as an old man?


1) No use of deadly force.  (Might have killed a worm or two)

2) No debate over whether there was probable cause that the person detained had committed a crime.

And here's the real danger in this debate.  A good law (IMO) that should apply in similar to the one you cited could get repealed because of misapplication in cases where there is too much uncertainty of what happened.  SYG should apply when the facts are much more certain then they are in the Zimmerman case.

----------


## farreri

Alright, check this out.




> Police said Zimmerman told them *he got out of his vehicle to get a look at a street sign, and Martin attacked him from behind*. Zimmerman said he shot Martin because he was afraid for his life.





> In his version of events, *Zimmerman had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind*, the two exchanged words and then Trayvon punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground, and began beating him.



*Now here's the near exact spot Trayvon was shot and killed:* maps.google.com (green arrow)

Anyone else see a problem with this?

Remember what Trayvon's girlfriend said while she was talking with Trayvon when this all went down:




> The girl said that Martin expressed concern about a strange man following him, and she advised him to run. *She says she heard Martin say "What are you following me for?" followed by a man's voice responding "What are you doing here?"* She said that *she heard the sound of pushing* and that Martin's headset suddenly went silent, leading her to believe that he had been knocked down. She attempted to call him back immediately, but was unable to reach him.


Doesn't it seem like Zimmerman chased Trayvon down the backyard "T" sidewalk alleyway, because I sure don't see where the "street sign" would be that far down and Zim was supposedly "walking back" to his vehicle that, you can see, was not near the spot of the shooting.

----------


## jmdrake

> NP.
> 
> Nobody really knows exactly what happen that night.
> 
> But many want to fry a private citizen for actions that a cop would be given a pass.


The ones being the most vocal in this thread against Zimmerman are the ones least likely to agree with giving a cop a pass.  And few (if any) just want a citizen to "fry".  Most want to see due process which at the very least means a probable cause hearing or grand jury investigation in this case.  Last I heard the grand jury is investigating.  Some want to give this citizen a "pass" and claim their is no "probable cause" by selectively looking at the evidence.  And no I'm not talking about you.

Here's a frightening thought.  Say if certain citizens become "deputized cops" and get the same "pass" as long as they play along with the system?  Kind of like the brownshirts?  Is that a positive for liberty or a negative?  I've said it before, but it's worth repeating.  I doubt if Trayvon had shot and killed Zimmerman and claimed self defense would most of the same people who are saying there's no probable cause to charge Zimmerman would say there was no probable cause to charge Trayvon.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> I would like to just look at some of the basic info.  The guy sees a kid walking on the street.  He calls 9/11 and says that there is a suspicious looking person going down the street.  The kid sees the guy looking at him and starts to run away.  On the 9/11, Zimmerman confirms this.  The police hear muffling on the conversation and ask Zimmerman if he is going after the kid.  He says yes- they ask him not to.  For this to be a claim of self defense he is allowed to stand his ground.  Is running after the kid with a gun in his (Zimmerman's) hand, is there a reason he could expect to believe that he was in immenant danger?  If he felt so, why would he run AFTER the boy? There is another 9/11 call from a witness of the confrontation itself. They said (and you can hear) that somebody is screaming. The voice is high pitched to I am willing to believe that it was more likely Trayvon screaming-not Zimmerman's whose voice is fairly low on his calls. You hear a gunshot and things get quiet- the screaming stops. 
> 
> Other than walking down the street carrying something in his hand, there appears to be no crime the kid might have been suspscted of (nor is there any evidence that there was anything he did that night other than to go out in the rain to get a snack). 
> 
> Later on Zimmerman was claiming that the kid was punching him, beating him and broke his nose. Video of Zimmerman being taken into the police station shows no obvious injuries (granted the footage does not offer a lot of detail) but nor is there any blood on his shirt which you might expect if his nose had been broken. 
> 
> In my opinion, there is no justifable reason that Zimmerman should have gone after the kid (espically after he had been explicitly told NOT to!) in the first place and I am definately not conviced that there was any justifiable reason for Zimmerman to have shot the kid or for Zimmerman to have somehow felt that he was in danger. IF he was in danger, it was becasue of his own actions- not those of the kid.   I believe Zimmerman should be arrested for killing Trayvon.


This pretty much nails it.

----------


## Danke

> The ones being the most vocal in this thread against Zimmerman are the ones least likely to agree with giving a cop a pass.  And few (if any) just want a citizen to "fry".  Most want to see due process which at the very least means a probable cause hearing or grand jury investigation in this case.  Last I heard the grand jury is investigating.  Some want to give this citizen a "pass" and claim their is no "probable cause" by selectively looking at the evidence.  And no I'm not talking about you.
> 
> Here's a frightening thought.  Say if certain citizens become "deputized cops" and get the same "pass" as long as they play along with the system?  Kind of like the brownshirts?  Is that a positive for liberty or a negative?  I've said it before, but it's worth repeating.  I doubt if Trayvon had shot and killed Zimmerman and claimed self defense would most of the same people who are saying there's no probable cause to charge Zimmerman would say there was no probable cause to charge Trayvon.


No, I have read your posts and AF's.  You seem to imply he had no "legal authority."  But a cop would.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> This pretty much nails it.


Especially the "in my opinion" part.  That is what separates the two sides on this issue.  Your side only looks at what you think should happen.  Our side is reading the actual laws.  Whether Zimmerman has a "justifiable reason" to follow the kid is irrelevant.  All that matters is if it was lawful or not.  If it was lawful, and Martin subsequently attacked Zimmerman, Zimmerman has the right to defend himself under Florida Law.  And the police need to show probable cause that his use of force was unjustified in order to make an arrest.

----------


## Danke

> Especially the "in my opinion" part.  That is what separates the two sides on this issue.  Your side only looks at what you think should happen.  Our side is reading the actual laws.  Whether Zimmerman has a "justifiable reason" to follow the kid is irrelevant.  All that matters is if it was lawful or not.  If it was lawful, and Martin subsequently attacked Zimmerman, Zimmerman has the right to defend himself under Florida Law.  And the police need to show probable cause that his use of force was unjustified in order to make an arrest.


I know what you are saying, but I disagree.

I don't care what the statues say in Florida, I have a right to do what ever I please as long as i don't infringe on another's right.

Looking at/for someone does not infringe, asking someone questions does not infringe.

Once there is a physical attack, that infringes.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> I know what you are saying, but I disagree.
> 
> I don't care what the statues say in Florida, I have a right to do what ever I please as long as i don't infringe on another's right.
> 
> Looking at/for someone does not infringe, asking someone questions does not infringe.
> 
> Once there is a physical attack, that infringes.


That is exactly my point.  Under Florida Law, there in no legal basis to arrest or charge Zimmerman with anything.  I fully support continued investigation, but anything beyond that absent probable cause is nothing more than a lynching.

----------


## farreri

> That is exactly my point.  Under Florida Law, there in no legal basis to arrest or charge Zimmerman with anything.  I fully support continued investigation, but anything beyond that absent probable cause is nothing more than a lynching.


Except it *looks like* Zimmerman, *with a concealed gun* and his Daddy being a retired state supreme court judge, confronted Trayvon behind the houses.

----------


## Danke

> Except it *looks like* Zimmerman, *with a concealed gun* and his Daddy being a retired state supreme court judge, confronted Trayvon behind the houses.


No, he was now in front on a sidewalk:  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4321715

----------


## farreri

> No, he was now in front on a sidewalk:  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4321715


I should take "DerailingDaTrain"'s word over MSNBC's graph I just saw on TV and photos showing the scene was where I have it?

----------


## Danke

> I should take "DerailingDaTrain"'s word over MSNBC's graph I just saw on TV and photos showing the scene was where I have it?


Yes, he is one of the experts here.

----------


## farreri

> Yes, he is one of the experts here.


Well until the resident "expert" here can provide some evidence to where he thinks the exact shooting was, I'll stick with where MSNBC's graph showed it -- where I have the green arrow on the google maps.

Here's a photo of a group of police standing a few yards away from the "T" of the sidewalk that has the backyard sidewalk area roped off, not the front:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...f-defence.html

----------


## farreri

Uh oh, not looking good for Zimmerman:

*New doubts over Trayvon shooter's claims*
Published : Thursday, 29 Mar 2012
Read more: http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news...#ixzz1qZLtALam

----------


## kylejack

> No, he was now in front on a sidewalk:  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4321715


No, he was on the sidewalk behind the townhomes.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> No, I have read your posts and AF's.  You seem to imply he had no "legal authority."  But a cop would.


Yes, beyond any shadow of doubt, a cop has "special" privileges and "rights" that far exceed that of us ordinary proles and Mundanes.

That is why people like myself and Pete and some others think that should not even be any such thing as cops, precisely because of that clear, undeniable line between the two.

A cop should not have the right to accost you and demand papers and accountability and "What are you doing here?" anymore than anybody else does, including GZ.

But they do, and they beat, tase and shoot us on a regular basis for failure to comply with that.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Except it *looks like* Zimmerman, *with a concealed gun* and his Daddy being a retired state supreme court judge, confronted Trayvon behind the houses.



And so what?  Are you people really this dense?  Do you honestly think Zimmerman told the police the attack occurred someplace other than where the damn body is laying!  I mean, WTF?  First you think a grainy security film showing no blood after EMT took care of his injuries proves no injuries occurred despite the fact there were dozens of cops, emergency personnel, and witnesses that could all testify to his condition.  And now this?  Some of you people are certifiable.  You are letting the mainstream media and the family's clown attorneys make you look ridiculous.

----------


## farreri

> No, he was on the sidewalk behind the townhomes.


Even a FOX news affiliate agrees.  They put it were the "T" in the backyard area is.

See video @2:00

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news...artin-shooting

----------


## Indy Vidual

> I would like to just look at some of the basic info.  The guy sees a kid walking on the street.  He calls 9/11 and says that there is a suspicious looking person going down the street.  The kid sees the guy looking at him and starts to run away.  On the 9/11, Zimmerman confirms this.  The police hear muffling on the conversation and ask Zimmerman if he is going after the kid.  He says yes- they ask him not to.  For this to be a claim of self defense he is allowed to stand his ground.  Is running after the kid with a gun in his (Zimmerman's) hand, is there a reason he could expect to believe that he was in immenant danger?  If he felt so, why would he run AFTER the boy? There is another 9/11 call from a witness of the confrontation itself. They said (and you can hear) that somebody is screaming. The voice is high pitched to I am willing to believe that it was more likely Trayvon screaming-not Zimmerman's whose voice is fairly low on his calls. You hear a gunshot and things get quiet- the screaming stops. 
> 
> Other than walking down the street carrying something in his hand, there appears to be no crime the kid might have been suspscted of (nor is there any evidence that there was anything he did that night other than to go out in the rain to get a snack). 
> 
> Later on Zimmerman was claiming that the kid was punching him, beating him and broke his nose. Video of Zimmerman being taken into the police station shows no obvious injuries (granted the footage does not offer a lot of detail) but nor is there any blood on his shirt which you might expect if his nose had been broken. 
> 
> In my opinion, there is no justifable reason that Zimmerman should have gone after the kid (espically after he had been explicitly told NOT to!) in the first place and I am definately not conviced that there was any justifiable reason for Zimmerman to have shot the kid or for Zimmerman to have somehow felt that he was in danger. IF he was in danger, it was becasue of his own actions- not those of the kid.   I believe Zimmerman should be arrested for killing Trayvon.





> This pretty much nails it.


How long will the trial drag on, a year or two?

----------


## Danke

> Yes, beyond any shadow of doubt, a cop has "special" privileges and "rights" that far exceed that of us ordinary proles and Mundanes.


Yes, that has been what our lawyers here have been arguing.

But I disagree.

I defend a private citizen doing anything that does not infringe on another's right.  I don't see where Zimmerman has done that, but as I have stated before, I don't have all the facts, but neither do you and the state supporters posting here.

You keep saying he had no "legal authority."  That in itself implies a state sanction privileged.

I don't run with those "rules.'

----------


## Anti Federalist

> But many want to fry a private citizen for actions that a cop would be given a pass.


I hope you're not including me in that group.

I'm not looking to fry anybody.

My only purpose all along in any of these threads is make it clear how very, very, *VERY* shaky the legal justification for using deadly force is in this case, and to keep some other CCW or firearm owner from frying.

That and to point out it seems to me that the reason GZ avoided charges is because of his father's influence.

----------


## jmdrake

> No, I have read your posts and AF's.  You seem to imply he had no "legal authority."  But a cop would.


You must not have read very well.  AF and I were the main ones speaking out against the cop that shot the Sunday School teacher.  And there's a difference between "legal" authority and "moral" authority.  Let's assume a cop has the legal authority to do what Zimmerman did.  (After all *you* just said that).  Is extending that authority to self appointed "block captains" with special connections to the "just us" system a good thing?  If yes then should it be extended to the Trayvons of the world?  If Trayvon had killed Zimmerman and just claimed, with no actual witnesses having seen the whole thing and disputes between the witnesses over who was actually crying out for help, would you be supportive of Trayvon?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I don't run with those "rules.'


Hey, I hear ya bro, loud and clear.

I'll be sure to bail you out when the time comes.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes, that has been what our lawyers here have been arguing.
> 
> But I disagree.
> 
> I defend a private citizen doing anything that does not infringe on another's right.  I don't see where Zimmerman has done that, but as I have stated before, I don't have all the facts, but neither do you and the state supporters posting here.
> 
> You keep saying he had no "legal authority."  That in itself implies a state sanction privileged.
> 
> I don't run with those "rules.'


The legal authority implies Zimmerman acted reasonably.  As in if Zimmerman didn't reasonably believe his life was in danger he had no legal authority to act.  You don't run with that "rule" either?  People should be able to kill without reason?

----------


## farreri

> Do you honestly think Zimmerman told the police the attack occurred someplace other than where the damn body is laying!


OK, where exactly was his body laying? 




> First you think a grainy security film showing no blood after EMT took care of his injuries proves no injuries occurred despite the fact there were dozens of cops, emergency personnel, and witnesses that could all testify to his condition.


The EMT washed his clothes and washed away the bruises and swelling that should be on his nose, lips, and back of head, so well he didn't need bandages?

And funny the Zim supporters are all trying to claim the video was "so grainy."  We see right through your desperation to "acquit" Zimmerman.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I defend a private citizen doing anything that does not infringe on another's right.


Yes, like walk down the street and not be accosted and questioned and harangued by petty authority figures, whether they have a uniform or not.

Again, what a bona fide, pro gun, Florida attorney says:

*While George Zimmerman could lawfully follow Trayvon Martin -- even if the police dispatcher told him not to – he had no legal right to stop him, question him, or put his hands on him. While he could lawfully “ask” Trayvon to voluntarily stop and talk to him – Trayvon had every right to refuse, and keep walking.*

Therefore, if GZ was acting unlawfully, he had no right to use deadly force after the fact.

In fact, GZ had the legal duty to retreat and break off the encounter.

----------


## kylejack

> OK, where exactly was his body laying?



Behind 1231 Twin Trees.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=1231+T...32771&t=h&z=19




> The EMT washed his clothes and washed away the bruises and swelling that should be on his nose, lips, and back of head, so well he didn't need bandages?


No time to wash clothes. He fired the shot at 7:17. The drive to the station took 15 minutes, and he arrived at 7:50 so he was only at the scene for 18 minutes.

----------


## Danke

> You must not have read very well.  AF and I were the main ones speaking out against the cop that shot the Sunday School teacher.  And there's a difference between "legal" authority and "moral" authority.  Let's assume a cop has the legal authority to do what Zimmerman did.  (After all *you* just said that).  Is extending that authority to self appointed "block captains" with special connections to the "just us" system a good thing?  If yes then should it be extended to the Trayvons of the world?  If Trayvon had killed Zimmerman and just claimed, with no actual witnesses having seen the whole thing and disputes between the witnesses over who was actually crying out for help, would you be supportive of Trayvon?


No, I have read your posts.

It is clear.  You thought the cops should handle it after the dispatcher says something to the effect "we don't need you to do that." etc.

I was born at night, but it wasn't last night.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> OK, where exactly was his body laying?


I don't know.  But I'm pretty positive the police know where the body was laying, and Zimmerman too.  And Zimmerman told the police, "Martin attacked me and I shot him over here." and the body and scene of the crime was laying someplace else entirely, they'd have arrested him by now.

----------


## jmdrake

> And so what?  Are you people really this dense?  Do you honestly think Zimmerman told the police the attack occurred someplace other than where the damn body is laying!  I mean, WTF?  First you think a grainy security film showing no blood after EMT took care of his injuries proves no injuries occurred despite the fact there were dozens of cops, emergency personnel, and witnesses that could all testify to his condition.  And now this?  Some of you people are certifiable.  You are letting the mainstream media and the family's clown attorneys make you look ridiculous.


And these cops were so sure that Zimmerman was telling the truth that they arrested him (excuse me "put him in handcuffs, stuffed him in a squad car and took him to the station") and wanted to charge him but for the intervention of the state attorney.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> It is clear.  You thought the cops should handle it after the dispatcher says something to the effect "we don't need you to do that." etc.


U trolling me or iz U srs?

Pffft...if GZ followed my advice, *and didn't call the cops*, he wouldn't be in this bind.

----------


## Danke

> The legal authority implies Zimmerman acted reasonably.  As in if Zimmerman didn't reasonably believe his life was in danger he had no legal authority to act.  You don't run with that "rule" either?  People should be able to kill without reason?


^  Exactlty the kind of BS I have come to expect from you. now. So sad.

----------


## jmdrake

> No, I have read your posts.


Maybe you have a reading comprehension problem?




> It is clear.  You thought the cops should handle it after the dispatcher says something to the effect "we don't need you to do that." etc.


It's clear that Zimmerman going after Trayvon himself was stupid, police dispatcher or no police dispatcher.  But you've got your wires crossed.  I'm not the one that's been harping on the police dispatcher.  I definitely said he should have waited for backup.  You *doubt* that?  Seriously?  If you believe Zimmerman, then if Trayvon was packing Zimmerman would have been a dead man.  Do you think that is a good result, yes or no?  If you think Zimmerman being killed by Trayvon would have been a good result...well with friends like you he doesn't need enemies.  If you think it would have been a bad result then you agree with me that he should have waited for back up whether you are willing to admit that or not.




> I was born at night, but it wasn't last night.


Maybe you were born many nights ago and "Oldtimers" is kicking in.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Yes, like walk down the street and not be accosted and questioned and harangued by petty authority figures, whether they have a uniform or not.


Police I agree, because the law and practice has essentially taken away the right to tell the police to "$#@! off" when they overstep.  But if your argument is private citizens should be prohibited by law from approaching and talking to people in their own neighborhood, then I think you are going way beyond the non-aggression principle.

----------


## jmdrake

> ^  Exactlty the kind of BS I have come to expect from you. now. So sad.


How exactly?  The law in this case is that Zimmerman would have legal authority to used deadly force if he reasonably believed his life was in danger.  Take the "law" out for a minute and answer straight up, without being a prick, if you think that's a good standard or not.  Come on.  You can do it.

----------


## jmdrake

> U trolling me or iz U srs?
> 
> Pffft...if GZ followed my advice, *and didn't call the cops*, he wouldn't be in this bind.


I think Danke's just stayed up too late.  Perhaps we all have.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> The legal authority implies Zimmerman acted reasonably.  As in if Zimmerman didn't reasonably believe his life was in danger he had no legal authority to act.  You don't run with that "rule" either?  People should be able to kill without reason?


That is a rule of your own making.  The actual law in Florida says Zimmerman had a right to act so long as it was necessary to prevent great bodily harm.  Eyewitness has Martin on top of Zimmerman punching.  Fear of great bodily harm is easily satisfied in this case.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Police I agree, because the law and practice has essentially taken away the right to tell the police to "$#@! off" when they overstep.  But if your argument is private citizens should be prohibited by law from approaching and talking to people in their own neighborhood, then I think you are going way beyond the non-aggression principle.


No, I have never said that the law should be this, that or something else.

My contention all along has been that this is what the law is, and that if you or I tried to do what happened here, we'd be in jail.

As Gutmacher stated, GZ had every right to follow or observe TM, but he had *no* legal right to stop, question or put his hands on him. If any of those things happened, he fell into the wrong, which means *HE* had the duty to retreat and had no legal justification for the use of deadly force.

----------


## Danke

> Maybe you have a reading comprehension problem?





> Take the "law" out for a minute and answer straight up, without being a prick, if you think that's a good standard or not.  Come on.  You can do it.





> I think Danke's just stayed up too late.


See, this has been your MO throughout the various threads wrt this incidence. 

I don't see the value in discussing this with you, you are emotionally attached to this for some reason.

----------


## jmdrake

> Police I agree, because the law and practice has essentially taken away the right to tell the police to "$#@! off" when they overstep.  But if your argument is private citizens should be prohibited by law from approaching and talking to people in their own neighborhood, then I think you are going way beyond the non-aggression principle.


Sure.  But under the circumstances it was a pretty stupid thing to do.  And going from GZ's past history plus the TM's girlfriend's testimony it seems he may have shoved TM.  If he did then he has no legal cover for whatever happened next.  If he didn't he may.  But even then if he wasn't reasonable in his belief that his life was in danger he doesn't have legal cover.  You think he was reasonable in that belief.  Myself and others do not.  We're all looking at the same evidence I think.  A police investigator looked at it and decided "Probable cause.  Let's charge him."  A state attorney jumped in and said no.  Now it's going to a grand jury.  I hope justice is served.

----------


## Indy Vidual



----------


## farreri

> Behind 1231 Twin Trees.
> 
> http://maps.google.com/maps?q=1231+T...32771&t=h&z=19


Almost exactly where I had it, BUT a few yards SOUTH and that makes Zimmerman look even more GUITLY the further south down the sidewalk T, because he was supposedly "walking back" to his SUV on the street.

----------


## RickyJ

The facts are, we don't know the facts! What good does it do to keep talking about this terrible event?

Zimmerman will more than likely be killed by those that believe he murdered a 17 year old for $#@!s and giggles.

The media and the president are using this tragedy to inflame racial tensions. That is a big problem! They want race riots because the economy is not getting better and they need distractions.

----------


## jmdrake

> That is a rule of your own making.  The actual law in Florida says Zimmerman had a right to act so long as it was necessary to prevent great bodily harm.  Eyewitness has Martin on top of Zimmerman punching.  Fear of great bodily harm is easily satisfied in this case.


Necessary to prevent great bodily harm = reasonable believe of great bodily harm.  You're splitting hairs over nothing.  And not everytime someone is on top of someone punching is there a real risk of great bodily harm.  Not unless you think every playground fight = reason to shoot.  So no.  It's not easily satisfied in this case.  If it was the lead attorney wouldn't have decided to charge GZ.  But regardless of whether you agree with me on if it was satisfied in this case, your not being reasonable in your claim about the legal standard.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> As Gutmacher stated, GZ had every right to follow or observe TM, but he had *no* legal right to stop, question or put his hands on him. If any of those things happened, he fell into the wrong, which means *HE* had the duty to retreat and had no legal justification for the use of deadly force.


Actually you have every right to question somebody.  I don't know what you mean by "stop".  If you mean grab in any way, that would be unlawful.  Shouting, "hey, you" is fine though.  Putting your hands on somebody without permission is battery.  That would be unlawful too.

Zimmerman's account of the incident though, doesn't have him committing any unlawful acts.  So if his account is true, none of us would be in jail had we done what he did unless the police were incompetent.  That last one is high probability though, which is why i advice people to avoid the police like the plague and certainly never call them like George Zimmerman did.

----------


## jmdrake

> See, this has been your MO throughout the various threads wrt this incidence. 
> 
> I don't see the value in discussing this with you, you are emotionally attached to this for some reason.


And you've been all reasonable and unemotional?  Don't make me laugh Danke.  You started with the snarkiness.  And if you don't want to continue the discussion than don't continue it.  You are a grown man.  I can't make you post anything.  You made a claim about me that clearly wasn't true.  Forgive me for not appreciating slander.

----------


## Danke

> And you've been *all reasonable and unemotional*?  Don't make me laugh Danke.  You started with the snarkiness.  And if you don't want to continue the discussion than don't continue it.  You are a grown man.  I can't make you post anything.  You made a claim about me that clearly wasn't true.  Forgive me for not appreciating slander.




Quote me.

----------


## jmdrake

> Actually you have every right to question somebody.  I don't know what you mean by "stop".  If you mean grab in any way, that would be unlawful.  Shouting, "hey, you" is fine though.  Putting your hands on somebody without permission is battery.  That would be unlawful too.
> 
> Zimmerman's account of the incident though, doesn't have him committing any unlawful acts.  So if his account is true, none of us would be in jail had we done what he did unless the police were incompetent.  That last one is high probability though, which is why i advice people to avoid the police like the plague and certainly never call them like George Zimmerman did.


Sure.  But there are reasons to doubt GZ's story.  Serious reasons.  Like I've said repeatedly, I hope the grand jury sorts it out.  The process shouldn't be short circuited.

----------


## jmdrake

> 


 Right back at you.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Necessary to prevent great bodily harm = reasonable believe of great bodily harm.  You're splitting hairs over nothing.  And not everytime someone is on top of someone punching is there a real risk of great bodily harm.  Not unless you think every playground fight = reason to shoot.  So no.  It's not easily satisfied in this case.  If it was the lead attorney wouldn't have decided to charge GZ.  But regardless of whether you agree with me on if it was satisfied in this case, your not being reasonable in your claim about the legal standard.


There was never any attorney who wanted to charge Zimmerman.  There was an investigator (cop) who came out after the fact and said he wanted to, but they didn't after talking to the lawyers.  And someone on top of you throwing punches is pretty much always going to meet the threshold for great bodily harm unless they are a four year old or a little old lady.  Don't forget that Zimmerman also claims in the police report that Martin reached for his gun.

----------


## jmdrake

> NP.
> 
> Nobody really knows exactly what happen that night.
> 
> But many want to fry a private citizen for actions that a cop would be given a pass.





> No, I have read your posts and AF's.  You seem to imply he had no "legal authority."  But a cop would.





> Quote me.


I just did above.  If you think that I either want to "fry a citizen" or "give a cop a pass" then you've jumped the shark and you're full of it.  Now if you didn't mean that I'm sorry.  But I quoted you as you asked.

----------


## farreri

> No, he was now in front on a sidewalk:  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4321715


Do you now concede Trayvon's body wasn't in the front?

----------


## Danke

> Right back at you.


Sure, if you don't go back and edit your posts, NP.

----------


## Danke

> Do you now concede Trayvon's body wasn't in the front?




I was being facetious, but ask the experts on the forum for the truth in the matter.

----------


## jmdrake

> There was never any attorney who wanted to charge Zimmerman.  There was an investigator (cop) who came out after the fact and said he wanted to, but they didn't after talking to the lawyers.  And someone on top of you throwing punches is pretty much always going to meet the threshold for great bodily harm unless they are a four year old or a little old lady.  Don't forget that Zimmerman also claims in the police report that Martin reached for his gun.


He also told police that Trayvon had his arms pinned down.  So how did Zimmerman prevent Trayvon, who according to Zimmerman had total control over him at that point, from getting his gun?  As for potential for "great bodily harm" that can come from eating pretzels.  Unlikely but possible.  Same for the typical ground and pound.

Edit: And I still see you're dancing around the fact that the cops you say back up Zimmerman's story wanted to charge Zimmerman.  Oh yeah I know.  Incompetent cops right?  Or maybe that didn't witness what you think they witnessed?  The only pictures we have of Zimmerman show no obvious signs of being beat or having his head smashed on the sidewalk.  Maybe he got cleaned up.  Maybe he didn't need to be.  Maybe that's part of the reason the lead investigator wanted to charge him.  The grand jury will hopefully sort that all out.

----------


## kylejack

> I was being facetious, but ask the experts on the forum for the truth in the matter.


The expert you quoted didn't say anything about the body being in the front. Please hang up and try your call again.

----------


## jmdrake

> Sure, if you don't go back and edit your posts, NP.


Fine.  Quote *me*.  Find the post where I said I wanted to fry a citizen and give cops a pass.

----------


## jmdrake

> The expert you quoted didn't say anything about the body being in the front. Please hang up and try your call again.


LOL

----------


## Indy Vidual

> The facts are, we don't know the facts! What good does it do to keep talking about this terrible event?
> 
> Zimmerman will more than likely be killed by those that believe he murdered a 17 year old for $#@!s and giggles.
> 
> The media and the president are using this tragedy to inflame racial tensions. That is a big problem! They want race riots because the economy is not getting better and they need distractions.


It's working. 
If you try to "escape" thinking about this story, what happens as soon as you go to the local store?

----------


## AuH20

> It's working. 
> If you try to "escape" thinking about this story, what happens as soon as you go to the local store?


That photo is so heart warming and persuasive. What is he? 12-13 years old in that photo? Who owns_ People_?

----------


## farreri

Anyone see Zim's retired State Supreme Court daddy say he doesn't believe Trayvon was on the phone with his girlfriend, even though phone records prove Trayvon was?

I'm sure he's the reason Zim has walked so far.

----------


## Danke

> The expert you quoted didn't say anything about the body being in the front. Please hang up and try your call again.


Whoa, it went over another one's head.  What am I up to now, three?

----------


## Indy Vidual

> That photo is so heart warming and persuasive. What is he? 12-13 years old in that photo? Who owns_ People_?


People = published by Time Inc

----------


## jmdrake

> That photo is so heart warming and persuasive. What is he? 12-13 years old in that photo? Who owns_ People_?


Sure.  There's been media manipulation going both ways.  Or have you missed the fact that the "Pillsbury doughboy" Zimmerman mugshot looks nothing like the in shape Zimmerman we now see on the police video?

----------


## jmdrake

Danke, since you haven't quoted me I'll quote myself.  This is what drew your jerky response.




> The ones being the most vocal in this thread against Zimmerman are the ones least likely to agree with giving a cop a pass.  And few (if any) just want a citizen to "fry".  Most want to see due process which at the very least means a probable cause hearing or grand jury investigation in this case.  Last I heard the grand jury is investigating.  Some want to give this citizen a "pass" and claim their is no "probable cause" by selectively looking at the evidence.  And no I'm not talking about you.
> 
> Here's a frightening thought.  Say if certain citizens become "deputized cops" and get the same "pass" as long as they play along with the system?  Kind of like the brownshirts?  Is that a positive for liberty or a negative?  I've said it before, but it's worth repeating.  I doubt if Trayvon had shot and killed Zimmerman and claimed self defense would most of the same people who are saying there's no probable cause to charge Zimmerman would say there was no probable cause to charge Trayvon.


Please explain how the above is "emotional".

----------


## Danke

> Danke, since you haven't quoted me I'll quote myself.  This is what drew your jerky response.


Aww, do you feel left out?  I'll get to you on my own sweet time.

HB just posted in "Bestest Picture Thread EVARRR" so I guess you'll just have to take a number.

----------


## jmdrake

> Aww, do you feel left out?  I'll get to you on my own sweet time.


Whatever guy.  Take two of whatever makes you feel good and post me in the morning.

----------


## farreri

Where the exact spot the shooting happened, down the sidewalk "T" in the backyards of the Condo area, NO WAY Trayvon could have "snuck up" behind Zimmerman.  Zim lied.  Trayvon's girlfriend's account supports this.

End of story.

----------


## Danke

> Whatever guy.  Take two of whatever makes you feel good and post me in the morning.


It's morning.




> It's clear that Zimmerman was following Trayvon and that Zimmerman accosted Trayvon. It's likely based on the evidence I've seen that Zimmerman initiated unwelcome contact (assault and or battery) against Trayvon
> 
> And those doing the "goal line defense" of Zimmerman are doing a disservice as well.
> 
> This will probably come down to a wrongful death lawsuit. That's where it should come down. Based on that standard it's not even a question of whether what GZ did was "wrong" but whether it negligently led to the death of Trayvon. And GZ, by his own admission, didmore than just follow Trayvon. He went up to Trayvon and did something. What? That's what a jury should decide. He claims he just tried to talk to Trayvon. *There's evidence* to suggest he may have put a hand on Trayvon. Regardless what he did was stupid. Hey, it's commendable to try to "clean up your neighborhood". But that should be done in a way that doesn't needlessly endanger yourself or anyone else. Let's say if instead of playing "volunteer cop" Zimmerman had played "volunteer firefighter" and through his negligence cause the death of some third party? (Maybe the real firefighter who went in to rescue the now hapless Zimmerman). What then?
> 
> *Police* in these situations are trained to call for back up and wait for it. GZ did the right thing in calling 911. But he did the wrong thing in not waiting. We can debate until the cows come home whether it was legal or not. But it was clearly wrong.
> 
> And the fact that GZ had some kind of previous physical altercation with the freaking police shows GZ likely had a temper. Now I'd be cool with a manslaughter conviction. Voluntary manslaughter is probably the best charge under the circumstances grill or no grill. Granting GZ immunity from prosecution which so far is what actually happened is not.
> ...


Just a taste of what you have written.

Yes the State should take matters in their own hands... 

Sorry I'm not a bootlicker.

----------


## misterx

> Sure.  But there are reasons to doubt GZ's story.  Serious reasons.  Like I've said repeatedly, I hope the grand jury sorts it out.  The process shouldn't be short circuited.


This I think we can all agree on. There are some things that make me believe there's enough doubt to at least have a grand jury look into bringing charges. We don't have all the facts though, so I'm not going to say they were wrong not to do it to begin with.

The thing that kills me is the people saying that even if George Zimmerman's story is accurate he should still go to prison. I don't like the idea of giving all responsibility for policing our neighborhoods to the government. I think we all have a right and a duty to stand up to thugs and protect our communities. If Zimmerman's account is accurate, then yes, Trayvon was a thug. Whether he was up to no good or not, he gave up his innocence the moment he assaulted Zimmerman, along with any right not to have force used against him. Now if Zimmerman touched him first as the girlfriend asserts, it's a whole other story.

----------


## jmdrake

> It's morning.
> 
> 
> 
> Just a taste of what you have written.
> 
> Yes the State should take matters in their own hands... 
> 
> Sorry I'm not a bootlicker.


Yeah.  You're not a bootlicker, just not thinking this through.  Zimmerman had no legal right to put his hand on Trayvon.  That's assault.  Do you dispute that?  In an effort to "equalize" things between police and "citizens" you want someone to be able to walk up and grab someone he doesn't know?  Recognizing that there's a different legal standard is not "giving the cop a pass".  For one thing there is a difference between what's legal and what's right.  For another even if a cop might not be prosecuted under the circumstances (and under these he actually might be prosecuted depending on how everything shakes out), he still faces, or should face, the possibility of being fired for using poor judgement.  So how do you suppose this community "fires" Zimmerman from a self appointed position as neighborhood watch block captain?  For a third if a police officer is going to use his arrest powers to put a hand on someone he should identify himself as an officer first.  There's no evidence that Zimmerman identified himself as being in any kind of official capacity.  (That's probably because it seems he wasn't under even an official "block watch captain" capacity).  For a fourth an officer is supposed to have reasonable suspicion to accost a citizen.  Zimmerman was suspicious of Trayvon, but not reasonably from what I see.

And look at the parts you did not bold.

*Police in these situations are trained to call for back up and wait for it. GZ did the right thing in calling 911. But he did the wrong thing in not waiting. We can debate until the cows come home whether it was legal or not. But it was clearly wrong*

So even if we go with the "Zimmerman should be treated exactly as a cop" argument *a cop is trained to wait for backup*.  If Zimmerman had called another neighborhood watch buddy as backup that would have been infinitely better than what he did.  Assuming his story is true and Trayvon jumped him first, having a partner with him would have either dissuaded Trayvon from jumping him or made it extremely likely that Zimmerman could have subdued Trayvon with minimal injury to any party.  

Nice try.  No cigar.  Let me know when you come up with something real.

----------


## jmdrake

> This I think we can all agree on. There are some things that make me believe there's enough doubt to at least have a grand jury look into bringing charges. We don't have all the facts though, so I'm not going to say they were wrong not to do it to begin with.
> 
> The thing that kills me is the people saying that even if George Zimmerman's story is accurate he should still go to prison. I don't like the idea of giving all responsibility for policing our neighborhoods to the government. I think we all have a right and a duty to stand up to thugs and protect our communities. If Zimmerman's account is accurate, then yes, Trayvon was a thug. Whether he was up to no good or not, he gave up his innocence the moment he assaulted Zimmerman, along with any right not to have force used against him. Now if Zimmerman touched him first as the girlfriend asserts, it's a whole other story.


Yeah.  I'm all for volunteer societies and minimizing the state etc.  But I say that in the hopes of things getting *better* and not simply expanding the same negatives we have with the current set up and certainly not with them getting worse.  I wonder why some seem insistent on the idea that Zimmerman was somehow doing a "good job" as a neighborhood watch captain that night, even going by his story?  If we believe him 100% (and I don't) then sure, no prosecution.  But the current Florida law says no civil suit either.  Really?  If he arguably caused the dangerous condition that led to a needless death?  Say if his bullet had passed through Trayvon and hit some totally innocent bystander?  I can still see not prosecuting Zimmerman.  But no civil remedy for the innocent bystander and/or his/her family?

The current professional policing system has two accountability factors in it besides prosecution.  The ability to sue the city for redress and the possibility of the officer losing his/her job.  When we read about police killing someone defending himself because the police did a drug raid on the wrong house, there is usually a wrongful death lawsuit filed.  That doesn't get as much press as the killing or the fact that no officer got prosecuted, but it still counts for something.

What's sad is that in all of the defense of Zimmerman, there's little talk of how he could have done the neighborhood watch thing better.  Angelatc pointed to neighborhood watch guidelines from another community, but that was angrily responded to by "that doesn't apply to Zimmerman".  Maybe, maybe not.  But if it could have increased his safety and the safety of innocent bystanders (let's forget Trayvon for the moment) then why not adopt them?  There are other things I can think of that would arguably better deter crime than approaching someone you don't know by yourself in some back pathway between apartment buildings.  Maybe if neighborhood watch captain drove well marked cars?  Definitely the "buddy system" I already mentioned.  Wearing some kind of identifiable uniform?  Anything to put the suspect on notice that you are serving in some sort of quasi official capacity and that you're not a criminal yourself.

----------


## jmdrake

Danke, I thought of a hypothetical that *might* help you understand what I'm saying.  The Supreme Court ruled a few years ago that while strip search of a student for aspirin was illegal, the principal did get qualified immunity for the search.  That was a *horrid* ruling.  Basically the result is that if the girl had indeed been carrying something illegal that evidence would be suppressed, but she had no recourse against the school system for their invasion of her privacy.  Basically it was a ruling that only helped the criminal element but did nothing for the law abiding student that was falsely accused.

So here's the hypothetical.  Imagine if Zimmerman were a self appointed "Home and School safety officer".  Imagine if someone had told him that a girl had brought an aspirin to school and he took it upon himself to strip search him.  If I said "Zimmerman had no legal right to strip search the girl since he wasn't even a school official" does that mean I'm "giving school officials a pass"?  Just because I don't want to extend a bad ruling to someone who can't even be fired?  My view is get rid of the bad ruling.  Don't make bad things worse.  The school officials already *have* a pass thanks to a retarded ruling by the Supreme Court.

----------


## Ender

> Yeah.  I'm all for volunteer societies and minimizing the state etc.  But I say that in the hopes of things getting *better* and not simply expanding the same negatives we have with the current set up and certainly not with them getting worse.  I wonder why some seem insistent on the idea that Zimmerman was somehow doing a "good job" as a neighborhood watch captain that night, even going by his story?  If we believe him 100% (and I don't) then sure, no prosecution.  But the current Florida law says no civil suit either.  Really?  If he arguably caused the dangerous condition that led to a needless death?  Say if his bullet had passed through Trayvon and hit some totally innocent bystander?  I can still see not prosecuting Zimmerman.  But no civil remedy for the innocent bystander and/or his/her family?
> 
> The current professional policing system has two accountability factors in it besides prosecution.  The ability to sue the city for redress and the possibility of the officer losing his/her job.  When we read about police killing someone defending himself because the police did a drug raid on the wrong house, there is usually a wrongful death lawsuit filed.  That doesn't get as much press as the killing or the fact that no officer got prosecuted, but it still counts for something.
> 
> What's sad is that in all of the defense of Zimmerman, there's little talk of how he could have done the neighborhood watch thing better.  Angelatc pointed to neighborhood watch guidelines from another community, but that was angrily responded to by "that doesn't apply to Zimmerman".  Maybe, maybe not.  But if it could have increased his safety and the safety of innocent bystanders (let's forget Trayvon for the moment) then why not adopt them?  There are other things I can think of that would arguably better deter crime than approaching someone you don't know by yourself in some back pathway between apartment buildings.  Maybe if neighborhood watch captain drove well marked cars?  Definitely the "buddy system" I already mentioned.  Wearing some kind of identifiable uniform?  Anything to put the suspect on notice that you are serving in some sort of quasi official capacity and that you're not a criminal yourself.


Actually, Zimmerman formed the NW and a woman from the SDPD came in and taught them the rules and how a NW was supposed to operate:

Do not call 911 unless a crime is in operation.
Call dispatch for suspicions but not 911.
Do not follow; stay where you are; you are to be eyes and ears, ONLY.
No firearms as a NW.

I have posted the actual link several times, here and on other forums, but would have to search for it if anyone is interested.

----------


## azxd



----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Do you now concede Trayvon's body wasn't in the front?


From some of the pictures, it looks like they may be those row style Townhomes where the garage is on the street, and the formal front door is on a walkway and greenbelt. Which side is the "front" in those situations?

----------


## cajuncocoa

NOTE:  This article was published on 3/25


*Lessons Learned From the Trayvon Martin Shooting* 



> *Sanford, FL*The shooting and mass demonstrations connected with the self-defense shooting of *Trayvon Martin* by* George Zimmerman* left us all with some real lessons.
> 
> The  short of it is the importance of avoiding conflict and should you have  to employ deadly force avoid calling 911 or giving any cooperation with  police.
> 
> George Zimmerman volunteered to be a *Block Watch*  busybody.   Unfortunately many neighborhoods are loaded with dangerous  predators and block watches have become a reality.  Thats especially  true in jurisdictions that have been dumping prisoners from prisons and  that have undermanned police departments.  Confine any watch activities  to protecting your own home, family and close friends. 
> 
> Calling  911 has become an exercise in futility because they are slow to answer  the phone, those untrained civilians give loads of bad advice and the  cops can never arrive in time to prevent rapes, robberies or murders.   They can however arrange for a cleanup of a bloody mess and to remove  the dead and wounded from the scene.  
> 
> Be aware of your  surroundings and the behavior of others around you, your car or home.    Be prepared with sufficient training, weapons and ammunition needed to  face multiple armed criminals.  Criminals seldom work alone. 
> ...

----------


## EricMuck

This is a nice analysis from another poster on a different forum.




> Facts not in dispute: 
> 1. Zimmerman, in his role as a community watch participant, found Martin to be suspicious, dialed 911 and informed them of his concerns, and then followed Martin after emergency services asked him not to do so. 
> 2. Zimmerman expressed concern that the police would not find/locate the person he was following if he ceased following. 
> 3. Zimmerman exited his vehicle and ended up in an altercation with Martin. 
> 4. Zimmerman used lethal force against Martin. 
> 5. Martin had a legitimate reason to be on foot in that neighborhood: Zimmerman's initial suspicions were unfounded. 
> 
> Zimmerman alleges that after he exited his vehicle, Martin attacked him and made him fear for his own imminent death. Since Martin was unarmed, he is claiming to have believed that Martin was going to kill him with his bare hands. 
> 
> ...

----------


## jmdrake

> This is a nice analysis from another poster on a different forum.


Interesting analysis.  Which begs the question I've asked before but has been so far ignored.  If Martin had been packing and had killed Zimmerman, would those defending Zimmerman under the SYG law be now defending Martin?  If not, why not?

----------


## AFPVet

> 


I know right....

----------


## dannno

> Interesting analysis.  Which begs the question I've asked before but has been so far ignored.  If Martin had been packing and had killed Zimmerman, would those defending Zimmerman under the SYG law be now defending Martin?  If not, why not?


Depends on the media's agenda. When a logical and sound argument can be made in a case that goes against an obviously slanted media bias, I make it a point to take that side.

----------


## dannno

> This is a nice analysis from another poster on a different forum.


Much of that analysis could be used to defend Zimmerman with the facts at hand. The part of the analysis that is damning for Zimmerman is the part that is speculation, not that the pro-Zimmerman side doesn't have to use speculation regarding whether his statements are truthful.

----------


## jmdrake

> Depends on the media's agenda. When a logical and sound argument can be made in a case that goes against an obviously slanted media bias, I make it a point to take that side.


Except you've picked a side that the "Fox News" part of the media is biased towards.  You're pushing propaganda just as much as any leftist.  It's just coming from a different right angle.  (No pun intended.)  Look at how many times people have brought up the fact that the media has pushed the young version of Trayvon and how few times anyone's mentioned that the media showed the "Pillsbury doughboy" version of Zimmerman, when Zimmerman today looks as fit as an MMA fighter.

----------


## jmdrake

> Much of that analysis could be used to defend Zimmerman with the facts at hand. The part of the analysis that is damning for Zimmerman is the part that is speculation, not that the pro-Zimmerman side doesn't have to use speculation regarding whether his statements are truthful.


The private property analysis is not speculation.  Martin was on private property and he had a right to be there.  Zimmerman treated him as someone without a right to be there.  Martin could have argued he was the one defending private property rights.  If Martin had a right to stand his ground and Zimmerman had a right to stand his ground, the who's right?  The person "left"?

----------


## dannno

> Except you've picked a side that the "Fox News" part of the media is biased towards.  You're pushing propaganda just as much as any leftist.  It's just coming from a different right angle.  (No pun intended.)  Look at how many times people have brought up the fact that the media has pushed the young version of Trayvon and how few times anyone's mentioned that the media showed the "Pillsbury doughboy" version of Zimmerman, when Zimmerman today looks as fit as an MMA fighter.



I don't watch TV, I wasn't aware Fox News was pushing a drastically different story.

----------


## Lucille

If only the politicians, the press, and the American people cared this much about the people LE kill every day.

----------


## angelatc

> This is a nice analysis from another poster on a different forum.


The very first thing on that list is disputed.  I believe that Zimmerman was actually running an errand, and not technically on Neighborhood Watch Patrol.  Also even thought it is a gated community, that does not necessarily make it private property.  Florida is full of lots of gated communities that have public streets.  Technically the guards there have no right to keep any car or pedestrian from entering.

----------


## EricMuck

> The very first thing on that list is disputed.  I believe that Zimmerman was actually running an errand, and not technically on Neighborhood Watch Patrol.


what's your point?

----------


## angelatc

The point was he said "these facts are not disputed" even though they are.  Lends to credibility.

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> If only the politicians, the press, and the American people cared this much about the people LE kill every day.


Yes, if only. And here's some reasons why:




> This case has been the perfect storm for many groups. *Not the least is the establishment.*
> 
> - Establishment Law enforcement: How many thousands of cases exist where the *Police* (of some form) have shot and killed an unarmed person? An unarmed person that never assaulted or battered them in any way, shape or form? *This is not one of those cases.* *Conveniently, this is a mundane who has done the shooting, not the Police*. As a matter of fact, this case has many people granting new authority to the Police in various ways, and at the same time there is the desire to take rights away from mundanes. Very convenient indeed.
> 
> - Establishment Favoritism: George was not law enforcement, but apparently his father was a retired Judge. This is an inconvenient fact that must be downplayed, if not completely buried. The case isn't perfect, but it can be spun. They can not allow this to be about the establishment or related favoritism.
> 
> - Diversion and distraction: Nothing better than an emotional race case to distract the masses. This is a benefit to many (who knows what we have been distracted from? We've been distracted!). That includes the current Administration. Best to keep it simple, black and white. But George was not exactly white. Another inconvenient fact. One that was "overlooked" for a quite a while, and is still overlooked by many. Just spin it.
> 
> - Charlatans: Nothing like a good tragedy to make some money and celebrity. Calling Al Sharpton.
> ...

----------


## Lucille

Thanks, Brian.  I hadn't read through the thread.  You hit the nails on their heads.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> 


Funny...but I wouldn't be surprised if they delay the release of this movie...for obvious reasons. 

It *is* real, right?

----------


## specsaregood

> It *is* real, right?


yup.




> Funny...but I wouldn't be surprised if they delay the release of this movie...for obvious reasons.


my thoughts exactly.  i think it was supposed to come out this summer.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

I decided to not post in this thread for a little bit and then come back. It's exactly as I pictured: people still arguing over the same things.

----------


## EricMuck

> The point was he said "these facts are not disputed" even though they are.  Lends to credibility.


come on. its a moot point.

----------


## specsaregood

> come on. its a moot point.


So Eric, how'd you find this site and thread?  Do you have an interest in Ron Paul or just homocides in FL?

----------


## EricMuck

> So Eric, how'd you find this site and thread?  Do you have an interest in Ron Paul or just homocides in FL?


well if you invested 2 more seconds into your investigation you would have seen my join date was May. I've been a Paul fan since '07. I check this site and dailypaul almost everyday. Just a first time poster.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> The private property analysis is not speculation.  Martin was on private property and he had a right to be there.  Zimmerman treated him as someone without a right to be there.  Martin could have argued he was the one defending private property rights.  If Martin had a right to stand his ground and Zimmerman had a right to stand his ground, the who's right?  The person "left"?


  The only question that matters is whether Zimmerman committed a crime.  Under Florida Law, if the facts are as he says they are he did not.  If Zimmerman never shot Martin, then we would have to consider whether Martin's assault and battery of Zimmerman was justified, but Zimmerman did shoot, Martin is dead, and we don't prosecute dead people for potential crimes.

----------


## specsaregood

> well if you invested 2 more seconds into your investigation you would have seen my join date was May. I've been a Paul fan since '07. I check this site and dailypaul almost everyday. Just a first time poster.


It was hardly an investigation, it was a question.  You registered in May; but didn't say a peep until now, until this incident.  Hence the question.  Nothing else on the site interested you enough to post until this incident?

----------


## EricMuck

> It was hardly an investigation, it was a question.  You registered in May; but didn't say a peep until now, until this incident.  Hence the question.  Nothing else on the site interested you enough to post until this incident?


I am just not a huge poster. I thought I had something legitimate to add here so I did.

----------


## farreri

*Former co-worker: Zimmerman lost security guard job after he snapped*

Friday, March 30, 2012

The neighborhood watchman who in February shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was once *fired from his job as a security guard for being too aggressive,* according to a new report.

An unnamed former co-worker told the New York Daily News that George Zimmerman was paid under-the-table for providing security for illegal house parties between 2001 and 2005, but *was let go because his anger issues became a liability.*

Usually he was just a cool guy, the former co-worker explained. He liked to drink and hang with the women like the rest of us.  *But it was like Jekyll and Hyde. When the dude snapped, he snapped.*

In 2005, the same year that Zimmerman lost his security guard job, *he was also arrested for resisting officer with violence and battery of law enforcement officer, both third-degree felonies*. Those charges were dropped after he agreed to enter an alcohol education program.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/3...er-he-snapped/

----------


## specsaregood

> I am just not a huge poster. I thought I had something legitimate to add here so I did.


fair enough.  feel free to add your thoughts elsewhere now that you've popped your cherry!

----------


## farreri

Another graph that supports mine a few pages back:

Fri Mar 30, 2012
Zimmerman's Physical Fact Challenge

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...Fact-Challenge

Zimmerman's claim that he was "jumped from behind" by Trayvon is an OBVIOUS LIE!!!!!!  Nevermind the police video that showed Zim was uninjured and blood-free.

Why isn't Zim in jail?

----------


## farreri

*Bill Lee, Sanford police chief, was dean at college that expelled George Zimmerman*
03/30/2012
http://www.thegrio.com/specials/tray...n.php#46905813

----------


## farreri

Interesting theory:


*George Zimmermans Justified defense?*
Posted at 12:30 PM ET, 03/30/2012

In making his case in the killing of Trayvon Martin, *did George Zimmerman borrow some lines from the gun-slinging FX show Justified?* Specifically, did he borrow lines from the March 21 episode? 
[snip]
And the reason why George Zimmerman could not have told the Sanford Police the Quarles quote after his shooting of Treyvon is because this episode of Justified had not aired yet, Money Train wrote. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...qVlS_blog.html

----------


## jmdrake

> The only question that matters is whether Zimmerman committed a crime.  Under Florida Law, if the facts are as he says they are he did not.  If Zimmerman never shot Martin, then we would have to consider whether Martin's assault and battery of Zimmerman was justified, but Zimmerman did shoot, Martin is dead, and we don't prosecute dead people for potential crimes.


Wrong.  That's *not* the only thing that matters.  Not in the grand scheme of things.  The fate of the SYG law matters.  The types of procedures NW groups should adopt and follow matters.  In fact from the public discussion point of view the hypotheticals matter more than the actual crime.  And the end of the day neither you nor I will be jurors on this case if it even comes to trial.  But as members of society we do have a say in what kind of laws may be implemented as a result.

----------


## Sam I am

> Interesting theory:
> 
> 
> *George Zimmerman’s ‘Justified’ defense?*
> Posted at 12:30 PM ET, 03/30/2012
> 
> In making his case in the killing of Trayvon Martin, *did George Zimmerman borrow some lines from the gun-slinging FX show “Justified”?* Specifically, did he borrow lines from the March 21 episode? 
> [snip]
> “And the reason why George Zimmerman could not have told the Sanford Police the Quarles quote after his shooting of Treyvon is because this episode of ‘Justified’ had not aired yet,” Money Train wrote. 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...qVlS_blog.html


First off, what Zimmerman claimed that Trayvon said isn't very close to the quote that was given from the "Justified" TV show.  

That being said, the quote(from the show) isn't even that original, In fact  I remember a very similar quote from Starcraft, and I can swear I've heard similar in other shows too.




> : It may not be tomorrow, darlin', it may not even happen with an army at my back. But rest assured: I'm the man who's gonna kill you one day! I'll be seeing you!

----------


## specsaregood

> First off, what Zimmerman claimed that Trayvon said isn't very close to the quote that was given from the "Justified" TV show.  
> 
> That being said, the quote(from the show) isn't even that original, In fact  I remember a very similar quote from Starcraft, and I can swear I've heard similar in other shows too.


Shoulda just ignored it.  Its just evidence the the media is starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel of this story where they now need to make up nonsensical theories to blog about.

----------


## jmdrake

> First off, what Zimmerman claimed that Trayvon said isn't very close to the quote that was given from the "Justified" TV show.  
> 
> That being said, the quote(from the show) isn't even that original, In fact  I remember a very similar quote from Starcraft, and I can swear I've heard similar in other shows too.


Yeah.  That's a bit of a stretch.  Guns and Roses "Welcome to the Jungle" quote is actually closer than the "Justified" quote.

_You know where you are?  You're in the jungle baby.  You're gonna die!_

----------


## dannno

> Another graph that supports mine a few pages back:
> 
> Fri Mar 30, 2012
> Zimmerman's Physical Fact Challenge
> 
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...Fact-Challenge
> 
> Zimmerman's claim that he was "jumped from behind" by Trayvon is an OBVIOUS LIE!!!!!!  Nevermind the police video that showed Zim was uninjured and blood-free.
> 
> Why isn't Zim in jail?


He never said he was jumped from behind, he said he came up behind him. It was dark, he may have been walking in the grass, it's very possible. I don't see why he couldn't have been jumped from behind, either. 

As far as him being "uninjured" and blood free, we already have a news report that says he was treated for his injuries before he went in, which probably included a new pair of clothes.

I don't disagree that he should face trial.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> Yeah.  That's a bit of a stretch.  Guns and Roses "Welcome to the Jungle" quote is actually closer than the "Justified" quote.
> 
> _You know where you are?  You're in the jungle baby.  You're gonna die!_


It is a huge stretch. Good show though

Edit: lol I posted this at 4:11 PM and I came back to check this thread at 7:42 PM. My post has effectively derailed this thread apparently.

----------


## farreri

> First off, what Zimmerman claimed that Trayvon said isn't very close to the quote that was given from the "Justified" TV show.  
> 
> That being said, the quote(from the show) isn't even that original, In fact  I remember a *very similar quote* from Starcraft, and I can swear I've heard similar in other shows too.


The point being brought up is if Zim's retired judge daddy was helping him come up with FABRICATED justifications of his use of DEADLY FORCE, then hearing quotes, such as in that episode of 'Justified' that aired AFTER the shooting and BEFORE these "justification" claims by Zim's dad (and NEVER by Zim in the police reports), is where his dad maybe got em from and it doesn't have to be exact quotes, since you even bring up a "very similar quote."

Zim's dad is a RETIRED STATE SUPREME COURT JUDGE.  He KNOWS the game of the justice system; what works and what doesn't.

----------


## farreri

> He never said he was jumped from behind, he said he came up behind him.


What's the difference? 




> It was dark, he may have been walking in the grass, it's very possible. I don't see why he couldn't have been jumped from behind, either.


I don't understand, you just got through saying he never said he was jumped from behind?




> As far as him being "uninjured" and blood free, we already have a news report that says he was treated for his injuries before he went in


Quite the AMAZING cleanup job by the EMT's on a man that had to use DEADLY FORCE on a kid who supposedly was beating him up so bad and smashing the back of his head on the concrete so much that he was "barely conscious."  No blood, no bruises, no bumps, no swelling, no bandages.  Zimmerman looks as though he was brought in on an outstanding warrant, not from just killing a kid he claims beat him within inches of his life.

Of course now his story is Trayvon went for his gun.  See that's what happens with a phony story, it keeps changing.




> which probably included a new pair of clothes.


Nonsense.  Nancy Grace brought up the "change of clothes" theory to her guests, retired law enforcement personnel and experts.  They said that would break protocol.  They didn't buy that theory.

Plus, he was wearing the same red jacket as witnessed.




> I don't disagree that he should face trial.


I'm glad we agree on something about this case!

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Hmmm. Are these the kind of arguments that Hollywood writers engage in when writing their scripts?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Hmmm. Are these the kind of arguments that Hollywood writers engage in when writing their scripts?


Flim Springfield.

----------


## cajuncocoa

*Al Sharpton: Civil disobedience will escalate if Zimmerman remains free*

If George Zimmerman is not arrested in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin soon, theRev. Al Sharpton will call for an escalation in peaceful civil disobedience and economic sanctions.

Sharpton would not say the efforts would be taken against the city of  Sanford specifically, but he has been critical of the police  department's handling of the case.


 Saturday's scheduled 11 a.m. march from Crooms Academy of Information Technology to the Sanford Police Department headquarters was organized by National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Coordinators said people will be bused in from other states to participate.

 The civil rights activist and syndicated television show host said he will elaborate on this plan Saturday.

  "I will speak about how the National Action Network will move to the  next level if Zimmerman isn't arrested," Sharpton said, who founded the  organization. He added that it was the Martin family and lawyers who  first asked him to get involved and nationalize this story.

TheRev. Jesse Jacksonis also expected to participate in the event.

  The case has ignited ire and debate across the nation, galvanizing  thousands of Trayvon supporters to the streets and social media, donning  hoodies and toting Skittles.

Sanford police this week released a  video of a handcuffed George Zimmerman apparently showing no visible  signs of physical injury after he claimed that he shot the 17-year-old  Miami teenager in self-defense.

Zimmerman's family have come to  his defense on national news networks, releasing details about his  version of what happened the night of Feb. 26 when police found the teen  face down in wet grass.

Sharpton said the recent revelations only underscores the need for an immediate arrest and trial.

"Whether he [Zimmerman] had a swollen or broken nose,  neither one means he had to take a 9mm and kill someone," he said.  "It's not about saying Zimmerman is innocent or guilty, this is about  whether there was probable cause to arrest him."

 He criticized  the way authorities have released information about the case and said  they are setting a harmful precedent, he said.

 Sanford city officials announced several road closures in anticipation of the march including 13th street, from U.S. Highway 17-92 to Lake Avenue; as well as, Persimmon Street from McCracken Road to 13th.

The demonstration is expected to end at 2 p.m., organizers said.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...al-association

----------


## RonPaulMall

> What's the difference?


You guys really seem to have a problem with the English language.  "Jumped from behind" implies your back was turned when someone attacked you.  Approached from behind means someone approaches from behind you.  Zimmerman's account has them face to face engaging in a conversation before Martin mouths off and decks him.  There is never any reference to being "jumped from behind".     






> Quite the AMAZING cleanup job by the EMT's on a man that had to use DEADLY FORCE on a kid who supposedly was beating him up so bad and smashing the back of his head on the concrete so much that he was "barely conscious."  No blood, no bruises, no bumps, no swelling, no bandages.  Zimmerman looks as though he was brought in on an outstanding warrant, not from just killing a kid he claims beat him within inches of his life.


When did Zimmerman claim to have been beaten within an inch of his life?  Again, words have meaning.  I think you and Al Sharpton would be better served spending some time reading the actual police report and less time mouthing off.  And lol at your in depth medical analysis from a grainy security cam.




> Of course now his story is Trayvon went for his gun.  See that's what happens with a phony story, it keeps changing.


Except for the fact that's what he told the police immediately after the incident.  So the story didn't change.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Al Sharpton: Civil disobedience will escalate if Zimmerman remains free


Hmmm. Someone who calls himself a Christian Reverend calling for the crucifixion of one man. Interesting juxtaposition.

No analogy for George here, but the politics involved may apply...

----------


## cajuncocoa

> *Critics say the "Today" show attempted to  incite racial anger when it cut crucial seconds from audio of a phone  call placed by George Zimmerman just before he killed the teenager.*
> 
> NBC News is being excoriated in some circles  with  competitor Fox News Channel leading the charge  for selectively  editing audio of the 911 call placed by *George Zimmerman* just before he killed *Trayvon Martin*.
> 
> 
>  The NBC segment in question featured anchor *Ron Allen* and ran on the _Today_ show on Tuesday. On Thursday, *Sean Hannity* and guest *Brent Bozell* played the NBC version of the 911 call and compared it with the unedited version.
> 
> 
> In the NBC segment, Zimmerman says: This guy looks like hes up to no good. He looks black.
> ...


More: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...11-call-306359

----------


## Anti Federalist

> More: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...11-call-306359


Government run media.

And people have the nerve to bitch about Alex Jones.

----------


## libertygrl

> That was posted in the main thread on the subject.
> 
> I've got an even better conspiracy.
> 
> The Martin shooting has been bubbling in the background for a month now.
> 
> But it just blew up *now*.
> 
> *Sure took that story of the Afghan village slaughter off the front page, didn't it now?*


Or perhaps just another way to divide Americans.   Between the Ron Paul Revolution, OWS, and yes, even the Tea Party movement, we sheeple are slowly waking up.   What better way to divide and distract us than to hype and instigate a race war?    I must say, my first response to the news was that I was on the side of the victim.  I guess all the trigger happy police shootings lately, and the image of that cute kid, unarmed and with a bag of skittles did it for me. But in reality, we really do not have all the facts.    So I agree with Dr. Paul.  You cannot comment on a situation until you have all the facts.  What most Americans are doing right now is reacting emotionally. Although part of me can't honestly blame african americans who feel this way. They've been through this before. But cooler heads must prevail.

But I certainly see the media ratcheting it up. MSNBC were attacking Republicans saying they sided with the shooter.  Menawhile O'Reily with his smug (I'm always right) attitude was suggesting that because the kid was caught with marijuana in school, that somehow it was reason enough to suspect him as a criminal to be shot at. He blames Oprah for siding with the kid without having all the facts, yet was doing the same thing with the shooter.  Then of course you have Spike Lee, tweeting to his millions of fans what he thought was Zimmerman's address, except it was a elderly senior couple's home.  Then they started to receive death threats.

This media hype could be more than just a way to divert us from the Afghan killlings.  I fear it could be the spark to incite Americans against one another. Afterall, hasn't the government been waiting for an opportunity to implement martial law?  Maybe the economic meltdown is taking too long.  Just some more conspiracy thoughts to add to the list!

----------


## farreri

> You guys really seem to have a problem with the English language.  "Jumped from behind" implies your back was turned when someone attacked you.  Approached from behind means someone approaches from behind you.  Zimmerman's account has them face to face engaging in a conversation before Martin mouths off and decks him.  *There is never any reference to being "jumped from behind".*


[Edit] Actually:

"Zimmerman has maintained he shot the teen in self-defense, *saying Martin attacked him from behind*, punched him in the nose and slammed his head onto the sidewalk."
http://www.newsmax.com/US/zimmerman-...3/29/id/434293

-----------------
OK, caught up with him from behind, without the over-zealous wannabe Sheriff Zimmerman noticing, who was in offensive-mode looking for a "suspicious" black male he had been warning neighbors about and just called 9/11 about saying he was chasing.

Does that make sense that Zim was totally looking for the guy and was able to be snuck up on???  Remember what Trayvon's girlfriend said, that Trayvon was complaining to her someone was following him, he said "Why are you following me?" and Zim responding "What are you doing here?" and then the sound of "pushing"?  Did you notice she never said Trayvon said he was going to go after this person and F' him up, as Zim's side seems to want us to believe?





> When did Zimmerman claim to have been beaten within an inch of his life?  Again, words have meaning.


His brother did:




> *George Zimmerman's brother addresses Trayvon Martin shooting*
> Thursday, March 29, 2012
> 
> SANFORD, Fla. (KABC) -- Robert Zimmerman, Jr., the brother of George Zimmerman, has spoken out about the night Trayvon Martin was killed and claims Martin actually confronted his brother after his brother stopped following the teen.
> 
> "*He was barely conscious*. The last thing he remembers doing was moving his head from the concrete to the grass *so that if he was banged one more time, he wouldn't be wearing diapers for the rest of his life and being spoon fed by his brother*," he said. "*There would have been George dead if he hadn't acted decisively*."
> 
> A police report notes George Zimmerman had blood on his nose and the back of his head. But in a surveillance video, obtained exclusively by ABC News, shows Zimmerman from inside the Sanford police department just after the shooting. *Zimmerman's shirt and jacket appear unstained and there is no visible sign of blood on his face*.
> 
> ...






> And lol at your in depth medical analysis from a grainy security cam.


Oh yeah, it's soooo grainy.  




> Except for the fact that's what he told the police immediately after the incident.  So the story didn't change.


Link?

----------


## farreri

*Trayvon Martin case: Mayor says police resisted release of 911 tapes*
Mar 30, 2012
SANFORD, Florida -- The mayor of the city where Trayvon Martin was killed says he overruled police and prosecutors who opposed the release of tapes of 911 calls, telling them: We're not here to hide anything.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...e-of-911-tapes



Gee, I wonder why?

----------


## farreri

Uh oh, even more bad news for Zim's case:

*EMS tapes show George Zimmerman did not sustain fatal injuries in encounter with Trayvon Martin*
March 31, 2012

A Miami funeral director says *Trayvon Martins body showed no signs of a violent brawl*.

Richard Kurtz said his examination of the slain Florida teens corpse revealed no cuts, scratches or bruises, only a gunshot wound to the chest.

Kurtzs account appears to contradict George Zimmermans claims that he shot Trayvon during a life-and-death struggle.
[snip]
On Friday, the Daily News obtained *EMS documents suggesting Zimmerman*, who an ex-colleague said was fired from a security job for being too aggressive, *did not sustain serious injuries in the fatal encounter*.

Paperwork detailing the EMS response to the shooting scene shows that a call for a second ambulance was canceled.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...#ixzz1qiSH0GtV

----------


## pcosmar

> “This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”


On what does he base this??

The kid had just walked from his house, to the store.
Bought candy and a drink and was walking home,,

While being followed but some creep in an SUV,,

I would have been trying to lose the tail. and pretty defensive if confronted.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Hmmm. Someone who calls himself a Christian Reverend calling for the crucifixion of one man. Interesting juxtaposition.


Al Sharpton called for a crucifixion?  What's the quote?

----------


## specsaregood

./

----------


## farreri

> Here's an interesting section.  It specifically defines suspicious behavior.  Note that it does not include being black and walking.  It does include being under the influence of drugs.  *Assuming that Zimmerman knew enough about the system to use lingo that would get a response, that would explain why Zimmerman pretended to know that Martin was on drugs*.


Bingo!  AND the fact that *he had lot's of experience calling 9/11*, furthers the logic he knew what to say:




> *Shooter of Trayvon Martin a habitual caller to cops*
> 
> At the focal point of a shooting scandal: a mild-mannered neighbor who fixated on crime and focused on young, black males.
> 03.21.12
> 
> When the homeowners association wanted to start a neighborhood watch, *only one man stepped up*: George Zimmerman,
> 
> Interviews with neighbors reveal a pleasant young man passionate about neighborhood security who *took it upon himself to do nightly patrols* while he walked his dog.
> 
> ...


How much more evidence is needed to prove Zimmerman was an OVER-ZEALOUS wannabe Sheriff with a temper problem?

----------


## RonPaulMall

> How much more evidence is needed to prove Zimmerman was an OVER-ZEALOUS wannabe Sheriff with a temper problem?


If that's all Sharpton and his gang were trying to say, I don't think anybody would have a problem with it.  The problem from a libertarian perspective is when they try to use that characterization as justification for the State to lynch somebody.  Zimmerman may or may not have a temper.  He may or may not be overzealous in his watch over the neighborhood.  But whatever the case may be, those are all questions of personal character, not law.

----------


## Sam I am

> If that's all Sharpton and his gang were trying to say, I don't think anybody would have a problem with it.  The problem from a libertarian perspective is when they try to use that characterization as justification for the State to lynch somebody.  Zimmerman may or may not have a temper.  He may or may not be overzealous in his watch over the neighborhood.  But whatever the case may be, those are all questions of personal character, not law.


Actually It does matter because it shows a pattern in Zimmerman's behavior.  It would be admissible in most courts

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Actually It does matter because it shows a pattern in Zimmerman's behavior.  It would be admissible in most courts


The "pattern" actually supports Zimmerman.  46 calls and not a single instance where he launched an unprovoked attack against somebody.

----------


## Ender

This been posted?




> http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...ific-certainty
> 
> *Trayvon Martin shooting: It's not George Zimmerman crying for help on 911 recording, 2 experts say*
> 5:38 p.m. EST, March 31, 2012|
> 
> By Jeff Weiner, Orlando Sentinel
> 
> As the Trayvon Martin controversy splinters into a debate about self-defense, a central question remains: Who was heard crying for help on a 911 call in the moments before the teen was shot?
> 
> ...

----------


## Ender

And can anyone tell if this looks real or not?

This woman is saying Trayvon was tweeting about hurting Zimmerman on Jan 6th.

http://networkedblogs.com/vMvvz

----------


## kylejack

$#@!ty Photoshop job.

----------


## azxd

I sure hope the lawyers are paying attention to this fixation

----------


## jmdrake

> This been posted?


I hadn't seen it.  Pretty interesting.  I assume in today's digital world someone who knows Trayvon has a sample of his voice.  I'd love to see the results of that comparison.  The case that there's a lack of probable cause gets weaker by the day.  There's still reasonable doubt.  Hopefully the grand jury will do it's job.  I suspect this is going to trial.

----------


## pcosmar

> I hadn't seen it.  Pretty interesting.  I assume in today's digital world someone who knows Trayvon has a sample of his voice.  I'd love to see the results of that comparison.  The case that there's a lack of probable cause gets weaker by the day.  There's still reasonable doubt.  Hopefully the grand jury will do it's job.  I suspect this is going to trial.


There has been a lot made of the Racial Issue,, and the media has pushed that. 

It is an issue, but a side issue. And a distracting and divisive issue. I have never been a racist so I have bit of trouble seeing it as a racial issue.

It is a right to bear arms issue.. And it needs to go to trial. (this is my pet issue)
I expect there will be an attack on the right to carry. And I support that right.. I want it back myself.

The question here is when defense and offense crossed the line. A "right to carry" does not give you a right to violate others.
There is also the immunity issue. There needs to be NO SUCH THING. Not for police, nor anyone else.
Some have also already taken aim at "Stand your Ground" laws. And I do very much agree with the principle of standing your ground,, but there is a question of who had that right here.
And all racial issues aside I think Zimmerman crossed the line from defense to offense. Regardless of any possible motivations.
And that needs a trial.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> And all racial issues aside I think Zimmerman crossed the line from defense to offense. 
> 
> Regardless of any possible motivations.
> 
> And that needs a trial.


It's really not any more difficult than that.

I'd also add that, initially, he was not held accountable for crossing that line due to the fact that he, or his father, or a combination of both, had LE "influence".

----------


## pcosmar

> It's really not any more difficult than that.
> 
> I'd also add that, initially, he was not held accountable for crossing that line due to the fact that he, or his father, or a combination of both, had LE "influence".


And that is where the whole immunity issue needs to have the harsh light of day shined.

----------


## phill4paul

> It's really not any more difficult than that.
> 
> I'd also add that, initially, he was not held accountable for crossing that line due to the fact that he, or his father, or a combination of both, had LE "influence".


  ^^^This. It seems that there should be others held accountable. *Mis*feasance.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> It's really not any more difficult than that.
> 
> I'd also add that, initially, he was not held accountable for crossing that line due to the fact that he, or his father, or a combination of both, had LE "influence".


This.  100% true.  They were his buddies basically.

----------


## kezt777

> More: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...11-call-306359


This morning, radio host Mike Church said that NBC says it is 'launching an internal investigation'.  And then he went on to go back through other cases that Al Sharpton was involved in where he loudly proclaimed racially-based 'evidence' against various people in the past who were later proven to be innocent, but that hasn't stopped Sharpton has it? Regardless of what happened with Zimmerman, none of us can be in his mind and know if he was targetting the boy for being black or not, unless he directly comes out and admits it one day.

For an example, up in Canada (Ontario),  police were looking for a person who was cutting phone lines in a particular area and one officer stopped a black Canada Post worker. This happened in 2009 I believe but it was even posted about last month in the Huff Post.ca . The officer was looking for white men in a car, but that was not a 'for sure' alert - as in, no one was sure who was doing this and the white men in a car was one of the suspicions, not the only suspicion. Anyway, the case went before the Ontario Human Rights commission (the canada post worker won) and was recently upheld in a higher commission court -- but my problem was with the wording of the commission's findings. One part states "In June 2009, the rights tribunal concluded that Phipps had established discrimination in that his skin colour was *probably* the "predominant factor" in Shaw's actions." .... ARGH I am so frustrated, I am trying to find the exact words that appeared after the tribunal that I had issue with so I don't mess it up, but I can only find the more recent articles about the appeal (which the officer also lost). Who knows if this guy profiled or not - BUT the tribunal's findings that I read a couple of years ago said something about there being no doubt that despite no direct physical evidence of a racially motivated event, they find that the police officer's THOUGHTS in his mind led him to stop the black postal worker. 

Whoa. What? you can be found guilty on your thoughts, when no one knows what your thoughts are, because they are inside your head and you did not write them down anywhere, nor did you tell anyone your thoughts. I was floored. If I find the wording when I have more time later, I will post it. How I relate this to Zimmerman is that he may have called on a zillion youth in the past, but we don't know what the % of black youth in the area is compared to other 'races' (or do we? I have not seen that posted anywhere), we don't know what he was thinking that night, and he doesn't say 'he IS black' on the 911 tape, he says 'he_ looks_ black', which sounds to me like he wasnt sure at the time, pretty sure, but not totally sure (due to hoodie i would imagine). Or maybe, just maybe, Zimmerman does not think 'there is a black kid' when he is patrolling the neighbourhood - maybe he just thinks 'what is that kid up to' and doesnt care what colour skin is showing. who knows - we sure as heck don't, and neither does anyone else but Zimmerman himself. 

It reminds me of when my boss got a survey from the govt a couple of years ago that suddenly asked the question of 'what number of children of each race do you have currently in your child care center'. Then there were little lines to fill in number beside caucasion, black, native, asian, hispanic, etc. She looked confused and started looking around the room trying to decide who fit into what category. I remember her asking me about one child, if I thought she might be native or asian (she is both, technically), but there was no 'mixed' category. We didnt think of the kids as 'our one native boy' or 'our black sudanese immigrant girl' and I knew my boss for sure didnt think that way when i saw her trying to fit the kids into these categories and not knowing who was 'what'. The way she talks sometimes (old school lol), youd assume she was a tad racist, but she really had no clue what geneology most of the kids came from. I had fun with it because my youngest son is 1/8 native, so I told her to make sure she adds him on that line. You would never know it - white hair, pale skin, etc but his great grampa was full blood native and therefore he can claim that in surveys lol. Seriously tho - all of this profiling takes SO much away from everything. Zimmerman is being called 'white' on tv when he is clearly a mix of different races - the president is being called 'black' despite the fact he is mixed and was raised by his white family, and everyone is beating a different drum - none of which are helping find out what actually happened that day. PS - i hate the word 'mixed' but couldnt get my brain going to think of something more eloquent. I don't normally think of people as mixed or anything like that, I think 'man woman girl boy baby' etc, so when I am forced to use these terms, that's all I can come up with.

----------


## azxd

I hear the elections are over ... Did ya all catch the results LOL

----------


## cajuncocoa

*Now ABC News Says Police Video Confirms Zimmerman's Injuries*

----------


## RonPaulMall

> It's really not any more difficult than that.
> 
> I'd also add that, initially, he was not held accountable for crossing that line due to the fact that he, or his father, or a combination of both, had LE "influence".


Actually it is more difficult than that, because under Florida Law, people in Zimmerman's position are protected from being hauled before a Court unless there is evidence they acted unlawfully.  Since such evidence is yet to surface (maybe it will, maybe it won't) there is no lawful case to be made for charging Zimmerman as of now.  If his father had any influence (highly doubtful given the timeline), it was to ensure that his son was treated fairly, not that garner any special treatment.

----------


## lilymc

I'm late on this thread, and sorry for not reading through 157 pages. 

Is there a consensus here...can anyone summarize what most here think about this case?

----------


## Anti Federalist

Murray Rothbard on the issue.

*What Would Murray Say About the Martin-Zimmerman Affair?* 

Posted by Michael S. Rozeff on April 2, 2012 01:11 PM 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/109206.html

Judging from passages in The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard would not say that Spike Lee committed a crime under libertarian law. That's because Lee made no direct, palpable and immediate threat on anyone. Lee violated a contract with Twitter. That's a tort.

Quoting from p. 78, "It is important to insist, however, that the threat of aggression be palpable, immediate, and direct; in short, that it be embodied in the initiation of an overt act. 

*Any remote or indirect criterion-any 'risk' or 'threat'-- is simply an excuse for invasive action by the supposed 'defender' against the alleged 'threat.'"*

*Zimmerman used a gun on an unarmed Martin. By the same Rothbardian reasoning, he had no right to do that unless his life was being threatened palpably, immediately and directly by Martin. Was it? We need to know whether or not Zimmerman brought about the confrontation after being warned not to. We need to know what occurred when the two men came together. We need to know who initiated force. We need to know what force levels were being applied and by whom.*

----------


## emazur



----------


## BlackTerrel

> 


Wow I just lost a lot of respect for Peter Schiff.  Talk about distracting from the issue... douchebag.

The difference is Shawn Tyson is in jail while George Zimmerman is free.  Peter Schiff is too smart not to get that... "where is the outrage"?  $#@! him.

----------


## azxd

> I'm late on this thread, and sorry for not reading through 157 pages. 
> 
> Is there a consensus here...can anyone summarize what most here think about this case?


Sure ... Some are quick to judge, and that group seems to believe Zimmerman should be killed, and then a trial can happen to justify their murderous actions.
Others just want to see a trial occur, and are willing to let the chips fall where they may.

Then there is a small (mostly silent) group who doesn't give a damn what happens, because it's not the national crisis some want it to be.

----------


## green73

1st

----------


## kylejack

> 


What an idiotic response from Schiff. Shawn Tyson was caught, charged, tried, and convicted.

----------


## farreri

*George Zimmerman hires Casey Anthony TV analyst*
April, 3 2012

George Zimmerman has hired attorney Hal Uhrig, stations reported tonight. The name will be familiar to people who followed the Casey Anthony coverage, because *Uhrig offered analysis for Fox-owned WOFL-Channel 35*.

Uhrig will join Craig Sonner in preparing Zimmermans defense in the Trayvon Martin case, WFTV-Channel 9 anchor Bob Opsahl said. 

*Evidently the Zimmermans are fans of WOFL*. Robert Zimmerman, Georges dad, gave his first TV interview to WOFL last week.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/ent...v-analyst.html

----------


## farreri

One point I haven't heard brought up here (maybe it has and I missed it) that I believe *proves Zimmerman's guilt*:

*Zimmerman only fired once!*

If he was truly in fear for his life and that's why he had to shoot, *he would have UNLOADED HIS CLIP into Trayvon*, not just fire once!!!

Couple this with *the screams for "Help!" stopping after the single shot* and the recent article stating two audio experts using different voice software both said *they are certain the cries for help were not from Zimmerman*.

This also makes sense why the single fatal shot was said to be square in Trayvon's chest, Zimmerman was in total control, was able to have accurate aim, and only fired one shot.

Add the other evidence:

- Zimmerman was arrested multiple times before, all for violence.
- Co-worker said Zim had a "Jeckell & Hyde" personality.
- Zim's daddy was a State Supreme Court Magistrate Judge, explains how he's gotten off lightly for past arrests and perhaps influenced getting off with this shooting.
- Was the only neighborhood watch person, self-appointed.
- Was known for being very strict as a watchmen.
- Went door-to-door warning about young black males.
- Was a habitual 911 caller.
- Knew what to say to 911 dispatcher to get a response, that Trayvon was acting suspicious, looks up to no good, maybe on drugs.
- Said "$#@!ing coons!" on the 911 call, admitted he was following Trayvon.
- Said he got out of his SUV to look at a street sign, but killing took place in the backyard public alley way.
- Trayvon's girlfriend on the cellphone with Trayvon said Trayvon complained of someone following him.  She heard Trayvon ask the guy why he's following him.  She hears the other guy ask what is he doing here.  She then hears some pushing, believing Trayon was pushed and knocked his earpiece off, phone went dead.
- Police video shows Zimmerman walking, acting, and looking un-injured with no bandages, blood-free, and jacket without grass stains or being wet.

It all adds up, *Zimmerman is guilty!*

----------


## jmdrake

> Sure ... Some are quick to judge, and that group seems to believe Zimmerman should be killed, and then a trial can happen to justify their murderous actions.
> Others just want to see a trial occur, and are willing to let the chips fall where they may.
> 
> Then there is a small (mostly silent) group who doesn't give a damn what happens, because it's not the national crisis some want it to be.


  And then there's the group that's dishonest about the position of the group they disagree with and falsely claims that group wants Zimmerman killed.  That side seems to not want a trial of Zimmerman at all.  But hey, what's a little hyperbole among libertarians right?  The bottom line is that the lead investigator wanted Zimmerman charged and arrested.  Zimmerman was arrested, but the state attorney interfered and said release him instead of charging him.  Had the process been allowed to go forward and letting the "chips fall where they may" it wouldn't have become such a big story and thread with over 1,500 posts.

----------


## farreri

Zim only shot once.  That alone proves his guilt.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Zim only shot once.  That alone proves his guilt.


You're kidding, right?

----------


## LibertyEagle

http://karendecoster.com/trayvon-and-zimmerman.html

===============
I have to wonder why the media is showing pictures of Trayvon when he was a 13 year old kid, instead of the 17 yrs. that he was.  Why do you think?  They are also showing an old picture of Zimmerman.  The top row is what the media is primarily using.  The bottom row are more current pictures.

----------


## Sublyminal

If all the stuff coming out now is true, the kid got what he deserved. He could have handled the situation better, he didn't have to attack Zimmerman for being a concerned citizen. If Trayvon didn't have anything to hide, he would have just went about his business, went on home. Instead he choose to do what he did and in the end it cost him his life. Case closed.

----------


## farreri

> You're kidding, right?


See my reasoning here.

----------


## farreri

> If all the stuff coming out now is true, the kid got what he deserved. He could have handled the situation better, he didn't have to attack Zimmerman for being a concerned citizen. If Trayvon didn't have anything to hide, he would have just went about his business, went on home. Instead he choose to do what he did and in the end it cost him his life. Case closed.


You seem better off at a neocon forum.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You seem better off at a neocon forum.


Bull$#@!.  Who in hell do you think you are?

----------


## farreri

> Bull$#@!.  Who in hell do you think you are?


Oh sorry, "_Traditional Conservative_."

----------


## Sublyminal

> You seem better off at a neocon forum.


So because the man acted in clear self defense that automatically makes me a neocon? I have sat by and listened to all the bs over this story about the black panthers putting a hit out on Zimmerman and they didn't even know the full story. When both sides of the story come together, Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon in self defense, A boy  who wasn't this baby faced kid that the media made him out to be, instead he was some thug ass hoodlum, that decided to attack Mr Zimmerman for no reason, all because Zimmerman was doing his job as the neighborhood watch.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> See my reasoning here.


I saw it.  I thought it was ridiculous.

The fact is that we don't know exactly what went down.  More and more is coming out...

 But, I do know that the media is doing their damnedest to turn this into a racial event.

----------


## Sublyminal

> Bull$#@!.  Who in hell do you think you are?



LE you and I may not see eye to eye most of the time, but a word of advice, ignore the troll. He's still steaming that I took him down a notch in the Apollo thread.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Oh sorry, "_Traditional Conservative_."


You're forgiven, punk.

----------


## AuH20

> So because the man acted in clear self defense that automatically makes me a neocon? I have sat by and listened to all the bs over this story about the black panthers putting a hit out on Zimmerman and they didn't even know the full story. When both sides of the story come together, Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon in self defense, A boy  who wasn't this baby faced kid that the media made him out to be, instead he was some thug ass hoodlum, that decided to attack Mr Zimmerman for no reason, all because Zimmerman was doing his job as the neighborhood watch.


We have to wait until the trial before jumping to conclusions. It's possible Martin escalated the confrontation but then again that is just hearsay until we get a trial. I'm of the mind, that a 17 year old kid thought he was invincible, felt indignant over the questioning and bull-rushed the far less imposing Zimmerman. Then Zimmerman foolishly shot him after being mauled.

----------


## farreri

> So because the man acted in clear self defense that automatically makes me a neocon? I have sat by and listened to all the bs over this story about the black panthers putting a hit out on Zimmerman and they didn't even know the full story. When both sides of the story come together, Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon in self defense, A boy  who wasn't this baby faced kid that the media made him out to be, instead he was some thug ass hoodlum, that decided to attack Mr Zimmerman for no reason, all because Zimmerman was doing his job as the neighborhood watch.


Quoting for posterity.


See my post on the previous page that logically explains, with rational reasoning, why Zimmerman is guilty.

----------


## farreri

> He's still steaming that I took him down a notch in the Apollo thread.


Dude, in what universe are you living in?!!!!

----------


## LibertyEagle

> We have to wait until the trial before jumping to conclusions. It's possible Martin escalated the confrontation but then again that is just hearsay until we get a trial. I'm of the mind, that a 17 year old kid thought he was invincible, felt indignant over the questioning and bull-rushed the far less imposing Zimmerman. Then Zimmerman foolishly shot him after being mauled.


Correction:  Apparently, after he was repeatedly bashed in the back of his head by the 17 year old.

You're right though, we aren't going to know everything that happened until there is a trial.

----------


## AuH20

> Correction: * Apparently, after he was repeatedly bashed in the back of his head by the 17 year old.*
> 
> You're right though, we aren't going to know everything that happened until there is a trial.


Which would explain the lacerations and gashes the EMT supposedly cleaned and treated. Once again, I hope we have a trial and the evidence is presented.

----------


## kylejack

> Which would explain the lacerations and gashes the EMT supposedly cleaned and treated. Once again, I hope we have a trial and the evidence is presented.


I've had a few bloody noses in my day, and I never managed to keep all blood off my shirt. Very odd that Zimmerman has no blood on his shirt. He was only at the shooting scene for about 18 minutes after the shot was fired.

----------


## Sublyminal

> We have to wait until the trial before jumping to conclusions. It's possible Martin escalated the confrontation but then again that is just hearsay until we get a trial. I'm of the mind, that a 17 year old kid thought he was invincible, felt indignant over the questioning and bull-rushed the far less imposing Zimmerman. Then Zimmerman foolishly shot him after being mauled.



Zimmerman said that Trayvon went for his gun, so obviously, the kid intended to use his own gun against him.  What I'm curious about is why is there no uproar over the NBP and no that's not no one but paul, that's new black panthers, offering a million dollars to take this man out. Why has Eric Holder not stepped in and put them all behind bars over this crap. 

Then there is the whole Obama crap, if I had a son he'd look like Trayvon. Now, I'm not one to get into racial crap, beings that I am of mixed decent. But, both of these statements were uncalled for. Trayvon got what he deserved, had he went home instead of messing with someone who was clearly just talking to the cops and looking out for his neighborhood, this whole thing wouldn't have happened.

Instead as I previously stated, Trayvon decided to play Mr. thug bad ass and got killed in the end. Zimmerman acted purely in self defense. Most people can't see that at all because the media said Zimmerman shot and killed a teen because he had a hoodie on. Complete bull$#@!.

----------


## farreri

> Correction:  Apparently, after he was repeatedly bashed in the back of his head by the 17 year old.


And yet he only shot once and the screams immediately stopped, even though he was supposedly within inches of his life.

----------


## kylejack

> Zimmerman said that Trayvon went for his gun, so obviously, the kid intended to use his own gun against him.  What I'm curious about is why is there no uproar over the NBP and no that's not no one but paul, that's new black panthers, offering a million dollars to take this man out. Why has Eric Holder not stepped in and put them all behind bars over this crap.


Federal government would not have jurisdiction, and the bounty for his capture is separate than a few idiots in their group who made dead or alive posters.

----------


## AuH20

> Zimmerman said that Trayvon went for his gun, so obviously, the kid intended to use his own gun against him.  What I'm curious about is why is there no uproar over the NBP and no that's not no one but paul, that's new black panthers, offering a million dollars to take this man out. Why has Eric Holder not stepped in and put them all behind bars over this crap. 
> 
> Then there is the whole Obama crap, if I had a son he'd look like Trayvon. Now, I'm not one to get into racial crap, beings that I am of mixed decent. But, both of these statements were uncalled for. Trayvon got what he deserved, had he went home instead of messing with someone who was clearly just talking to the cops and looking out for his neighborhood, this whole thing wouldn't have happened.
> 
> Instead as I previously stated, Trayvon decided to play Mr. thug bad ass and got killed in the end. Zimmerman acted purely in self defense. Most people can't see that at all because the media said Zimmerman shot and killed a teen because he had a hoodie on. Complete bull$#@!.


But Zimmerman's testimony is obviously called into question because he may have used excessive force. I'm far more interested in the witnesses' recollection.

----------


## Sublyminal

> But Zimmerman's testimony is obviously called into question because he may have used excessive force. I'm far more interested in the witnesses' recollection.



No such thing in Florida, that stand your ground law allows for excessive force. It wouldn't have worked in my $#@!ty state though.

----------


## kylejack

Zimmerman's most recent story (through his advocates) is Martin saw his gun and was going for it telling him he was going to die. I'm still very curious to learn _how_ he saw it, and whether it was really in the course of the struggle. If Zimmerman brandished before he was attacked, he was the criminal, not Martin.

----------


## Sublyminal

> Federal government would not have jurisdiction, and the bounty for his capture is separate than a few idiots in their group who made dead or alive posters.



Federal government had jurisdiction when they took on the KKK. NBP is no different, they're both terrorist organisations. The only problem is one is black and the other is all white. Same goes for the reason why none of them were brought up on charges of voter intimidation.

----------


## farreri

One point I haven't heard brought up here (maybe it has and I missed it) that I believe *proves Zimmerman's guilt*:

*Zimmerman only fired once!*

If he was truly in fear for his life and that's why he had to shoot, *he would have UNLOADED HIS CLIP into Trayvon*, not just fire once!!!

Couple this with *the screams for "Help!" stopping after the single shot* and the recent article stating two audio experts using different voice software both said *they are certain the cries for help were not from Zimmerman*.

This also makes sense why the single fatal shot was said to be square in Trayvon's chest, Zimmerman was in total control, was able to have accurate aim, and only fired one shot.

Add the other evidence:

- Zimmerman was arrested multiple times before, all for violence.
- Co-worker said Zim had a "Jeckell & Hyde" personality.
- Zim's daddy was a State Supreme Court Magistrate Judge, explains how he's gotten off lightly for past arrests and perhaps influenced getting off with this shooting.
- Was the only neighborhood watch person, self-appointed.
- Was known for being very strict as a watchmen.
- Went door-to-door warning about young black males.
- Was a habitual 911 caller.
- Knew what to say to 911 dispatcher to get a response, that Trayvon was acting suspicious, looks up to no good, maybe on drugs.
- Said "$#@!ing coons!" on the 911 call, admitted he was following Trayvon.
- Said he got out of his SUV to look at a street sign, but killing took place in the backyard public alley way.
- Trayvon's girlfriend on the cellphone with Trayvon said Trayvon complained of someone following him.  She heard Trayvon ask the guy why he's following him.  She hears the other guy ask what is he doing here.  She then hears some pushing, believing Trayon was pushed and knocked his earpiece off, phone went dead.
- Police video shows Zimmerman walking, acting, and looking un-injured with no bandages, blood-free, and jacket without grass stains or being wet.

It all adds up, *Zimmerman is guilty!*

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The is the best article I have seen yet on the Trayvon Martin killing: “Trayvonnosaurex Rex” by Jim Goad.
> 
> Although modern journalism suffers no shortage of liars, most of the false impressions it creates are more due to a careful omission of facts. And in the Trayvon Martin case, I’ve seen a whole lotta cherry-pickin’ goin’ on. Due to the way the saga is being framed, as well as the fact that it’s swollen into the top news story in America, a rancid little tug in the pit of my stomach tells me this could all get a lot more dangerous, and quickly.
> 
> The flames are being fanned by paid scribes and well-compensated activists who’ve been salivating for a good old-fashioned white-on-black hate crime, even though this isn’t technically one of those.
> 
> But the torches are being carried by those who are acting like they know exactly what happened—even though, like me, they weren’t there, either. They are gathering in mobs, donning hoods, and demanding blood vengeance just like people gathered in mobs, donned hoods, and demanded blood vengeance a hundred years ago. And just like the mobs from a hundred years ago, they seem to have the sympathy of the media and the president on their side.


For the rest...

----------


## Sublyminal

> One point I haven't heard brought up here (maybe it has and I missed it) that I believe *proves Zimmerman's guilt*:
> 
> *Zimmerman only fired once!*
> 
> If he was truly in fear for his life and that's why he had to shoot, *he would have UNLOADED HIS CLIP into Trayvon*, not just fire once!!!
> 
> Couple this with *the screams for "Help!" stopping after the single shot* and the recent article stating two audio experts using different voice software both said *they are certain the cries for help were not from Zimmerman*.
> 
> This also makes sense why the single fatal shot was said to be square in Trayvon's chest, Zimmerman was in total control, was able to have accurate aim, and only fired one shot.
> ...



Okay, so tell me something... would you be able to take a bullet? Normally all it takes is one and whoever you just shot is going to leave you the hell alone. I have taken bullets and I'll tell you right now, it's pain that you can't imagine. Also, maybe all he could squeeze off was one shot, we don't know if the one shot instantly killed Tray or not, if it instantly killed him, the minute his body went limp, Zimmerman wouldn't have needed to *UNLOAD* his mag into a dead body.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Federal government had jurisdiction when they took on the KKK. NBP is no different, they're both terrorist organisations. The only problem is one is black and the other is all white. Same goes for the reason why none of them were brought up on charges of voter intimidation.


The same reason Hal Turner was able to go on radio and call, repeatedly, for executions of judges and cops.

Because NBPP and KKK and Turner were/are feds.

If anybody else did what they did, if you or I tried it, we'd be in jail.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I saw it.  I thought it was ridiculous.
> 
> The fact is that we don't know exactly what went down.  More and more is coming out...
> 
>  But, I do know that the media is doing their damnedest to turn *has succeeded* *turning* this into a racial event.


FTFY

----------


## kezt777

> I've had a few bloody noses in my day, and I never managed to keep all blood off my shirt. Very odd that Zimmerman has no blood on his shirt. He was only at the shooting scene for about 18 minutes after the shot was fired.


I had a bloody nose from a fight (broke the cartilage and displaced it to the side of my nose in fact) and I did not have a visible drop on my clothing or my shoes, jeans, etc. So it 'can' happen, but I was standing and leaned over and caught the blood in my hands so that helped the matter - but i'm just saying it can happen to have a bloody nose and no blood on your clothing.

----------


## specsaregood

> I had a bloody nose from a fight (broke the cartilage and displaced it to the side of my nose in fact) and I did not have a visible drop on my clothing or my shoes, jeans, etc. So it 'can' happen, but I was standing and leaned over and caught the blood in my hands so that helped the matter - but i'm just saying it can happen to have a bloody nose and no blood on your clothing.


But how many people have you shot at a close enough range to be in the midst of a fist fight and not gotten blood on your clothing?

----------


## kezt777

> Couple this with *the screams for "Help!" stopping after the single shot* and the recent article stating two audio experts using different voice software both said *they are certain the cries for help were not from Zimmerman*.


I try to listen to what people actually say without really meaning to say it... there were two voice experts on a news program last night (perhaps the two that you mentioned? One was named Ed). Anyhow, the two men were in agreement that it was not Zimmerman's voice screaming 'help'. They went into great detail about how one man's software works, and the other man uses his own ears (has done for 28 years)... that second man went on about how the 'human voice is a symphony' blah blah. He sounded very convincing, stating that he went over and over the 911 tape of zimmerman and the recording of the scream and would leave and come back to it and each time reached an over 90% certainty that it was not Zimmerman's voice. Okay.....

BUT when asked if a recording of Trayvon's voice, such as in a voicemail message, would help - that same man went ON and ON about how it would be so much better if he could pour over the family's recordings of anything where Trayvon's voice was HIGHER, for example playing a video game while someone filmed him, or shouting in excitement at something, because he would like to hear Trayvon's voice in the same manner as the scream recording, since this hypered high voice would be in similar context.

Right away I made the mental note that the voice of Zimmerman on the 911 tape is not all raised and higher and exciteable - so why wouldnt the voice specialist want a similar tape of Zimmerman to compare? Why would he go on and on in such detail about what kind of voice he would like to compare Trayvon's to, but use the 911 tape for Zimmerman? That red flagged for me. 

Keep in mind that ghost hunting shows use similar software to pull EVPs out and determine whether the voice came from the crew or not, and for the layperson, it would be impossible to know if the voice experts know what they are talking about. It sounds to me like a younger voice on the recording, a child almost, so I would lean toward it being Trayvon from my own personal opinion - but those voice experts made me take a step back and not want to trust everything they were saying either. Even if their equipment is high tech, they are still human beings who can go into their experiments with pre-conceived notions.

----------


## kezt777

> But how many people have you shot at a close enough range to be in the midst of a fist fight and not gotten blood on your clothing?


O I agree that it seems very strange that there would be no splatter from the gun shot either - I was just responding to what was said about the bloody nose. However, earlier in this huge thread I mentioned a friend of mine who accidentally shot himself in the calf with his rifle and there was hardly any blood at all on the front of his leg and none visible on the front of either shoe - but the back where it exited was a total disaster and soaking, gross horrible mess. But from the front, he looked like maybe he fell over and tore his jeans a little bit. So who knows. I agree it's odd but I am not a blood expert. Just sharing personal experiences that I have seen myself. That is all I can go by.

----------


## jmdrake

Because both liberal and conservative media are manipulating the population.  The "pillsbury doughboy" image of Zimmerman makes it look like he couldn't fight he way out of a paper bag.  But the video of him getting out of the police car makes him look like an MMA fighter.  




> http://karendecoster.com/trayvon-and-zimmerman.html
> 
> ===============
> I have to wonder why the media is showing pictures of Trayvon when he was a 13 year old kid, instead of the 17 yrs. that he was.  Why do you think?  They are also showing an old picture of Zimmerman.  The top row is what the media is primarily using.  The bottom row are more current pictures.

----------


## jmdrake

> No such thing in Florida, that stand your ground law allows for excessive force. It wouldn't have worked in my $#@!ty state though.


The use of deadly force under the SYGL is qualified.  You must believe that your life is in danger or that you are in danger of severe bodily harm.  The SYGL does not allow for deadly force any time someone attacks you.  If Zimmerman got Martin off of him before he shot him (and I'm waiting for the self defence demo showing how Zimmerman got to his gun without getting Martin off first) then it's *really* questionable if he believed at that point his life was in danger unless there was a struggle for the gun.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Zimmerman said that Trayvon went for his gun, so obviously, the kid intended to use his own gun against him.  What I'm curious about is why is there no uproar over the NBP and no that's not no one but paul, that's new black panthers, offering a million dollars to take this man out. Why has Eric Holder not stepped in and put them all behind bars over this crap. 
> 
> Then there is the whole Obama crap, if I had a son he'd look like Trayvon. Now, I'm not one to get into racial crap, beings that I am of mixed decent. But, both of these statements were uncalled for. Trayvon got what he deserved, had he went home instead of messing with someone who was clearly just talking to the cops and looking out for his neighborhood, this whole thing wouldn't have happened.


Trayvon "got what he deserved"?  For buying skittles and ice tea?  Holy crap this $#@! never ceases to amaze me

----------


## pcosmar

> Zimmerman said that Trayvon went for his gun,


What gun?

Damn,, people are just making up bull$#@! to try to justify this $#@!.

----------


## Danke

> What gun?
> 
> Damn,, people are just making up bull$#@! to try to justify this $#@!.


English language is difficult.

----------


## specsaregood

> What gun?
> Damn,, people are just making up bull$#@! to try to justify this $#@!.


went for zimmerman's gun.  ya know the one that trayvon ended up getting shot with.

----------


## furface

Is the image in the lower left supposed to look menacing?  The one that looks the most menacing to me is the one in the lower right.  Something about that picture makes me think of a dimwitted, self-righteous puke.  I have a lot of experience observing people who mistake violent force for morality.  Somehow he looks like it, but I admit I can't tell you exactly why.  I wouldn't go chasing him through my neighborhood pointing a gun at him.  It's just a feeling.

Both pictures of Zimmerman look menacing to me, but not because of race.  It's mainly because of grooming habits and such.  

Would wearing a Hitler mustache tell you something about a person?  I think after WWII it would.  Charlie Chaplin had one and I think Laural of Laural & Hardie did, but that was before Hitler.

----------


## The Free Hornet

Black Teen in Florida Kills Two White Students in Cold Blood  No Outrage and No Apology from Obama

Two Black Teens Fueled By Hate From Al Sharpton Brutally Beat a White Man in Sanford, FL

Mass Shooting by Black Gunman in Miami  Obama, Sharpton, Spike Lee & Farrakhan Nowhere to be Found

I don't know if this Zimmerman thing will still be a story come November, but I see this as major screwup by the whitehouse.  These were Obama's comments:




> "I can only imagine what these parents are going through," Mr. Obama said from the White House Rose Garden, "and when I think about this boy, I think about my own kids, and I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this and that everybody pulls together, federal, state and local, to figure out how this tragedy happened."
> 
> Mr. Obama said he is glad the Justice Department is investigating the shooting and that Florida Gov. Rick Scott formed a task force in response to the incident as well. The president suggested he was sympathetic to suspicion that the shooting may have been racially motivated.
> 
> "You know, if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon," Mr. Obama said.
> 
> "All of us have to do some soul-searching to figure out how does something like this happen," he continued. "And that means that we examine the laws and the context for what happened as well as the specifics of the incident."
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...k-like-trayvon


I like the, "as well as the specifics".  Yeah, don't forget that.

PS:  I haven't read the whole thread, but don't want to start a new one just to post some links.

----------


## dannno

> Trayvon "got what he deserved"?  For buying skittles and ice tea?  Holy crap this $#@! never ceases to amaze me


Apparently Trayvon attacked Zimmerman after Zimmerman was following him around the neighborhood to make sure he wasn't a criminal. 

The person you are responding to actually said that he got what he deserved because he 'went for his gun'. Trayvon did not have a gun and I don't recall Zimmerman making a statement like that so the poster was likely misinformed.

----------


## kathy88

The thing that upsets me the most about the whole situation (other than the pointless death of a 17 year old young man) is the way the media is trying to incite racial divisiveness. They've been playing the 911 tape on Sirius. Zimmerman calls, tells the dispatcher there's a suspicious person in his neighborhood. The dispatcher asks if he is white, black or hispanic?  Zimmerman says, "he looks black."   NBC aired that same call when this all became news but it was grossly edited to only include, "There's a suspicious person in my neighborhood he looks black." And they played it over and over. They purposely edited that tape to incite racial divide. I truly believe this.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> The thing that upsets me the most about the whole situation (other than the pointless death of a 17 year old young man) is the way the media is trying to incite racial divisiveness. They've been playing the 911 tape on Sirius. Zimmerman calls, tells the dispatcher there's a suspicious person in his neighborhood. The dispatcher asks if he is white, black or hispanic?  Zimmerman says, "he looks black."   NBC aired that same call when this all became news but it was grossly edited to only include, "There's a suspicious person in my neighborhood he looks black." And they played it over and over. They purposely edited that tape to incite racial divide. I truly believe this.


Not even a question about that.

The tape was clearly edited so as to be inflammatory as possible.

----------


## kylejack

> Black Teen in Florida Kills Two White Students in Cold Blood – No Outrage and No Apology from Obama
> 
> Two Black Teens Fueled By Hate From Al Sharpton Brutally Beat a White Man in Sanford, FL
> 
> Mass Shooting by Black Gunman in Miami – Obama, Sharpton, Spike Lee & Farrakhan Nowhere to be Found


Oh look, a bunch of criminals arrested and being prosecuted for their crimes, which is nothing like this case.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> Oh look, a bunch of criminals arrested and being prosecuted for their crimes, which is nothing like this case.


?  The point of the links is to compare and contrast media and Whitehouse responses to recent shootings.  Zimmeran has a grand jury coming up.  In other words, he is being prosecuted.  And even the DailyKos agrees:  *George Zimmerman WAS Arrested At The Scene of Trayvon Martin Killing*.

I would feel arrested if hand-cuffed, driven to a police station, questioned (and waving my right to silence).  So he was arrested and *is facing a grand jury*.  I.e., "prosecuted" (per your quote) like the cases I referenced.  The point is about media and political response.

All three articles reference the Zimmerman shooting.  One even has a picture of Trayvon:

[pic removed - another not-the-right Trayvon pic]

I'm sure that wasn't directed at your post.

----------


## kylejack

> ?  The point of the story is to compare and contrast media and Whitehouse responses to recent shootings.


Obama was asked about the case, and at the time a prosecution was looking unlikely. Only after all the furor did the state attorney say he would submit it to the grand jury.




> Zimmeran has a grand jury coming up.  In other words, he is being prosecuted.  And even the DailyKos agrees:  *George Zimmerman WAS Arrested At The Scene of Trayvon Martin Killing*.


Zimmerman _was not_ arrested, he was detained, questioned, and released. And DailyKos has a lot of random bloggers that are nobodies, besides, why should I care what a Kos blogger says anyway?




> I know I would feel arrested if I was hand-cuffed, driven to a police station, questioned (and waving my right to silence).  So he was arrested and *is facing a grand jury*.  Like the cases I referenced.  The point is about media and political response.


Uh, how you feel is not the same as the law, and there is a legal distinction between detention and arrest.

----------


## MelissaWV

> ?  The point of the links is to compare and contrast media and Whitehouse responses to recent shootings.  Zimmeran has a grand jury coming up.  In other words, he is being prosecuted.  And even the DailyKos agrees:  *George Zimmerman WAS Arrested At The Scene of Trayvon Martin Killing*.
> 
> I would feel arrested if hand-cuffed, driven to a police station, questioned (and waving my right to silence).  So he was arrested and *is facing a grand jury*.  I.e., "prosecuted" (per your quote) like the cases I referenced.  The point is about media and political response.
> 
> All three articles reference the Zimmerman shooting.  One even has a picture of Trayvon:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that wasn't directed at your post.


You do understand that the "flipping the bird" photo has been busted as being of another Trayvon Martin, right?

----------


## Sublyminal

> What gun?
> 
> Damn,, people are just making up bull$#@! to try to justify this $#@!.



Are you and blackterrel both idiots or what?  TRAYVON went for Zimmerman's gun, not his own. I can't believe how retarded you both are. Actually I can.  I mean $#@!, don't they teach you kids anything in school these days? You know, $#@! like reading comprehension and stuff like that.


Also, PCO next time you choose to call someone a racist make sure they aren't part black before you do so, k, retard?

----------


## Sublyminal

> Trayvon "got what he deserved"?  For buying skittles and ice tea?  Holy crap this $#@! never ceases to amaze me



Reading comprehension eludes you. Please do yourself a favor, go back and take third grade English again. It's clear you didn't pay attention the first time around.

----------


## RickyJ

> Also, PCO next time you choose to call someone a racist make sure they aren't part black before you do so, k, retard?


Yeah, everyone knows part blacks can't be racist.

----------


## Ender

> Are you and blackterrel both idiots or what?  TRAYVON went for Zimmerman's gun, not his own. I can't believe how retarded you both are. Actually I can.  I mean $#@!, don't they teach you kids anything in school these days? You know, $#@! like reading comprehension and stuff like that.
> 
> 
> Also, PCO next time you choose to call someone a racist make sure they aren't part black before you do so, k, retard?


No proof that Martin went after Zimmerman's gun.

And since I am part Cherokee and black I can say what I want, right?

----------


## Sublyminal

> Apparently Trayvon attacked Zimmerman after Zimmerman was following him around the neighborhood to make sure he wasn't a criminal. 
> 
> The person you are responding to actually said that he got what he deserved because he 'went for his gun'. Trayvon did not have a gun and I don't recall Zimmerman making a statement like that so the poster was likely misinformed.



Once again, another person that didn't pay attention in third grade English.  You do realize there is more than one Zimmerman right? There is the elder Zimmerman, who has publicly come out and said that George told him, that Trayvon went for his gun, his gun as in his son's gun. As I said had the kid not been acting like a thug and not started $#@! with George and let the police resolve everything he'd still be alive today. 

I truly love all the retards that called me racist (a half black male, mind you) because I think the punk got what he deserved. Bleeding heart sissies like blackterrel, coming out commenting to $#@! he knows nothing about. And PCO calling me a racist, good work guys, allow me to reward you both with the internet's retard of the year award.

----------


## Sublyminal

> Yeah, everyone knows part blacks can't be racist.



/facepalm

----------


## Sublyminal

> No proof that Martin went after Zimmerman's gun.
> 
> And since I am part Cherokee and black I can say what I want, right?



If you can handle the consequences then sure, say whatever you want. But to be called racist because thug boy got what he deserved is a bit ridiculous.

----------


## specsaregood

> Yeah, everyone knows part blacks can't be racist.


We're all black on the internet.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Are you and blackterrel both idiots or what?  TRAYVON went for Zimmerman's gun, not his own. I can't believe how retarded you both are. Actually I can.  I mean $#@!, *don't they teach you kids anything in school these days?* You know, $#@! like reading comprehension and stuff like that.
> 
> 
> Also, PCO next time you choose to call someone a racist make sure they aren't part black before you do so, k, retard?


Oh boy, this is gonna be good.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> We're all black on the internet.


And communists.

----------


## specsaregood

> And communists.


and we can afford to be; because everybody is rich and successful on the internet too.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> and we can afford to be; because everybody is rich and successful on the internet too.


Da, Komrade, big bosomed and well hung too.

----------


## RickyJ

> I truly love all the retards that called me racist (a half black male, mind you) because I think the punk got what he deserved. Bleeding heart sissies like blackterrel, coming out commenting to $#@! he knows nothing about. And PCO calling me a racist, good work guys, allow me to reward you both with the internet's retard of the year award.


He's dead. You think he deserved that? We don't know all the facts so it is not wise to jump to such conclusions like that before  the facts come out, just like it is not wise for the media and NAACP to jump to conclusions and call Zimmerman a racist and murderer before knowing all the facts. It is a tragic situation but there are those trying to use it to cause problems between blacks and whites. Those people are despicable.

----------


## specsaregood

> Da, Komrade, big bosomed and well hung too.


either that or tight, virginal and asian.

----------


## Sublyminal

> We're all black on the internet.



Cept I have no reason to lie about my ethnicity, I'm actually proud of being black and white. I've never been able to figure out why whites seem to be ashamed of their color pigments, so they pretend to be black on the net. 

AF: Whoa now, why bring communism into this?

----------


## Sublyminal

> He's dead. You think he deserved that? We don't know all the facts so it is not wise to jump to such conclusions like that before the the facts come out, just like it is not wise for the media and NAACP to jump to conclusions and call Zimmerman a racist and murderer before knowing all the facts. It is a tragic situation but there are those trying to use it to cause problems between blacks and whites. Those people are despicable.




Well, let's see. We have an eye witness who states that Zimmerman was on the ground having his head bashed in because thug boy tried to act all hard. That's the problem with 17 year old little punks, they think they're bad asses, Zimmerman acted in self defense. The case is clear cut. If I'm having my head bashed in and no one is trying to stop it, and I have my piece on me, I'm gonna put my attacker down. 

$#@! reminds me of the whole Jenna 6 incident, where that one white kid got beat up because of his skin color and the NAACP marched on it all because they were black. Organizations such as these need to be forcefully disbanded because they're the ones that are steadily opening up old wounds.

----------


## specsaregood

> Cept I have no reason to lie about my ethnicity, I'm actually proud of being black and white. I've never been able to figure out why whites seem to be ashamed of their color pigments, so they pretend to be black on the net. 
> 
> AF: Whoa now, why bring communism into this?


Who said anything about lying?    Seriously, we're all black on the internet.    And AF's a commie, so he naturally imagines that everybody else is as well; so he doesn't feel all alone.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Cept I have no reason to lie about my ethnicity, I'm actually proud of being black and white. I've never been able to figure out why whites seem to be ashamed of their color pigments, so they pretend to be black on the net. 
> 
> AF: Whoa now, why bring communism into this?


Inside joke, unrelated to this thread or subject.

Carry on.

----------


## Sublyminal

> Who said anything about lying?    Seriously, we're all black on the internet.    And AF's a commie, so he naturally imagines that everybody else is as well; so he doesn't feel all alone.




Appeared to be a veiled jab, my bad if I overreacted.  And yes, I am aware that there are a lot of wannabe blacks on the net. A commie that likes Ron Paul, seems like a good man to me.

----------


## specsaregood

> Appeared to be a veiled jab, my bad if I overreacted.  And yes, I am aware that there are a lot of wannabe blacks on the net. A commie that likes Ron Paul, seems like a good man to me.


The internet is still a bit of a fantasy world.  You can be whatever you want to be.  you want to be half-black, so be it.  you look the same to me on the internet -- although you currently look like a pissed off old white guy.  Me? I drive a kick ass car and sang in a kick ass musical with dolly parton.

----------


## Sublyminal

> The internet is still a bit of a fantasy world.  You can be whatever you want to be.  you want to be half-black, so be it.  you look the same to me on the internet -- although you currently look like a pissed off old white guy.  Me? I drive a kick ass car and sang in a kick ass musical with dolly parton.



Well, R. Lee Ermey is considered a pissed off old white former Marine, so I suppose you're onto something.

----------


## specsaregood

> Well, R. Lee Ermey is considered a pissed off old white former Marine, so I suppose you're onto something.


I notice you and AF both chose characters that come to tragic endings in their films.  I wonder what an armchair shrink would say about that.

----------


## Sublyminal

> I notice you and AF both chose characters that come to tragic endings in their films.  I wonder what an armchair shrink would say about that.



Hmmm, quick, I'm sure you can find a wannabe shrink on the net somewhere.

----------


## specsaregood

> Hmmm, quick, I'm sure you can find a wannabe shrink on the net somewhere.


At least AF's character has that whole I died for a great cause bigger than myself thing going for it.  But yours?  Killed by some pitiful fat guy that lost his marbles?  Choosing that has all kinds of dark implications I'm afraid to delve into.

Burt on the other hand, fast cars, fast women, chimpanzees and elephants.  I clearly don't get any of those.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Apparently Trayvon attacked Zimmerman after Zimmerman was following him around the neighborhood to make sure he wasn't a criminal. 
> 
> The person you are responding to actually said that he got what he deserved because he 'went for his gun'. Trayvon did not have a gun and I don't recall Zimmerman making a statement like that so the poster was likely misinformed.


Misinformed or outright making $#@! up/lying?  I'd say the latter.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Are you and blackterrel both idiots or what?  TRAYVON went for Zimmerman's gun, not his own. I can't believe how retarded you both are. Actually I can.  I mean $#@!, don't they teach you kids anything in school these days? You know, $#@! like reading comprehension and stuff like that.


They didn't teach me in school to make up random bull$#@! about how an unarmed guy lunged for an armed guys gun.  Where are you getting your info from?  I can't debate you if you're just making $#@! up.  

Next you'll tell me that aliens shot Trayvon.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> At least AF's character has that whole I died for a great cause bigger than myself thing going for it.  But yours?  Killed by some pitiful fat guy that lost his marbles?  Choosing that has all kinds of dark implications I'm afraid to delve into.
> 
> Burt on the other hand, fast cars, fast women, chimpanzees and elephants.  I clearly don't get any of those.


This ran through my head in that other thread:

----------


## The Free Hornet

> Obama was asked about the case, and at the time a prosecution was looking unlikely. Only after all the furor did the state attorney say he would submit it to the grand jury.


His remarks looked prepared and race-based.  How many cases does anti-Fed post that don't comments from Obama because they are cops vs mundanes?  I am criticizing more than just Obama.  His problem is not having the sense to either stay out or give other situations equal treatment (and I realize that is not very feasible).




> Zimmerman _was not_ arrested, he was detained, questioned, and released. And DailyKos has a lot of random bloggers that are nobodies, besides, why should I care what a Kos blogger says anyway?
> 
> Uh, how you feel is not the same as the law, and there is a legal distinction between detention and arrest.


Why should you care?  Find a better reference.  Regarding arrest vs detention, it can seem arbitrary (question of degree):




> Nonetheless, a detention, preventing your leaving, asking you questions, is still much less than arresting you with the consequences that implies. An arrest means you are *under official control [like handcuffs?]*. You may not leave the area at your will ['cause of the handcuffs]. A pat down search for weapons may be conducted if apparently necessary, and you will be booked. *Clearly, the question is one of degree.*
> 
> http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/detent.htm


Can you point to a refernce?  Let's keep my feelings out of it.  Here is another reference:




> Under United States v. Mayen-Munoz, when you handcuff a compliant suspect and remove him from the scene down to the station, even for a brief time of 5 minutes, that constitutes an arrest. Handcuffs are not an absolute signal of arrest, they can be used for officer safety, but when there is no reason to suspect that the suspect is armed and dangerous, handcuffs signal arrest.
> 
> http://ncguns.blogspot.com/2012/03/w...man-wasnt.html


Uh oh!  Looks like another blogger.  Guess what?  I'm fighting for liberty and against the MSM.  I don't give a rat's ass if it is just another blogger because I'll trust a random person from the phonebook before ABC/NBC/CBS/PBS/FOX/CNN.





> You do understand that the "flipping the bird" photo has been busted as being of another Trayvon Martin, right?


No - I'll remove it then.

----------


## kylejack

> Why should you care?  Find a better reference.  Regarding arrest vs detention, it can seem arbitrary (question of degree)


One distinction is that detentions are virtually always fairly short while someone who is arrested can be held until trial, if no bail is set or if they can't afford it. Another is that an arrest would have shown up on Zimmerman's arrest record in the future. If he has another suspicious shooting, there is something to refer back to for investigators.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You do understand that the "flipping the bird" photo has been busted as being of another Trayvon Martin, right?


There are two such photos...the one TFH posted IS of the Trayvon Martin who is the subject of this thread.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/martin.asp << scroll all the way to the bottom.

----------


## Cowlesy

Shocker.

http://www.toledoblade.com/Police-Fi...-E-Toledo.html

----------


## azxd

> The internet is still a bit of a fantasy world.  You can be whatever you want to be.  you want to be half-black, so be it.  you look the same to me on the internet -- although you currently look like a pissed off old white guy.  Me? I drive a kick ass car and sang in a kick ass musical with dolly parton.


And here I was thinking all you did of value was jump a frog

----------


## tfurrh

What does my avatar say about me?

----------


## azxd

> Shocker.
> 
> http://www.toledoblade.com/Police-Fi...-E-Toledo.html


It's to bad the guy who yelled didn't just shoot all those punks.

----------


## azxd

> What does my avatar say about me?


That you really like tall doorways.

----------


## jmdrake

> Once again, another person that didn't pay attention in third grade English.  You do realize there is more than one Zimmerman right? There is the elder Zimmerman, who has publicly come out and said that George told him, that Trayvon went for his gun, his gun as in his son's gun. As I said had the kid not been acting like a thug and not started $#@! with George and let the police resolve everything he'd still be alive today. 
> 
> I truly love all the retards that called me racist (a half black male, mind you) because I think the punk got what he deserved. Bleeding heart sissies like blackterrel, coming out commenting to $#@! he knows nothing about. And PCO calling me a racist, good work guys, allow me to reward you both with the internet's retard of the year award.


Ummm....do you realize that Dannno has been consistently arguing from *your* side and that pcosmar is probably old enough to be your daddy?  No.  Probably not.  You're too busy mouthing off and trying to show how important and informed you are.  Carry on.

----------


## Sublyminal

> They didn't teach me in school to make up random bull$#@! about how an unarmed guy lunged for an armed guys gun.  Where are you getting your info from?  I can't debate you if you're just making $#@! up.  
> 
> Next you'll tell me that aliens shot Trayvon.



George Zimmerman's dad and Zimmerman himself have both said Trayvon went for the gun. Do you not pay attention to the news or are you just one of these black folk that quickly go off the handle because the NBP tells you too. Look at both sides of the story kiddo.

.... did you really bring aliens into this?

----------


## Sublyminal

> Ummm....do you realize that Dannno has been consistently arguing from *your* side and that pcosmar is probably old enough to be your daddy?  No.  Probably not.  You're too busy mouthing off and trying to show how important and informed you are.  Carry on.



I highly doubt he is old enough to be my dad, but nice try though. And when I'm insulted by being called a racist you're damned right I'm going to *mouth* off.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I highly doubt he is old enough to be my dad, but nice try though. And when I'm insulted by being called a racist you're damned right I'm going to *mouth* off.


Who called you a racist?

I've gone back over the thread and haven't seen that.

Link?

----------


## Ender

> George Zimmerman's dad and Zimmerman himself have both said Trayvon went for the gun. Do you not pay attention to the news or are you just one of these black folk that quickly go off the handle because the NBP tells you too. Look at both sides of the story kiddo.
> 
> .... did you really bring aliens into this?


Nice to know Zimmerman's dad was an eyewitness. I'm sure he can tell us all about the event with absolutely no prejudice as to who was guilty.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> George Zimmerman's dad and Zimmerman himself have both said Trayvon went for the gun. Do you not pay attention to the news or are you just one of these black folk that quickly go off the handle because the NBP tells you too. Look at both sides of the story kiddo.
> 
> .... did you really bring aliens into this?


Wow you really nailed it on that one kiddo.

----------


## Sublyminal

> Who called you a racist?
> 
> I've gone back over the thread and haven't seen that.
> 
> Link?



It was in a neg rep comment. I don't care about neg reps, it's the idiotic comments left that offend me.





> Thread: **Official** Trayvon...
> Take your lying racist bull$#@! elsewhere.


That was from pco.

----------


## Sublyminal

> Wow you really nailed it on that one kiddo.



I'm sorry you don't get it, not everyone pays attention to all sides of the story. When I first heard about the kid getting killed i was pissed too, especially after seeing the pic of him, I assumed it was some 13 year old. Then it comes out that the media mislead us not only by altering the phone call but also using a four year old picture. And then the other side of the story comes out, sorry, but I'm someone who prefers hearing all sides of a story before automatically assuming the Hispanic fellow is guilty. Of which, I'm quite sure a lot of people said the man was an illegal alien.

----------


## AuH20

so much for the coons theory. Cya:

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/3247...911-racial.htm

----------


## BlackTerrel

> so much for the coons theory. Cya:
> 
> http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/3247...911-racial.htm


Hahahah bull$#@!.

I'm sure Zimmerman just decided to bring up the temperature at that moment.  Man people are really reaching to deny the obvious these days...

----------


## Zippyjuan

> George Zimmerman's dad and Zimmerman himself have both said Trayvon went for the gun. Do you not pay attention to the news or are you just one of these black folk that quickly go off the handle because the NBP tells you too. Look at both sides of the story kiddo.
> 
> .... did you really bring aliens into this?


Of course they were not witnesses so they are merely repeating what Zimmerman told them. What initiated the confrontation? We have Zimmerman himself saying the kid was leaving the area and he was running after him. Despite the fact that up until that point all the kid had done was to walk down the street.

----------


## angelatc

> Shocker.
> 
> http://www.toledoblade.com/Police-Fi...-E-Toledo.html


Holy crap - that's sad.

----------


## cajuncocoa

*Bill Cosby weighs in on Trayvon Martin case*


> The gun.
> 
> Those two simple words flowed easily from the mouth of social  commentator Bill Cosby during an exclusive interview Friday regarding  the Trayvon Martin case, arguably the most high-profile,  citizen-on-citizen U.S. slaying facing the Obama administration.
> 
>                                                                                                                              Trayvon was killed Feb. 26 in Sanford, Fla., by neighborhood  watchman George Zimmerman, who told police that a confrontation with  the unarmed 17-year-old led him to shoot in self-defense.
> 
>                                                                                                                              Mr. Cosby, a Navy veteran, said the gun empowered Mr.  Zimmerman, whose actions have stirred a firestorm of debate, protests  and remarks from President Obama.
> 
>                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Weve got to get the gun out of the hands of people who are  supposed to be on neighborhood watch, said Mr. Cosby, whose remarks  were the first he has made publicly about the case.
> ...


More: http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/20...n-martin-case/

----------


## Danke

“We’ve got to get the gun out of the hands of people who are supposed to be on neighborhood watch"

“When you carry a gun, you mean to harm somebody, kill somebody,”

What an $#@!.

----------


## Ender

> “We’ve got to get the gun out of the hands of people who are supposed to be on neighborhood watch"
> 
> “When you carry a gun, you mean to harm somebody, kill somebody,”
> 
> What an $#@!.


NW is not supposed to carry or follow or stalk or chase...etc, etc, etc.

They are supposed to "Observe and Report".

----------


## moderate libertarian

Looks like Spike Lee is about to be "Kanye West'd".

http://www.screenjunkies.com/movies/...-or-good-dude/

----------


## Danke

> NW is not supposed to carry or follow or stalk or chase...etc, etc, etc.
> 
> They are supposed to "Observe and Report".


OK, I watch my neighborhood, I guess I'm not "officially" in the ranks.

----------


## Anti Federalist

*Zimmerman's lawyers withdraw from shooting case*

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...63cf7b5f69f505

By KYLE HIGHTOWER, Associated Press – 13 minutes ago  

SANFORD, Fla. (AP) — The Trayvon Martin case took a bizarre turn Tuesday when George Zimmerman's attorneys quit, complaining that they have lost all contact with him and that he called the prosecutor and talked to a TV host after they told him not to speak to anyone.

The lawyers portrayed the former neighborhood watch captain as erratic and his mental state as shaky, and they expressed fear for his health under the pressure that has been building in the month since he shot and killed Martin, an unarmed black teenager.

"As of the last couple days he has not returned phone calls, text messages or emails," attorney Craig Sonner said at a news conference outside the courthouse. "He's gone on his own. I'm not sure what he's doing or who he's talking to. I cannot go forward speaking to the public about George Zimmerman and this case as representing him because I've lost contact with him."

The split came as a special prosecutor neared a decision on whether to charge Zimmerman with a crime in the Feb. 26 shooting.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...63cf7b5f69f505

----------


## TexanRudeBoy

Why is this an issue for libertarians? Martin had the right to be where he was. Zimmerman had no legal or moral authority to create that situation. He said himself he chased after Martin.  He was the aggressor and lost any claim to self defense. 

If some random guy starts chasing me after following me for simply "looking suspicious", then you better believe I have every right to defend myself. If he had a gun I would go for it too.

----------


## Danke

> Why is this an issue for libertarians? Martin had the right to be where he was. Zimmerman had no legal or moral authority to create that situation. He said himself he chased after Martin.  He was the aggressor and lost any claim to self defense. 
> 
> If some random guy starts chasing me after following me for simply "looking suspicious", then you better believe I have every right to defend myself. If he had a gun I would go for it too.


I'm not sure anyone said Martin had not right to be there.  Have you read through this thread?

If you are in my neighborhood, can I not approach you?  If I can't, then why not?

----------


## AuH20

> Hahahah bull$#@!.
> 
> I'm sure Zimmerman just decided to bring up the temperature at that moment.  Man people are really reaching to deny the obvious these days...


Do you really think a Hispanic living in 2012 would use the word coons? Seriously. This is the type of stuff which just baffles my mind in the frenzy to explicitly create a racially motivated attack. The real kicker is that Zimmerman actually organized a local movement through the local black churches in the area (a few years back) to support an old black man who was racially victimized. Now that is the most hilarious part of it this entire media fabrication. If you want to incriminate Zimmerman for being pushy and prone to violence that's fine, but save the righteous indignation for a "racial attack" for another day. Its' rather tiresome and beneath you honestly.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Do you really think a Hispanic living in 2012 would use the word coons? Seriously. This is the type of stuff which just baffles my mind in the frenzy to explicitly create a racially motivated attack. The real kicker is that Zimmerman actually organized a local movement through the local black churches in the area (a few years back) to support an old black man who was racially victimized. Now that is the most hilarious part of it this entire media fabrication. If you want to incriminate Zimmerman for being pushy and prone to violence that's fine, but save the righteous indignation for a "racial attack" for another day. Its' rather tiresome and beneath you honestly.


I have ears man.  

You're asking me to ignore what my own ears tell me and take a leap of faith that he was commenting on the weather.  What next?  Zimmerman actually said "it's partly cloudy with a 70% chance or precipitation".

----------


## BlackTerrel

> *Zimmerman's lawyers withdraw from shooting case*
> 
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...63cf7b5f69f505
> 
> By KYLE HIGHTOWER, Associated Press – 13 minutes ago  
> 
> SANFORD, Fla. (AP) — The Trayvon Martin case took a bizarre turn Tuesday when George Zimmerman's attorneys quit, complaining that they have lost all contact with him and that he called the prosecutor and talked to a TV host after they told him not to speak to anyone.
> 
> The lawyers portrayed the former neighborhood watch captain as erratic and his mental state as shaky, and they expressed fear for his health under the pressure that has been building in the month since he shot and killed Martin, an unarmed black teenager.
> ...


It's all of his own making.

----------


## AuH20

> I have ears man.  
> 
> You're asking me to ignore what my own ears tell me and take a leap of faith that he was commenting on the weather.  What next?  Zimmerman actually said "it's partly cloudy with a 70% chance or precipitation".


I think there is a part of your brain that hears coons. You see coons in your sleep. And a part of me can understand why.

----------


## TexanRudeBoy

> I'm not sure anyone said Martin had not right to be there.  Have you read through this thread?
> 
> If you are in my neighborhood, can I not approach you?  If I can't, then why not?


Zimmerman assumed he didn't when he called 9/11 on him, then confronted him.

You can approach me, sure, and I can ignore you because you have no legal right to stop me, detain me, or otherwise interview me. If you don't approach me but follow me suspiciously, then chase me when I understandably fear you, you can expect a confrontation.

----------


## Ender

> I have ears man.  
> 
> You're asking me to ignore what my own ears tell me and take a leap of faith that he was commenting on the weather.  What next?  Zimmerman actually said "it's partly cloudy with a 70% chance or precipitation".


My own ears heard it as well- several times. I'd say it's pretty plain.

----------


## Danke

> My own ears heard it as well- several times. I'd say it's pretty plain.


You know the tapes were doctored, right?  NBC has admitted this.

----------


## AuH20

> My own ears heard it as well- several times. I'd say it's pretty plain.


Did you hear the stripped-down, isolated audio recently produced by CNN? Secondly, their producer got fired for selectively editing the 911 call to infer Zimmerman was on a racial crusade to start trouble with Martin.

----------


## Ender

> You know the tapes were doctored, right?  NBC has admitted this.


There are plenty of 911 tapes on the net that weren't in the hands of NBC.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> I think there is a part of your brain that hears coons. You see coons in your sleep. And a part of me can understand why.


Do you really hear cold?  Really?  That's what your ears say?

----------


## AuH20

My favorite comment from youtube. Coons. Of all words to use with all the freedom in the world and he used coons? ROFL. Where is Richard Dawson? The top 5 go-to racial epithet in the heat of passion is (you guessed it) COONS! Please. 




> *Why would any self respecting grown man use a word that was only used like in the 1950's if he wanted say something racial and didn't﻿ care who was listening I'm sure he could have though of other clearer words he could have used.*

----------


## AuH20

> Do you really hear cold?  Really?  That's what your ears say?


I wasn't there. I can't make out what it says. There are probably a dozen words that could be extracted from that garbled tape. It was raining and barely 60 degrees, hence the hoody. Cold isn't that far of a stretch, especially for someone living near the tropics.

----------


## Danke

> There are plenty of 911 tapes on the net that weren't in the hands of NBC.


ok. Post them then.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Zimmerman assumed he didn't when he called 9/11 on him, then confronted him.
> 
> You can approach me, sure, and I can ignore you because you have no legal right to stop me, detain me, or otherwise interview me. If you don't approach me but follow me suspiciously, then chase me when I understandably fear you, you can expect a confrontation.


Nobody is suggesting Martin's corpse be charged with a crime.  This could indeed have all been one big misunderstanding and both men were perfectly justified in their actions.  The question is whether Zimmerman committed a crime, and so far there doesn't seem to be any evidence he did.  It's not surprising to hear that Zimmerman has gone in to deep hiding.  If I were him, I'd high tail it to Peru until after the Presidential election is over.  So long as Obama needs him as a poster boy to stir up racial tensions, his life is in danger over here.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Did you hear the stripped-down, isolated audio recently produced by CNN? Secondly, their producer got fired for selectively editing the 911 call to infer Zimmerman was on a racial crusade to start trouble with Martin.


They don't make a big deal about it, but it sounds like "f**king" is preceded by "It's". Interesting.

----------


## TexanRudeBoy

> Nobody is suggesting Martin's corpse be charged with a crime.  This could indeed have all been one big misunderstanding and both men were perfectly justified in their actions.  The question is whether Zimmerman committed a crime, and so far there doesn't seem to be any evidence he did.  It's not surprising to hear that Zimmerman has gone in to deep hiding.  If I were him, I'd high tail it to Peru until after the Presidential election is over.  So long as Obama needs him as a poster boy to stir up racial tensions, his life is in danger over here.


I didn't insinuate anyone suggested Martin be charged with anything...

If you illegally confront someone, resulting in a physical altercation to which you then must use lethal force to "defend" yourself from, then yes you have committed a crime. You aren't defending yourself if you initiated the altercation. So there certainly is indication he could have committed a crime. Obviously there's gray area from the lack of details, but this is my view of it.

Its like if someone broke into a house, got into a fight with the homeowner and shot them fearing for their life. One could argue they acted in self defense, but realistically they only needed to defend themselves because they violated someone else's rights to begin with.

----------


## Gary4Liberty

> I didn't insinuate anyone suggested Martin be charged with anything...
> 
> If you illegally confront someone, resulting in a physical altercation to which you then must use lethal force to "defend" yourself from, then yes you have committed a crime. You aren't defending yourself if you initiated the altercation. So there certainly is indication he could have committed a crime. Obviously there's gray area from the lack of details, but this is my view of it.
> 
> Its like if someone broke into a house, got into a fight with the homeowner and shot them fearing for their life. One could argue they acted in self defense, but realistically they only needed to defend themselves because they violated someone else's rights to begin with.


This X10

The only one standing his ground that night was Trevon Martin, and he was killed while standing his ground. A man with a gun is following him, stalking him, and Trevon stood his ground and was murdered. Unreal.

----------


## AuH20

> This X10
> 
> The only one standing his ground that night was Trevon Martin, and he was killed while standing his ground. A man with a gun is following him, stalking him, and Trevon stood his ground and was murdered. Unreal.


Who cares if he had a gun? I have shoelaces that I could strangle you with. 

If Zimmerman had brandished the weapon, then it would be a different story and I'd totally concur with your conclusion. However, on the periphery, this whole angle of _stalking with a lethal weapon_ strikes me as hyperbole. I'm sure George Zimmerman got out of bed that morning and was determined to kill  "darky" under some obscure loophole in Florida's _Stand Your Ground_ Law, all the while escaping trial. That was the devious plan and he executed it flawlessly, with the exception of the numerous death threats and roaming mobs.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> If you illegally confront someone, resulting in a physical altercation to which you then must use lethal force to "defend" yourself from, then yes you have committed a crime. You aren't defending yourself if you initiated the altercation. So there certainly is indication he could have committed a crime. Obviously there's gray area from the lack of details, but this is my view of it.


But that's exactly the point.  There is no evidence he illegally confronted someone, nor is there any evidence he committed a crime.  Obviously it is _possible_ he committed a crime.  Maybe he is lying about what happened and when he and Martin came face to face _he's_ the one who initiated a fight.  Nobody is denying it is possible a crime may have been committed.  That's what an investigation is for.  But as of now, there is evidence that we know of to support such a theory.  The Race Hustlers want to turn the justice system on its head.  They an arrest before finding probable cause.  That's what makes this a "libertarian" issue.

----------


## TexanRudeBoy

> But that's exactly the point.  There is no evidence he illegally confronted someone, nor is there any evidence he committed a crime.  Obviously it is _possible_ he committed a crime.  Maybe he is lying about what happened and when he and Martin came face to face _he's_ the one who initiated a fight.  Nobody is denying it is possible a crime may have been committed.  That's what an investigation is for.  But as of now, there is evidence that we know of to support such a theory.  The Race Hustlers want to turn the justice system on its head.  They an arrest before finding probable cause.  That's what makes this a "libertarian" issue.


First off, I couldn't care less about what the "Race Hustlers" want to do to anything. I'm talking about how this pertains to the central libertarian principle of non-aggression.

The only facts we have are that Zimmerman saw someone who in his mind looked suspicious. He called 9/11 while following him, but the conversation ended. A confrontation ensued, resulting in Zimmerman shooting Martin after a fist fight.

What you aren't understanding is that Zimmerman created the situation by following him and confronting him period, regardless of who initiated the actual physical conflict. Martin had every right to be where he was, doing what he was doing. Zimmerman had no right to confront him in any way. Him being some random stranger, if he was following me I would most certainly view it as an act of aggression and be prepared to defend myself, with violence if necessary.

 In our society we have agreed that we will allow officers of the law to detain or question those who are under reasonable suspicion to have committed a crime(I don't want to get into a discussion about the merit of this, but this is the way it is). Anyone else who wants to stop me and ask me who I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going, etc can $#@! off, provided I'm not on their private property.

----------


## kahless

> First off, I couldn't care less about what the "Race Hustlers" want to do to anything. I'm talking about how this pertains to the central libertarian principle of non-aggression.
> 
> The only facts we have are that Zimmerman saw someone who in his mind looked suspicious. He called 9/11 while following him, but the conversation ended. A confrontation ensued, resulting in Zimmerman shooting Martin after a fist fight.
> 
> What you aren't understanding is that Zimmerman created the situation by following him and confronting him period, regardless of who initiated the actual physical conflict. Martin had every right to be where he was, doing what he was doing. Zimmerman had no right to confront him in any way. Him being some random stranger, if he was following me I would most certainly view it as an act of aggression and be prepared to defend myself, with violence if necessary.
> 
>  In our society we have agreed that we will allow officers of the law to detain or question those who are under reasonable suspicion to have committed a crime(I don't want to get into a discussion about the merit of this, but this is the way it is). Anyone else who wants to stop me and ask me who I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going, etc can $#@! off, provided I'm not on their private property.


Regardless of whatever you believe the facts are of the case, we have every right to police our own neighborhood. People like you want to change this country so we cannot approach our neighbors for a discussion or people passing through the neighborhood.  

What, only your beloved government can do that?  What if I just wanted to talk to a neighbor to say hello, but they get spooked because this new America you want to create we cannot do that and deserve to be attacked.

I have been living in my neighborhood for much longer than a new neighbor that decided he was neighborhood watch, followed me and questioned me.  I was not happy about it but that does not give me the right to beat him and if I did he would have every right to defend himself.  

This is really depressing seeing more posts in this liberty forum that we can no longer speak to people in our neighborhood and if we do we have committed a crime and they allowed to attack us.  People in a Ron Paul forum basically cheer leading complete submission to government.

----------


## cajuncocoa

George Zimmerman to be charged in Trayvon Martin shooting, official says
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...oAT_print.html

----------


## AuH20

> George Zimmerman to be charged in Trayvon Martin shooting, official says
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...oAT_print.html


I'm relieved to see no first degree homicide charges.

----------


## BamaAla

> George Zimmerman to be charged in Trayvon Martin shooting, official says
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...oAT_print.html


Regardless of the facts, the dude is going to fry. That prosecutor is going to make her career, guns and self defense laws will be on trial as well, and the blacks will be pacified. Get ready for some justice!

----------


## AuH20

> Regardless of the facts, the dude is going to fry. That prosecutor is going to make her career, guns and self defense laws will be on trial as well, and the blacks will be pacified. Get ready for some justice!


But no charges for first degree murder anticipated. They have no case for that type of leap. He's going to probably get manslaughter and I suspect he may deserve it based on the evidence and witness testimony.

http://www.examiner.com/newport-news...not-be-charged

----------


## dannno

> Regardless of whatever you believe the facts are of the case, we have every right to police our own neighborhood. People like you want to change this country so we cannot approach our neighbors for a discussion or people passing through the neighborhood.  
> 
> What, only your beloved government can do that?  What if I just wanted to talk to a neighbor to say hello, but they get spooked because this new America you want to create we cannot do that and deserve to be attacked.
> 
> I have been living in my neighborhood for much longer than a new neighbor that decided he was neighborhood watch, followed me and questioned me.  I was not happy about it but that does not give me the right to beat him and if I did he would have every right to defend himself.  
> 
> This is really depressing seeing more posts in this liberty forum that we can no longer speak to people in our neighborhood and if we do we have committed a crime and they allowed to attack us.  People in a Ron Paul forum basically cheer leading complete submission to government.


+rep

----------


## Ender

> Regardless of whatever you believe the facts are of the case, we have every right to police our own neighborhood. People like you want to change this country so we cannot approach our neighbors for a discussion or people passing through the neighborhood.  
> 
> What, only your beloved government can do that?  What if I just wanted to talk to a neighbor to say hello, but they get spooked because this new America you want to create we cannot do that and deserve to be attacked.
> 
> I have been living in my neighborhood for much longer than a new neighbor that decided he was neighborhood watch, followed me and questioned me.  I was not happy about it but that does not give me the right to beat him and if I did he would have every right to defend himself.  
> 
> This is really depressing seeing more posts in this liberty forum that we can no longer speak to people in our neighborhood and if we do we have committed a crime and they allowed to attack us.  People in a Ron Paul forum basically cheer leading complete submission to government.


This is hyperbole- no one is questioning "talking to people in one's neighborhood".

The QUESTION is about when a NW seemingly goes beyond his jurisdiction and follows someone who seems, in his mind, suspicious. Especially in the capacity as a NW, which is to "observe and report".

No one knows the real truth- no one saw Martin attack Zimmerman or vs/vs. No one agrees on the voice crying out and no one agrees on who was on top beating who. 

What we CAN agree  on,  at this moment in time, is that if George had followed the dispatch's (and NW procedure) request, none of us would have the slightest idea who Trayvon Martin was and would be busy solving other problems of the Universe.

----------


## Sam I am

> This is hyperbole- no one is questioning "talking to people in one's neighborhood".
> 
> The QUESTION is about when a NW seemingly goes beyond his jurisdiction and follows someone who seems, in his mind, suspicious. Especially in the capacity as a NW, which is to "observe and report".
> 
> No one knows the real truth- no one saw Martin attack Zimmerman or vs/vs. No one agrees on the voice crying out and no one agrees on who was on top beating who. 
> 
> What we CAN agree  on,  at this moment in time, is that if George had followed the dispatch's (and NW procedure) request, none of us would have the slightest idea who Trayvon Martin was and would be busy solving other problems of the Universe.


not even

the QUESTION is about whether or not you have the right to SHOOT SOMEONE ELSE WITH A GUN when you knowingly put yourself in a potentially perilous situation.  


Did Zimmerman have a right approach Trayvon even though the dispatcher asked him not to?  Yes he did.

Did Zimmerman have the right to shoot Trayvon dead after he approached him?  No, he did not.

----------


## jmdrake

> I wasn't there. I can't make out what it says. There are probably a dozen words that could be extracted from that garbled tape. It was raining and barely 60 degrees, hence the hoody. Cold isn't that far of a stretch, especially for someone living near the tropics.


Sounds more like "coons" or "goons" than "cold" to me.  Every report I've seen has Zimmerman in the car at this point in which case I don't expect temperature to be a factor.  As I pointed out earlier in the thread "coon" is still a term in use.  I saw it used against Snoop Dogg when he said something positive about Ron Paul.  Anyway, if Ron Paul had a quarter for every post in this thread......

Edit: Could be cold.  Really hard to make out.  I think the whole "hate crime" angle is irrelevant anyway.

----------


## jmdrake

> But no charges for first degree murder anticipated. They have no case for that type of leap. He's going to probably get manslaughter and I suspect he may deserve it based on the evidence and witness testimony.
> 
> http://www.examiner.com/newport-news...not-be-charged


I agree.  Even worst case scenario there's no evidence for 1st degree murder.  That would require Zimmerman having regained 100% control of the situation prior to shooting Trayvon and having time, even an extremely short period of time, to deliberate before shooting.  I don't believe at all that that is what happened.

----------


## jmdrake

> This is hyperbole- no one is questioning "talking to people in one's neighborhood".
> 
> The QUESTION is about when a NW seemingly goes beyond his jurisdiction and follows someone who seems, in his mind, suspicious. Especially in the capacity as a NW, which is to "observe and report".
> 
> No one knows the real truth- no one saw Martin attack Zimmerman or vs/vs. No one agrees on the voice crying out and no one agrees on who was on top beating who. 
> 
> What we CAN agree  on,  at this moment in time, is that if George had followed the dispatch's (and NW procedure) request, none of us would have the slightest idea who Trayvon Martin was and would be busy solving other problems of the Universe.


Here is a hypothetical about the SYG law that I've raised and no one is willing to address.  Say if everything happened as Zimmerman said with two differences, 1) Trayvon had a knife, and 2) Zimmerman's bullet passed through Trayvon and killed an innocent bystander.  What would the SYG law as written mean with regards to the innocent victim's right to sue?  In this scenario there's no question that Zimmerman would have a right to use deadly force against Trayvon and be except from civil and criminal penalty from Trayvon.  Without the SYG law the same might be true.  But would the SYG law as written extinguish the right of the innocent 3rd party even thought Zimmerman caused the danger by going outside of police advice and neighborhood watch procedures?  Thoughts?

----------


## kahless

> This is hyperbole- no one is questioning "talking to people in one's neighborhood".


You obviously did not read his post.



> *Zimmerman had no right to confront him in any way. Him being some random stranger, if he was following me I would most certainly view it as an act of aggression and be prepared to defend myself, with violence if necessary.*





> What we CAN agree  on,  at this moment in time, is that if George had followed the dispatch's (and NW procedure) request, none of us would have the slightest idea who Trayvon Martin was and would be busy solving other problems of the Universe.


You do not know that.  I have read interpretations of the audio that demonstrate he in fact did follow instructions.  Regardless, even if he did not, he had every right to walk up to a person in the neighborhood and talk to him.  If he was attacked for doing so he had a right to defend himself.

----------


## dannno

> This is hyperbole- no one is questioning "talking to people in one's neighborhood".


What must you do BEFORE you talk to someone? You must approach them. What must you do before you approach somebody? You must observe them. What if they are walking away from you? Then you must follow them! Again, nothing inherently wrong with any of these activities.

This is really the main point of their post:




> I have been living in my neighborhood for much longer than a new neighbor that decided he was neighborhood watch, followed me and questioned me. I was not happy about it but that does not give me the right to beat him and if I did he would have every right to defend himself.


Just because Zimmerman was suspicious of Trayvon and followed him, doesn't mean Trayvon has the right to start an altercation and attack him, which is apparently what happened. 





> The QUESTION is about when a NW seemingly goes beyond his jurisdiction and follows someone who seems, in his mind, suspicious. Especially in the capacity as a NW, which is to "observe and report".


Apparently he wasn't acting as NW, Zimmerman was on his way to the store. So he was suspicious of Trayvon and followed him - nothing wrong with that - just because NW doesn't say people should follow suspicious individuals doesn't mean it isn't ok to follow suspicious individuals.





> No one knows the real truth- no one saw Martin attack Zimmerman or vs/vs. No one agrees on the voice crying out and no one agrees on who was on top beating who. 
> 
> What we CAN agree  on,  at this moment in time, is that if George had followed the dispatch's (and NW procedure) request, none of us would have the slightest idea who Trayvon Martin was and would be busy solving other problems of the Universe.


That's true, but that doesn't mean Zimmerman did anything illegal or wrong by following him. If Zimmerman started an altercation then he would be in the wrong, but following somebody to ask them where they live isn't starting an altercation. Starting an altercation is raising your voice and acting in a threatening manner.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> This is hyperbole- no one is questioning "talking to people in one's neighborhood".
> 
> The QUESTION is about when a NW seemingly goes *beyond his jurisdiction* and follows someone who seems, in his mind, suspicious. Especially in the capacity as a NW, which is to "observe and report".
> 
> No one knows the real truth- no one saw Martin attack Zimmerman or vs/vs. No one agrees on the voice crying out and no one agrees on who was on top beating who. 
> 
> What we CAN agree  on,  at this moment in time, is that if George had followed the dispatch's (and NW procedure) request, none of us would have the slightest idea who Trayvon Martin was and would be busy solving other problems of the Universe.


According to whom? Even if the state has the authority to forbid him from doing a perfectly legal activity in his own neighborhood, the dispatcher's comment didn't even rise to the level of a request.  Are you talking about the self appointed neighborhood watch guru's?  What authority do they have to tell anyone how to behave?  You sound like a Statist loving soccer mom with this comment.  As for your last comment, the same can be said if Trayvon never went to get Skittles.  The question is not the million things that could have gone differently that led us to the killing, but whether the killing itself constituted a crime.  That is what needs to be investigated.  The rest is just media manipulated nonsense.

----------


## dannno

> not even
> 
> the QUESTION is about whether or not you have the right to SHOOT SOMEONE ELSE WITH A GUN when you knowingly put yourself in a potentially perilous situation.  
> 
> 
> Did Zimmerman have a right approach Trayvon even though the dispatcher asked him not to?  Yes he did.
> 
> *Did Zimmerman have the right to shoot Trayvon dead after he approached him?  No, he did not.*


See, that's total bull$#@!. There is nothing illegal about approaching somebody or asking them where they live. If that person attacks you after you PEACEFULLY ask them where they live, you have every right to defend yourself. IF Zimmerman approached him in a threatening manner and was all like, "Hey, wtf are you doing here, I called the cops, I'm going to beat your ass if you don't get the $#@! out my neighborhood" and then proceeded to walk towards him, then Zimmerman would be wrong for starting the altercation...

But no, apparently TRAYVON approached ZIMMERMAN from behind, TRAYVON started the altercation, attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman merely defended himself. I don't know if that is exactly how it happened or not, but that is the story we have to go off of at the moment, evidence pointing to anything contrary will need to be considered in court.

----------


## phill4paul

Breaking: NBC News. George Zimmerman has been taken into custody.

----------


## dannno

> Breaking: NBC News. George Zimmerman has been taken into custody.


Was there still blood spatter on his shirt, or did he change it yet?

----------


## phill4paul

> Was there still blood spatter on his shirt, or did he change it yet?


  No idea.

----------


## phill4paul

To be tried for murder in the second.

----------


## jmdrake

> *Zimmerman's lawyers withdraw from shooting case*
> 
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...63cf7b5f69f505
> 
> By KYLE HIGHTOWER, Associated Press – 13 minutes ago  
> 
> SANFORD, Fla. (AP) — The Trayvon Martin case took a bizarre turn Tuesday when George Zimmerman's attorneys quit, complaining that they have lost all contact with him and that he called the prosecutor and talked to a TV host after they told him not to speak to anyone.
> 
> The lawyers portrayed the former neighborhood watch captain as erratic and his mental state as shaky, and they expressed fear for his health under the pressure that has been building in the month since he shot and killed Martin, an unarmed black teenager.
> ...


Not talking to your lawyers + talking to prosecutors and media = not very bright client.




> Breaking: NBC News. George Zimmerman has been taken into custody.


I think at this point Zimmerman probably wishes he had been charged initially.  And that's what should have happened.  He should have been charged, gotten out on bail, received a probable cause hearing, and if probable cause was lacking the charges should have been dropped.  Short circuiting the process caused the circus.

----------


## phill4paul

> Not talking to your lawyers + talking to prosecutors and media = not very bright client.
> 
> I think at this point Zimmerman probably wishes he had been charged initially.  And that's what should have happened.  He should have been charged, gotten out on bail, received a probable cause hearing, and if probable cause was lacking the charges should have been dropped.  Short circuiting the process caused the circus.


  Can't disagree.

----------


## Southron

Imo, no way he gets a fair trial.

----------


## hardrightedge

As soon as I heard the prosecutor say she wasn't surrendering to the court of public opinion...well, figure it out yourself...

----------


## jmdrake

> As soon as I heard the prosecutor say she wasn't surrendering to the court of public opinion...well, figure it out yourself...


Doesn't matter.  Prosecutor's job is to prosecute.  Defense attorney's job is to defend.  I've seen people prosecuted under less favorable facts for prosecution than this.  The only recourse against a prosecutor's decision not to prosecute is public opinion shown through the political process.  That's why DA's are elected.  If a prosecutor abuses power and prosecutions without justification the remedy is a malicious prosecution lawsuit.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Imo, no way he gets a fair trial.


I agree.  He's already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.  The "real" court had better bring in a guilty verdict, or there will be hell to pay.

----------


## kezt777

> Breaking: NBC News. George Zimmerman has been taken into custody.


According to the special prosecutor and other reports, Zimmerman turned himself in and then was subsequently arrested on the 2nd degree murder charge that was issued today.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> I think at this point Zimmerman probably wishes he had been charged initially.  And that's what should have happened.  He should have been charged, gotten out on bail, received a probable cause hearing, and if probable cause was lacking the charges should have been dropped.  Short circuiting the process caused the circus.


The process wasn't really "short circuited" though.  Under Florida law, he should not have been arrested.  Police often don't know the law and make an arrest anyway, but these cops apparently called the state attorney's office first and were appraised as to what the actual law says.  Zimmerman's biggest mistake was staying quite in the face of the media lynching.  Once that started, the law went out the window and this case became all about politics.  Zimmerman should have played the race card himself and rallied Floirda's considerable Hispanic community to his side.  If he had made it a black vs Hispanic thing, he would have stood a good chance of avoiding charges as Hispanics are more powerful in Florida.  He and his lawyers instead chose the "noble" course, and as a result his life is over.

----------


## phill4paul

> According to the special prosecutor and other reports, Zimmerman turned himself in and then was subsequently arrested on the 2nd degree murder charge that was issued today.


  At the time I posted that is what was showing on TV.. Hence.. "Breaking: NBC News...." The special prosecutor had not spoken at that time. Thanks for the correction.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> The process wasn't really "short circuited" though.  Under Florida law, he should not have been arrested.  Police often don't know the law and make an arrest anyway, but these cops apparently called the state attorney's office first and were appraised as to what the actual law says.  Zimmerman's biggest mistake was staying quite in the face of the media lynching.  Once that started, the law went out the window and this case became all about politics.  Zimmerman should have played the race card himself and rallied Floirda's considerable Hispanic community to his side.  If he had made it a black vs Hispanic thing, he would have stood a good chance of avoiding charges as Hispanics are more powerful in Florida.  He and his lawyers instead chose the "noble" course, and as a result his life is over.


^^This.

----------


## cajuncocoa

Mike Tyson on George Zimmerman: ‘It’s a disgrace he hasn’t been shot yet’


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...221115400.html

----------


## dannno

> Mike Tyson on George Zimmerman: Its a disgrace he hasnt been shot yet
> 
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...221115400.html



lol, there's an opinion worthy of consideration

----------


## cajuncocoa

> lol, there's an opinion worthy of consideration


Probably not to most people, I know.  Still, it's a careless thing for anyone to say.

----------


## hardrightedge

"Zimmerman stalked him, didn't follow instructions from a superior officer, when they said, 'Stop following the kid." Mike Tyson...

I've seen this repeated over and over...Someone please explain to me how a 911 operator has any authority to tell you what to do?...they 
don't...sick of hearing this bull$#@!...

----------


## Ender

> "Zimmerman stalked him, didn't follow instructions from a superior officer, when they said, 'Stop following the kid." Mike Tyson...
> 
> I've seen this repeated over and over...Someone please explain to me how a 911 operator has any authority to tell you what to do?...they 
> don't...sick of hearing this bull$#@!...


They might not have the "authority" but a NW better damn well listen. A NW is taught that they are to "observe and report"- this is not rocket science. Zimmerman was told that the cops were on their way and they didn't need him to follow.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

Yeah, I don't get how that is so hard to understand, the entire reason they told him he wasn't needed was to avoid a situation where someone might end up dead.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> "Zimmerman stalked him, didn't follow instructions from a superior officer, when they said, 'Stop following the kid." Mike Tyson...
> 
> I've seen this repeated over and over...Someone please explain to me how a 911 operator has any authority to tell you what to do?...they 
> don't...sick of hearing this bull$#@!...


Didn't you hear the news?  A 911 dispatcher is a "superior officer".  We plebs are bound by law to slavishly follow any whim or piece of advice they may throw at us.  And if we have the audacity to perform a perfectly legal act that they don't like or approve of, then obviously we belong in jail.  Who cares if there was a law against it or not?  George Zimmerman refused to bow and scrape to the desires of a petty government official.  The man is a menace!

----------


## jmdrake

> The process wasn't really "short circuited" though.  Under Florida law, he should not have been arrested.  Police often don't know the law and make an arrest anyway, but these cops apparently called the state attorney's office first and were appraised as to what the actual law says.  Zimmerman's biggest mistake was staying quite in the face of the media lynching.  Once that started, the law went out the window and this case became all about politics.  Zimmerman should have played the race card himself and rallied Floirda's considerable Hispanic community to his side.  If he had made it a black vs Hispanic thing, he would have stood a good chance of avoiding charges as Hispanics are more powerful in Florida.  He and his lawyers instead chose the "noble" course, and as a result his life is over.


Yeah yeah.  So you say.  That's *your* interpretation of the law.  The lead investigating officer, Zimmerman's own attornies, and the author of the stand your ground law all disagree with you.  But since you think you know everything you'll continue to post the same stuff add naseum.  Glad it makes you feel important.

----------


## kezt777

> "Zimmerman stalked him, didn't follow instructions from a superior officer, when they said, 'Stop following the kid." Mike Tyson...
> 
> I've seen this repeated over and over...Someone please explain to me how a 911 operator has any authority to tell you what to do?...they 
> don't...sick of hearing this bull$#@!...


What has bothered me about the constant media comments about this is: how do we know if Zimmerman stopped or didn't stop following Martin? I watched CNN today after the press conference was over and they played the 911 tape again, to the part where they tell Zimmerman not to continue following and he says 'okay'... and then they used the taped voice of Martin's girlfriend as the proof that Zimmerman did not stop following Martin. How is that proof? The girlfriend was on the phone, not in person, she does not know if Zimmerman was still actively following Martin or if Martin just thought he was, or knew he was earlier but wasnt sure at the time of the call - and it's all hearsay anyway. Besides the fact that a 911 dispatcher can only offer advice, not an order, the whole idea that Zimmerman was still following Martin after the 911 call ended is all guess work. Where is the actual proof he was following? It seems to me that people just heard that and ran with it without knowing if it was true or not. I heard endless times that zimmerman continued to follow but nothing to back up that report. Not to mention the idea that the 911 dispatchers would be trained to keep the CALLER out of danger - hence requesting/telling Zimmerman not to follow the person in the hoodie any longer. If Zimmerman chose not to take his own safety into account, that is his own call to make. So it's also being made out like the 911 dispatcher was trying to save Martin, when in fact it was probably more likely they were trained to protect Zimmerman. That comes from my friend who is a 911 dispatcher here in my city.

----------


## kahless

> "Zimmerman stalked him, didn't follow instructions from a superior officer, when they said, 'Stop following the kid." Mike Tyson...
> 
> I've seen this repeated over and over...Someone please explain to me how a 911 operator has any authority to tell you what to do?...they 
> don't...sick of hearing this bull$#@!...





> Didn't you hear the news?  A 911 dispatcher is a "superior officer".  We plebs are bound by law to slavishly follow any whim or piece of advice they may throw at us.  And if we have the audacity to perform a perfectly legal act that they don't like or approve of, then obviously we belong in jail.  Who cares if there was a law against it or not?  George Zimmerman refused to bow and scrape to the desires of a petty government official.  The man is a menace!


Besides that I have seen an interpretation of the 911 background audio that sounds like he actually did follow the dispatchers instructions.

I think we have people here that are buying into the agenda of the left that wish to use this case to pass legislation to take more of our rights.

----------


## RickyJ

> Mike Tyson on George Zimmerman: Its a disgrace he hasnt been shot yet
> 
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...221115400.html


It is disgrace Mike Tyson is even printed in the media about anything. He was a boxer, not much of a thinker.

----------


## kezt777

> It is disgrace Mike Tyson is even printed in the media about anything. He was a boxer, not much of a thinker.


Not to mention a nice rap sheet of his own .cbc.ca/sports/story/2002/01/30/tyson-crime020130.html

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Yeah yeah.  So you say.  That's *your* interpretation of the law.  The lead investigating officer, Zimmerman's own attornies, and the author of the stand your ground law all disagree with you.  But since you think you know everything you'll continue to post the same stuff add naseum.  Glad it makes you feel important.


No, that is the law.  And it has nothing to do with Stand Your Ground.  Read the statutes in Florida.  You might learn something.  Immunity from prosecution under 776.032 applies to both 776.013 (Stand Your Ground) _and_ 776.012.

----------


## TexanRudeBoy

All this about simply talking to a neighbor to see if they live in your neighborhood is nonsense. Zimmerman did no such thing. the moment he saw Martin he should have calmly approached him, as everyone here is in agreement you have the right to do, and asked him if he lived there. He didn't do that. He stalked him.

Is there ANYONE here who would not feel threatened if some random stranger is stalking you?

----------


## TexanRudeBoy

> Besides that I have seen an interpretation of the 911 background audio that sounds like he actually did follow the dispatchers instructions.
> 
> I think we have people here that are buying into the agenda of the left that wish to use this case to pass legislation to take more of our rights.


Casting legitimate discussion and disagreement as "buying into the left agenda...to take more of our rights" is baseless hyperbole and accomplishes nothing.

----------


## TexanRudeBoy

> It is disgrace Mike Tyson is even printed in the media about anything. He was a boxer, not much of a thinker.


Unfortunately anyone who's name can be recognized for anything ever is a legitimate target for social commentary. Sad but true.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> All this nonsense about simply talking to a neighbor to see if they live in your neighborhood is just that, complete nonsense. Zimmerman did no such thing. the moment he saw Martin he should have calmly approached him, as everyone here is in agreement you have the right to do, and asked him if he lived there. He didn't do that. He stalked him.


If that's your interpretation, fine.  How is it relevant?  Even if we accept your spin on his conduct, he clearly didn't stalk him in the criminal sense, so even though you might not like what Zimmerman did, it has absolutely no bearing on whether Zimmerman acted lawfully or not.

----------


## TexanRudeBoy

If there is anything we can agree on is that this case is going to be a circus like this country hasn't seen since OJ.

----------


## TexanRudeBoy

> If that's your interpretation, fine. * How is it relevant?*  Even if we accept your spin on his conduct, he clearly didn't stalk him in the criminal sense, so even though you might not like what Zimmerman did, it has absolutely no bearing on whether Zimmerman acted lawfully or not.


If Zimmerman is the aggressor then he simply could not have acted in self defense.

Spin? What spin? He saw a "suspicious" person, called 9/11 while following him, and then a confrontation ensued. Zimmerman is the aggressor by following Martin. Again, if you were walking home through your neighborhood and some random dude is following you would you not feel threatened?

----------


## dillo

> If Zimmerman is the aggressor then he simply could not have acted in self defense.
> 
> Spin? What spin? He saw a "suspicious" person, called 9/11 while following him, and then a confrontation ensued. Zimmerman is the aggressor by following Martin. Again, if you were walking home through your neighborhood and some random dude is following you would you not feel threatened?


following someone is agression?

----------


## TexanRudeBoy

> following someone is agression?


Again, if you were walking through your neighborhood and some stranger is following you around, talking on his phone, would you not feel threatened? I don't know what kind of neighborhood you grew up in, but being followed by someone certainly wouldn't sit well with me where I grew up.

All this talk about Zimmerman having the right to defend his neighborhood from someone he felt looked suspicious, what about Martin's right to defend himself from someone he felt looked suspicious?

----------


## silverhandorder

> Again, if you were walking through your neighborhood and some stranger is following you around, talking on his phone, would you not feel threatened? I don't know what kind of neighborhood you grew up in, but being followed by someone certainly wouldn't sit well with me where I grew up.
> 
> All this talk about Zimmerman having the right to defend his neighborhood from someone he felt looked suspicious, what about Martin's right to defend himself from someone he felt looked suspicious?


It ends at him assaulting Zimmerman.

----------


## Don Lapre

When a sensitive and polarizing issue like this one comes around, it's always wonderful to take as step back and listen to the takes from a genius.



_It's a disgrace that man (Zimmerman) hasn't been dragged out of his house and tied to a car and taken away. 
That's the only kind of retribution that people like that understand. It's a disgrace that man hasn't been shot yet.
Forget about him being arrested --the fact that he hasn't been shot yet is a disgrace._

- Mike Tyson


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...221115400.html





LOL

----------


## kahless

> Casting legitimate discussion and disagreement as "buying into the left agenda...to take more of our rights" is baseless hyperbole and accomplishes nothing.


Coming into a liberty forum and repeatedly stating that people have no right to confront someone in their neighborhood and that we should cede our right to defend our neighborhood to your beloved government is buying into the agenda of the left.  

You even go as so far as to state you believe in the "non-aggression principle" but then say you will use violence against anyone that simply follows or confronts you.

Your responses to anyone that points out your hypocrisy is that they are using baseless hyperbole.  If you are not buying into the agenda of the left then it sounds like you are here to start a flame war.

----------


## No Free Beer

A lot of the younger generation (myself included) have already awaken to the bull$#@! of the MSM. 

All they are trying to do is divide and conquer. 

Just look at what is on the immature, teen-friendly site of Ebaumsworld:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/82443022/

It's the older people. They fall for this $#@!.

----------


## cajuncocoa

*Trayvon's mom says 'shooting was accident,' Zimmerman to face judge*
9:08 a.m. EST, April 12, 2012|By Arelis R. Hernández, Orlando Sentinel





> George Zimmerman woke up in a Seminole County jail cell this morning as the mother of Trayvon Martin, the teen he killed, revealed on national television that she thinks the shooting was an accident.
> 
> 
>  Zimmerman is set to go before Judge Mark Herr at 1:30 p.m. today on a charge of second-degree murder.
> 
> 
>   Asked what she would like to ask to Zimmerman, Trayvon's mother,  Sybrina Fulton, said on The Today Show that she wants an apology from  him.
> 
> 
> ...


_arehernandez@tribune.com or 407-420-5471 or @ahernandez_OS_
_Follow the case on Twitter at @OSTrayvonMartin_

----------


## AuH20

> Again, if you were walking through your neighborhood and some stranger is following you around, talking on his phone, would you not feel threatened? I don't know what kind of neighborhood you grew up in, but being followed by someone certainly wouldn't sit well with me where I grew up.
> 
> All this talk about Zimmerman having the right to defend his neighborhood from someone he felt looked suspicious, what about Martin's right to defend himself from someone he felt looked suspicious?


Zimmerman isn't Kevin Nash. He's relatively tiny. Far from imposing. Secondly, he probably had his weapon concealed since you can purchase an assortment of clothing for CCW permit holders.

----------


## CaptUSA

176 pages of this thread...  Wow.

The power of the media is awesome.

I'm not trying to dismiss the implications of this case, or minimize the loss of this young man, but the media has truly succeeded in using another event to divide individuals into sides in order to get them to ignore the big picture.  That it even happens on RPF is a testament to their power.

Their playbook seems to go like this:
1. Things are getting too serious, the public is starting to question authority.
2. Find an event. (any event, it doesn't really matter)
3. Set up reaonable and plausible arguments on both sides.
4. Spend as much time as possible debating this issue.  Arguing why team A is right and team B is wrong.
5. Get the public wrapped up in the controversy we've created.
6. Slowly drip new information to keep the story going as long as possible.
7. Find any emotional triggers you can and pull each one.
8. When the distraction dies down, find a new event and repeat.

----------


## hazek

> 176 pages of this thread...  Wow.
> 
> Their playbook seems to go like this:
> 1. Things are getting too serious, the public is starting to question authority.
> 2. Find an event. (any event, it doesn't really matter)
> 3. Set up reaonable and plausible arguments on both sides.
> 4. Spend as much time as possible debating this issue.  Arguing why team A is right and team B is wrong.
> 5. Get the public wrapped up in the controversy we've created.
> 6. Slowly drip new information to keep the story going as long as possible.
> ...


And it works like taking candy from a baby. The corporate media propaganda machine is our biggest enemy and until it is dealt with nothing will change, ever. But noooo some still can't learn this simple lesson in spite a huge mountain of evidence and history lessons.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> 176 pages of this thread...  Wow.
> 
> The power of the media is awesome.
> 
> I'm not trying to dismiss the implications of this case, or minimize the loss of this young man, but the media has truly succeeded in using another event to divide individuals into sides in order to get them to ignore the big picture.  That it even happens on RPF is a testament to their power.
> 
> Their playbook seems to go like this:
> 1. Things are getting too serious, the public is starting to question authority.
> 2. Find an event. (any event, it doesn't really matter)
> ...





> And it works like taking candy from a baby. The corporate media propaganda machine is our biggest enemy and until it is dealt with nothing will change, ever. But noooo some still can't learn this simple lesson in spite a huge mountain of evidence and history lessons.


Agreed to both...it's almost impossible to resist, even among those of us who (are supposed to) know better.   Look at how successful they've been at polarizing the people on this board.

----------


## cajuncocoa

Seemingly off-topic, but related (IMO):  Now we have a DNC adviser, Hilary Rosen, pitting working Moms against stay-at-home Moms by taking a swipe at Mitt Romney's wife.  Always polarizing, anything to keep from discussing real issues I guess.

----------


## AuH20

I think the most shocking revelations about this internal dialogue is: 

(1) You have people here insisting that you obey and grovel to some 911 dispatcher in some faraway call center, totally removed from the dynamic situation. 

(2) Patrolling your community or interacting with strangers in a calm, reasoned fashion somehow violates the sacred non-agression principle, even if you don't touch them.

----------


## jmdrake

> I think the most shocking revelations about this internal dialogue is: 
> 
> (1) You have people here insisting that you obey and grovel to some 911 dispatcher in some faraway call center, totally removed from the dynamic situation. 
> 
> (2) Patrolling your community or interacting with strangers in a calm, reasoned fashion somehow violates the sacred non-agression principle, even if you don't touch them.


Well to me the most shocking thing is:

1) You've got people who think that Zimmerman even being charged with *anything* is equivalent to a "lynching".

2) You've got people only looking at Zimmerman's right to self defense and ignoring that based on this inconclusive evidence it could have been the other way.

3) We've got people assuming that Zimmerman, who has a record of being a hothead, must have been "calm and reasoned".  (Not talking about you, just adopting your language).

I agree with Trayvon's mom that this might have been an accident.  I agree with you that the appropriate charge is probably manslaughter.  I agree with everyone who says that both Zimmerman and Trayvon could have handled things differently.  Again, even assuming if everything Zimmerman did was legal, and I'm not sure that's the case, it was certainly *stupid*.  An innocent third party could have gotten shot by a stray bullet, and for what?  I saw the video of the 13 y/o witness who wondered aloud if his dog hadn't gotten off the leash and he had gone over the the scuffle would Trayvon still be alive.  Maybe.  Or maybe the 13 y/o kid would have been dead.  I'm not sure why we're being presented with this false choice between patrolling your neighborhood in "gunsmoke" fashion, and patrolling your neighborhood in a way that makes *everybody* safe.  Even police are taught to wait for backup if they can when approaching a potentially dangerous suspect.  And waiting for backup doesn't have to mean waiting for the police.  Why didn't Zimmerman have someone else working with him on patrol?  We can't bring Trayvon back.  And the damage to community relations will require time to heal.  But if folks can get out of "defend my side at all costs" mode there could be a rational discussion about better ways to do what Zimmerman was apparently trying to do.

----------


## TexanRudeBoy

> Zimmerman isn't Kevin Nash. He's relatively tiny. Far from imposing. Secondly, he probably had his weapon concealed since you can purchase an assortment of clothing for CCW permit holders.


And Martin is a rail of a child, its irrelevant. What does having his weapon concealed have to do with anything, I never said he was brandishing a gun.

----------


## TexanRudeBoy

> It ends at him assaulting Zimmerman.


This is what we don't know... what happened between Zimmerman hanging up with 9/11 and the fight/shooting.

----------


## robmpreston

> (2) Patrolling your community or interacting with strangers in a calm, reasoned fashion somehow violates the sacred non-agression principle, even if you don't touch them.


Where do you draw this conclusion from? He didn't sound calm on the 911 call, and his prior history doesn't show him as a calm individual. Twist the facts much?

----------


## TexanRudeBoy

> Coming into a liberty forum and repeatedly stating that people have no right to confront someone in their neighborhood and that we should cede our right to defend our neighborhood to your beloved government is buying into the agenda of the left.  
> 
> You even go as so far as to state you believe in the "non-aggression principle" but then say you will use violence against anyone that simply follows or confronts you.
> 
> *Your responses to anyone that points out your hypocrisy is that they are using baseless hyperbole.  If you are not buying into the agenda of the left then it sounds like you are here to start a flame war.*


First off, I never once said people don't have the right to confront people in their neighborhoods, in fact I have asserted the opposite several times. Apparently I have to restate myself again.

If I am walking through our neighborhood you have every right to ask me anything you want. But, I have every right to ignore every word you say. Legally and morally you have no right to detain me in any way. Attempting to do so is an act of aggression and warrants violence in my defense. I never said I would use violence for following me, I said I would feel threatened. What ensues when the person following me confronts me decides whether violence is warranted.

This entire thing rests on what happened between Zimmerman's 9/11 call and the fight/shooting. This is what nobody really knows except Zimmerman and any witnesses that actually saw the confrontation.

Have you read any of my posts? You pick the one post where I call hyperbole what it is and say "my response to anyone" is that way? That is the definition of hyperbole.

That you would brand a member as some new leftist brainwashed by the MSM for disagreeing with people on this issue, is again the definition of hyperbole, and quite honestly disappointing. I expect more from RPF.

----------


## Ender

> Well to me the most shocking thing is:
> 
> 1) You've got people who think that Zimmerman even being charged with *anything* is equivalent to a "lynching".
> 
> 2) You've got people only looking at Zimmerman's right to self defense and ignoring that based on this inconclusive evidence it could have been the other way.
> 
> 3) We've got people assuming that Zimmerman, who has a record of being a hothead, must have been "calm and reasoned".  (Not talking about you, just adopting your language).
> 
> I agree with Trayvon's mom that this might have been an accident.  I agree with you that the appropriate charge is probably manslaughter.  I agree with everyone who says that both Zimmerman and Trayvon could have handled things differently.  Again, even assuming if everything Zimmerman did was legal, and I'm not sure that's the case, it was certainly *stupid*.  An innocent third party could have gotten shot by a stray bullet, and for what?  I saw the video of the 13 y/o witness who wondered allowed if his dog hadn't gotten off the leash and he had gone over the the scuffle would Trayvon still be alive.  Maybe.  Or maybe the 13 y/o kid would have been dead.  I'm not sure why we're being presented with this false choice between patrolling your neighborhood in "gunsmoke" fashion, and patrolling your neighborhood in a way that makes *everybody* safe.  Even police are taught to wait for backup if they can when approaching a potentially dangerous suspect.  And waiting for backup doesn't have to mean waiting for the police.  Why didn't Zimmerman have someone else working with him on patrol?  We can't bring Trayvon back.  And the damage to community relations will require time to heal.  But if folks can get out of "defend my side at all costs" mode there could be a rational discussion about better ways to do what Zimmerman was apparently trying to do.


Amen.

I have maintained from the beginning that Zimmerman's probable crime was "stupidity" and I believe a manslaughter conviction will be the tops, if he is indeed, convicted.

Still, this "right to protect the neighborhood" BS is BS. Zimmerman didn't "protect" the neighborhood, he made it more dangerous by his non-thinking actions. Protecting the neighborhood would have been staying in his car and waiting for the cops. That 13 year old may have very well been part of the sad results, if he had come back. 

Zimmerman was not on any official patrol that night, according to the news, but was coming back from the store. He was trained by the Sanford Police Dept in NW which is to "observe and report". Did he do that? No. Zimmerman may have had the right to walk down the sidewalk after Trayvon, but Trayvon also had the right to be afraid and to assess that he might be in danger.

Anyone who started following me at night would be immediately on my danger radar, I don't care what rights he might think he had. Trayvon had the right to walk through that neighborhood unmolested- where did his rights go? He looked "suspicious" but no crime was committed- I imagine that anyone of us could look "suspicious" to the right person under the right circumstances.

----------


## AuH20

> Where do you draw this conclusion from? He didn't sound calm on the 911 call, and his prior history doesn't show him as a calm individual. Twist the facts much?


It wasn't my intent to project these qualities on Zimmerman. I was speaking in general terms, in that the consensus was that you can't interact with strange individuals around one's neighborhood.

----------


## azxd

*New Black Panthers call for race war — again*

----------


## farreri

> *New Black Panthers call for race war — again*

----------


## dillo

> Again, if you were walking through your neighborhood and some stranger is following you around, talking on his phone, would you not feel threatened? I don't know what kind of neighborhood you grew up in, but being followed by someone certainly wouldn't sit well with me where I grew up.
> 
> All this talk about Zimmerman having the right to defend his neighborhood from someone he felt looked suspicious, what about Martin's right to defend himself from someone he felt looked suspicious?


I would either run or ask them why they were following me

depends on where I am

I still would have no legal right to assault someone because they were following me

----------


## Ender

> I would either run or ask them why they were following me
> 
> depends on where I am
> 
> I still would have no legal right to assault someone because they were following me


Nor do you have the legal right to assault someone because they looks "suspicious".

And, according to Trayvon's girlfriend, she overheard him asking Zimmerman why he was following him.

----------


## dannno

> Nor do you have the legal right to assault someone because they looks "suspicious".
> 
> And, according to Trayvon's girlfriend, she overheard him asking Zimmerman why he was following him.


...and according to Zimmerman, Trayvon proceeded to attack him.. which would make your comment about "attacking" somebody because they "look suspicious" completely irrelevant. 

This is definitely the crux of the incident and what needs to be explored in court.

----------


## Ender

> ...and according to Zimmerman, Trayvon proceeded to attack him.. which would make your comment about "attacking" somebody because they "look suspicious" completely irrelevant. 
> 
> This is definitely the crux of the incident and what needs to be explored in court.


I agree-

I am also interested in who would have the most justification for fear- the follower or the followed.

Fear can be a great determiner in the outcome.

----------


## jmdrake

> ...and according to Zimmerman, Trayvon proceeded to attack him.. which would make your comment about "attacking" somebody because they "look suspicious" completely irrelevant. 
> 
> This is definitely the crux of the incident and what needs to be explored in court.


Assault is putting someone in fear of immediate contact that is harmful or offensive.  If Zimmerman so much as reached out a hand toward Trayvon then Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon first.  Of course since it looks like Zimmerman is again working with his lawyers he probably won't say that he did that if he hasn't already.  And I agree this needs to be discussed in court.  Not sure how far this case will go though.  The prosecutor overcharged Zimmerman (2nd degree murder instead of manslaughter) and I don't think that's going to make it past first base.  Could be wrong though.

----------


## misterx

Let me make sure I have this right. If someone named George Zimmerman feels threatened he doesn't even have the right to keep an eye on the person until police arrive, he should immediately tuck tail, hide, and wait for police to arrive. If someone named Trayvon Martin feels threatened by someone, he has the right to not only approach that person and ask him questions, he has the right to preemptively assault them. Now it all makes sense. I was under the mistaken impression that everyone had the same rights. Now that I know different, Zimmerman should be hanged immediately.

----------


## Sam I am

For the record, If Zimmerman confronted Trayvon, and ended up walking away without a violent confrontation happening, He wouldn't have done anything illegal.


Zimmerman is charged for following Trayvon.
He is not charged for asking Trayvon what he was doing.

Zimmerman is on trial for KILLING Trayvon.


Putting yourself into a dangerous position is not illegal in any way, but when you do that, you discard all pretense of "self defense".

----------


## TexanRudeBoy

> Let me make sure I have this right. If someone named George Zimmerman feels threatened he doesn't even have the right to keep an eye on the person until police arrive, he should immediately tuck tail, hide, and wait for police to arrive. If someone named Trayvon Martin feels threatened by someone, he has the right to not only approach that person and ask him questions, he has the right to preemptively assault them. Now it all makes sense. I was under the mistaken impression that everyone had the same rights. Now that I know different, Zimmerman should be hanged immediately.


You're making assumptions about who initiated the confrontation. We don't know who initiated what. If Zimmerman simply followed him and Martin approached him and assaulted him then Zimmerman was in the right and did act in self defense. If Zimmerman confronted Martin and tried to detain him in any way then Martin was in the right to defend himself. Again I don't believe anyone here is saying people don't have the right to ask who is in their neighborhood, but we simply don't know the facts of who initiated the confrontation.

----------


## Madison320

I think Zimmerman's story is believable. I can't make up my mind whether he had an additional responsibility to avoid possible confrontation since he was carrying a gun.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Putting yourself into a dangerous position is not illegal in any way, but when you do that, you discard all pretense of "self defense".


No.  I disagree with this strongly.  

There are many examples I could give where someone might put (or find) him/herself in a dangerous situation; in doing so, one does not discard the right, the opportunity, or the "pretense" (as you put it) to defend him/herself.

----------


## jmdrake

> Let me make sure I have this right. If someone named George Zimmerman feels threatened he doesn't even have the right to keep an eye on the person until police arrive, he should immediately tuck tail, hide, and wait for police to arrive. If someone named Trayvon Martin feels threatened by someone, he has the right to not only approach that person and ask him questions, he has the right to preemptively assault them. Now it all makes sense. I was under the mistaken impression that everyone had the same rights. Now that I know different, Zimmerman should be hanged immediately.


How exactly did Zimmerman "feel threatened" from the safety of his car?

----------


## TexanRudeBoy

> No.  I disagree with this strongly.  
> 
> There are many examples I could give where someone might put (or find) him/herself in a dangerous situation; in doing so, one does not discard the right, the opportunity, or the "pretense" (as you put it) to defend him/herself.


I agree with both of you in that its not a clear cut thing. What would some of these examples be?

----------


## Sam I am

> You're making assumptions about who initiated the confrontation. We don't know who initiated what. If Zimmerman simply followed him and Martin approached him and assaulted him then Zimmerman was in the right and did act in self defense. If Zimmerman confronted Martin and tried to detain him in any way then Martin was in the right to defend himself. Again I don't believe anyone here is saying people don't have the right to ask who is in their neighborhood, but we simply don't know the facts of who initiated the confrontation.


I'd like to point out that at this point, whether or not Martin was Right doesn't matter.  Trayvon Martin is dead, and he is not on trial.

If Trayvon Martin actually did act as violent as Zimmerman claims, than Trayvon did in fact break the law, whether or not Zimmerman laid hands on him first of not.  Self defense doesn't give you the right to use violence against people who happen to be breaking the law.  It allows you to use violence ONLY to prevent immediate injury to yourself or others, and ONLY if you're not the instigator.

----------


## TexanRudeBoy

> I'd like to point out that at this point, whether or not Martin was Right doesn't matter.  Trayvon Martin is dead, and he is not on trial.
> 
> If Trayvon Martin actually did act as violent as Zimmerman claims, than Trayvon did in fact break the law, whether or not Zimmerman laid hands on him first of not.  Self defense doesn't give you the right to use violence against people who happen to be breaking the law.  It allows you to use violence ONLY to prevent immediate injury to yourself or others, and ONLY if you're not the instigator.


If Zimmerman laid hands on him first then Martin had the right to defend himself. If this was the case Martin wouldn't be using violence against him for "breaking the law" but for assaulting or illegally detaining him.

If a stranger follows me, then lays hands on me, I have every right to feel that I am in danger of immediate injury and will use violence to free/defend myself. 

If everything happened like Zimmerman said, and Martin attacked him without any physical initiation from Zimmerman, then he had the right to defend himself. If he felt his life was in danger then he had the right to use lethal force.

----------


## misterx

> You're making assumptions about who initiated the confrontation. We don't know who initiated what. If Zimmerman simply followed him and Martin approached him and assaulted him then Zimmerman was in the right and did act in self defense. If Zimmerman confronted Martin and tried to detain him in any way then Martin was in the right to defend himself. Again I don't believe anyone here is saying people don't have the right to ask who is in their neighborhood, but we simply don't know the facts of who initiated the confrontation.


If you suspect someone may be planning to harm someone in your neighborhood, you have the right and duty to watch them and make sure that they do not if you believe you can be of assistance when they do or possibly prevent it in the first place. Two things here are key. 1.Who really initiated the confrontation and how? Did Trayvon assault Zimmerman, or did Zimmerman put his hands on Trayvon? 2. Was there still a struggle when Trayvon was shot? If Trayvon was going for the gun then Zimmerman was justified. If Zimmerman had fought Trayvon off and was now over him with the gun, then Zimmerman should not have fired.

----------


## misterx

> How exactly did Zimmerman "feel threatened" from the safety of his car?


He didn't have to feel threatened for his own physical safety to justify following him. He could have felt someone else's person or property was threatened.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> 176 pages of this thread...  Wow.
> 
> The power of the media is awesome.
> 
> I'm not trying to dismiss the implications of this case, or minimize the loss of this young man, but the media has truly succeeded in using another event to divide individuals into sides in order to get them to ignore the big picture.  That it even happens on RPF is a testament to their power.
> 
> Their playbook seems to go like this:
> 1. Things are getting too serious, the public is starting to question authority.
> 2. Find an event. (any event, it doesn't really matter)
> ...


Diversion and distraction...




> This case has been the perfect storm for many groups. Not the least is the establishment.
> 
> - Establishment Law enforcement: How many thousands of cases exist where the *Police* (of some form) have shot and killed an unarmed person? An unarmed person that never assaulted or battered them in any way, shape or form? *This is not one of those cases.* Conveniently, this is a mundane who has done the shooting, not the Police. As a matter of fact, this case has many people granting new authority to the Police in various ways, and at the same time there is the desire to take rights away from mundanes. Very convenient indeed.
> 
> - Establishment Favoritism: George was not law enforcement, but apparently his father was a retired Judge. This is an inconvenient fact that must be downplayed, if not completely buried. The case isn't perfect, but it can be spun. They can not allow this to be about the establishment or related favoritism.
> 
> - Diversion and distraction: Nothing better than an emotional race case to distract the masses. This is a benefit to many (who knows what we have been distracted from? We've been distracted!). That includes the current Administration. Best to keep it simple, black and white. But George was not exactly white. Another inconvenient fact. One that was "overlooked" for a quite a while, and is still overlooked by many. Just spin it.
> 
> - Charlatans: Nothing like a good tragedy to make some money and celebrity. Calling Al Sharpton.
> ...

----------


## dannno

> The prosecutor overcharged Zimmerman (2nd degree murder instead of manslaughter) and I don't think that's going to make it past first base.  Could be wrong though.


Well from my tv watching experience, I'm pretty sure if they charge you with 1st degree murder and the jury finds them innocent of 1st degree, it is very easy for them to convict on 2nd degree or manslaughter if the evidence is there to warrant it.

So usually they will go for the highest degree that they might be able to win on.

I actually agree that there is a possibility it is 2nd degree murder. Maybe Zimmerman was like "$#@! this $#@!, $#@! that black punkass kid trying to rob us, I'm going to go hunt him down and kick his ass and shoot him if I have to!"

More than likely, though, they got into a verbal altercation which turned physical, and I have no idea who is to blame for escalating the situation past talking it out.

----------


## TexanRudeBoy

> He didn't have to feel threatened for his own physical safety to justify following him. He could have felt someone else's person or property was threatened.


I think everyone here is in agreement that he had the right to follow him, if anyone is arguing the opposite please state so. As you stated in the post before this one, it all hinges on how the physical confrontation was initiated.

----------


## misterx

> No.  I disagree with this strongly.  
> 
> There are many examples I could give where someone might put (or find) him/herself in a dangerous situation; in doing so, one does not discard the right, the opportunity, or the "pretense" (as you put it) to defend him/herself.


Yeah, it's kind of like the ridiculous argument that if a woman wears revealing clothing she shouldn't complain when she is raped.

----------


## jmdrake

> He didn't have to feel threatened for his own physical safety to justify following him. He could have felt someone else's person or property was threatened.


He didn't suggest there was any other person outside, and the law doesn't allow for self defense because you feel someone else's property is "threatened".  It allows for self defense if you feel that *you* are threatened.  I'm not saying Zimmerman might not have felt threatened once he was out of his car and Trayvon came up to him, but to suggest that his, apparently unjustified, suspicions of Trayvon prior to getting out of his car amounted to a "threat" that justified self defense is more than a bit of a stretch.

Edit: And I see you changed your argument mid-stream.  Initially you said:

_ If someone named George Zimmerman feels threatened he doesn't even have the right to keep an eye on the person until police arrive, he should immediately tuck tail, hide, and wait for police to arrive._

There is a difference between the question of whether or not Zimmerman felt threatened and whether or not Zimmerman had a right to follow Trayvon.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> - Thought crime: The dream of the Orwellian's. George was thinking incorrectly before the shooting. It's on the tape. That is a crime in itself! The shooting is just a secondary crime. The first crime is the thought crime.


Had to correct that, now that the full recording is out.

----------


## misterx

> Well from my tv watching experience, I'm pretty sure if they charge you with 1st degree murder and the jury finds them innocent of 1st degree, it is very easy for them to convict on 2nd degree or manslaughter if the evidence is there to warrant it.
> 
> So usually they will go for the highest degree that they might be able to win on.
> 
> I actually agree that there is a possibility it is 2nd degree murder. Maybe Zimmerman was like "$#@! this $#@!, $#@! that black punkass kid trying to rob us, I'm going to go hunt him down and kick his ass and shoot him if I have to!"
> 
> More than likely, though, they got into a verbal altercation which turned physical, and I have no idea who is to blame for escalating the situation past talking it out.


That's a ludicrous scenario. I think the only way it is murder is if Zimmerman had fought Trayvon off and was no longer in danger, but was so angry over the fight that he shot Trayvon anyways.

----------


## Zippyjuan

He had the right to follow- but not to do anything else. I think claiming self defense will be difficult since he was told not to follow the kid but continued (sounded like he was running- not just walking which is a more agressive action). Based on the reports I saw and read he was the one seen on top of the boy which would also indicate that he was not the one threatened by the situation and in one of the 911 callls the screaming in the background sounds like the boy's voice rather than Zimmermans voice just prior to the gun going off.  Add in the fact that he had a gun for protection and the Trevon did not.  This all seems to indicate that he was not reasonably in a position he "happened to find himeself in" but one he created and that he was not the one who with good reason to feel threatened and defending himself against this threat.

----------


## misterx

> He didn't suggest there was any other person outside, and the law doesn't allow for self defense because you feel someone else's property is "threatened".  It allows for self defense if you feel that *you* are threatened.  I'm not saying Zimmerman might not have felt threatened once he was out of his car and Trayvon came up to him, but to suggest that his, apparently unjustified, suspicions of Trayvon prior to getting out of his car amounted to a "threat" that justified self defense is more than a bit of a stretch.


I didn't say that gave him the right to shoot him, merely to follow him. That's not self defense. Obviously he or someone else would need to be physically threatened to justify the shooting. His suspicions didn't warrant shooting Trayvon, they warranted following him. Yes, you have the right to put yourself in danger, and yes you still have the right to defend yourself if you have to. Putting yourself in a dangerous situation doesn't give others a free pass to do whatever they want to you.

----------


## kahless

> First off, I never once said people don't have the right to confront people in their neighborhoods......I never said I would use violence for following me.


This is what you posted below.




> Zimmerman had no right to confront him in any way. Him being some random stranger, if he was following me I would most certainly view it as an act of aggression and be prepared to defend myself, with violence if necessary.


After you posted that you continued to defend it and went on about stalking.  Seems to fit the talking points if you ask me.

But you now are posting something entirely different which I agree with. However you/we have no evidence that Zimmerman detained him. 




> If I am walking through our neighborhood you have every right to ask me anything you want. But, I have every right to ignore every word you say. Legally and morally you have no right to detain me in any way. Attempting to do so is an act of aggression and warrants violence in my defense.

----------


## TexanRudeBoy

> I didn't say that gave him the right to shoot him, merely to follow him. That's not self defense. Obviously he or someone else would need to be physically threatened to justify the shooting. His suspicions didn't warrant shooting Trayvon, they warranted following him. Yes, you have the right to put yourself in danger, and yes you still have the right to defend yourself if you have to.* Putting yourself in a dangerous situation doesn't give others a free pass to do whatever they want to you.*


Totally agree, but if you did put yourself into an easily avoidable situation that then required you to use lethal force you can't expect to be in the clear either.

----------


## jmdrake

> I didn't say that gave him the right to shoot him, merely to follow him. That's not self defense. Obviously he or someone else would need to be physically threatened to justify the shooting. His suspicions didn't warrant shooting Trayvon, they warranted following him. Yes, you have the right to put yourself in danger, and yes you still have the right to defend yourself if you have to. Putting yourself in a dangerous situation doesn't give others a free pass to do whatever they want to you.


Nobody claimed that it did.  That said *you changed your argument mid stream.  You initially WERE talking about Zimmerman's right to self defense because he felt "threatened" when he was in his car.*  Now maybe that was a mistake.  Fine.  But that's what I was responding to.  

Lastly, putting yourself *and others* in a dangerous situation because of your actions *can* make  you responsible at least in part for those actions.  Again I bring up the hypothetical of what would have happened if Zimmerman had accidentally shot the 13 y/o witness.  Using the "Stand Your Ground Law gives absolute immunity" argument of some, Zimmerman wouldn't be responsible even though his own stupid actions precipitated the entire incident.

----------


## TexanRudeBoy

> This is what you posted below.
> 
> 
> 
> After you posted that you continued to defend it and went on about stalking.  Seems to fit the talking points if you ask me.
> 
> But you now are posting something entirely different which I agree with. However you/we have no evidence that Zimmerman detained him.


Nice cut and paste job there....

In context, I meant he didn't have the right to physically confront him, which was stated many times over by myself in many posts before the one you found one line to cut and paste out of context. "In any way" should not have been in that statement, but reading the whole of my comments before this one clarifies it easily.

----------


## dannno

> That's a ludicrous scenario. I think the only way it is murder is if Zimmerman had fought Trayvon off and was no longer in danger, but was so angry over the fight that he shot Trayvon anyways.


Well I've been defending Zimmerman because I don't think his side was being adequately defended by enough people, everybody was assuming that he hunted down Trayvon and shot him when Zimmerman's position was that he was attacked and was defending himself. 

I think the crux of the situation is when they approached each other and started their dialogue - what was it exactly that each of them said - who may have approached the other in a violent way first - all things that are very difficult if not impossible to determine in this situation.

If Zimmerman came up to Trayvon and they got into a discussion and Zimmerman escalated it and was acting in a threatening way to Trayvon to the point where Trayvon was justified in defending himself against Zimmerman, then it was murder. If Trayvon did in fact attack Zimmerman unprovoked, then he was most likely defending himself and he should get off.

----------


## Sam I am

> If Zimmerman laid hands on him first then Martin had the right to defend himself. If this was the case Martin wouldn't be using violence against him for "breaking the law" but for assaulting or illegally detaining him.
> 
> If a stranger follows me, then lays hands on me, I have every right to feel that I am in danger of immediate injury and will use violence to free/defend myself. 
> 
> If everything happened like Zimmerman said, and Martin attacked him without any physical initiation from Zimmerman, then he had the right to defend himself. If he felt his life was in danger then he had the right to use lethal force.



You make the false assumption that when 2 people fight there is always 1 person in the right and 1 person in the wrong.  Generally speaking, in most fights, both parties are equally guilty of assault.

----------


## jmdrake

> Well from my tv watching experience, I'm pretty sure if they charge you with 1st degree murder and the jury finds them innocent of 1st degree, it is very easy for them to convict on 2nd degree or manslaughter if the evidence is there to warrant it.
> 
> So usually they will go for the highest degree that they might be able to win on.
> 
> I actually agree that there is a possibility it is 2nd degree murder. Maybe Zimmerman was like "$#@! this $#@!, $#@! that black punkass kid trying to rob us, I'm going to go hunt him down and kick his ass and shoot him if I have to!"
> 
> More than likely, though, they got into a verbal altercation which turned physical, and I have no idea who is to blame for escalating the situation past talking it out.


The jury can only find someone guilty of a lesser included offense if that offense is included as part of the jury instruction.  Sometimes prosecutors don't want to give the jury that option.  Defense attorneys usually try to get a lesser included offense put in to "hedge their bets".  If it's not in there, and the jury is of the mindset that they do *not* want to charge with the main offense, the defendant can walk even if the jury believes he's guilty of *something*.  Likewise a judge at a pretrial hearing can determine that probable cause lacks for the charged offense even if it arguably exists for a lesser offense.  If a case gets dismissed by a judge the prosecutor can come back and charge the defendant again without double jeopardy being an issue.  But if a jury acquits on 2nd degree murder and manslaughter was not an available option, then double jeopardy bars a subsequent prosecution.  (Don't quote me on that, but I'm pretty sure).

----------


## misterx

> Nobody claimed that it did.  That said *you changed your argument mid stream.  You initially WERE talking about Zimmerman's right to self defense because he felt "threatened" when he was in his car.*  Now maybe that was a mistake.  Fine.  But that's what I was responding to.  
> 
> Lastly, putting yourself *and others* in a dangerous situation because of your actions *can* make  you responsible at least in part for those actions.  Again I bring up the hypothetical of what would have happened if Zimmerman had accidentally shot the 13 y/o witness.  Using the "Stand Your Ground Law gives absolute immunity" argument of some, Zimmerman wouldn't be responsible even though his own stupid actions precipitated the entire incident.


"He didn't have to feel threatened for his own physical safety to justify following him. He could have felt someone else's person or property was threatened."
This is exactly what I said. Nothing about self defense, which when I refer that I'm meaning physically stopping someone with your hands or a gun or whatever. Zimmerman didn't shoot the 13 y/o and Zimmerman wouldn't have had to shoot the 13 y/o because he could have defended himself without the gun if the the 13 y/o was dumb enough to attack him.

----------


## misterx

> Well I've been defending Zimmerman because I don't think his side was being adequately defended by enough people, everybody was assuming that he hunted down Trayvon and shot him when Zimmerman's position was that he was attacked and was defending himself. 
> 
> I think the crux of the situation is when they approached each other and started their dialogue - what was it exactly that each of them said - who may have approached the other in a violent way first - all things that are very difficult if not impossible to determine in this situation.
> 
> 
> If Zimmerman came up to Trayvon and they got into a discussion and *Zimmerman escalated it and was acting in a threatening way to Trayvon to the point where Trayvon was justified in defending himself against Zimmerman, then it was murder.* If Trayvon did in fact attack Zimmerman unprovoked, then he was most likely defending himself and he should get off.


I'm not a lawyer, but I think that's manslaughter. There was no intent to kill in that scenario until he was forced to, so I don't see how it's murder even if Trayvon was justified in attacking Zimmerman.

----------


## jmdrake

> "He didn't have to feel threatened for his own physical safety to justify following him. He could have felt someone else's person or property was threatened."
> This is exactly what I said. Nothing about self defense, which when I refer that I'm meaning physically stopping someone with your hands or a gun or whatever. Zimmerman didn't shoot the 13 y/o and Zimmerman wouldn't have had to shoot the 13 y/o because he could have defended himself without the gun if the the 13 y/o was dumb enough to attack him.


That's *not* what you said initially.




> Let me make sure I have this right. *If someone named George Zimmerman feels threatened* he doesn't even have the right to keep an eye on the person until police arrive, he should immediately tuck tail, hide, and wait for police to arrive. If someone named Trayvon Martin feels threatened by someone, he has the right to not only approach that person and ask him questions, he has the right to preemptively assault them. Now it all makes sense. *I was under the mistaken impression that everyone had the same rights*. Now that I know different, Zimmerman should be hanged immediately.


Key words "feels threatened".  You have a right to self defense if you "feel threatened".  So once again, how did Zimmerman "feel threatened" from the safety of his car?

----------


## misterx

> The jury can only find someone guilty of a lesser included offense if that offense is included as part of the jury instruction.  Sometimes prosecutors don't want to give the jury that option.  Defense attorneys usually try to get a lesser included offense put in to "hedge their bets".  If it's not in there, and the jury is of the mindset that they do *not* want to charge with the main offense, the defendant can walk even if the jury believes he's guilty of *something*.  Likewise a judge at a pretrial hearing can determine that probable cause lacks for the charged offense even if it arguably exists for a lesser offense.  If a case gets dismissed by a judge the prosecutor can come back and charge the defendant again without double jeopardy being an issue.  But if a jury acquits on 2nd degree murder and manslaughter was not an available option, then double jeopardy bars a subsequent prosecution.  (Don't quote me on that, but I'm pretty sure).


This was my understanding of it as well, but when do other possible charges have to be brought forward?

----------


## TexanRudeBoy

> You make the false assumption that when 2 people fight there is always 1 person in the right and 1 person in the wrong.  Generally speaking, in most fights, both parties are equally guilty of assault.


You make the false assumption that I'm speaking in absolutes when I'm obviously talking about one situation....

Of course there isn't always one in the right and one in the wrong, but in a case like this there clearly has to be an aggressor. Either Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation or Martin did.

----------


## misterx

> That's *not* what you said initially.
> 
> 
> 
> Key words "feels threatened".  You have a right to self defense if you "feel threatened".  So once again, how did Zimmerman "feel threatened" from the safety of his car?


One more time since you can't, or won't, grasp it.

"He didn't have to feel threatened for his own physical safety to justify following him. He could have felt someone else's person or property was threatened."

----------


## Sam I am

> He didn't have to feel threatened for his own physical safety to justify following him. He could have felt someone else's person or property was threatened.



It's amazing how many people here say things that are inconsistent with the rule of law.  Killing another person is very serious, and is only acceptable as a last resort to prevent another person from coming to mortal harm.

If you see someone slashing you or someone Else's tiers, you do not get to administer your own death penalty.
If you observe someone breaking into a closed storefront you do not get to administer your own death penalty.

You do not have the right to circumvent someone else's right to due process.

----------


## jmdrake

> This was my understanding of it as well, but when do other possible charges have to be brought forward?


If it's a lesser included offense, at any time up to the charging of the jury.  For example if you are charged with aggravated assault the prosecutor can always agree to a lesser included offense of simple assault.  That doesn't hurt you at all because if you get convicted of the aggravated assault the lesser charge "merges" with the first.  But if the prosecutor tried to add burglary or even jaywalking he'd have to go back and get a new indictment.

----------


## jmdrake

> One more time since you can't, or won't, grasp it.
> 
> "He didn't have to feel threatened for his own physical safety to justify following him. He could have felt someone else's person or property was threatened."


One more time.  I totally grasp what you *meant* to say.  That's just *not* what you initially said.

----------


## misterx

> It's amazing how many people here say things that are inconsistent with the rule of law.  Killing another person is very serious, and is only acceptable as a last resort to prevent another person from coming to mortal harm.
> 
> If you see someone slashing you or someone Else's tiers, you do not get to administer your own death penalty.
> If you observe someone breaking into a closed storefront you do not get to administer your own death penalty.
> 
> 
> You do not have the right to circumvent someone else's right to due process.


You should have the right to stop them, and if they then proceed to threaten your life, you have the right to take theirs in order to save yours. What kills me is this attitude that we need to let criminals get away with everything for their safety and ours. $#@! safety, I'm going to stand up for what's right. I'm not going to depend on the police to protect my person and property and the property of others. I'm going to step in and stop it myself.

----------


## misterx

> One more time.  I totally grasp what you *meant* to say.  That's just *not* what you initially said.


Actually it is, you just keep misconstruing my words and adding the word self defense where it is not.

----------


## Sam I am

> You should have the right to stop them, and if they then proceed to threaten your life, you have the right to take theirs in order to save yours. What kills me is this attitude that we need to let criminals get away with everything for their safety and ours. $#@! safety, I'm going to stand up for what's right. I'm not going to depend on the police to protect my person and property and the property of others. I'm going to step in and stop it myself.



$#@! the Constution, I'm going to be judge jury and executioner anyway.

----------


## jmdrake

> Actually it is, you just keep misconstruing my words and adding the word self defense where it is not.


Nope.  I quoted you directly.  I will quote you again.

_Let me make sure I have this right. If someone named George Zimmerman feels threatened he doesn't even have the right to keep an eye on the person until police arrive, he should immediately tuck tail, hide, and wait for police to arrive. If someone named Trayvon Martin feels threatened by someone, he has the right to not only approach that person and ask him questions, he has the right to preemptively assault them. Now it all makes sense. I was under the mistaken impression that everyone had the same rights. Now that I know different, Zimmerman should be hanged immediately._

You made the assertion that GZ was possibly feeling threatened just like TM was possibly feeling threatened.  I raised the question of how did GZ feel threatened.  Then you changed the argument to GZ didn't need to feel threatened to follow TM.  Further GZ did more than just "keep an eye the person until police arrived".  He got out of his car and pursued on foot.  That's undisputed.  If all he did was "keep an eye" on TM from the safety of his car none of this would have happened.  Does that mean he didn't have a right to get out of his car?  I'm not suggesting that.  But I am saying that you didn't paint an accurate picture of what happened based on the undisputed facts.

----------


## misterx

> $#@! the Constution, I'm going to be judge jury and executioner anyway.


Can you say hyperbole? 

You just turn and run away when you see someone raping your daughter. You wouldn't want to be judge, jury, and executioner.

----------


## Sam I am

> You make the false assumption that I'm speaking in absolutes when I'm obviously talking about one situation....
> 
> Of course there isn't always one in the right and one in the wrong, but in a case like this there clearly has to be an aggressor. Either Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation or Martin did.


An example, If Trayvon initially Pushed Zimmerman, and then Zimmerman punched him in the face in anger, Zimmerman would still be guilty of murder.


Regardless of who struck who first.  If Zimmerman willfully escalated the confrontation to the next level at any point, where he could otherwise have avoided a fight, then he had no right to murder.  

and Stalking another person is a very aggressive act.  If someone is stalking you.  Even if they haven't "initiated violence" yet, than you would be right in considering the stalker to be a dangerous person.   That doesn't give Trayvon the right to assault Zimmerman, but it does make Zimmerman an agressor.

----------


## Madison320

> He had the right to follow- but not to do anything else. I think claiming self defense will be difficult since he was told not to follow the kid but continued (sounded like he was running- not just walking which is a more agressive action).


That's not what happened in the unedited 911 call. 

Dispatcher: "Are you following him?" 
Zimmerman: "yes"
Dispatcher: "You don't need to do that" 
Zimmerman: "ok"

I believe Zimmerman's story but I think he may have been negligent when he got out of his car since he was carrying. He told the 911 dispatcher that Trayvon was acting like there's something wrong with him. At one point he said Trayvon was coming over to check him out. So was Zimmerman partially responsible for putting himself in a position where Trayvon could get to him since Zimmerman had a gun and Zimmerman knew that Trayvon was potentially dangerous? I don't know myself. What if you were carrying a gun legally and driving along and saw 2 guys in a fight. You get out of your car and tell them to stop fighting. One guy turn on you and starts beating you and goes for your gun. You shoot him. Are you at least partly responsible for getting involved while carrying a gun?

----------


## Sam I am

> Can you say hyperbole? 
> 
> You just turn and run away when you see someone raping your daughter. You wouldn't want to be judge, jury, and executioner.


No I would protect her from from harm, as is allowed under self defense, but it the rapist saw me approaching and fled the scene, i would not shoot him.  I would take a picture of him, and I would call the cops  I would collect every item lying around to identify him, but I would not administer my own death senctence.

----------


## misterx

> Nope.  I quoted you directly.  I will quote you again.
> 
> _Let me make sure I have this right. If someone named George Zimmerman feels threatened he doesn't even have the right to keep an eye on the person until police arrive, he should immediately tuck tail, hide, and wait for police to arrive. If someone named Trayvon Martin feels threatened by someone, he has the right to not only approach that person and ask him questions, he has the right to preemptively assault them. Now it all makes sense. I was under the mistaken impression that everyone had the same rights. Now that I know different, Zimmerman should be hanged immediately._
> 
> You made the assertion that GZ was possibly feeling threatened just like TM was possibly feeling threatened.  I raised the question of how did GZ feel threatened.  Then you changed the argument to GZ didn't need to feel threatened to follow TM.  Further GZ did more than just "keep an eye the person until police arrived".  He got out of his car and pursued on foot.  That's undisputed.  If all he did was "keep an eye" on TM from the safety of his car none of this would have happened.  Does that mean he didn't have a right to get out of his car?  I'm not suggesting that.  But I am saying that you didn't paint an accurate picture of what happened based on the undisputed facts.


I never changed the argument. he didn't need to feel physically threatened. Obviously he felt his neighborhood was threatened, and got out of his car to make sure Trayvon didn't do anything to anyone or their property. Apparently you think the only way GZ could feel like Trayvon was threatening was if he thought physical harm was going to come to him personally. I disagree. Maybe I should have worded it differently, but you understand the principle, you are merely arguing semantics because you have no argument otherwise.

----------


## misterx

> No I would protect her from from harm, as is allowed under self defense, but it the rapist saw me approaching and fled the scene, i would not shoot him.  I would take a picture of him, and I would call the cops  I would collect every item lying around to identify him, but I would not administer my own death senctence.


Good for you. I would chase him down and make sure he didn't get away, and hold him until the police arrived. You would let him get away, in all likelihood forever so that he could do it again. It is a lot easier to apprehend him at the time than it is for the police to figure out who he is and then go find him later.

The constitution restricts government, it doesn't restrict ordinary citizens.

----------


## dmo069

> No I would protect her from from harm, as is allowed under self defense, but it the rapist saw me approaching and fled the scene, i would not shoot him.  I would take a picture of him, and I would call the cops  I would collect every item lying around to identify him, but I would not administer my own death senctence.


That's retarded. If someone is harming my family in that manner, there is no doubt I would shoot the perp and remove his tainted spore from the gene pool.

----------


## jmdrake

> I never changed the argument. he didn't need to feel physically threatened. Obviously he felt his neighborhood was threatened, and got out of his car to make sure Trayvon didn't do anything to anyone or their property. Apparently you think the only way GZ could feel like Trayvon was threatening was if he thought physical harm was going to come to him personally. I disagree. Maybe I should have worded it differently, but you understand the principle, you are merely arguing semantics because you have no argument otherwise.


  My initial question to you was simply "How was Zimmerman threatened when he was in his car".  That's it.  I'm glad you agree that he (Zimmerman) wasn't threatened.  As for everything else, Zimmerman technically had a "right" to get out of his car and go up to Trayvon even if it was because he thought Trayvon was cute and wanted to ask him out on a date.  Whether Zimmerman thought his "neighborhood" was "threatened" is totally irrelevant.

Anyway, back to your argument.  To answer your original, now worded "better" question, clearly you do have stronger rights to act when you think you are personally threatened than you do when you think someone else's property is threatened.  So your initial argument that someone people were treating GZ and TM as having different "rights" just doesn't hold water.  You were attempting to compare apples to orangutans and draw some kind of conclusion.   GZ could have kept an eye out Trayvon without putting his life or Trayvon's life in jeopardy.  He chose a different route.  Legal?  Depending on exactly what happened possibly.  Stupid?  Definitely.

----------


## jmdrake

> Can you say hyperbole? 
> 
> You just turn and run away when you see someone raping your daughter. You wouldn't want to be judge, jury, and executioner.


Good example of why it's not a good idea to shoot first and ask questions later.  In my own "young and stupid days" I was having sex in the back of a car in a rough neighborhood.  The police came up on me guns drawn.  Once I had a chance to explain what was going on they put their guns away and just said "Carry on".  Now say if this had been some neighborhood watch wannabecop that I didn't recognize as a cop?  Say if as he approached me with his gun drawn I drew my own gun?  If he killed me would that be self defense?  Say if I killed him?  NW patrols should at least be readily identifiable so that someone doesn't think they're getting mugged and draw down for no reason.

----------


## misterx

> My initial question to you was simply "How was Zimmerman threatened when he was in his car".  That's it.  I'm glad you agree that he (Zimmerman) wasn't threatened.  As for everything else, Zimmerman technically had a "right" to get out of his car and go up to Trayvon even if it was because he thought Trayvon was cute and wanted to ask him out on a date.  Whether Zimmerman thought his "neighborhood" was "threatened" is totally irrelevant.
> 
> Anyway, back to your argument.  To answer your original, now worded "better" question, clearly you do have stronger rights to act when you think you are personally threatened than you do when you think someone else's property is threatened.  So your initial argument that someone people were treating GZ and TM as having different "rights" just doesn't hold water.  You were attempting to compare apples to orangutans and draw some kind of conclusion.   GZ could have kept an eye out Trayvon without putting his life or Trayvon's life in jeopardy.  He chose a different route.  Legal?  Depending on exactly what happened possibly.  Stupid?  Definitely.


He may not have felt physically threatened, but he obviously felt Trayvon was a threat. Now that you admit Trayvon had the right to follow him though this is all irrelevant.

Bravery is stupid, but it's still commendable.

----------


## Lucille

Will Justice Be Served in Zimmerman’s Trial?




> It is hard to imagine how George Zimmerman could get a fair trial. Where do you find a juror who has not heard of this case, and would you really want someone like that on a jury anyway?
> 
> For weeks, most of Trayvon Martin’s champions have called for the arrest and trial of Zimmerman. Although I sympathized with some of their grievances, I did not add my voice to that chorus. Indeed, while some folks were neutral on the whole matter, and said that a trial would finally determine guilt, I was not so optimistic about that point either.
> [...]
> In any event, I still don’t think anyone truly knows what happened between Zimmerman and Martin. Moreover, I have my doubts that the calls for arresting and trying Zimmerman, now that they have been heard and answered, will solve anything. Instead of a deep reflection on the racial politics of policing and its possible double standards, which I think is a perfectly legitimate exercise, the upshot is now the precedent that the police will be even more likely to arrest people. They will be terrified not to arrest someone in the killing of a black person, even when there might be some doubt as to the malicious nature of the act or who did it, meaning far more arrests, probably mostly of minorities. One more Latino behind bars who cannot possibly get a fair hearing—and this is supposed to be a victory against institutional bigotry?
> 
> I was sympathetic to those outraged at the police handling of the Martin killing, but what I found most frustrating was this idea that the police and prosecutors are insufficiently vigilant. The attempt to repeal Stand Your Ground is just another attempt to empower the police state, which is not nearly as reluctant to arrest and jail people as many well-meaning Americans concerned about racist police practices think.
> 
> To make our neighborhoods safer and Americans less suspicious of one another, the government has plenty of options, almost all of them involving pulling back from the virtual warzone it has created with its drug and victim disarmament laws, stopping its erosion of public morality though the school system and welfare state, ending the massive wealth destruction it unleashes upon the poor through regulations and labor restrictions, and refraining from being such a terrible bad example morally in its foreign and domestic policies.
> ...

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I agree with both of you in that its not a clear cut thing. What would some of these examples be?


 This, for one:



> Yeah, it's kind of like the ridiculous argument that if a woman wears revealing clothing she shouldn't complain when she is raped.

----------


## jmdrake

> He may not have felt physically threatened, but he obviously felt Trayvon was a threat. Now that you admit Trayvon had the right to follow him though this is all irrelevant.
> 
> Bravery is stupid, but it's still commendable.


Ummm....I never denied the fact that "Trayvon had the right to follow Zimmerman".  (I'm guessing you misspoke again).  I also never denied that Zimmerman had the right to follow Trayvon.  Of course if he had followed Trayvon from the comfort and safety of his car then he wouldn't have ended up shooting Trayvon and this whole sordid mess wouldn't have happened.  And stupidity is never commendable.  And bravery isn't stupid.  Stupidity is taking needless risks for no good reason.  Stupidity is going to war with Iraq.  Bravery was the partisans resisting the Nazis when they really had no other choice.  Zimmerman wasn't being brave.  He was merely being stupid.  His foolish actions didn't make himself or his neighborhood any safer.

----------


## silverhandorder

> This is what we don't know... what happened between Zimmerman hanging up with 9/11 and the fight/shooting.


I agree but in that case I go with letting a guilty men go then putting an innocent man in jail.

In my opinion this would not be a problem if police actually did it's job and secured the streets.

----------


## Anti Federalist

I stand by my comments at the very start of this.

1 - Long before the use of any deadly force is even considered, before you ever strap on a firearm, you had damn well better know what the exact and precise legal requirements are for justification of this.

2 - If you instigate an altercation, it very well may be that you have now become the aggressor, in spite of any innocent intent and have lost the legal justification of the use of deadly force.

3 - I maintain that it was GZ's and his dad's FoC status that helped sway cops into letting him go without charges. I'd be willing to bet, under similar circumstances, if it were any one of us, we'd still be cooling our heels in jail.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> 3 - I maintain that it was GZ's and his dad's FoC status that helped sway cops into letting him go without charges. I'd be willing to bet, under similar circumstances, if it were any one of us, we'd still be cooling our heels in jail.


The police called the state attorney's office before they made the decision to arrest or not.  That's what saved Zimmerman.  The SA knew the law, and told them not to charge.  It was a competent police department that saved Zimmerman, not any "pull" from a father that lived halfway up the east cost.  A lot of times when in doubt, police will just charge.  That's lazy and unethical, but it happens all the time.  This department is obviously better run than many PD's.  They had the wisdom to know what they didn't know, and asked for advice before doing something stupid.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> The police called the state attorney's office before they made the decision to arrest or not.  That's what saved Zimmerman.  The SA knew the law, and told them not to charge.  It was a competent police department that saved Zimmerman, not any "pull" from a father that lived halfway up the east cost.  A lot of times when in doubt, police will just charge.  *That's lazy and unethical, but it happens all the time*.  This department is obviously better run than many PD's.  They had the wisdom to know what they didn't know, and asked for advice before doing something stupid.


Yes, yes it does.

Which makes my point, I think.

I don't know at all that you or I would be afforded the same professionalism.

----------


## Thaddeus Kosciuszko

Not a single one of TVs personalities is connected to a degree, to have acquired the requisite facts, to determine that Mr. Zimmerman is guilty.

Likewise, since they were not on-site, they cannot rationally state that it was not the innocence of self-defense, that eerie night.

Thats all rightTV has it all figured outtune the channel that youre all about, and you will be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jackson, Sharpton and all the rest, are just like Hannity at his bestthese odious exploiters of tragedy are an impediment to the evolution of humanityindeed, it is insanity to deal with these pitiful peddlers of inanity. 

But TV has set the trendnow the Department of Justice is all in.




> The U.S. Justice Department's civil rights division is conducting its own civil rights investigation.


Translation: Justice is exploring the potentialities for creating a meaningful political affair out of the meaningless minutia of little more than thin air.  For it is abundantly clear, this is a matter in the realm of Floridas care.  

Regrettably, the one-eyed-wonder of justice has yet to make the acquaintance of the Blind Lady

T Kosciuszko

----------


## misterx

> Ummm....I never denied the fact that "Trayvon had the right to follow Zimmerman".  (I'm guessing you misspoke again).  I also never denied that Zimmerman had the right to follow Trayvon.  Of course if he had followed Trayvon from the comfort and safety of his car then he wouldn't have ended up shooting Trayvon and this whole sordid mess wouldn't have happened.  And stupidity is never commendable.  And bravery isn't stupid.  Stupidity is taking needless risks for no good reason.  Stupidity is going to war with Iraq.  Bravery was the partisans resisting the Nazis when they really had no other choice.  Zimmerman wasn't being brave.  He was merely being stupid.  *His foolish actions didn't make himself or his neighborhood any safer.*




It's kind of hard to drive your car where there's no road. 

Bravery was storming the beach at Normandy. It was also stupid because the people who did it knew that they would most likely die. The smart thing to do would have been to face a court martial and at least keep their lives, or get a deferment and not have to fight in the first place. Yes, bravery is stupid.

You don't know that. For all we know Trayvon was casing homes, and would have hurt someone that night. He had obviously burglarized homes before as evidenced by the jewelry found in his backpack.

I'm done with this thread though because it's not about the issue of self defense, it's all about race. Black people and anti racist whites will go to all lengths to criticize everything Zimmerman did and to defend Trayvon no matter what just because Trayvon is black. Everyone else will see it as it is, a tragic accident. If Trayvon was white many of your opinions would probably be very different just like the majority of people that are angry about this case.

----------


## pcosmar

> [/B]
> 
> It's kind of hard to drive your car where there's no road. 
> 
> Bravery was storming the beach at Normandy. It was also stupid because the people who did it knew that they would most likely die. The smart thing to do would have been to face a court martial and at least keep their lives, or get a deferment and not have to fight in the first place. Yes, bravery is stupid.
> 
> You don't know that. For all we know Trayvon was casing homes, and would have hurt someone that night. He had obviously burglarized homes before as evidenced by the jewelry found in his backpack.
> 
> I'm done with this thread though because it's not about the issue of self defense, it's all about race.* Black people and anti racist whites* will go to all lengths to criticize everything Zimmerman did and to defend Trayvon no matter what just because Trayvon is black. Everyone else will see it as it is, a tragic accident. If Trayvon was white many of your opinions would probably be very different just like the majority of people that are angry about this case.




I learned to drive off the roads. I drove around a farm, through fields for a couple years before I took "Drivers Ed".




> "He had obviously burglarized homes before as evidenced by the jewelry found in his backpack."


WTF?
As I understand,, the kid had no record.
Though,,"* Black people and anti racist whites* " this does suggest a bit of bias.

----------


## jmdrake

> [/B]
> It's kind of hard to drive your car where there's no road.


Hard, but not impossible.  He did a pretty decent job following via car prior to getting out.  And he had not need to get out.  He was told they didn't need him to get out.  Oh sure, he's got a right to play "neighborhood Rambo" but that doesn't make it "right" or smart.  He called himself an neighborhood watch "captain"?  Well where were the men he was "captain" over?  If he couldn't wait for the cops then why didn't he call them up to come help him so that it wouldn't be a one on one confrontation?  Piss poor leadership from the "neighborhood watch captain".




> Bravery was storming the beach at Normandy. It was also stupid because the people who did it knew that they would most likely die.


 for comparing this to Normandy.  There were people already dying in France.  We were already at war.  This was not a case were anyone's life was in danger and frankly comparing George Zimmerman's actions to Normandy is disrespectful to the men who fought and died there.  Zimmerman's actions aren't even as "honorable" as the Iraq war.




> The smart thing to do would have been to face a court martial and at least keep their lives, or get a deferment and not have to fight in the first place. Yes, bravery is stupid.


Zimmerman was under no orders to get out of his car.  Court martial?  Are you kidding me?  Zimmerman's actions would be more akin to some "soldier of fortune" nutcase invading Cuba after being told by the state department "We don't need you to do that".




> You don't know that. For all we know Trayvon was casing homes, and would have hurt someone that night. He had obviously burglarized homes before as evidenced by the jewelry found in his backpack.


  Right.  You're against trying George Zimmerman in the media, but you've tried and convicted Trayvon Martin based on media reports.  There's a word for that.  It's called hypocrisy.  For one you have know idea where Trayvon got the jewelry from.  For another it's irrelevant because Zimmerman had no knowledge of Trayvon's past at the time at all.  And if you want to look at people's pasts, Zimmerman is a hothead who assaulted a cop.  Regardless that doesn't change the fact that what Zimmerman did was not brave but stupid.  If Trayvon had been packing and shot Zimmerman he could be the one right now claiming the "Stand Your Ground" defense.  You have no evidence that he was doing anything illegal that night.  None whatsoever.  Had Trayvon shot Zimmerman and had there been the same lack of witnesses of the entire incident as there are now TM would have the same defense.  And if GZ's gun had gone off and shot an innocent bystander what then?  You are too lacking in your own confidence in your own argument to address that.




> I'm done with this thread though because it's not about the issue of self defense, it's all about race. Black people and anti racist whites will go to all lengths to criticize everything Zimmerman did and to defend Trayvon no matter what just because Trayvon is black. Everyone else will see it as it is, a tragic accident. If Trayvon was white many of your opinions would probably be very different just like the majority of people that are angry about this case.


You're simply being irrational.  For one thing Zimmerman was not white.  He is black.  For another I was just as angry at the white Sunday School teacher that was unarmed and shot and killed by a cop for no justifiable reason.  I don't think you're being racist, but I do think you're being stupid.  I wouldn't want someone like George Zimmerman patrolling my neighborhood and possibly putting my kids in danger from stray bullets because he didn't follow proper procedures.  And if you think he was justified I wouldn't want you patrolling my neighborhood either.

----------


## jmdrake

> I learned to drive off the roads. I drove around a farm, through fields for a couple years before I took "Drivers Ed".
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?
> As I understand,, the kid had no record.
> Though,,"* Black people and anti racist whites* " this does suggest a bit of bias.


Thanks for pointing that out.  I missed that.  I thought libertarians in general were "anti racist".

----------


## CaptUSA

> 176 pages of this thread...  Wow.
> 
> The power of the media is awesome.
> 
> I'm not trying to dismiss the implications of this case, or minimize the loss of this young man, but the media has truly succeeded in using another event to divide individuals into sides in order to get them to ignore the big picture.  That it even happens on RPF is a testament to their power.
> 
> Their playbook seems to go like this:
> 1. Things are getting too serious, the public is starting to question authority.
> 2. Find an event. (any event, it doesn't really matter)
> ...


Wow, 6 more pages since I posted this yesterday.

Tiger Woods
Casey Anthony
The Beer Summit
Gabrielle Giffords
Jerry Sandusky

And just in this primary season we've had:
Mitt Romney's Gardener
Moon bases
Birth Control
Etch-A-Sketch
The "War on Women"

I'm sure there's plenty more you can think of.

Again, I'm not disregarding the implications or importance of any of these stories, but let's get real here.  This is evidence of the media taking any isolated incident or event and turning into some huge national crisis.  They do this for ratings, but also to distract the American public from the more serious issues we are facing.  Remember, that every hour MSNBCFOXCNN spends on these issues is time they are not spending on the global economic crisis, the on-going wars, or the loss of civil liberties.

They divide you into factions then get you arguing about silly little things instead of the big picture.  It's great for fundraising and ratings, but it sure does kill liberty.

----------


## misterx

> Thanks for pointing that out.  I missed that.  I thought libertarians in general were "anti racist".


Racist= if a person is black they are no good
anti-racist= if a person is black they can do no wrong.
I think most libertarians are neither. Unfortunately a few have fallen into the Marxist trap of having diferent approaches for people of color. 


Jmdrake,
I'm not covicting Trayvon, I'm just saying he could have been up to no good. People are saying he wasnt doing anything wrong that night like it's a fact. The truth is, we don't know. We do know that he was not the choir boy that the media portrays him to be. 

 I was not equating Gz to people who fought at Normandy, and you know it. I was just giving an example of how bravery is stupid. Anything that decreases your chance at self- preservation is stupid. Obviously there are different levels of bravery and stupidity.

It all depends on what really happened whether or not I would want Gz watching my neighborhood. If his striper is accurate then I don't blame his methods(considering the high crime in the area), I blame Trayvon's violent attitude for precipitatong the accident. Whatever story you believe I would not have reacted like either one of them personally, but if you believe GZ  he was more reasonable than Trayvon.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Will Justice Be Served in Zimmermans Trial?
> 
> It is hard to imagine how George Zimmerman could get a fair trial. Where do you find a juror who has not heard of this case, and would you really want someone like that on a jury anyway?


He'll get a fairer trial than Trayvon did.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> I stand by my comments at the very start of this.
> 
> 1 - Long before the use of any deadly force is even considered, before you ever strap on a firearm, you had damn well better know what the exact and precise legal requirements are for justification of this.
> 
> 2 - If you instigate an altercation, it very well may be that you have now become the aggressor, in spite of any innocent intent and have lost the legal justification of the use of deadly force.
> 
> 3 - I maintain that it was GZ's and his dad's FoC status that helped sway cops into letting him go without charges. I'd be willing to bet, under similar circumstances, if it were any one of us, we'd still be cooling our heels in jail.


These make sense to me as well.

----------


## kylejack

> I'm not covicting Trayvon, I'm just saying he could have been up to no good. People are saying he wasnt doing anything wrong that night like it's a fact. The truth is, we don't know. We do know that he was not the choir boy that the media portrays him to be.


Arizona Iced Tea and Skittles are not typical tools for a criminal.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Balko over at _The Agitator_ sums up my thoughts on this current phase of this debacle, nicely.

I hate when this happens. 

The same thing happened during the Rodney King affair.

First I was a pansy ass liberal, because I rightly condemned the cops that beat King down.

Then I was a right wing Nazi when I said that the cops, after being found innocent, even though I strongly disagreed with that verdict should not be railroaded into another, federal prosecution.

I'm feeling the same way now over this case.

Especially the "praying with the family" part, Balko is right on the mark there, totally inappropriate.


*The Zimmerman Indictment: Reactions*

Monday, April 16th, 2012

http://www.theagitator.com/2012/04/1...ent-reactions/

The “Justice for Trayvon” crowd seems pretty enthused with State’s Attorney Angela Corey’s second degree murder indictment of George Zimmerman. The overwhelming consensus among people who study or practice criminal law, however, seems to be that Corey caved to public pressure.

Here’s Jeralyn Merritt at TalkLeft:

    Incredibly, it claims without support that Zimmerman was “profiling” Martin. It misrepresents what the dispatcher said to Zimmerman, calling it an “instruction” not to follow Martin. (The dispatcher said, “We don’t need you to do that” to which Zimmerman responded “Ok.”)

    It says, without providing a basis, that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon. It then says a struggle ensued, at the end of which, Trayvon was dead. It says witnesses heard arguments, a struggle and cries for help. It does not say anyone saw the actual struggle. (It doesn’t refer to the one witness, John, who told police on his 911 call he did observe the struggle and has later said Zimmerman was on the bottom crying out for help.)

    The only support for its belief the voice crying for help was Trayvon’s is his mother’s identification. There’s no reference to Zimmerman’s father or brother saying they believed the voice was Zimmerman’s, or that the officer at the scene overheard Zimmerman say he cried out for help.

    It makes no reference to who initiated the physical struggle. Or that Zimmerman was observed bleeding at the scene. It only says “Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.” . . .

    The only independent investigation they mention, interviewing witnesses, is the least reliable method of investigation they could have pursued. New versions of witness statements are inherently unreliable. These statements are the product of “post-event information.” in which the witness’ current memory is a co-mingling of actual memories from the event and information learned later, from the media and others.

    The likelihood of error in these later statements is even greater if they were made after they “pooled information” with other witnesses, learning what others thought they heard and saw. Memories influenced by post-event information and pooling of information are major causes of faulty eye-witness identification, which in turn is the leading cause of wrongful convictions in this country.

    Affidavit = FAIL. That a judge signed off on this as establishing second degree murder which according to Florida jury instructions and case law requires the killing be done with “ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent” is perplexing, to say the least.



Merritt again, in a separate post:

    Given that Trayvon and Zimmerman were strangers, if the state’s argument for finding enmity and ill-will is that Zimmerman’s hatred of criminals extended to Trayvon because he assumed Trayvon was a criminal, I don’t think it will prevail. It seems to be just a story, intended to cover the gap in the intent requirement between murder 2 and manslaughter, in a way that that avoids the topic of race. Since it neither proves Zimmerman was the aggressor nor disproves he acted in self-defense or had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm, the state’s story may be insufficient to establish either offense.

    No wonder Angela Corey wanted to bypass the grand jury. She only had 1/2 a ham sandwich and forgot the mustard.



Here’s Ken at Popehat:

    It’s a piece of crap.

    Explaining why could be an epic post, but I don’t have much time, so I will make it brief.

    The affidavit is argumentative, it’s conclusory, and it lacks attribution.

    The affidavit takes the lazy way out, starting with a paragraph that says, in effect, “we investigated a bunch of stuff, and here’s what we learned,” followed by a narrative of what the affiant believes happened. Almost nothing is specifically attributed — that is, for most facts asserted in the affidavit, it is impossible to determine whether a witness told the affiant the fact, how the witness knew, or whether it is just a conclusion drawn by the affiant.

    This makes the argumentative and conclusory elements of the affivadit that much more problematical. For instance, the affidavit states that Zimmerman “profiled” Martin. But it’s impossible to determine if (1) that’s the affiant’s characterization of the narrative that follows, or (2) that’s intended as a separate factual assertion based on unspecified facts or evidence or witnesses. Similarly, the affidavit makes numerous statements about what Zimmerman thought or intended. It is impossible to determine whether these statements are (1) conclusions based on Zimmerman’s actions and statements to the 911 dispatcher, (2) admissions Zimmerman made in some unspecified statement, or (3) mere argument.

    The affiant occasionally gets it right — for instance, stating that Martin’s mother identified his voice on the 911 tapes as the person calling for help. But for the most part, the affidavit offers a narrative of events, not a description of evidence supplying probable cause. Moreover, it is bizarrely vague at the most critical juncture — it blandly states “Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.”

    This is not the worst affidavit I’ve ever seen — but it’s damn close, and the decision to proceed based on it in such a high-profile case is stunning.



Here’s Dan Markel:

    I watched with surprise at the unfolding decision by state attorney Corey to file second degree murder against Zimmerman.  Corey is reputed to be a prosecutor who is both tough and possessing integrity. For all I know, she and her colleagues have all sorts of evidence that hasn’t yet been leaked and that would support a murder charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

    But if everything we’ve seen reported is true (and I’ll assume this provides a useful summary), and there aren’t other missing pieces of evidence, I cannot fathom how a jury would return a guilty verdict for murder. If that’s right, what could justify bringing a murder charge? Certainly, the idea of charging high with the hope of inducing a plea could explain bringing a murder charge as a matter of tactics. But it would not be a justified basis for bringing a murder charge. To my mind, it would be repugnant to bring a high charge if the prosecutor herself does not readily believe in it, and if it is not readily provable beyond a reasonable doubt. Some jurisdictions or prosecutors’ offices might say: this is complicated stuff, we have an adversary system, let the jury sort it out. That’s a cop-out. Prosecutors are not partisans or advocates; they’re agents of public justice. I have no special insight into Corey’s evidence files but I sure hope she knows more than we do. Otherwise, a murder charge seems like a terrific injustice, and one that happens so frequently that it’s become difficult to see in plain sight.



Mark Bennett, in his Blawg Review:

    Last week saw the arrest of George Zimmerman for second-degree murder in the killing of Trayvon Martin. How far we’ve come since 1963: here the protesters, rather than being willing to go to jail for their principles, wanted the government to put a man in jail for their principles.

    The blawgosphere has, to its credit, been generally critical of the charge . . .



Alan Dershowitz:

    Most affidavits of probable cause are very thin. This is so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge. There’s simply nothing in there that would justify second degree murder. It’s not only thin, it’s irresponsible.”

    I think what you have here is an elected public official who made a campaign speech last night for reelection when she gave her presentation and overcharged. This case will not – if the evidence is no stronger than what appears in the probable cause affidavit – this case will result in an acquittal.

    This affidavit does not even make it to probable cause. Everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense. Everything.



“Bmaz” at Marcy Wheeler’s emptywheel blog breaks the indictment down paragraph by paragraph, and concludes:

     It is completely lacking in requisite and necessary attribution for the extremely few and, really, innocuous facts it does present, and the rest comprises nothing but unsupported and wholly conclusory statements meant to infer criminal activity, but which do not even do a competent job of that.

    In short, it is $#@!. To be honest, this affidavit, within its “four corners” arguably does not even meet the necessary burden of probable cause for Manslaughter under Florida section 782.07, much less the “depraved mind” necessary under Florida’s Second Degree Murder charge under section 782.04(2) as charged in the information. George Zimmerman may have committed a crime, but it is not demonstrated in this affidavit, and certainly is not as to the crime charged, Second Degree Murder. Charles Blow can praise this thing until the cows come home in the august pages of the New York Times, but it is still a pile of junk.

    But the above discussion is all about what is in the affidavit, let’s talk about what is not in the affidavit as well. The affidavit goes out of its way to spin innocuous and perfectly legal activity into some nebulous vignette of implied criminality, yet self servingly there is not a single fleeting reference to Zimmerman’s claim of having acted in self defense. To be sure, in charging a case, a prosecutor is going to frame the facts to support her charge. But that does not mean she can blithely ignore patently exculpatory facts known to her and germane to the interests of justice. Angela Corey’s affidavit is thusly not just deficient, but dishonest in a very slimy, even if not unethical way. It is patently offensive in that regard.

    The case is also patently overcharged. As stated above, I think it is more than arguable that the probable cause affidavit does not even support manslaughter, but it is not remotely close to supporting second degree murder. This is an embarrassment not only for Angela Corey, but the magistrate who signed off on this bunk. It makes the criminal justice system look horrible.



Monroe Freedman looks at the Corey press conference, and questions the prosecutor’s ethics.

    Corey:  “We know only one category as prosecutors, and that is a ‘V.’  It’s not a ‘B,’ it’s not a ‘W,’ it’s not an ‘H.’  It’s ‘V,’ for victim.  That’s who we work tirelessly for.  And that’s all we know, is justice for our victims.”  Corey also referred to “our precious victims.”

    ABA Std. 3-2.1, cmt.:  “The idea that the criminal law … is designed to vindicate public rather than private interests is now firmly established.”
    ABA Std. 3-3.2, cmt.: “the prosecutor’s client is not the victim.”

    Corey:  The first thing my team and I did upon being appointed was to meet with Trayvon’s family and pray with them.  “We opened our meeting with prayer.”  Also, Ms. Corey thanked “all those people across this country who have sent positive energy and prayers our way,” and she asked them to continue to pray for Trayvon’s family and for her team.  “Remember, it is Trayvon’s family that are our constitutional victims….”

    At this point, do we need the due process of a trial by jury?  Can Zimmerman receive the due process of a trial by an impartial jury?  Why should anyone care?



*The one thing I’d add is that I was taken aback by Corey’s statement at the press conference that the first thing she did after she was appointed to the case was pray with Trayvon Martin’s family. I find the idea of a prosecutor praying with a victim’s family off-putting in general. But it’s particularly troubling in this case.*

Here’s why: In this case, Corey’s job wasn’t to discover who committed what everyone acknowledges was a crime. Her job was determine if a crime was committed at all. Remember, George Zimmerman claims that he is the victim here. You can disagree with that, even scoff at it. Personally, while I’m not yet convinced he committed a crime, I certainly don’t think he’s a victim. But Corey’s job here was to determine who the victim actually was. Her task was to conduct an investigation, weigh the evidence, then determine what charge, if any, was appropriate. By meeting with Martin’s family, praying with them, and implying in her press conference that she immediately saw them as the victim’s family, she gave the impression that she had made up her mind before she started investigating. And her weak indictment did little to vindicate her of that notion.

None of this is to say Zimmerman didn’t commit a crime. I still really have no idea. *But what’s happened in the last couple weeks doesn’t feel like justice.* It feels like a railroading. It’s remarkable how many items have been wrongly reported about the case thus far, and nearly all of the false reports were damaging to Zimmerman. (There are a few exceptions involving right-wing sites posting allegedly incriminating photos of Martin that turned out to have been faked or Photoshopped.) Zimmerman’s size relative to Martin was exaggerated, the racial slur he uttered is now discounted even by Corey, and his apparent unsolicited reference to Martin’s race in a 911 call turns out to have been selectively edited. There are other examples. This to me suggests a media and commentariat that very much wants there to be a crime here, not a media and commentariat in search of the truth.
*
There does seem to be a rift forming between people who practice criminal law (and as far as I know, all the people cited above lean left or libertarian in their politics) and the mostly progressive commentators who are cheering on the indictment. That speaks well of the criminal law crowd. It doesn’t speak well of the others.*

The anger and outrage about how black people are treated in the criminal justice system is well-founded, well-supported, and consistent with my own experience reporting on these issues *(although I think the common denominator is increasingly more poor than black)*. And there appears to be some of that history in Sanford as well, particularly in the way police investigate crimes—including this one. I’ve read in several places the proposition that if the races had been reversed that night in Sanford, Trayvon Martin would have spent the last month awaiting his murder trial from a jail cell. I think there’s plenty of history to support that sentiment. But we can’t hang all of the inequities of the criminal justice system on George Zimmerman. He deserves to be tried only on the facts specific to his case. *Even gung-ho, wannabe cops deserve due process, and a fair crack at justice.*

----------


## dannno

> Arizona Iced Tea and Skittles are not typical tools for a criminal.


Yes, apparently Trayvon used his fists.

----------


## jmdrake

Yep.  Just like I said, she overcharged.




> Assault is putting someone in fear of immediate contact that is harmful or offensive.  If Zimmerman so much as reached out a hand toward Trayvon then Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon first.  Of course since it looks like Zimmerman is again working with his lawyers he probably won't say that he did that if he hasn't already.  And I agree this needs to be discussed in court.  Not sure how far this case will go though.  *The prosecutor overcharged Zimmerman (2nd degree murder instead of manslaughter) and I don't think that's going to make it past first base.*  Could be wrong though.


We shall see what happens.  As for the prosecutor only putting in the "facts" that hurt Zimmerman and leaving out her statement anything that might be remotely helpful....well that's what prosecutors do.




> Balko over at _The Agitator_ sums up my thoughts on this current phase of this debacle, nicely.
> 
> I hate when this happens. 
> 
> The same thing happened during the Rodney King affair.
> 
> First I was a pansy ass liberal, because I rightly condemned the cops that beat King down.
> 
> Then I was a right wing Nazi when I said that the cops, after being found innocent, even though I strongly disagreed with that verdict should not be railroaded into another, federal prosecution.
> ...

----------


## Reason



----------


## jmdrake

> Jmdrake,
> I'm not covicting Trayvon, I'm just saying he could have been up to no good. People are saying he wasnt doing anything wrong that night like it's a fact. The truth is, we don't know. We do know that he was not the choir boy that the media portrays him to be. 
> 
>  I was not equating Gz to people who fought at Normandy, and you know it. I was just giving an example of how bravery is stupid. Anything that decreases your chance at self- preservation is stupid. Obviously there are different levels of bravery and stupidity.
> 
> It all depends on what really happened whether or not I would want Gz watching my neighborhood. If his striper is accurate then I don't blame his methods(considering the high crime in the area), I blame Trayvon's violent attitude for precipitatong the accident. Whatever story you believe I would not have reacted like either one of them personally, but if you believe GZ  he was more reasonable than Trayvon.


I will only respond to one point.  Doing something that reduces your chance of *personal* survival is not in itself stupid.  If it is then there are a lot of stupid animals in nature that will sacrifice themselves for the sake of their young.  Storming the beeches of Normandy (and yes you did make that comparison of GZ) was not stupid because the men who did it believed they were really doing it to protect their children from death or worse at the hands of the Nazis.  (The "Hilter almost managed to cross the English channel and invade England so he must be able to invade the U.S." logic).  My point is that GZ's actions didn't even make sense from the standpoint of protecting anyone else, let alone self preservation.  There are simply better ways to patrol and protect neighborhoods.  And GZ had no reason to believe that without his intervention someone's life would have been in danger.  If he thought Trayvon was raping someone or had someone held up at gun or knife point then I might consider the "bravery" argument.

----------


## dannno

> 


Ouchy.

----------


## dannno

> There are simply better ways to patrol and protect neighborhoods.  And GZ had no reason to believe that without his intervention someone's life would have been in danger.  If he thought Trayvon was raping someone or had someone held up at gun or knife point then I might consider the "bravery" argument.



Why aren't you allowed to follow somebody who you think might rob one of your neighbors?

----------


## AuH20

> 


I guess he dropped his skittles and Arizona Iced Tea to do that.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> The one thing I’d add is that I was taken aback by Corey’s statement at the press conference that the first thing she did after she was appointed to the case was pray with Trayvon Martin’s family. I find the idea of a prosecutor praying with a victim’s family off-putting in general. But it’s particularly troubling in this case.


I believe that she also said something to the effect that she prayed for the "prosecution team" or asked for prayers for the prosecution team. Seemed a bit inappropriate.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I believe that she also said something to the effect that she prayed for the "prosecution team" or asked for prayers for the prosecution team. Seemed a bit inappropriate.


Way, way, *way* inappropriate AFAIC.

----------


## Sam I am

> Why aren't you allowed to follow somebody who you think might rob one of your neighbors?


Zimmerman is not charged with following Travon, he's charged with shooting him.

----------


## matt0611

> Zimmerman is not charged with following Travon, he's charged with shooting him.


Uhh, shooting someone is not always a crime...

----------


## Lucille

Zimmerman Bombshells: Mayor And Pictures
hxxp://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=204988




> From the bond hearing:
> 
> George Zimmerman was allegedly recognized by the Mayor for his intervention in the events surrounding the homeless (black) man that was beaten by a Sanford police officer's relative.
> 
> There has been a near-complete media blackout in this regard -- and questions about whether the letter published somewhat-recently was authentic.
> 
> Well, it appears (from testimony of his mother this morning) that the Sanford Mayor personally recognized George Zimmerman for his efforts to obtain justice for that homeless man.
> 
> And where is the media who tried to turn this into a racial issue? 
> ...


Funny how over at PuffHo, there's not a word about Zimmerman mentoring black kids, and seeking justice for a homeless black man who was beaten by a FLA cop's son.  Reporting that would screw up the narrative, I guess.

----------


## azxd

> I guess he dropped his skittles and Arizona Iced Tea to do that.


By Joe ... I think you're right !!!

----------


## jmdrake

> Why aren't you allowed to follow somebody who you think might rob one of your neighbors?


Where did say you couldn't?    There is a difference between what you have a "right" to do and what is the "right" thing to do.  I don't know how many times I have to point this out.  Even if GZ had been a cop, it still wouldn't have been smart for him to act without backup.  GZ needlessly created a dangerous situation for himself, TM and other innocent people in the neighborhood.  He was already following TM while he was in his car.  I know there's supposedly no such thing as a stupid question, but there is such a thing as a question that has already been sufficiently answered.

----------


## Lucille

> Where did say you couldn't?    There is a difference between what you have a "right" to do and what is the "right" thing to do.  I don't know how many times I have to point this out.  Even if GZ had been a cop, it still wouldn't have been smart for him to act without backup.  GZ needlessly created a dangerous situation for himself, TM and other innocent people in the neighborhood.  He was already following TM while he was in his car.  I know there's supposedly no such thing as a stupid question, but there is such a thing as a question that has already been sufficiently answered.


+rep.  Zimmerman's first mistake was playing wannabe cop.  So stupid.

----------


## azxd

Get the riot gear ready ... Zimmerman is gonna walk.

----------


## TheTexan

> Get the riot gear ready ... Zimmerman is gonna walk.


Why was he even arrested, on what grounds, other than to appease the outraged masses

----------


## azxd

> Why was he even arrested, on what grounds, other than to appease the outraged masses


That's exactly how I see it ... An arrest to appease the masses.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Funny how over at PuffHo, there's not a word about Zimmerman mentoring black kids, and seeking justice for a homeless black man who was beaten by a FLA cop's son.  Reporting that would screw up the narrative, I guess.


Of course. This media lynching is turning out to be the biggest story. How many exaggerations and lies were reported by the mainstream media to inflame the masses?

1. Zimmerman was white. - Lie
2. Trayvon was a child. - Exaggeration (backed up by using old pictures).
3. Zimmerman was a racist. - Lie or exaggeration.
4. Zimmerman said "He's black" as if it was a derogatory exclamation - Lie. He answered a question from a dispatcher.
5. Zimmerman said "F*cking Coons" on tape. - Further resolution of the audio reveals that he said "it's f*cking cold". Exaggeration and lie.
6. Zimmerman had no injuries, based on a purposely low-resolution video. - Lie.
7. Trayvon was screaming for help. - Eye witness now says that it was Zimmerman. - Lie or at best, unsubstantiated rumor.


None of this effects the facts of the case, that a guy was killed, and that it needed to be fully investigated and most likely charged (with an _appropriate_ charge).

This is about the media.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

For those wondering why he was arrested: Are you serious? Shooting unarmed people is bad when the police do it but if I do it I'm in the clear no matter what? I also don't believe that you should be allowed to shoot someone because they are going to steal from your neighbors. It's not your stuff and no object is worth a human life whether it is yours or another persons. If a person breaks into your home or comes on your property trying to harm you then by all means defend yourself but don't follow people around your neighborhood looking for trouble.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> Way, way, *way* inappropriate AFAIC.


I had to look up AFAIC, but couldn't find it:  

AFAICT: As far as I can tell
AFAIK: As far as I know

Perahaps,
AFAIC: Anti Federalist always is correct

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> I had to look up AFAIC, but couldn't find it:  
> 
> AFAICT: As far as I can tell
> AFAIK: As far as I know
> 
> Perahaps,
> AFAIC: Anti Federalist always is correct


As far as I'm concerned?

----------


## The Free Hornet

> As far as I'm concerned?


That works!  I should have used Urban Dictionary:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=afaic

----------


## emazur

> For those wondering why he was arrested: Are you serious? Shooting unarmed people is bad when the police do it but if I do it I'm in the clear no matter what? I also don't believe that you should be allowed to shoot someone because they are going to steal from your neighbors. It's not your stuff and no object is worth a human life whether it is yours or another persons. If a person breaks into your home or comes on your property trying to harm you then by all means defend yourself but don't follow people around your neighborhood looking for trouble.


Do you think he shot Trayvon before or after they got into a physical fight?  

If it was not a critical shot, he could have shot first and then started fighting with a wounded Trayvon (though if Trayvon had the energy to fight, he should have used it to run away. Unless he was shot at point blank range, who the hell would get shot and then fight back w/ their bare hands?  But since Trayvon is dead, obviously it WAS a critical shot.

After someone attacks you, isn't that the best time to shoot?  Obviously Zimmerman didn't "hunt down" Trayvon like an animal b/c then he never would have gotten close enough to get into a physical fight, otherwise he would have kept a safe distance the entire time and then shot.

----------


## TheTexan

> For those wondering why he was arrested: Are you serious? Shooting unarmed people is bad when the police do it but if I do it I'm in the clear no matter what?


Nothing wrong with self defense, even when a cop does it.  Rarely does "self defense" and "cop" ever belong in the same sentence, though.




> I also don't believe that you should be allowed to shoot someone because they are going to steal from your neighbors. It's not your stuff and no object is worth a human life whether it is yours or another persons.


Burglary is a violent crime.  Not just stuff at stake.




> If a person breaks into your home or comes on your property trying to harm you then by all means defend yourself but don't follow people around your neighborhood looking for trouble.


If he's patrolling the neighborhood, chances are there's a reason for it.  Shouldn't rely on cops to keep your neighborhood safe, because that doesn't work very well [understatement].

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> *Do you think he shot Trayvon before or after they got into a physical fight? * 
> 
> If it was not a critical shot, he could have shot first and then started fighting with a wounded Trayvon (though if Trayvon had the energy to fight, he should have used it to run away. Unless he was shot at point blank range, who the hell would get shot and then fight back w/ their bare hands?  But since Trayvon is dead, obviously it WAS a critical shot.
> *
> After someone attacks you, isn't that the best time to shoot?* * Obviously Zimmerman didn't "hunt down" Trayvon like an animal* b/c then he never would have gotten close enough to get into a physical fight, otherwise he would have kept a safe distance the entire time and then shot.






> *Shooting unarmed people*. *It's not your stuff and no object is worth a human life whether it is yours or another persons.* If a person breaks into your home or comes on your property trying to harm you then by all means defend yourself but *don't follow people around your neighborhood looking for trouble.*


//

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Get the riot gear ready ... Zimmerman is gonna walk.


They over-charged him (why would they do that? Appeasing the worked up masses? Or do they want the prosecution to fail?). No way he gets convicted of the current charges. Can they convict of a lesser charge in Florida during the same trial? Even with a lesser charge, it seems very likely he'll walk.

----------


## dannno

> //


Your order of operations is all wrong.

Zimmerman wasn't defending anybody's personal property when he shot Trayvon, he was, apparently, defending himself from direct aggression.

Zimmerman may have been following Trayvon with the intention of *reporting* any specific crimes that he may have witnessed and may have had no intention of trying to stop them himself.. but in the process of following Trayvon he was supposedly attacked.

----------


## TheTexan

> Even with a lesser charge, it seems very likely he'll walk.


At the end of the day, it's up to the jury.  The bias is certainly not in his favor.  Noone is capable of objectivity, the least of which the average juror.  I wouldn't be surprised if he's convicted.  I also wouldn't be surprised if there is little or no evidence to support that conviction.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> At the end of the day, it's up to the jury.  The bias is certainly not in his favor.  Noone is capable of objectivity, the least of which the average juror.  I wouldn't be surprised if he's convicted.  I also wouldn't be surprised if there is little or no evidence to support that conviction.


Absolutely. Like it or not, cases like this are usually decided at jury selection time.

----------


## TheTexan

Two facts:

1) Trayvon can run faster than GZ (assumed to be true on the available evidence; 99% probability)
2) Trayvon physically attacked GZ

If GZ was the aggressor (and therefore guilty of murder) in this physical confrontation, that means Trayvon had two choices

1) Run away from the conflict
2) Stand his ground and defend himself

The Florida Stand Your Ground Law that all these people are outraged about does not specify a "firearm" or even a "weapon".  The irony here is that Trayvon clearly chose to "Stand his ground" but I don't hear nary a peep about that.  When GZ claims to have stood his ground, there is outrage. 

Without making any assumptions about who was the aggressor, the only difference between GZ and Trayvon is that GZ had a weapon which is why he's alive to be demonized for it.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> Your order of operations is all wrong.
> 
> *Zimmerman wasn't defending anybody's personal property when he shot Trayvon*, he was, apparently, *defending himself from direct aggression.*
> 
> *but in the process of following Trayvon he was supposedly attacked.*


He followed him because he thought he was "on drugs". He was told not to follow him (unless you think that "we don't need you to" doesn't mean "don't do it, we have it under control") and continued to do so throwing out any excuse of self defense he could have used. And my private property comment was directed specifically at your comment: 




> Why aren't you allowed to follow somebody who you think might rob one of your neighbors?


Not the Trayvon/Zimmerman situation. I probably should have quoted you to make that clear but I was trying to make a reply to several things people had said in this thread.




> Burglary is a violent crime.  Not just stuff at stake.


So if I am walking around my neighborhood and someone decides that I don't look familiar and that I pose a threat they can follow me and pull a weapon because they feel like I might harm someone's precious television or their laptop? Doesn't sound like non-aggression to me.

----------


## TheTexan

> He followed him because he thought he was "on drugs". He was told not to follow him and continued to do so throwing out any excuse of self defense he could have used.


Technically, the cops didn't tell him not to.  Even if they did, doesn't matter.  When someone breaks into your home and you call the cops, the standard reply is "don't do anything until we get there."  Clearly advice best ignored.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> Technically, the cops didn't tell him not to.  Even if they did, doesn't matter.  When someone breaks into your home and you call the cops, the standard reply is "don't do anything until we get there."  Clearly advice best ignored.


If Zimmerman killed someone breaking into his home trying to harm him and his property I would be behind him but he didn't. When the police tell you not to follow someone it's for a reason: YOUR safety or at least so they don't have to do the paperwork on your death.

----------


## TheTexan

> So if I am walking around my neighborhood and someone decides that I don't look familiar and that I pose a threat they can follow me and pull a weapon because they feel like I might harm someone's precious television or their laptop? Doesn't sound like non-aggression to me.


GZ claims to have pulled the weapon after he was attacked.  Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise?

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

It doesn't matter if he pulled the weapon after. He was still the aggressor because he was following someone as they walked down the street. Who wouldn't feel threatened by the strange man in his car following me as I walked down the street minding my own business?

----------


## TheTexan

> If Zimmerman killed someone breaking into his home trying to harm him and his property I would be behind him but he didn't. When the police tell you not to follow someone it's for a reason: YOUR safety or at least so they don't have to do the paperwork on your death.


Cops are always going to tell you to do nothing.  "Help, 911, I'm sitting on these train tracks and a train is coming straight for me!"  "911: Stay where you are, help is on the way!"

The fact that he ignored their advice (that is what it is, after all, just advice, not a lawful order), does NOT create a crime.  If you want to arrest him, you should need more than that.

----------


## TheTexan

> It doesn't matter if he pulled the weapon after. He was still the aggressor because he was following someone as they walked down the street. Who wouldn't feel threatened by the strange man in his car following me as I walked down the street minding my own business?


Private investigators follow people all the time.  Following people is not illegal, nor should it be.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> Cops are always going to tell you to do nothing.  "Help, 911, I'm sitting on these train tracks and a train is coming straight for me!"  "911: Stay where you are, help is on the way!"
> 
> The fact that he ignored their advice (that is what it is, after all, just advice, not a lawful order), does NOT create a crime.  If you want to arrest him, you should need more than that.


Let's look at this my way. Had GZ listened to the dispatcher he would have went home, ate dinner, and went to bed to wake up the next day in his completely normal life. TM would have finished his suspension from school and be back in class by now. The police would have questioned TM and then let him go after realizing that he was doing nothing wrong. People wouldn't be calling for the repeal of a law that I'm actually glad exists because of some moron. This thread of 188 pages wouldn't exist. He shouldn't have followed him.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> Private investigators follow people all the time.  Following people is not illegal, nor should it be.


Stalking IS illegal and it should be.

----------


## Danke

> If GZ was the aggressor (and therefore guilty of murder) in this physical confrontation, that means Trayvon had two choices


I don't see getting out of ones car to look around as being the "aggressor."

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> I don't see getting out of ones car to look around as being the "aggressor."


Following someone isn't non-aggression. It's like beating up someone because they might try to beat up me. "Hey, I should follow that guy, because he MIGHT rob a house or he COULD rape someone. That guy COULD POSSIBLY do some harm to something or someone. I've got to keep my eye on him!"

Not to mention how his story doesn't match up to what TM's girlfriend heard him say on the phone ("Why are you following me?") but according to GZ he never spoke to TM and the first words TM said were "Do you have a problem?". Lie #1

----------


## TheTexan

> Let's look at this my way. Had GZ listened to the dispatcher he would have went home, ate dinner, and went to bed to wake up the next day in his completely normal life. TM would have finished his suspension from school and be back in class by now. The police would have questioned TM and then let him go after realizing that he was doing nothing wrong. This thread of 188 pages wouldn't exist. He shouldn't have followed him.


I doubt GZ was patrolling the neighborhood just because he wanted to.  There was likely a string of crime that had been happening.  It could have just as easily gone the other way.  GZ could have listened to the dispatcher, and went home.  TM could have broken into someone's home and killed someone.

The police report would state "incident reported by GZ possibly related to a murder later that night 2 blocks down the street."

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> I doubt GZ was patrolling the neighborhood just because he wanted to.  There was likely a string of crime that had been happening.  It could have just as easily gone the other way.  GZ could have listened to the dispatcher, and went home.  TM could have broken into someone's home and killed someone.
> 
> The police report would state "incident reported by GZ possibly related to a murder later that night 2 blocks down the street."


It's highly unlikely that TM would have killed someone or broken into their home. He had left to get something to drink during a break in a basketball game so he was obviously going back to watch it. He was also unarmed and by armed I mean he didn't have a knife, club, pipe, or gun. Also, GZ didn't tell anyone he would be armed during his patrols, and his role as a neighborhood watch member is just that: to watch and report it to the police.

----------


## TheTexan

> It's highly unlikely that TM would have killed someone or broken into their home. He had left to get something to drink during a break in a basketball game so he was obviously going back to watch it.


Hindsight.  20/20.  There was no way of knowing that, and following a person to find out if they are up to no good is not a crime.

Zimmerman was tasked by his community to perform neighborhood watch.  He had every right to follow people that he thought may be a threat to his community. 

Following a person is not an act of aggression, and is not a crime.  Plain and simple.

----------


## Danke

> Following someone isn't non-aggression.


Really?

I guess I'll close all my curtains.

----------


## matt0611

> Stalking IS illegal and it should be.


I'm no legal expert, but I'm pretty sure following a guy one time on a public road because you suspect he might be doing something illegal is not stalking.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> I'm no legal expert, but I'm pretty sure following a guy one time on a public road because you suspect he might be doing something illegal is not stalking.


"We don't need you to do that"

Also, he said that following someone isn't a crime, when it is. Following anyone for an extended period of time is stalking. If you follow me in your car and I'm on foot, a bike, in another car. That is stalking.

----------


## Danke

> I'm no legal expert, but I'm pretty sure following a guy one time on a public road because you suspect he might be doing something illegal is not stalking.


I will no longer monitor politicians nor show up to challenge their actions, it might be "stalking."

----------


## TheTexan

> "We don't need you to do that"


Says the cop, who's single driving desire in life is to serve and protect you and keep you safe.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

I give up. If I ever get shot walking down the street I'll think of this thread as I die and how my killer will be let off on the grounds of self defense because I attacked someone who was stalking me slowly in the vehicle as I walked down the street when they got out of their car.

----------


## TheTexan

> Also, he said that following someone isn't a crime, when it is. Following anyone for an extended period of time is stalking. If you follow me in your car and I'm on foot, a bike, in another car. That is stalking.


"Stalking can be defined as the willful and repeated following, watching and/or harassing of another person. Unlike other crimes, which usually involve one act, stalking is a series of actions that occur over a period of time."

GZ's behavior does not match criteria for stalking

----------


## matt0611

> Says the cop, who's single driving desire in life is to serve and protect you and keep you safe.


Wasn't that the 911 dispatcher? I'm pretty sure they usually are not even cops.

----------


## TheTexan

> I give up. If I ever get shot walking down the street I'll think of this thread as I die and my killer is let off on the grounds of self defense.


The take-away from this is maybe you should take your safety in your own hands; ie. carry a weapon, and maybe it will be YOU that survives the encounter, instead of the bad guy.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Not to mention how his story doesn't match up to what TM's girlfriend heard him say on the phone ("Why are you following me?") but according to GZ he never spoke to TM and the first words TM said were "Do you have a problem?". Lie #1


He said, she said. Is there evidence to support this accusation of "lie" you are throwing out there?

We know that enough lies have been thrown around in this case, especially by the media, who have been caught red handed in their lies.

----------


## TheTexan

> Wasn't that the 911 dispatcher? I'm pretty sure they usually are not even cops.


Maybe no badge but they still count as cops in my book, because they interface so closely with the police.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> "Stalking can be defined as the willful and repeated following, *watching and/or harassing of another person.* Unlike other crimes, which usually involve one act, stalking is a series of actions that occur over a period of time."
> 
> GZ's behavior does not match criteria for stalking


Sounds like it does.

----------


## matt0611

> "Stalking can be defined as the willful and repeated following, watching and/or harassing of another person. Unlike other crimes, which usually involve one act, stalking is a series of actions that occur over a period of time."
> 
> GZ's behavior does not match criteria for stalking


Exactly, stalking not found.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> I doubt GZ was patrolling the neighborhood just because he wanted to.  There was likely a string of crime that had been happening.  It could have just as easily gone the other way.  GZ could have listened to the dispatcher, and went home.  *TM could have broken into someone's home and killed someone.*
> 
> The police report would state "incident reported by GZ possibly related to a murder later that night 2 blocks down the street."


What?  Are you on crack?

During halftime of the all star game a kid goes to buy skittles and then goes into a house and murder someone?

The lengths people are going to justify this is mind boggling.

----------


## Danke

> "We don't need you to do that"


As in, "Thanks, we appreciate your effort, but you are not obligated and don't feel bad if you don't."

----------


## matt0611

> Sounds like it does.


"Stalking can be defined as the willful and *repeated*  following, watching and/or harassing of another person. Unlike other crimes, which usually involve one act, stalking is a *series of actions that occur over a period of time*."

No, it doesn't.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> "Stalking can be defined as the willful and *repeated*  following, *watching and/or harassing of another person*. Unlike other crimes, which usually involve one act, stalking is a *series of actions that occur over a period of time*."
> 
> No, it doesn't.


//

----------


## TheTexan

> What?  Are you on crack?
> 
> During halftime of the all star game a kid goes to buy skittles and then goes into a house and murder someone?
> 
> The lengths people are going to justify this is mind boggling.


The person we now know as TM wouldn't have.  But at the time of the confrontation with TM, there was no way to know this.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> The person we now know as TM wouldn't have.  But at the time of the confrontation with TM, there was no way to know this.


Just like there was no way to know if he was a violent person with a gun who would kill GZ which is why he was told he wasn't needed. Let the people who are given your tax dollars to get shot at do it.

----------


## TheTexan

> Just like there was no way to know if he was a violent person with a gun who would kill GZ which is why he was told he wasn't needed.* Let the people who are given your tax dollars to get shot at do it.*


This is where the argument begins, and ends.  You have a reliance on cops, and don't believe in taking personal responsibility for your safety.  This is why they are outraged at GZ.  They think like you do.

----------


## matt0611

> //


Why do you keep ignoring my point? Stalking is a series of acts committed over time, not a one-time incident. This was not stalking.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> This is where the argument begins, and ends.  You have a reliance on cops, and don't believe in taking personal responsibility for your safety.  This is why they are outraged at GZ.  They think like you do.


When it's someone not doing anything to you or your property then by all means let the cops handle it. It it's you, your family, or your property then defend yourself like I have already said. I have no reliance on cops and I've even been called anti-cop by some people here. I'm outraged that some idiot is going to in one fell swoop allow the repeal of stand your ground laws so I can't protect my property all because he ignored the best advice anyone has ever given him. I think like a freedom lover and there are too many morons out there helping the government come up with excuses to take them away.

----------


## TheTexan

> When it's someone not doing anything to you or your property then by all means let the cops handle it. It it's you, your family, or your property then defend yourself like I have already said.


If someone breaks into 3 homes in your neighborhood and gets away with it, it could just as easily be your home next.  There is an individual interest in the safety of the neighborhood.  If someone wants to protect their neighborhood in a lawful manner, that's their choice to make.  Nothing wrong with that.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> If someone breaks into 3 homes in your neighborhood and gets away with it, it could just as easily be your home next.  There is an individual interest in the safety of the neighborhood.  If someone wants to protect their neighborhood in a lawful manner, that's their choice to make.  Nothing wrong with that.


You've been watching too many movies. Criminals don't return to the scene of the crime. Most crimes, including robberies, are crimes of opportunity. No criminal, unless he wants to be caught and sent to prison, will rob houses in the same area again and again.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> He said, she said. Is there evidence...?


And on second thought, the most interesting thing that could possibly come out of this case would be for the lawyers to subpoena the recording of that phone call, which is stored right now either at the cell phone provider or at a government super-storage facility.

----------


## TheTexan

> You've been watching too many movies. Criminals don't return to the scene of the crime. Most crimes, including robberies, are crimes of opportunity. No criminal, unless he wants to be caught and sent to prison, will rob houses in the same area again and again.


That's simply not true.  Plenty of people rob houses in the same area.  

However, even if you were right about that, it doesn't change the fact that making a safer community benefits the individual.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

Is nobody else pissed that Zimmerman acted so horribly in this situation and now democrats want to repeal the law that allows you to defend yourself? Because I am.

----------


## TheTexan

> Is nobody else pissed that Zimmerman acted so horribly in this situation and now democrats want to repeal the law that allows you to defend yourself? Because I am.


They'll use any excuse to repeal any rights we have left.  If it wasn't this it would be something else.  This country is on a one way street towards tyranny, with or without Zimmerman.

----------


## matt0611

> Is nobody else pissed that Zimmerman *acted so horribly* in this situation and now democrats want to repeal the law that allows you to defend yourself? Because I am.


Not me, because that remains to be seen IMO. 

Innocent until proven guilty.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Is nobody else pissed that Zimmerman acted so horribly in this situation and now democrats want to repeal the law that allows you to defend yourself? Because I am.


Yes, I am.

SYG was passed to prevent a situation like this:

You and your wife are returning to the parking garage after dinner out.

Suddenly, a man with a knife pops out from behind one of the parked cars, threatens you and your wife and demands money.

Under the law before, in this situation, *you had a duty to flee*, basically to throw down your money and wallet and run, *before* you resorted to using deadly force.

Under some state laws, that applied in your own *home*, thus "castle doctrine" laws.

SYG says that now, you were lawfully there, acting in a lawful manner, minding your own business, *then*, you have no duty to flee, prior to resorting to deadly force, if the attack continues.

*However*, all the other criteria for use of deadly force still applies. 

I have seen so much $#@!ed up commentary and hot air published and blogged about these two laws, that it more than likely will set back self defense rights for years to come.

I still maintain that GZ was on shaky legal footing, based on what I've seen so far.

----------


## matt0611

> Yes, I am.
> 
> SYG was passed to prevent a situation like this:
> 
> You and you wife are returning to the parking garage after dinner out.
> 
> Suddenly, a man with a knife pops out from behind one of the parked cars, threatens you and your wife and demands money.
> 
> Under the law before, in this situation, *you had a duty to flee*, basically to throw down your money and wallet and run, *before* resorted to using deadly force.
> ...


If GZ's side of the story is true then "Stand Your Ground" is irrelevent from what I understand.

----------


## Danke

> If GZ's side of the story is true then "Stand Your Ground" is irrelevent from what I understand.


My understanding is that is not even being brought up in his defense, outside to the media.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> If GZ's side of the story is true then "Stand Your Ground" is irrelevent from what I understand.


I'm pretty sure that's the case no matter what turns out to be true here.

Other than the language in the law that says that you are to be released if there is no evidence of any crime having been committed.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> My understanding is that is not even being brought up in his defense, outside to the media.


My point in bringing that up. 

SYG and CD laws are being vilified in the hoplophobic and anti self defense government media as part of this circus, when they did not apply at all, as far as I can see.

----------


## James Madison

Ever notice how most people cream their pants every time they see a cop but freak out when us mundanes want to defend ourself. I have no sympathy for these pigs.

----------


## BlackTerrel



----------


## Danke

> 


That is bull$#@!. I thought better of you BlackTerrel.

Ya, it is all about race for some.

----------


## TheTexan

> 


lol in the comments "REMEMBER,IF THE HEAD IS﻿ SPLIT,WE MUST ACQUIT !!!!"

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> That is bull$#@!.


Useful idiots, being played like violins...

----------


## BlackTerrel

> That is bull$#@!. I thought better of you BlackTerrel.
> 
> Ya, it is all about race for some.


There are a number of different races in that video.  All united.

----------


## Danke

> There are a number of different races in that video.  All united.


Ya, got it.  

The video had a white guy (not Hispanic) attack..  the facts we don't know, but so far points just the opposite.  Ya, very objective.

If you want a taste of the hypocrites start around post ~1400 to see egg on face.

----------


## RickyJ

> Not me, because that remains to be seen IMO. 
> 
> Innocent until proven guilty.


It is amazing how everyone thinks they know what happened when they didn't see it happen and have to rely on witnesses that also did not see it very well. Unless they can tell by voice analysis software who it was screaming for help, we may never know if it was Zimmerman or Trayvon yelling for help. Most people yelling for Zimmerman's head think this is a racial crime while Zimmerman's past has shown no racism at all, actually it has shown him to be a friend to many blacks.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Unless they can tell by voice analysis software who it was screaming for help, we may never know if it was Zimmerman or Trayvon yelling for help.


The latest is that the eyewitness who saw Trayvon on top of George says that is was George that was screaming for help. That makes two "eyewitnesses" with the same story.

----------


## cheapseats

Poll: Attention Media and GOP: "No one but Paul" POLL ADDED
Started by Bruno‎, 09-24-2011 

100 pages long, on page 8 of GRC 

Replies: 991
Views: 28,115

.

Colorado state convention thread
Started by Monotaur‎, 04-14-2012 

74 pages long, on page 8 of GRC

Replies: 736
Views: 26,297

.

How Ron Paul Wins the Nomination (full nomination schedule, delegate #'s, and analysis)
Started by 1836‎, 11-16-2011 

34 pages long, on page 7 of GRC

Replies: 330
Views: 17,028

.

Ron Paul runs - Ron Paul Wins!
Started by Foundation_Of_Liberty‎, 04-27-2011 

58 long, on page 7 of GRC

Replies: 571
Views: 13,010

.

Vote Integrity: The case for the occurence of algorithmic vote flipping
Started by drummergirl‎, 03-27-2012 

34 pages long, on page 1 of GRC

Replies: 334
Views: 11,421

.

**Official** Trayvon Martin thread
Started by Anti Federalist‎, 03-24-2012 

193 pages long, holding steady on page 1 of General Politics

*Replies: 1,926
Views: 33,060*

.

George Zimmerman gets MUCH more Press than Ron Paul.  Shocker.

Vote Fraud is not in "The News" AT. ALL.

----------


## emazur

> Cops are always going to tell you to do nothing.  "Help, 911, I'm sitting on these train tracks and a train is coming straight for me!"  "911: Stay where you are, help is on the way!"


That's true.  Some $#@! punched though my window of the room I was in and and I called 911 and during the call mentioned that I had a knife on me in case he comes back.  I had never felt so threatened in my life.  But the woman's advice was to put the knife away and lock myself in another room.  $#@! that - I've got a broken window and I need to defend myself AND my stuff from this criminal or anyone else passing by who sees a broken window on the ground floor of a building as an invitation to come in.  If I'm not aloud to defend my property, I guess all private businesses and government buildings should fire their security guards and send them home.

----------


## emazur

For those who say Zimmerman shouldn't have followed him, would you also say that if a police officer was suspicious of Trayvon and decided to follow him instead of directly confronting him, would he be in the wrong too?

----------


## Danke

> 


Fake, doctored, Photoshoped.  See previous posts in this thread.

----------


## TheBlackPeterSchiff

Can I ask you guys...........why do you care so much about this bull$#@! case? Young black dudes get killed everyday by other black dudes or cops.

----------


## smhbbag

Why are those rappers upset about people thinking they are bad people?

They ARE bad people, and they celebrate their degeneracy in every "song."  They are actual criminals (http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/ente...rison-sentence , http://www.sohh.com/2011/07/scarface...apper_sti.html).

They want all their black fans to believe they are hardened bad-boys from the hood.  But as soon as a white person believes that about them, that's racist.

So you have rotten people "singing" in hoodies to claim that not everybody wearing a hoodie is rotten.

----------


## menoname

> Can I ask you guys...........why do you care so much about this bull$#@! case? Young black dudes get killed everyday by other black dudes or cops.


Because we all want to see Al Sharpton share his wisdom.

----------


## RickyJ

> Can I ask you guys...........why do you care so much about this bull$#@! case?


Why did the media lie about what Zimmerman told the 9/11 operator making it appear he was racist?  This is a media created case designed for one thing and one thing only, mass riots when Zimmerman is acquitted of all charges by the people who have been led to believe by the media that a great injustice has taken place. These riots will enable the congress critters to take more of our freedoms away from us in new laws and martial law. There is always a reason for outright lies when they are everywhere in the media, it is to further the agenda of the elite. That is why this case is important.

----------


## azxd

> They over-charged him (why would they do that? Appeasing the worked up masses? Or do they want the prosecution to fail?). No way he gets convicted of the current charges. Can they convict of a lesser charge in Florida during the same trial? Even with a lesser charge, it seems very likely he'll walk.


A not guilty verdict will upset the masses.

----------


## azxd

> Stalking IS illegal and it should be.


Clearly your comprehension of the English language is to be questioned, because you do not understand the legal definition of stalking.

----------


## azxd

> It's highly unlikely that TM would have killed someone or broken into their home. He had left to get something to drink during a break in a basketball game so he was obviously going back to watch it. He was also unarmed and by armed I mean he didn't have a knife, club, pipe, or gun. Also, GZ didn't tell anyone he would be armed during his patrols, and his role as a neighborhood watch member is just that: to watch and report it to the police.


I don't tell people when I am armed, either.

This thread is getting comical.

----------


## azxd

> I give up. *If I ever get shot walking down the street* I'll think of this thread as I die and how my killer will be let off on the grounds of self defense* because I attacked someone* who was stalking me slowly in the vehicle as I walked down the street *when they got out of their car*.


If you are the agressor, you might get your wish

----------


## azxd

> What?  Are you on crack?
> 
> During halftime of the all star game a kid goes to buy skittles and then goes into a house and murder someone?
> 
> The lengths people are going to justify this is mind boggling.


No more mind boggling than the distortions being used to imply guilt.

----------


## azxd

> You've been watching too many movies. Criminals don't return to the scene of the crime. Most crimes, including robberies, are crimes of opportunity. No criminal, unless he wants to be caught and sent to prison, will rob houses in the same area again and again.


I will suggest that your emotions are driving your words ... Have one of many examples - *Baseline Killer*

----------


## azxd

> Is nobody else pissed that Zimmerman acted so horribly in this situation and now democrats want to repeal the law that allows you to defend yourself? Because I am.


NOPE !!!
And what some politician wants to do, doesn't make for an automatic action.

Heller V DC is another example for you ... Local politicians didn't want people to be able to defend themselves ... The court saw things differently.

----------


## azxd

> Originally Posted by DerailingDaTrain
> 
> 
> Is nobody else pissed that Zimmerman acted so horribly in this situation and now democrats want to repeal the law that allows you to defend yourself? Because I am.
> 
> 
> They'll use any excuse to repeal any rights we have left.  If it wasn't this it would be something else.  This country is on a one way street towards tyranny, with or without Zimmerman.


He's under the assumption that GZ is going to be found guilty, and then politicians will use this to revoke a law.

The case could also have the effect of solidifying the stand your ground law.

Time will tell !!

----------


## azxd

> My point in bringing that up. 
> 
> SYG and CD laws are being vilified in the hoplophobic and anti self defense government media as part of this circus, when they did not apply at all, as far as I can see.


+ REP

It's my understanding that these laws remove civil retaliation potential, and I agree completely that these laws are being vilified unjustly.

----------


## azxd

> Poll: Attention Media and GOP: "No one but Paul" POLL ADDED
> Started by Bruno‎, 09-24-2011 
> 
> 100 pages long, on page 8 of GRC 
> 
> Replies: 991
> Views: 28,115
> 
> .
> ...

----------


## azxd

> Can I ask you guys...........why do you care so much about this bull$#@! case? Young black dudes get killed everyday by other black dudes or cops.


Killing some morning time, but ...

----------


## matt0611

> Can I ask you guys...........why do you care so much about this bull$#@! case? Young black dudes get killed everyday by other black dudes or cops.


That's a good question for the media and the masses. (the reason its a big deal to the media and to the masses is so they can rev up racial animosity and use it for their agenda (anti-gun laws, "hate" crime laws, etc)).

I'm only paying attention to it because the media, the progressives, al sharpton et al have turned it into a circus for their own gains. 

Its pretty sickening actually and even more sickening that some in this forum are buying it hook line and sinker.

----------


## cheapseats

> That's a good question for the media and the masses. (the reason its a big deal to the media and to the masses is so they can rev up racial animosity and use it for their agenda (anti-gun laws, "hate" crime laws, etc)).


There's nuthin' wrong with bein' Conservative, there's nuthin' wrong with bein' Moderate . . . if yer Libertarian.

Nuthin' sends Moderates back to the Democratic fold like ANTI ABORTION HYSTERIA and a small number of unusually well-armed men waxing extreme about WE'LL HAVE WHAT THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES ARE HAVING . . . AND YOU CAN GRAB THIS FIREPOWER WHEN YOU CAN PRY IT FROM OUR COLD DEAD HANDS.






> *I'm only paying attention to it because the media, the progressives, al sharpton et al have turned it into a circus for their own gains.*


THE GAME.

Observe that the other (flip) "Side" (of the coin) ain't exactly HAVING IT OUT, once and for all, on this selective hurling of the RACE CARD into election politics.

Observe that this OBVIOUSLY HAND-PICKED DRAMA occupies a LOT of "The News".  This case features NOWHERE amid Market News.

Howzabout #HaleyBarbour's PARDONS?





> Its pretty sickening actually and even more sickening that some in this forum are buying it hook line and sinker.



"All" we need to do to get LIBERTY & JUSTICE FOR ALL into the Corner Office ('cuz it ultimately makes the most economic AND social AND moral sense) is to "EDUCATE THE SHEEPLE" to untether themselves from #MainstreamMedia smoke-and-mirror-rile-the-fringes-get-the-Audience-rubbernecking BULL$#@!, and keep their eyes on the PRIZE = PRINCIPLES.

Whaddya think of our chances of pulling that off between now and November?

How d'ya like the odds on pulling it off AMONG REPUBLICANS, BEFORE AUGUST?

----------


## BlackTerrel

> That's a good question for the media and the masses. (the reason its a big deal to the media and to the masses is so they can rev up racial animosity and use it for their agenda (anti-gun laws, "hate" crime laws, etc)).
> 
> I'm only paying attention to it because the media, the progressives, al sharpton et al have turned it into a circus for their own gains. 
> 
> Its pretty sickening actually and even more sickening that some in this forum are buying it hook line and sinker.


It's a big deal because the killer WAS KNOWN and obvious yet the police didn't even bother to charge him with anything.  That is why the case is unique and why people are discussing it.

If people never brought it up the murderer would have never been charged and would still be doing the same thing he always has.  I'm glad it received the attention that it did.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Why did the media lie about what Zimmerman told the 9/11 operator making it appear he was racist?


It was one media and it was quickly exposed as a lie by other media.

The facts of the case as they are now are enough to convict the murderer.  They for damn sure should have been enough to at least charge him with a crime but they weren't.  The exposure is the only thing that will bring justice to this case so it can't be swept under the rug.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> It is amazing how everyone thinks they know what happened when they didn't see it happen and have to rely on witnesses that also did not see it very well. Unless they can tell by voice analysis software who it was screaming for help, we may never know if it was Zimmerman or Trayvon yelling for help. Most people yelling for Zimmerman's head think this is a racial crime while Zimmerman's past has shown no racism at all, actually it has shown him to be a friend to many blacks.


Because it DOESN'T MATTER who was crying for help.

Why was there a confrontation at all?  Only because Zimmerman thought a kid with skittles was a menace and decided to chase him down.  Then there was an altercation and Zimmerman brought a gun to a fist fight.

Have you never been in a fist fight in your life?  Introducing a gun into the mix is what made it murder.  Otherwise they both would have walked away with a couple bruises and no one would have cared.

----------


## matt0611

> It's a big deal because the killer WAS KNOWN and obvious yet the police didn't even bother to charge him with anything.  That is why the case is unique and why people are discussing it.
> 
> If people never brought it up the murderer would have never been charged and would still be doing the same thing he always has.  I'm glad it received the attention that it did.


You have to be quite naive to believe "justice" is the only agenda here. That has been shown to be quite clear IMO.

----------


## Cowlesy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Trials

----------


## cheapseats

> ...a kid with skittles...



As opposed to A KID WITH A GRILL.  Either your Racial Bias or your Bleeding Heart is showing.

YOUNG. BLACK. DUDES. GETTING. SHOT. DEAD. ARE. THIRTEEN. TO. THE. DOZEN.  As you know.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> You have to be quite naive to believe "justice" is the only agenda here. That has been shown to be quite clear IMO.


Justice sure as hell wasn't being received before the case was covered.




> As opposed to A KID WITH A GRILL.  Either your Racial Bias or your Bleeding Heart is showing.
> 
> YOUNG. BLACK. DUDES. GETTING. SHOT. DEAD. ARE. THIRTEEN. TO. THE. DOZEN.  As you know.


What are you arguing?

----------


## cheapseats

> What are you arguing?



Some people's bias sustainedly runs AGAINST Blacks. YOUR bias sustainedly runs in FAVOR of Blacks.  (I have already told you/Board that I BELIEVE you are an Obama Apologist.)

Zimmerman is agenda-based DIVERSION.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Trials


This.

While I have maintained all along, and continue to maintain that, legally, GZ was on shaky legal ground to claim self defense, this circus of a prosecution, with government owned media outlets deliberately distorting crucial evidence, and the prosecutor "praying" with the victim's family, and grossly overcharging, will not facilitate justice at all.

It's a lynching.

----------


## cheapseats

> It's a lynching.



Not for nuthin' were Public Hangings PUBLIC.

In the TOWN SQUARE, no less.  The better to hold a CROWD . . . and Street Vendors.

Don't do what HE did . . . or THIS could happen to YOU.

Do NOT protect your 'hoods.  Leave that to Professional Gunslingers.

But if you SEE something, by all means, SAY something...and don't be discouraged if you get a RECORDING when you dial 911 in some areas.  That means The Professionals are even MORE on the job.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Not for nuthin' were Public Hangings PUBLIC.
> 
> In the TOWN SQUARE, no less.  The better to hold a CROWD . . . and Street Vendors.
> 
> Don't do what HE did . . . or THIS could happen to YOU.


Public shaming.

Maybe thirty days of this would be better punishment than 30 years closed away in prison that nobody will see.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Some people's bias sustainedly runs AGAINST Blacks. YOUR bias sustainedly runs in FAVOR of Blacks.


Not true and I have condemned black individuals more than once on this forum.

Here is me in 2010 supporting "Epic Beard Man" the white guy who beat the crap out of a black "ignorant piece of $#@!".




> The black dude was clearly all talk and had never been in a fight in his life.  Notice how he holds the pole with one hand the whole time rather than raise his fists to defend himself.  Stupid move.
> 
> Best part is even after he got his ass beat he was still talking trash.  Shut the $#@! up - you just got your ass beat, call amber lamps and take care of yourself and stop instigating fights you ignorant piece of $#@!!


I'm consistent.







> (I have already told you/Board that I BELIEVE you are an Obama Apologist.)


It's great that you already told people this but again it is not true.

----------


## cheapseats

> Not true and I have condemned black individuals *more than once* on this forum.
> 
> Here is me in 2010 supporting "Epic Beard Man" the white guy who beat the crap out of a black "ignorant piece of $#@!".




OF COURSE you wouldn't be BLATANTLY biased-toward-Black on Ron Paul Forums.

Too, there is the abiding component of SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS/DEEDS ARE [whoever/whatever I am effectively biased AGAINST, by being fundamentally biased in FAVOR of someone/something else].






> I'm consistent.


NO ONE BUT NUT CASES AND ROBOTS/AUTOMATONS are 100% consistent, 100% of the time.

You CONSISTENTLY lean/slant/FEEL in favor of Black.







> It's great that you already told people this but again it is not true.


What ELSE would you say, about my saying:

(I have already told you/Board that I BELIEVE you are an Obama Apologist.)

If you aren't in Obama's camp outright, operating SUBTLY (he IS known to have trumped Establishment in Social Media), you "naturally" quasi-apologize for him because that would be CONSISTENT with being biased in favor of Blacks.

I am a SPADE CALLER from way back, with SPADE having ZERO reference to Blacks.  I have been calling a spade a Spade since Negroes were still sometimes "accidentally" called ******s.

[PeeCee asterisks NOT mine.]

Let us be windex-clear that I wouldn't say ANY of this, but for my belief that DOOM-ISH-NESS impends.

Now.  You can say I am in Romney/Johnson/Whoever's camp, and I will say it is not true.

Then I could waste a buncha Time = Scarcest Resource looking for a several-year-old thread, or I could cut to the chase.

I have been "on" to YOU since you feigned WHADDYA MEAN, when I posed the question: WHY DID ROD BLAGOJEVICH'S APPROVAL RATING REMAIN OVER 40% WITH BLACK VOTERS, LONG AFTER IT WAS IN THE CRAPPER WITH OTHER VOTERS?

It was a thread about CHICAGO-STYLE POLITICS coming to Washington DC.

----------


## cheapseats

Human Beings with emotions have biases.  Some studies report that even BABIES consistently gravitate to lovelier faces.

WIVES/MOTHERS consistently vote against the better interests of All Women, vis-a-vis bias in favor of FAMILIES.

Racism is not new in America.  Injustice is not news in America.

Unless someone MAKES it News.

GATEKEEPERS make news. VIP's make news. SCANDAL makes news (but not Corzine too much, considering the number of DISAPPEARED dollars). GRUESOMENESS, a bonus. Which is a "natural" segue to DISASTERS making news. 

SQUEAKY WHEELS with Lobbyists/PR/Pros very often make news. Squeaky Wheels with CHUTZPAH sometimes claw their way front stage and center...Cindy Sheehan...brief flashes in an unjust pan.

But not Ron Paul.

Still.

Whassup?

Stay the course?

----------


## BlackTerrel

> OF COURSE you wouldn't be BLATANTLY biased-toward-Black on Ron Paul Forums.


So let me get this straight:

1.  I'm biased in favor of blacks.

2.  Except for when I'm biased in favor of whites like in the Epic Beard Man thread from 2010.

3.  But #2 is just a trick to hide my bias.

Look this is why I hate debating conspiracy theorists.  Any evidence that goes against your line of thinking is part of the cover up.  You're basically arguing that my lack of bias is proof of being biased.  How can I argue that?




> You CONSISTENTLY lean/slant/FEEL in favor of Black.


No I don't.  I just posted a thread from 2010 where I defended a white guy who beat up a black guy and I called the black guy an "ignorant piece of $#@!".  Oops I forgot - that is part of the cover up.




> If you aren't in Obama's camp outright, operating SUBTLY (he IS known to have trumped Establishment in Social Media), you "naturally" quasi-apologize for him because that would be CONSISTENT with being biased in favor of Blacks.


Trumped establishment in social media... I don't even know what that means.




> I am a SPADE CALLER from way back, with SPADE having ZERO reference to Blacks. I have been calling a spade a spade since Negroes were still sometimes "accidentally" called ******s.


Ok thanks for clarifying.




> Let us be windex-clear that I wouldn't say ANY of this, but for my belief that DOOM-ISH-NESS impends.
> 
> Now. You can say I am in Romney/Johnson/Whoever's camp, and I will say it is not true.
> 
> Then I could waste a buncha Time = Scarcest Resource looking for a several-year-old thread, or cut to the chase.


You're jumping all over the place and are striking me as a bit unbalanced




> I have been "on" to YOU since you feigned WHADDYA MEAN, when I posed the question: WHY DID ROD BLAGOJEVICH'S APPROVAL RATINGS REMAIN OVER 40%, LONG AFTER IT WAS IN THE CRAPPER WITH OTHER VOTERS?


Oh haha I remember you now.  You were telling me that blacks were racist because Blagojevich (white guy) had higher approval ratings among black people than white people.  Your logic made as much sense then as it does now.

----------


## cheapseats

> Oh haha I remember you now.  You were telling me that blacks were racist because Blagojevich (white guy) had higher approval ratings among black people than white people.  Your logic made as much sense then as it does now.



More like, you were FEIGNING IGNORANCE about savvy (Black AND White) Politicians systematically BUYING BLACK VOTES WITH HERE-YA-GO BENEFITS.

Obama ALSO feigned ignorance . . . said he had NO IDEA that Blagojevich was swashbuckling.

I called BULL$#@! on that.  You said it was PLAUSIBLE, 'cuz Obama held national rather than state office.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

Never should have continued following him after he was told he wasn't needed. 

/CaptainHindsightAway

----------


## newbitech

> Never should have continued following him after he was told he wasn't needed. 
> 
> /CaptainHindsightAway


why call the cops in the first place/?

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Never should have continued following him after he was told he wasn't needed. 
> 
> /CaptainHindsightAway


 That's second guessing though.  What if Trayvon had gone behind those condos, slipped in to an unlocked door, and raped a woman.  Then the same people would be criticizing him for staying in the car like a coward.

----------


## jmdrake

> Get the riot gear ready ... Zimmerman is gonna walk.


Quite likely because he was overcharged.  Stupid mistake by the prosecutor?  Prosecutor giving into demands of the ignorant masses?  Or strategic move by the prison industrial complex to protect one of their own?  Who knows.




> Why was he even arrested, on what grounds, other than to appease the outraged masses


Ummmm....you do realize that he was arrested the night of the shooting before there was any publicity and then released after the DA got involved right?  I'm sure a phone call from his daddy who's a retired judge from Virginia had _nothing_ to do with it.  I'm sure if you killed someone and the lead investigator wanted to charge you that the DA would get up from his bed in the middle of the night and contact the police chief and come to your rescue.  /sarcasm.

----------


## jmdrake

> That's second guessing though.  What if Trayvon had gone behind those condos, slipped in to an unlocked door, and raped a woman.  Then the same people would be criticizing him for staying in the car like a coward.


  Or more likely if the 13 y/o witness who was going to go over to the fight but didn't because his dog got off the lease had gone over there and gotten shot by a stray bullet you would then finally realize just how stupid Zimmerman's actions were.

----------


## puppetmaster

> Or more likely if the 13 y/o witness who was going to go over to the fight but didn't because his dog got off the lease had gone over there and gotten shot by a stray bullet you would then finally realize just how stupid Zimmerman's actions were.


stupid yes, criminal....?we will see how it plays out.

If stupid was a crime in this country 300 million people would be in prison.

----------


## matt0611

> *stupid yes, criminal....?we will see how it plays out.*
> 
> If stupid was a crime in this country 300 million people would be in prison.


Exactly, many people in this thread keep equating stupid/unwise == criminal.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

If this happened to one of your kids would you be patting GZ on the back for a job well done defending himself? No.

----------


## cheapseats

> Exactly, many people in this thread keep equating stupid/unwise == criminal.



I wouldn't have bumped the thread but . . .

Tom Cruise as Lt. Daniel Kaffee, A FEW GOOD MEN: *"My client's a moron, that's not against the law."*

Masterminds & Mainstream Media can CONCOCT a sensation, but the Audience has to play along for it to actually WORK.

----------


## jmdrake

> stupid yes, criminal....?we will see how it plays out.
> 
> If stupid was a crime in this country 300 million people would be in prison.


There are a lot of people in prison who haven't committed a crime but were just stupid.  Furthermore most tort lawsuits are for people doing stupid things that aren't criminal.




> Exactly, many people in this thread keep equating stupid/unwise == criminal.


So?  I haven't equated stupid with criminal.  What Zimmerman did was *possibly* criminal.  It depends on exactly what happened before, during and after the fight.  The evidence is inconclusive.  Typically in this situations we have a preliminary hearing and possibly a trial.  The lead investigator thought there was something criminal and that's why Zimmerman was arrested.  Many people in this thread keep equating possible reasonable doubt == innocent.

The specific point I've been making about GZ being stupid is to deflect the idea that what he did was somehow the right thing to do.  It wasn't.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Or more likely if the 13 y/o witness who was going to go over to the fight but didn't because his dog got off the lease had gone over there and gotten shot by a stray bullet you would then finally realize just how stupid Zimmerman's actions were.


If a 13 year old kid got shot because Trayvon Martin attacked an armed man, that would be on Trayvon Martin, not Zimmerman.  Zimmerman risked his life trying to protect his neighborhood.  Trayvon likely lost his while trying to prove how "thug" he was.  In terms of relative stupidity, Trayvon has this thing one by a mile.

----------


## jmdrake

> If a 13 year old kid got shot because Trayvon Martin attacked an armed man, that would be on Trayvon Martin, not Zimmerman.  Zimmerman risked his life trying to protect his neighborhood.  Trayvon likely lost his while trying to prove how "thug" he was.  In terms of relative stupidity, Trayvon has this thing one by a mile.


Any reasonable jury would find Zimmerman negligent for the 13 y/o death in such a scenario.  Just because Zimmerman *may* have had pure motives does not excuse him from needlessly creating a dangerous situation.  That's why you can get sued for a "rescue" that ends up paralyzing someone.  I agree with you that Trayvon was stupid.  He should have been packing.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> If a 13 year old kid got shot because Trayvon Martin attacked an armed man, that would be on Trayvon Martin, not Zimmerman.  Zimmerman risked his life trying to protect his neighborhood.  Trayvon likely lost his while trying to prove how "thug" he was.  In terms of relative stupidity, Trayvon has this thing one by a mile.


In terms of relative stupidity you have this thing WON by a mile.

----------


## azxd

> Quite likely because he was overcharged.  Stupid mistake by the prosecutor?  Prosecutor giving into demands of the ignorant masses?  Or strategic move by the prison industrial complex to protect one of their own?  Who knows.


YEP, and I doubt the masses will be satisfied until they have blood on their hands

----------


## azxd

> If stupid was a crime in this country 300 million people would be in prison.


Nominated for the most accurate statement I have read this month

----------


## azxd

> Exactly, many people in this thread keep equating stupid/unwise == criminal.


Rack it up to exposed emotional bias ... I do.

Jumping to conclusions before knowing the facts of the case, is one method of exposure ... The other is more subtle, but the bias can be discerned.

----------


## azxd

> If this happened to one of your kids would you be patting GZ on the back for a job well done defending himself? No.


Are you somehow taking this story a bit personal ?

----------


## azxd

> Any reasonable jury would find Zimmerman negligent for the 13 y/o death in such a scenario.  Just because Zimmerman *may* have had pure motives does not excuse him from needlessly creating a dangerous situation.  That's why you can get sued for a "rescue" that ends up paralyzing someone.  I agree with you that Tr*ayvon was stupid.  He should have been packing*.


Can you charge a minor who is dead with a felony ? LOL

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> Are you somehow taking this story a bit personal ?


Your reading comprehension skills must suck.

----------


## azxd

Wow standing up.

Zimmerman did that, so did Travon, one won, one lost.

Get the riot gear ... It's gonna get rough.

----------


## Cowlesy

Yaaay for retards.


http://twitchy.com/2012/04/23/twitte...lets-kill-him/

----------


## brandon

"Once u been convicted of a crime & let out on bail u can't be charged 2x for the same thing so that means sum1 gonna have to kill Zimmerman" -Ms.Lovely.



hah...

----------


## azxd

Wait for evidence before jumping to conclusions.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=204988

The comment about *"the Sanford Mayor personally recognized George Zimmerman"* is an interesting character reference, IMO.

----------


## dannno

> If this happened to one of your kids would you be patting GZ on the back for a job well done defending himself? No.


I would hope if I had kids they wouldn't attack a neighborhood watchman.

----------


## dannno

> Yaaay for retards.
> 
> 
> http://twitchy.com/2012/04/23/twitte...lets-kill-him/


Are any of these people being arrested?

----------


## jmdrake

> Are any of these people being arrested?


On what grounds?

Edit: But Twitter should immediately suspend of of their accounts.

----------


## bolil

Meh, considering the amount of emotion behind this I project that Zimmerman will be acquitted, not guilty, or granted a mistrial.  Why?  Becuase, given the frantic emotion behind this case it will likely cause riots.  Extensive and expensive riots are a good excuse for suspending civil liberties and sending in the troops.  The question is: Once the troops are sent in and the situation quelled... will they leave.

(troops meaning militarized cops aswell, although one might make the argument that they are already there... or here)

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> I would hope if I had kids they wouldn't attack a neighborhood watchman.


You mean the stranger stalking them right? That real creepy guy following them really slow in his car? If I had any kids I hope they would defend themselves when being attacked.

----------


## Anti Federalist

*Sanford Police Chief to resign at midnight.*

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...?newsfeed=true

News of Lee's resignation came just hours after Zimmerman, who was charged with second-degree murder earlier this month, was released from jail on a $150,000 bond.

According to a press release from the city, the chief's resignation would take effect at midnight if commissioners, in a special meeting at 4pm, approve a separation agreement tendered by the chief.

"The city has experienced great turmoil in the past two months and we are hoping to stabilise the department and continue with this time of healing," City manager Norton Bonaparte said, in a statement.

Captain Darren Scott, who has been serving as acting police chief, will continue in that role while the city continues its search for a replacement, the release said.

----------


## angelatc

> If a 13 year old kid got shot because Trayvon Martin attacked an armed man, that would be on Trayvon Martin, not Zimmerman.  Zimmerman risked his life trying to protect his neighborhood.  Trayvon likely lost his while trying to prove how "thug" he was.  In terms of relative stupidity, Trayvon has this thing one by a mile.


Shooting your neighbor's son does not equate to protecting your neighborhood.

"Real" neighborhood watch patrols don't allow their participants to carry guns, and they are never supposed to get out of their cars when patrolling in vehicles.  If Zimmerman wanted to protect his neighborhood, he wouldn't have done things the way he did.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> *Sanford Police Chief to resign at midnight.*


Press conference:

http://24wired.tv/35110/new-sanford-...rayvon-martin/
http://24wired.tv/35110/new-sanford-...rayvon-martin/

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

Why is he resigning?

----------


## Captain Shays

> Yes, innocent until proven guilty BOTH WAYS.  But of course, one of the witnesses, the teenager carrying nothing but Skittles and an Iced Tea, is dead.
> 
> Trayvon would be alive if Zimmerman wouldn't have disregarded the dispatchers advice to not follow.


THAT is a HUGE assumption. How do you know Zimmerman disregarded the advice fo the dispatchers? IN the recording of the 911 call after the dispatchers said "we don't need you to follow him" Zimmerman said "OK" implying at least by that  that he was going to comply. There is NO evidence to the contrary that he did keep following Martin. ALL of it is based upon assumption.
What we do have is an eye witness on the scene where the event happened. It was right outside the guys window. He was on the phone with the police dispatcher when the altercation was happeneing and the gun shot went off. HE was in the process of describing Martin on top of Zimmerman smashing his head intot he sidewalk and Zimmerman crying out for help. The gash on the back of Zimmerman's head, the paramedic treatment for his wounds and the police report fo the wounds confirm Zimmerman's and the eye witness's story. There were no phsyical wounds to Martin (beside the gun shot wound) as the under taker who prepared his body confirmed.

----------


## TheTexan

> Shooting your neighbor's son does not equate to protecting your neighborhood.
> 
> "Real" neighborhood watch patrols don't allow their participants to carry guns, and they are never supposed to get out of their cars when patrolling in vehicles.  If Zimmerman wanted to protect his neighborhood, he wouldn't have done things the way he did.


Stay in your car and let the "professionals" handle it?  Hate to break it to ya, but whatever crime you may believe was committed here, the "professionals" commit far worse atrocities with regularity.

----------


## TheTexan

> Why is he resigning?


Hell has no fury like outraged zombies

----------


## dannno

> You mean the stranger stalking them right? That real creepy guy following them really slow in his car? If I had any kids I hope they would defend themselves when being attacked.


Following a suspicious person is not stalking. It is most certainly not "attacking".

I would hope my kids would not attack an innocent person patrolling or otherwise peacefully moving about their neighborhood.

----------


## jmdrake

> Following a suspicious person is not stalking. It is most certainly not "attacking".
> 
> I would hope my kids would not attack an innocent person patrolling or otherwise peacefully moving about their neighborhood.


I just hope if you have a kid he's not out walking his dog while people like George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin are making the neighborhood unsafe for everyone.

----------


## dannno

> Shooting your neighbor's son does not equate to protecting your neighborhood.
> 
> "Real" neighborhood watch patrols don't allow their participants to carry guns, and they are never supposed to get out of their cars when patrolling in vehicles.  If Zimmerman wanted to protect his neighborhood, he wouldn't have done things the way he did.


Apparently he wasn't on neighborhood watch, he was just on the way to the store. He had a gun on him for personal protection. He saw a suspicious person and called the police. He lost said suspicious person. He got out of his car to walk around to see if said suspicious person was prowling around the condos. Suspicious person came up from behind him and attacked him.

Nobody is saying what Zimmerman did was the best way to handle the situation, but he didn't do anything illegal.

----------


## Revolution9

50 pages with 40 to a page. All of this chit chat for a fat assed yuppie and some punk thug who crossed paths. Happened every day when i lived in NYC and Atlanta. Most didn't end up pushing up daisy's. When they did it got a paragraph or two in the paper..maybe in the police blotter section.  What are they up to that they want you so focused on this very minor incident? These two clowns were made for each other and the universe pulled them together like magnets opposing poles. How could it have ended up any different. I was over it the first time I heard of it. And what kinda name is Trayvon?? I can't stand these frakkin' made up hybrid BS names. Is it like Cleavon and Trevor with an alliterated spelling? The most ridiculous one I ever seen was Tonishka Pizzariea Shawanda Jones.

Rev9

----------


## dannno

> 50 pages with 40 to a page. All of this chit chat for a fat assed yuppie and some punk thug who crossed paths. Happened every day when i lived in NYC and Atlanta. Most didn't end up pushing up daisy's. *When they did it got a paragraph or two in the paper..maybe in the police blotter section.  What are they up to that they want you so focused on this very minor incident? These two clowns were made for each other and the universe pulled them together like magnets opposing poles. How could it have ended up any different.* I was over it the first time I heard of it. And what kinda name is Trayvon?? I can't stand these frakkin' made up hybrid BS names. Is it like Cleavon and Trevor with an alliterated spelling? The most ridiculous one I ever seen was Tonishka Pizzariea Shawanda Jones.
> 
> Rev9


Completely agree, this is all a very manufactured response from the media, they definitely have an agenda.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> Following a suspicious person is not stalking. It is most certainly not "attacking".
> 
> I would hope my kids would not attack an innocent person patrolling or otherwise peacefully moving about their neighborhood.


You're seriously telling me that if you were being followed by someone in a vehicle you wouldn't feel that was suspicious? You wouldn't feel that maybe they intended to do harm to you? Because that would be one of my first thoughts if it didn't have lights on the top of the car.

----------


## TheTexan

> You're seriously telling me that if you were being followed by someone in a vehicle you wouldn't feel that was suspicious? You wouldn't feel that maybe they intended to do harm to you? Because that would be one of my first thoughts if it didn't have lights on the top of the car.


I would be alert to that possibility.  Doesn't make it right to attack such a person, just because you thought "they might be wanting to harm you"




> Because that would be one of my first thoughts if it didn't have lights on the top of the car.


This would only make me more convinced they intended to harm me.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> I would be alert to that possibility.  Doesn't make it right to attack such a person, just because you thought "they might be wanting to harm you"


Zimmerman had a gun right? Was it in a holster? In the photos of him that night he doesn't seem to be wearing a jacket. So the gun was visible correct?

----------


## TheTexan

> Zimmerman had a gun right? Was it in a holster? In the photos of him that night he doesn't seem to be wearing a jacket. So the gun was visible correct?


Not sure.  What's your point?  Having a gun without a badge makes you a bad guy?

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> Not sure.  What's your point?  Having a gun without a badge makes you a bad guy?


In most people's minds the strange guy following them in a car when they haven't done anything wrong who then gets out of said car and has a weapon is a threat. Especially if it's late at night.

----------


## TheTexan

> In most people's minds the strange guy following them in a car when they haven't done anything wrong who then gets out of said car and has a weapon is a threat. Especially if it's late at night.


Hoplophobia isn't an excuse to attack someone.  If he had drawn the weapon that changes everything, but holstered?  No.

If a holstered weapon sends piercing fear into your heart, perhaps you should carry a weapon also.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> Hoplophobia isn't an excuse to attack someone.  If he had drawn the weapon that changes everything, but holstered?  No.
> 
> If a holstered weapon sends piercing fear into your heart, perhaps you should carry a weapon also.


You are seriously neglecting reality here. Not everyone with a gun is a great citizen who is trying to help you.

----------


## RickyJ

> In most people's minds the strange guy following them in a car when they haven't done anything wrong who then gets out of said car and has a weapon is a threat. Especially if it's late at night.


What about the strange kid? What was he doing attacking someone anyway? He doesn't like people following him so he attacks them? That kid was destined to be killed sooner or later, you can't be that dumb and live for too long.

----------


## TheTexan

> You are seriously neglecting reality here. Not everyone with a gun is a great citizen who is trying to help you.


Likewise, the opposite is also true.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> What about the strange kid? What was he doing attacking someone anyway? He doesn't like people following him so he attacks them? That kid was destined to be killed sooner or later, you can't be that dumb and live for too long.


You are also neglecting reality and making assumptions about the intelligence of a deceased person who you have never met. I'm done with this thread. A lot of the people defending the shooter have made comments that I find really offensive. It seems that this thread has proven that the person with the gun is always right no matter if they are police or a civilian. Victims be damned, families get over it, your son was a thug who got what he deserved.

Edit: No, I don't believe in gun control, just so you know and I'm not a liberal. Far from it.

2nd Edit: There's another lie. That Zimmerman called for help when in fact it was Martin.

----------


## TheTexan

> You are also neglecting reality.


Following someone is not illegal, nor should it be.  Following someone while carrying a visible holstered weapon, is also not illegal, and should not be.

----------


## dannno

> You're seriously telling me that if you were being followed by someone in a vehicle you wouldn't feel that was suspicious? You wouldn't feel that maybe they intended to do harm to you? Because that would be one of my first thoughts if it didn't have lights on the top of the car.


If I was a hot chick and I was being followed by someone in a vehicle I would be suspicious that the person driving the vehicle wanted to $#@! me and I'd probably be right, although it could also just be my imagination that they were following me. 

If I was a male dressed up in nice clothes and I was being followed by someone in a vehicle I would be suspicious that a person from my past wanted to harm me or maybe the driver wanted to rob me or maybe it is my imagination and they are not following me. 

If I was a teenage thug with dark skin and I was being followed by someone in a vehicle in an inner city I would be suspicious that I was in their gang territory or maybe they wanted to rob me. Again, however, it could just be my imagination.

If I was a teenage thug with dark skin and I was being followed by someone in a vehicle in gated neighborhood I would be suspicious that the person following me was suspicious of me and perhaps thought I was there to commit a crime or sell drugs. Or maybe it is just my imagination that they are following me.

I'm not being racist, you just have to use common sense when you are dealing with your surroundings if you want to have a better understanding about what is happening in your life so that you can deal with situations that may arise. 

George Zimmerman may have not handled the situation in the best way, but Trayvon did an even worse job by assuming that somebody in a car following him in a gated neighborhood wanted to rob him or do harm to him. He should have known that being a stranger in a gated neighborhood, in a hoodie, dark skin or not, he is going to bring suspicion on himself and shouldn't attack people who become suspicious. That is not the correct way to handle the situation, either.

----------


## RickyJ

> You are also neglecting reality and making assumptions about the intelligence of a deceased person who you have never met.


How intelligent is a person that attacks another person with a gun when they are so close to their home and could have then called for help? 

Obviously if Trayvon did indeed attack Zimmerman then he did not know he had a gun, so he certainly did not attack him because he feared for his life.

Also if Zimmerman was the attacker than why did he yell for help? What person attacks another person and then yells for help? If Trayvon was attacked by Zimmerman first then why is there no indication of this by the coroner? To think that Zimmerman just pulled his gun out and shot a person for no reason other than they were suspicious borders on insanity.

----------


## Captain Shays

> In most people's minds the strange guy following them in a car when they haven't done anything wrong who then gets out of said car and has a weapon is a threat. Especially if it's late at night.


How does anyone know he didn't do anything wrong?

----------


## Captain Shays

> How intelligent is a person that attacks another person with a gun when they are so close to their home and could have then called for help? 
> 
> Obviously if Trayvon did indeed attack Zimmerman then he did not know he had a gun, so he certainly did not attack him because he feared for his life.
> 
> Also if Zimmerman was the attacker than why did he yell for help? What person attacks another person and then yells for help? If Trayvon was attacked by Zimmerman first then why is there no indication of this by the coroner? To think that Zimmerman just pulled his gun out and shot a person for no reason other than they were suspicious borders on insanity.


Very well stated and there is evidence to back you up

----------


## Ender

> Apparently he wasn't on neighborhood watch, he was just on the way to the store. He had a gun on him for personal protection. He saw a suspicious person and called the police. He lost said suspicious person. He got out of his car to walk around to see if said suspicious person was prowling around the condos. Suspicious person came up from behind him and attacked him.
> 
> Nobody is saying what Zimmerman did was the best way to handle the situation, but he didn't do anything illegal.


The official statement when Z was arrested says that he was on duty as NW when he shot Martin. There is also no witnesses to the statement that Martin attacked Z first.

----------


## dannno

> The official statement when Z was arrested says that he was on duty as NW when he shot Martin. There is also no witnesses to the statement that Martin attacked Z first.


I'm pretty sure your first statement is incorrect - he was merely a volunteer, he wasn't actually on duty. But that isn't entirely relevant to the situation.

As for your second statement, what we need is PROOF beyond a reasonable doubt that Trayvon did not attack Zimmerman because Zimmerman is the one on trial. We need proof beyond a reasonable doubt that what he is saying is incorrect. Right now all we have to go off of is the witness who saw Trayvon pounding Zimmerman's head into the pavement while Zimmerman yelled for help. That goes right along with his story.

----------


## RickyJ

> I'm pretty sure your first statement is incorrect - he was merely a volunteer, he wasn't actually on duty. But that isn't entirely relevant to the situation.
> 
> As for your second statement, what we need is PROOF beyond a reasonable doubt that Trayvon did not attack Zimmerman because Zimmerman is the one on trial. We need proof beyond a reasonable doubt that what he is saying is incorrect. Right now all we have to go off of is the witness who saw Trayvon pounding Zimmerman's head into the pavement while Zimmerman yelled for help. That goes right along with his story.


This goes along with Zimmerman's story too.

Picture Of George Zimmerman's Head Three Minutes After He Shot Trayvon Martin


ABC News

----------


## Ender

> I'm pretty sure your first statement is incorrect - he was merely a volunteer, he wasn't actually on duty. But that isn't entirely relevant to the situation.
> 
> As for your second statement, what we need is PROOF beyond a reasonable doubt that Trayvon did not attack Zimmerman because Zimmerman is the one on trial. We need proof beyond a reasonable doubt that what he is saying is incorrect. Right now all we have to go off of is the witness who saw Trayvon pounding Zimmerman's head into the pavement while Zimmerman yelled for help. That goes right along with his story.





> Bond hearing for George Zimmerman set for April 20
> 
> Published April 13, 2012
> 
> | FoxNews.com
> 
> A bond hearing for George Zimmerman has been scheduled for April 20 at 9:00 a.m., Fox News has learned.
> 
> Zimmerman is currently being held without bond on a second-degree murder charge over the death of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin.
> ...


No witness saw Z's head being pounded into the pavement- that again is Z's story.

As for the marks on his head, there is also some speculation as to why the blood wasn't flowing up, as well as down, if the head had been pounded on the sidewalk.  

What is needed is a release on the autopsy of Martin- as of now, everything is speculation.

----------


## cheapseats

> Poll: Attention Media and GOP: "No one but Paul" POLL ADDED
> Started by Bruno‎, 09-24-2011 
> 
> 100 pages long, on page 8 of GRC 
> 
> Replies: 991
> Views: 28,115
> 
> .
> ...



Poll: Attention Media and GOP: "No one but Paul" POLL ADDED
Started by Bruno‎, 09-24-2011 

100 pages long, slipped to the bottom third of page 5 of GRC

Replies: 996
Views: 28,336


*

***Official** Trayvon Martin thread
Started by Anti Federalist‎, 03-24-2012 

203 pages long, holding steady on page 1 of GP

Replies: 2,021
Views: 34,627*

* 

Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman are PULLING FURTHER AHEAD of Ron Paul, and Trayvon Martin is DEAD.

Vote Fraud STILL not in the News.

The "important lead" on the boy who has been dead for over 30 years turned out to be a non-starter.

----------


## Danke

> As for the marks on his head, there is also some speculation as to why the blood wasn't flowing up, as well as down, if the head had been pounded on the sidewalk.

----------


## xFiFtyOnE

http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/apr/2...on-ar-3659891/

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/apr/2...on-ar-3659891/



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/secu...ng-hate-spree/

http://abcnews.go.com/US/white-teens...9#.T5YgB_VUkc9

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/ny...bias.html?_r=2

http://newsone.com/2003094/houston-hate-crime/



Stop with the hate.

----------


## RickyJ

> Stop with the hate.


Tell that to the media! They are the ones that turned this into a racial thing, it certainly wouldn't have been that way any other way.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> Tell that to the media! They are the ones that turned this into a racial thing, it certainly wouldn't have been that way any other way.


The media created it but who let it grow? 

I also thought most people here agreed to stop watching MSM.

----------


## Anti Federalist

*Records detail George Zimmerman's medical injuries*

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/...njuries/nN7Dh/

SEMINOLE COUNTY, Fla. —

Court records show George Zimmerman had a pair of black eyes, a nose fracture and two cuts to the back of his head after the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

ABC News reports the medical records were part of evidence released on Tuesday that prosecutors have in the second-degree murder case against Zimmerman. He has entered a plea of not guilty and claims self-defense in the Feb. 26 shooting.

A message left Tuesday evening with Zimmerman's attorney was not immediately returned.

WFTV legal analyst Bill Sheaffer said the new information helps Zimmerman more than state prosecutors.

"It goes along with Zimmerman's story that he acted in self-defense, because he was getting beat up by Trayvon Martin," said Sheaffer.

According to an autopsy report, the only other injury Martin had aside from the fatal gunshot wound was broken skin on his knuckles.

That also could play into Zimmerman's story that Martin punched him in the nose and then slammed his head on the sidewalk.

But Sheaffer said there could be another explanation for Martin's injury.

"It could be consistent with Trayvon either trying to get away or defend himself," Sheaffer said.

Zimmerman shot and killed the unarmed teenager almost three months ago after calling 911 to report that Martin was acting suspiciously.

Zimmerman said Martin threw the first punch and that he opened fire in self-defense after his screams for help went unanswered.

The FBI was not able to determine whether it was Zimmerman or Martin who could be heard crying out for help in 911 calls.

----------


## smhbbag

So the Aryan Brotherhood neighborhood watch guy tortured little Trayvon by splitting open Trayvon's knuckles with his face and _then_ shot our favorite Skittles icon?

Hang him high!  We don't need scum like that prowling our peaceful communities.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Injuries indicate he was involved in an altercation.  They do not show if he was defending himself or if Travon was defending himself. It was afterall Zimmerman who persued Travon who was walking away from him.  Trayvon may have been trying to get Zimmerman off of him and acting in self defense himself. 
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.1079190



> “It goes along with Zimmerman’s story that he acted in self-defense because he was getting beaten up by Trayvon Martin,” Sheaffer said.
> 
> Sheaffer acknowledged, however, that the injuries could have been a result of Trayvon trying to defend himself.
> 
> “It could be consistent with Trayvon either trying to get away or defend himself,” Sheaffer said.
> 
> The details of Trayvon’s hand wounds came amid reports that Zimmerman suffered several injuries to his face and neck during the struggle.


Picture yourself on your back and a big guy sitting on you and you are puching at him to try to get him off of you.  Or that Trayvon was sitting on top of Zimmerman and pummeling him. It could be either way. Why did the fight start?  That is crucial. In my opinion if you are chasing after somebody who has done nothing to you and was merely walking by and you chase after them, then you are the agressor and responsible for any resulting confrontation.

----------


## kahless

*Witness Told Cops He Saw Trayvon Martin Straddling George Zimmerman And Punching Him "MMA Style"*
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/...witness-758903



> A witness told Florida cops that he saw Trayvon Martin straddling George Zimmerman and pummeling the neighborhood watch captain “MMA style” shortly before the unarmed teen was felled by a gunshot to the chest.
> 
> The witness’s account was included in Sanford Police Department reports released today.  Interviewed by cops about 90 minutes after the shooting.....
> 
> The man recalled seeing “a black male, wearing a dark colored ‘hoodie’ on top of a white or Hispanic male who was yelling for help.” The black male, he added, “was mounted on the white or Hispanic male and throwing punches ‘MMA (mixed martial arts) style.'”
> 
> The witness--who was in his living room and about 30 feet away from the confrontation-- said he called out to the two men that he was dialing 911. “He then heard a ‘pop,’” police reported, and saw the black male “laid out on the grass.”

----------


## dannno

> "It could be consistent with Trayvon either trying to get away or defend himself," Sheaffer said.



*snort*

----------


## dannno

> Injuries indicate he was involved in an altercation.  They do not show if he was defending himself or if Travon was defending himself. It was afterall Zimmerman who persued Travon who was walking away from him.  Trayvon may have been trying to get Zimmerman off of him and acting in self defense himself. 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.1079190
> 
> 
> Picture yourself on your back and a big guy sitting on you and you are puching at him to try to get him off of you.  Or that Trayvon was sitting on top of Zimmerman and pummeling him. It could be either way. Why did the fight start?  That is crucial. In my opinion if you are chasing after somebody who has done nothing to you and was merely walking by and you chase after them, then you are the agressor and responsible for any resulting confrontation.


There is no proof that Zimmerman was "chasing" after anybody. He was out of his car looking around for the highly suspicious Trayvon to make sure he wasn't committing a crime when Trayvon came up behind him and apparently started the altercation.

----------


## jmdrake

Yeah.  We failed to get indefinite detention repealed but we can talk about Trayvon again.  Just one question.  How did Zimmerman get to his gun without getting Trayvon off of him first?  Supposedly Trayvon was "sitting on his arms".  Kind of hard to reach your gun from that position no?  Oh yeah, and why does "Stand your ground" include following someone even though you've been advised that that might not be a good idea[1] but going back from your garage into your own house and scaring a brutalizing attacker with a warning shot not standing your ground?  Do the PTB prefer that we actually kill each other?  (Rhetorical question of course).


[1] And to the "purists", I know what the 911 tape actually said which was "We don't need you to do that", but anyone with half a brain knows the thought behind that was "That's not really a good idea".

----------


## jmdrake

> There is no proof that Zimmerman was "chasing" after anybody. He was out of his car looking around for the highly suspicious Trayvon to make sure he wasn't committing a crime when Trayvon came up behind him and apparently started the altercation.


Yeah that's Zimmerman's side.  Trayvon's GF's story is totally different.  But son of a state Supreme Court Justice, neighborhood watch block captain, MMA built Zimmerman must be the one telling the truth.  You seem convinced anyway.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Yeah.  We failed to get indefinite detention repealed but we can talk about Trayvon again.  Just one question.  How did Zimmerman get to his gun without getting Trayvon off of him first?  Supposedly Trayvon was "sitting on his arms".  Kind of hard to reach your gun from that position no?  Oh yeah, and why does "Stand your ground" include following someone even though you've been advised that that might not be a good idea[1] but going back from your garage into your own house and scaring a brutalizing attacker with a warning shot not standing your ground?  Do the PTB prefer that we actually kill each other?  (Rhetorical question of course).


Uh, wasn't it just last week that there was a thread about someone getting sentenced to prison for firing a warning shot?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> There is no proof that Zimmerman was "chasing" after anybody. He was out of his car looking around for the highly suspicious Trayvon to make sure he wasn't committing a crime when Trayvon came up behind him and apparently started the altercation.


In his 911 call Zimmerman sounded like he was breathing heavily and the Stanford Police asked him if he was going after the boy who he said was running away and he said yes- so he himself said he was going after Trayvon. They told him not to. Trayvon's body was nowhere near Zimmerman's car so it would have been impossible for him to have jumped Zimmerman there and got shot. He describes Trayvon as "walking about".

----------


## RickyJ

> *Witness Told Cops He Saw Trayvon Martin Straddling George Zimmerman And Punching Him "MMA Style"*
> http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/...witness-758903


That is probably exactly what happened. Zimmerman is part black himself, and was mentoring two young black boys, race had nothing to do with this but the media won't let that stop them from spinning this story.

----------


## ds21089

Is everyone here seriously giving this story the attention the media wants it to have? People are killed everyday, often times by cops, for no crime whatsoever. Why are we giving this story the same attention the media is? It's clear that this story is being blown up for one purpose; to cause racial tension between the people. An obvious method of divide and conquer, yet so many people are spending their resources trying to get to the bottom of something that, even if we found the true answers, justice wouldn't be served simply because our judicial system is flawed and the media / government has a lot going into this specific incident.

----------


## jmdrake

> Uh, wasn't it just last week that there was a thread about someone getting sentenced to prison for firing a warning shot?


Yeah.  She got 20 years.  Some of the same folks defending Zimmerman thought it was okay for her to get 20 years for not shooting someone.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...t=warning+shot

It's times like this that I'm glad there is a God who will sort all of this mess out in the final judgement.

----------


## Danke

Wow, again beyond stupid remarks. Watching over my neighborhood is now some unjustified pursuit.  Tell that to the next cop u meet.   I can and have been trained at both weapon retention and drawing then firing while being attacked.

----------


## Ender

> Wow, again beyond stupid remarks. Watching over my neighborhood is now some unjustified pursuit.  Tell that to the next cop u meet.   I can and have been trained at both weapon retention and drawing then firing while being attacked.


That's baloney. 

NW is observe and report. Period. 

The police were on their way, which can only say that Zimmerman's actions, at the least, were stupid.

Also, finally released today:

Among the documents released was one filed with prosecutors by Sanford police two weeks after the shooting, urging Zimmerman's arrest.

*"The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement, or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog (sic) in an effort to dispel each party's concern," the police request to arrest Zimmerman said. "There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity."*

If the police had been allowed to do their job, there would have been no racial/panthers garbage and most of us would never have heard of Zimmerman or Martin.

----------


## jmdrake

> Wow, again beyond stupid remarks. Watching over my neighborhood is now some unjustified pursuit.  Tell that to the next cop u meet.   I can and have been trained at both weapon retention and drawing then firing while being attacked.


That's nice.  Have you been trained in how to pull your weapon from under someone who's sitting on your arms without getting them off you first?  Cause that's a really neat trick.  I'm not saying that's not possible.  Just I can't visualize it.  And I think if you're in you've fled to your garage because some deranged man is trying to beat you up, you have a right to go back inside your house and fire a warning shot if you just don't have the stomach to kill him.  After all the police and fire warning shots or pock mark a house full of holes with innocent people in there and not get in trouble.  But when one woman fired a warning shot she got 20 years.  I'm sure her lack of Zimmerman like connections had nothing to do with it.  Like I said, I'm glad there is a God.

----------


## RickyJ

> Wow, again beyond stupid remarks. Watching over my neighborhood is now some unjustified pursuit.  Tell that to the next cop u meet.   I can and have been trained at both weapon retention and drawing then firing while being attacked.


He was totally justified, even called the police to let them know about it. Man, would a killer bother calling the police before killing someone? I don't think so! This charge of murder is a joke and will be laughed right out of court.

----------


## jmdrake

> He was totally justified, even called the police to let them know about it. Man, would a killer bother calling the police before killing someone? I don't think so! This charge of murder is a joke and will be laughed right out of court.


That he called the police *somewhat* refutes a first degree murder charge (though if that's the rule then people could always call the police first before murdering someone in order to set up a perfect alibi), but calling the police doesn't prove the shooting was justified.  In fact the conversation along with the "we don't need you to do that" comment from the 9/11 operator undermines the justification claim.  I agree with you that he was overcharged.  Voluntary manslaughter was the right charge under the known facts.  That's probably what the lead investigator would have charged Zimmerman with the night of the shooting if not for interference from higher ups.

----------


## Ender

> He was totally justified, even called the police to let them know about it. Man, would a killer bother calling the police before killing someone? I don't think so! This charge of murder is a joke and will be laughed right out of court.


As a NW he was only justified in Observing and Reporting; that was his job and nothing more; he was NOT justified in following Martin- the cops were on their way and he knew it.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> He was totally justified, even called the police to let them know about it. Man, would a killer bother calling the police before killing someone? I don't think so! This charge of murder is a joke and will be laughed right out of court.


You think Zimmerman was justified? I can't possibly buy that. He watched a kid walk down the street. That is all Zimmerman saw the kid doing. Walking and carrying some snacks.  There was no reason to suspect him of having committed any crime whatsoever.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

This thread is still alive? 

Zimmerman could have avoided taking someone's life if he had done something as simple as identifying himself: 




> *"The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement, or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog (sic) in an effort to dispel each party's concern," the police request to arrest Zimmerman said. "There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity."*

----------


## RickyJ

> As a NW he was only justified in Observing and Reporting; that was his job and nothing more; he was NOT justified in following Martin- the cops were on their way and he knew it.


Was it his neighbourhood or not? If he can't take a stroll in his own neighbourhood when he is the neighbourhood watch captain then who can? Citizens have the right to defend their property without any help from the police. A guy walking slowly around in the rain at night off the path in the grass, yeah, they is very suspicious behaviour. I don't blame him one bit for following the guy.

----------


## Danke

What is this garbage. I loved grappling in Judo as a black belt without a firearm.  Your legs are very powerful to get someone off of u. I now train to fight in an unexpected attack, retain my weapon and shoot.

----------


## Captain Shays

> Yeah.  She got 20 years.  Some of the same folks defending Zimmerman thought it was okay for her to get 20 years for not shooting someone.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...t=warning+shot
> 
> It's times like this that I'm glad there is a God who will sort all of this mess out in the final judgement.


Let's hope so. I know I have a lot to answer for but someone is going to answer to deliberate and preducial injustice for sure.

----------


## Bruno

> As a NW he was only justified in Observing and Reporting; that was his job and nothing more; he was NOT justified in following Martin- the cops were on their way and he knew it.


Neither was Martin justified in throwing the punch that took Zimmerman to the ground on the way back to his vehicle.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> Neither was Martin justified in throwing the punch that took Zimmerman to the ground on the way back to his vehicle.


Still going with the sneak attack eh?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Was it his neighbourhood or not? If he can't take a stroll in his own neighbourhood when he is the neighbourhood watch captain then who can? Citizens have the right to defend their property without any help from the police. A guy walking slowly around in the rain at night off the path in the grass, yeah, they is very suspicious behaviour. I don't blame him one bit for following the guy.


It was both of their neighborhoods- both lived in the area. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...HXU_story.html



> Martin was walking home to the house where he was staying inside the gated Retreat at Twin Lakes — where Zimmerman also lived — when the incident occurred.


Consider if you were Treyvon. Walking home from the corner store in the rain. You see somebody staring at you and talking on the phone- possibly about you. You stare back.  Then you get nervous and take off. He runs after you (as was documented on the 9/11 tape). Would you think that the other guy was acting in self defense?
I guess you are not allowed to take a stroll through your own neighborhood after dark.

Self defense depends on your being threatened.  If one person is  persuing the other with no cause given, who was the agressor and who was most likely trying to defend themselves?  If they are coming towards you in a threatening manner, it is defense. If you are going after them, it is not.

----------


## jmdrake

> What is this garbage. I loved grappling in Judo as a black belt without a firearm.  *Your legs are very powerful to get someone off of u*. I now train to fight in an unexpected attack, retain my weapon and shoot.


Danke, you're missing the point.  I've put it in bold.  Did Zimmerman get Trayvon off of him before shooting him?  If yes that undermines his self defense claim.  If no then how did he get to his gun?  Again, Zimmerman said Trayvon was sitting on his arms.  Now with Zimmerman being in pretty good shape and outweighing Trayvon by about 60 lbs, I'm sure Zimmerman could get Trayvon off of him.  In fact, that's my point.

----------


## Bruno

> Still going with the sneak attack eh?


As opposed to what?  What am I missing?  True, we don't have the dead young man's story, but we do have documentation of head and face injuries to Zimmerman, reports of seeing him on his back yelling for help with Martin on top of him "punching him MMA-style".  What is your assertion?




> It was both of their neighborhoods- both lived in the area. 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...HXU_story.html
> 
> 
> Consider if you were Treyvon. Walking home from the corner store in the rain. You see somebody staring at you and talking on the phone- possibly about you. You stare back.  Then you get nervous and take off. He runs after you (as was documented on the 9/11 tape). Would you think that the other guy was acting in self defense?


Staying with your dad for a week because you are suspended from school isn't "living in the neighborhood", imo, but did he have a right to be there?  Yes, he was a family guest at the least.

----------


## Captain Shays

> This thread is still alive? 
> 
> Zimmerman could have avoided taking someone's life if he had done something as simple as identifying himself:


It seems you missed one little word in that quote. "IF".

IF Zimmerman stayed in his car. The notion that he didn't go back to his vehicle after the dispatcher told him to is all based upon an assumption and that assumption is usually drawn from a deliberate attempt by the media to sway opinion. The editer from NBC actually got fired for editing the recording of the 911 call.
What of the timeline? When in the course of events did the two men encounter each other and under what circumstances? Who approached who is key to this whole case.
Only if Zimmerman acosted Martin would it be relavant because of the attachment of the stand your ground law and it's implications. If there are no witnesses of the moment the men actually encountered each other Zimmerman walks because it's his story is of the only other person who was there or saw it.

----------


## Danke

> That's baloney. 
> 
> NW is observe and report. Period. 
> 
> The police were on their way, which can only say that Zimmerman's actions, at the least, were stupid.
> 
> Also, finally released today:
> 
> Among the documents released was one filed with prosecutors by Sanford police two weeks after the shooting, urging Zimmerman's arrest.
> ...


 I don't want cops or cowards like u in my neighborhood

----------


## Captain Shays

> Danke, you're missing the point.  I've put it in bold.  Did Zimmerman get Trayvon off of him before shooting him?  If yes that undermines his self defense claim.  If no then how did he get to his gun?  Again, Zimmerman said Trayvon was sitting on his arms.  Now with Zimmerman being in pretty good shape and outweighing Trayvon by about 60 lbs, I'm sure Zimmerman could get Trayvon off of him.  In fact, that's my point.


He could have also temporarily got one arm loose and down to his hip or holster or wherever the gun was on his body. I could see that.

----------


## Ender

> Neither was Martin justified in throwing the punch that took Zimmerman to the ground on the way back to his vehicle.


There is no proof of this.

----------


## Ender

> I don't want cops or cowards like u in my neighborhood


Oh boo hoo.

Quit with the personal BS.

Zimmerman ASKED to be  a NW; the Sanford police trained him.

A NW duty is to WATCH & REPORT. If he had done that, Martin would be alive and Zimmerman would still be a NW in his neighborhood.

----------


## Bruno

> There is no proof of this.


The burdon of proof is on the prosecution.




> As a NW he was only justified in Observing and Reporting; that was his job and nothing more; he was NOT justified in following Martin- the cops were on their way and he knew it.


There is no proof he was not on his way back to the car as advised.

----------


## Zippyjuan

We are lacking physical evidence for a gap in time- that is the time between when Zimmerman was talking to the police and Trayvon was seen on top of Zimmerman with one of them screaming until a gunshot goes off. We know that Trayvon was shot in his left side at very close proximity and that Zimmerman had some minor injuries.  What we do not know is who started the confrontation at that point.  If Zimmerman had not persued Treyvon and waited for the police, it definately would not have occured at all. Instead he went after him. If Zimmerman did not want a confrontation and felt threatened enough to plead self defense, he should have waited for the police.

----------


## jmdrake

> He could have also temporarily got one arm loose and down to his hip or holster or wherever the gun was on his body. I could see that.


Except Trayvon was sitting on top of where Zimmerman's gun was according to Zimmerman.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't want cops or cowards like u in my neighborhood


And I don't want trigger happy wanna be cops in my neighborhood.  Did it ever cross your mind that Zimmerman fits the definition of Obama's "civilian national security force" to a T?  He was very much tied into the system.  Father was a retired judge.  Zimmerman was a NW "block captain".  And despite the fact that the arresting officer initially wanted to charge Zimmerman, Zimmerman was initially let off scott free.  Do you have any doubt that if it had been you or me who had shot Trayvon that the DA and chief of police would not have stepped in to change the course of the investigation?  The other day I was listening to Alex Jones and he was talking about how NW captains were being made part of the "system".  And yet I've never seen him bring that fact up in connection with the Trayvon Martin killing.  There is a lot of media manipulation in the case...and it's going both ways.

----------


## Sam I am

> The burdon of proof is on the prosecution.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof he was not on his way back to the car as advised.


Self defense is an affirmative defense, it's Zimmerman who has to demonstrate that he was actin in self defense.  

The burden of proof that is on the prosecution is the proof that Zimmerman indeed killed Trayvon Martin.

----------


## Danke

Let me see, I lose sight, so I get out of my car in my neighborhood to continue to try and observe...ya i'm guilty

----------


## dannno

> As a NW he was only justified in Observing and Reporting; that was his job and nothing more; he was NOT justified in following Martin- the cops were on their way and he knew it.


Sigh... There are 98 year old women involved in neighborhood watch. Can you imagine if the policy of neighborhood watch was to follow suspicious persons?? 

Members of NW are individuals who also have rights, they aren't bound to NW policy.






> We are lacking physical evidence for a gap in time-



So therefore, according to "innocent until proven guilty", wouldn't we need evidence of what happened during that time in order to convict Zimmerman?






> Except Trayvon was sitting on top of where Zimmerman's gun was according to Zimmerman.


I'm guessing Zimmerman had limited range and could bend at the elbow, and got an arm semi-free enough to grab his gun but didn't feel that he had enough leverage to physically remove him.

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm guessing Zimmerman had limited range and could bend at the elbow, and got an arm semi-free enough to grab his gun but didn't feel that he had enough leverage to physically remove him.


The gun that Trayvon was sitting on......without getting Trayvon off first....and with this "limited range" you say he had....nope.  Not possible.

----------


## Danke

> Sigh... There are 98 year old women involved in neighborhood watch. Can you imagine if the policy of neighborhood watch was to follow suspicious persons?? 
> 
> Members of NW are individuals who also have rights, they aren't bound to NW policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 thanks dannno.  sanity after some insane responses..

----------


## Danke

People really don't know how u can draw a weapon while being attack?  Really?

----------


## Pericles

> Self defense is an affirmative defense, it's Zimmerman who has to demonstrate that he was actin in self defense.  
> 
> The burden of proof that is on the prosecution is the proof that Zimmerman indeed killed Trayvon Martin.


Given the information we seem to have now, there is no evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's claim of self defense.

Even if Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, and even if he through the "first punch", the witness that saw Martin on top of Zimmerman shows that Martin had negated Zimmerman's force, and was using disproportionate force to respond, and Martin had gone beyond "standing his ground" and was assaulting Zimmerman.

----------


## Bruno

> The gun that Trayvon was sitting on......without getting Trayvon off first....and with this "limited range" you say he had....nope.  Not possible.


Did he state that at no time did he have access to his gun?  He obviously did at some point.  What does the report state about that?

----------


## jmdrake

> People really don't know how u can draw a weapon while being attack?  Really?


I never said that and you know it.  I said I don't see how Zimmerman got to his gun with Trayvon having his knees on Zimmeran's legs and his butt on top of where Zimmerman said his gun was.

Edit: And without getting Trayvon off him first.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> The gun that Trayvon was sitting on......without getting Trayvon off first....and with this "limited range" you say he had....nope.  Not possible.


Which would mean either we cannot trust what Zimmerman said happened or Trayvon shot himself from the front of his left side while sitting on top of somebody struggling with the bullet reaching his lung and heart. 
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/1...-evidence.html

----------


## jmdrake

> Did he state that at no time did he have access to his gun?  He obviously did at some point.  What does the report state about that?


Right.  He obviously had his gun at some point.  But from the description he gave of where he and Trayvon were positioned immediately prior to the shooting it's not obvious how he got to his gun without getting Trayvon off him first.  And if he got Trayvon off of him before he shot him......

----------


## Bruno

> Right.  He obviously had his gun at some point.  But from the description he gave of where he and Trayvon were positioned immediately prior to the shooting it's not obvious how he got to his gun without getting Trayvon off him first.  And if he got Trayvon off of him before he shot him......


That is a big IF and certainly no one saw the shot and we all wish someone did so we would have a better idea of what went down during the whole confrontation.  

There are at least two witnesses in the police reports who state they saw Zimmerman getting up from the ground after the shot was fired and walking away from Martin.

----------


## Danke

> I never said that and you know it.  I said I don't see how Zimmerma an got to his gun with Trayvon having his knees on Zimmeran's legs and his butt on top of where  Zimmerman said his gun was.


 Whoa, so Trayvon was ass backwards? It all makes sense now

----------


## jmdrake

> Whoa, so Trayvon was ass backwards?


Huh?  Zimmerman said his gun was in his waist.  So how would that make Trayvon "ass backwards"?  If Trayvon was turned around he'd have been sitting on Zimmerman's face instead of Zimmerman's waist.

----------


## Elwar

I am so jaded by the media that I would not be surprised if this was all made up.

At the very least it is over-hyped propaganda.

That is all I have to say about this latest fake news. I turn the channel each time I hear anything about this case. I will be able to enjoy a life without knowing anything of what happened in this hyped case.

----------


## jmdrake

> That is a big IF and certainly no one saw the shot and we all wish someone did so we would have a better idea of what went down during the whole confrontation.  
> 
> There are at least two witnesses in the police reports who state they saw Zimmerman getting up from the ground after the shot was fired and walking away from Martin.


Yeah.  If Zimmerman rolled Trayvon over he would still be on the ground *on top of Trayvon*.  So it's entirely possible that he managed to get Trayvon off of him, then he shot Trayvon, then he got up.  Expect there to be some sort of fancy schmancy "computer generated re-enactment" from both sides.

----------


## Bruno

> Yeah.  If Zimmerman rolled Trayvon over he would still be on the ground *on top of Trayvon*.  So it's entirely possible that he managed to get Trayvon off of him, then he shot Trayvon, then he got up.  Expect there to be some sort of fancy schmancy "computer generated re-enactment" from both sides.


Certainly a lot of things are possible, and a lot of things are speculation.  We have forensic evidence, a dead man's version no one will hear, the shooter's version which is almost certain to be skewed towards his defense, and no one else who saw the initial confrontation or the shooting itself.

----------


## Danke

> Huh?  Zimmerman said his gun was in his waist.  So how would that make Trayvon "ass backwards"?  If Trayvon was turned around he'd have been sitting on Zimmerman's face instead of Zimmerman's waist.


Knees on legs butt on waist.  I think HB could pull that off and still face forward and mash someone's head against the pavement.

----------


## jmdrake

> Knees on legs butt on waist.  I think HB could pull that off and still face forward and mash someone's head against the pavement.


A) Who is HB?

B) What does any of that have to do with my question of how did Zimmerman get to his gun without getting TM off of him first?

----------


## Bruno

> A) Who is HB?
> 
> B) What does any of that have to do with my question of how did Zimmerman get to his gun without getting TM off of him first?


He could have struggled loose just enough to get his gun out.  

What does his statement say about it?

----------


## jmdrake

> He could have struggled loose just enough to get his gun out.


I've run this through 1,000 times or more in my head.  I don't see how that's possible.  Getting Trayvon dislodged enough to go for your gun = getting Trayvon dislodged enough to get him off you, especially if you outweigh Trayvon and you're in pretty good shape.  Again, we'll likely see computer generated video of this.  If I was an attorney on the case with endless cash to spare I might even (Zimmerman has 200K now raised from the web), I'd hire some MMA types to simulate this for the jury.  




> What does his statement say about it?


I haven't seen the whole statement, just bits and pieces.  I did find something interesting though.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/05/18/...-main-mostpop2
_
Trayvon Martin may have been running from Zimmerman at first.

The Seminole County Sheriff’s Department’s Computer Aided Dispatch shows that Zimmerman called police to report a suspicious person, then told them the subject was running from him. The exchange between the dispatcher and Zimmerman shows that he was advised not to continue to follow Martin. One witness interviewed said she saw one of the subjects chasing the other, but could not see who was who. A recording of a female identified as Martin’s longtime friend who was on the phone with him just before the shooting said he began to run when he realized Zimmerman was following him.





• One witness said the fight had ended by the time the shot rang out.

A woman that police interviewed said she could not distinguish who was on top of whom, but after the gunshot one person was holding the other on the ground by pressing on his back. But her friend, who assisted in translating for the eyewitness, was “adamant” that there was no physical fighting taking place when the shot rang out. Both were taken to the police department for more questioning.
_

And yes, some of the new evidence is helpful to Zimmerman's side of the story as well.

----------


## Captain Shays

> It was both of their neighborhoods- both lived in the area. 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...HXU_story.html
> 
> 
> Consider if you were Treyvon. Walking home from the corner store in the rain. You see somebody staring at you and talking on the phone- possibly about you. You stare back.  Then you get nervous and take off. He runs after you (as was documented on the 9/11 tape). Would you think that the other guy was acting in self defense?
> I guess you are not allowed to take a stroll through your own neighborhood after dark.
> 
> Self defense depends on your being threatened.  If one person is  persuing the other with no cause given, who was the agressor and who was most likely trying to defend themselves?  If they are coming towards you in a threatening manner, it is defense. If you are going after them, it is not.


Where in the world did you come up with that? THere is no evidence that Martin started running away and Zimmerman chased him.The entire narrative that Zimmeroman persued Martin is ALL an assumption. ALL of it. There's no evidence to prove that Zimmerman kept following Martin. NONE

----------


## Captain Shays

> We are lacking physical evidence for a gap in time- that is the time between when Zimmerman was talking to the police and Trayvon was seen on top of Zimmerman with one of them screaming until a gunshot goes off. We know that Trayvon was shot in his left side at very close proximity and that Zimmerman had some minor injuries.  What we do not know is who started the confrontation at that point.  If Zimmerman had not persued Treyvon and waited for the police, it definately would not have occured at all. Instead he went after him. If Zimmerman did not want a confrontation and felt threatened enough to plead self defense, he should have waited for the police.


You keep saying that and there's NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that Zimmerman kept following Martin. What is it about thiat you don't understand?

----------


## William R

Duke Lacrosse case all over again.   Shuckin and Jivin race pimps beating the drums and an all too willing media goes along.  

http://news.investors.com/article/61...nst-whites.htm

----------


## Captain Shays

> Right.  He obviously had his gun at some point.  But from the description he gave of where he and Trayvon were positioned immediately prior to the shooting it's not obvious how he got to his gun without getting Trayvon off him first.  And if he got Trayvon off of him before he shot him......


He didn't need to get him off first. He only needed to free the arm that was able to reach the gun.

----------


## farreri

It astounds me that so many people on this forum that supposedly are the types that advocate "personal responsibility," especially when it comes to owning a firearm, seem to hold no responsibility towards the vigilante packing heat out looking for "troublemakers" that winds up shooting a teen who's just on his way home, minding his own business, flirting with a girl on his cellphone.

*Did Zimmerman ever alert that he was the neighborhood watch* all the while he was _following_ Trayvon with a concealed weapon?  Wouldn't that have been the responsible thing to do, especially because he was packing heat, which increases the odds someone could get shot which, of course, is what tragically happened?

Do 'Stand Your Ground' laws not apply to unarmed citizens being harassed by people with concealed weapons?

----------


## farreri

Well well, the pattern of behavior continues...




> *Co-worker: Zimmerman bullied me with racist taunts*
> 
> Friday, May 18, 2012 13:36 EDT
> 
> Provocative new evidence has been released by the prosecution in the investigation and upcoming trial of George Zimmerman, who shot teenager Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida earlier this year.  Think Progress is reporting that *a co-worker of Zimmermans has testified to prosecutors that the former neighborhood watch captain bullied him at work and relentlessly taunted him with racist jokes.*
> 
> The unnamed man was interviewed at the state attorneys office, and testified that he worked with Zimmerman in 2008.  Zimmerman had started working at the business shortly before he arrived, the witness said, and the problems between them started right away.  For the amusement of co-workers, *Zimmerman repeatedly teased the witness, who is Middle Eastern, about his race, calling him Achmed the terrorist and making other remarks connected to bombs, terrorism and murder, as well as repeatedly calling him a $#@!ing moron.*
> 
> I tried to ignore it.  It was like, middle school, high school humor, but he was going on and on and on for days and days, the witness said during the 15-minute interview.  *He testified that Zimmerman singled him out because he was an easy target because of his race and because of Zimmermans eagerness to fit in with the other workers*.
> ...


Here's a very important piece of evidence...



> After a few months, Zimmerman was terminated. According to the witness, *he was fired for calling HR hotline so many timeshe would complain about each and every manager and employee*.
> 
> http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...-racist-jokes/


Zimmerman also called 911 habitually...



> *Shooter of Trayvon Martin a habitual caller to cops*
> Posted on Wednesday, 03.21.12
> 
> At the focal point of a shooting scandal: a mild-mannered neighbor *who fixated on crime and focused on young, black males*.
> 
> *Zimmerman called police 46 times* since 2004 to report disturbances, break-ins, windows left open and other incidents. Nine of those times, he saw someone or something suspicious.
> 
> http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/1...-habitual.html


Let me know if I need to bring in a Psychologist to explain to you the type of person Zimmerman is and why it really shouldn't be any surprise a young black male died by his hands.

----------


## Captain Shays

Sure. By all means. Bring in a psychologist. But what if he was the biggest $#@! of the year? What would that have to do with the facts of the case?

----------


## RonPaulMall

> It astounds me that so many people on this forum that supposedly are the types that advocate "personal responsibility," especially when it comes to owning a firearm, seem to hold no responsibility towards the vigilante packing heat out looking for "troublemakers" that winds up shooting a teen who's just on his way home, minding his own business, flirting with a girl on his cellphone.


Because we looked at the actual facts, not the media spin?  This case is pretty simple.  The Martin's were contacted by an Al Sharpton like "Civil Rights" Lawfirm notorious in that state for running shakedowns and not practicing anything resembling actual law.  These lawyers then fed the media a story, almost entirely made up of lies and half truths, that stoked a bunch of race nonsense.  A person was arrested and put in jail because of this.  Most of the people on this site care passionately about liberty.  We react negatively to injustice.  George Zimmerman is a victim of the State.  The prosecutor embodies everything that is evil and wrong with the US Justice system.  It absolutely boggles my mind how any liberty minded person can't be outraged about this case.

----------


## John of Des Moines

> ... Zimmerman also called 911 habitually...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Shooter of Trayvon Martin a habitual caller to cops*
> Posted on Wednesday, 03.21.12
> 
> At the focal point of a shooting scandal: a mild-mannered neighbor who fixated on crime and focused on young, black males.
> ...


Considering that calling the cops 46 time over a period of 8 years works out to and average of less than once every 2 months (46 time divided by 8 years equals 5.75 times per years) and plus the fact Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch captain the use of the word "habitually" is somewhat hyperbole.  

I know of restaurants that call the cops more often for dine and dash diners.

----------


## Anti Federalist

*Punched to Death*

How easy is it to kill a man with your bare hands?

By Brian Palmer|Posted Friday, May 18, 2012, at 7:02 PM ET

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...teenager_.html

A lab report released Thursday showed that Trayvon Martin was shot from close range, probably with the gun pressed against his chest. The new information may bolster George Zimmerman's argument that the two men were locked in combat, and Zimmerman shot the unarmed teenager to protect his own life. How easy is it to kill a man in a fistfight?

It happens more than twice a day, on average. Fists and feet were responsible for 745 murders in 2010, or 5.7 percent of all murders that year, according to FBI statistics. (The data on this have been remarkably stable in recent years. In the five preceding years, the percentage of murders perpetrated by fists or feet fluctuated between 5.6 and 6.1.) It doesn’t even take an experienced brawler to punch someone to death: An 11-year-old California girl appears to have killed a classmate with her bare hands in a February fistfight.

There are no official statistics on this, but most fistfight deaths are the result of massive internal bleeding from repeated blows, often after the victim has been knocked down or unconscious. Still, under certain circumstances it’s possible to kill a man with a single punch. In July, for example, a Florida man was arrested for killing someone with a haymaker in a Las Vegas casino.
Advertisement

Boxers describing a classic knockout punch talk about snapping their opponent’s head back or turning it around. That’s because punching someone unconscious—or killing them—usually results from the rotational forces placed on the head, not from the direct impact of the fist itself. A hook to the side of the head, or an uppercut to the chin, can send the head spinning, which breaks blood vessels inside the skull. In these cases, victims may die of internal bleeding hours after the fight, with friends and emergency medical personnel never realizing what was going on.

Sometimes the rotational forces on the head leave the blood vessels intact but stress the neurons to the point that they cease to function normally, causing a loss of consciousness. The victim then smashes his head on the concrete, which causes bleeding or other catastrophic brain injury. This scenario played out in 2003, when a drunken bar fly in San Diego killed a former Marine with a sucker punch. (Zimmerman’s attorneys will likely emphasize the danger of pavement in a fistfight, as police photos show injuries to the back of his head.)

Biomechanics research shows why these one-punch deaths are rare events. Automotive and athletic safety experts use a measure called the Head Injury Criterion to determine the lethality of knocks to the head. A score of 1,000 indicates that the impact would cause a life-threatening injury to one in six people. Olympic boxers can only punch up to around 164 on the scale, according to a study from 2005. The element of surprise is a major factor. A person who knows he’s going to be punched braces himself and tenses his neck muscles, preventing rapid rotation. (That’s why boxers work hard to develop their neck strength.)

Body blows can also kill under some circumstances. A punch aimed directly at the heart, delivered at a particular moment in the heart’s beating sequence, can cause it to go into a deadly arrhythmia. The condition, known as commotio cordis, usually occurs during sporting events but has also been seen in fistfights.

Zimmerman would not need to demonstrate that his life was in danger in order to gain protection under Florida law. According to the state's “stand your ground” statute, a defendant doesn't need to be at risk of death, but rather at risk of “death or great bodily harm.” The legislature has not defined "great bodily harm," and Florida courts have said only that it “does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a simple assault and battery.”

----------


## Expatriate

What I think is funny is this: Since I live in a neighborhood watch community, I told some of my friends about it when the story originally broke and they couldn't have cared less. Now that the MSM has latched on, all I hear from them is Trayvon this, Trayvon that. They don't even remember me talking about it before.

If the MSM had done the same thing with my dog's bowel movement, would we all be arguing about that right now?

Why didn't they make a big deal out of this? It's worse than the Zimmerman/Martin case. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/ny...questions.html




> They say officers taunted Mr. Chamberlain. He shouted: “Semper fi,” the Marine Corps motto. The police answered with loud shouts of “Hoo-rah!” Another officer, the niece says, said he wanted to pee in Mr. Chamberlain’s bathroom.
> 
> Someone, the niece and neighbors say, yelled a racial epithet at the door. Black and white officers were present.

----------


## Sam I am

> Sure. By all means. Bring in a psychologist. But what if he was the biggest $#@! of the year? What would that have to do with the facts of the case?


It's not about him being a mean person, but it's about demonstrating an established behavior pattern.  
Zimmerman has shown himself to be a fairly paranoid and confrontational person.  He has been known to start conflicts with people.  It demonstrates that starting a confrontation with a young black man, was very in-character for him.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Why didn't they make a big deal out of this? It's worse than the Zimmerman/Martin case. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/ny...questions.html


Does not fit the script.

That would call into question the infallibility of cops.

Can't have that.

----------


## jmdrake

> He didn't need to get him off first. He only needed to free the arm that was able to reach the gun.


He needed to free the arm *and* get his arm under Trayvon because Trayvon was, according to Zimmerman's description, sitting on both arms and on Zimmerman's gun.  Like I said, I'll be interested to see the demonstration.  But right now it sounds far fetched.

----------


## jmdrake

> Because we looked at the actual facts, not the media spin?  This case is pretty simple.  The Martin's were contacted by an Al Sharpton like "Civil Rights" Lawfirm notorious in that state for running shakedowns and not practicing anything resembling actual law.  These lawyers then fed the media a story, almost entirely made up of lies and half truths, that stoked a bunch of race nonsense.  A person was arrested and put in jail because of this.  Most of the people on this site care passionately about liberty.  We react negatively to injustice.  George Zimmerman is a victim of the State.  The prosecutor embodies everything that is evil and wrong with the US Justice system.  It absolutely boggles my mind how any liberty minded person can't be outraged about this case.


  Yeah.  The prosecution is evil for going along with the initial police recommendation to charge Zimmerman which got overturned because somebody *cough Zimmerman's politically connected daddy cough* contacted the DA and chief of police and told them to intervene.  Meanwhile a black woman get's 20 years for standing her ground and firing a warning shot.  Where's the outrage there?

----------


## teacherone

I've skipped the last 50 pages of this thread. Who cares if Zimmerman was punching him in the face?

You can't go looking for a fight, let yourself get your ass half wupped. And then shoot the other guy dead.

----------


## Captain Shays

> I've skipped the last 50 pages of this thread. Who cares if Zimmerman was punching him in the face?
> 
> You can't go looking for a fight, let yourself get your ass half wupped. And then shoot the other guy dead.


So where is the evidence to show that is what happened? Did you listen at all to the 911 call from that night including the entire exchange between Zimmerman and the dispatcher?

If yes, then what prompted you to say that Zimmerman provoked a fight with Martin? Are there any witnesses that you know about that saw Zimmerman provoke a fight?

----------


## dannno

> I've skipped the last 50 pages of this thread. Who cares if Zimmerman Trayvon was punching him in the face?
> 
> You can't go looking for a fight, let yourself get your ass half wupped. And then shoot the other guy dead.


fify

Secondly, Zimmerman wasn't looking for a 'fight', he was just making sure Trayvon wasn't going to rob anybody's house. Apparently Trayvon started the confrontation and the fight because Zimmerman was scoping him out, and there is no proof otherwise. So until you find proof, you can't convict Zimmerman based on your theories about what happened.

Innocent until proven guilty.

----------


## Captain Shays

> He needed to free the arm *and* get his arm under Trayvon because Trayvon was, according to Zimmerman's description, sitting on both arms and on Zimmerman's gun.  Like I said, I'll be interested to see the demonstration.  But right now it sounds far fetched.


Not to split hairs but I think you know as well as me, that even if Martin was sitting on both Zimmerman's knees assumingly with his own knees all Zimmerman would really need to do is squirm, raise his chest a little and weasel his arm free long enough to grab that gun and shoot Martin.
Otherwise I don't know how the story can be told. Either we believe that Martin was at some point sitting on Zimmerman's chest beating the snot out of him like the eye wittness said and which confirms to some degree Zimmerman's account or we need a completely different story. Why? Because EVERYONE does agree that Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest. Thats an undisputed fact. So at some point during the altercation Zimmerman reached for his gun and was able to grab it and shoot Martin. So IF Martin was on top of Zimmerman's chest then Zimmerman was able to get his gun and shoot him. If not something else happened. But again, we do have an eye witness.
It just doesn't matter how he got his gun. So what? He weasled out from under Martin's knees just for a second or two or three allowing him accsess to the gun. I just don't know how it would matter unless we're trying to prove another story like Zimmerman shot Martin while they were standing up or something.

----------


## Captain Shays

> fify
> 
> Secondly, Zimmerman wasn't looking for a 'fight', he was just making sure Trayvon wasn't going to rob anybody's house. Apparently Trayvon started the confrontation and the fight because Zimmerman was scoping him out, and there is no proof otherwise. So until you find proof, you can't convict Zimmerman based on your theories about what happened.
> 
> Innocent until proven guilty.


I would tend to agree with you Dannno but in all fairness there isn't any evidence that Martin started the fight with Zimmerman either. It boils down to factual evidence. So far I don't know of ANY that accurately depicts the start of the encounter which means Zimmerman walks free on that account because there is evidence via the eye witness that Zimmerman had enough reason to believe his life was in danger to shoot Martin

----------


## TheTexan

Defending your neighborhood, and by extension your home, isn't "looking for a fight".  This is what many people don't seem to get

----------


## jmdrake

> Not to split hairs but I think you know as well as me, that even if Martin was sitting on both Zimmerman's knees assumingly with his own knees all Zimmerman would really need to do is squirm, raise his chest a little and weasel his arm free long enough to grab that gun and shoot Martin.


Nope.  I don't "know" that.  In fact I don't think that's true at all.  And Martin wasn't sitting on Zimmerman's knees.  Martin's knees were on Zimmerman's arms with his (Martin's) knees according to Zimmerman.  If Zimmerman "weaseled his arm free" he still would have Martin sitting on the gun.  At this point Martin would probably have felt the gun and would know he didn't want Zimmerman getting to it.  Oh yeah, and Zimmerman's getting punched in the face the whole time.  From my own submission wrestling experience, and talking to others in self defense, I honestly don't see how Zimmerman got to gun without first getting Martin off of him.  Now I can *easily* see how Zimmerman could get Martin off of him in this situation.  It's a simple matter of bump and roll.  Considering Zimmerman outweighed Martin by 40 to 60 lbs that should have been relatively easy.




> Otherwise I don't know how the story can be told. Either we believe that Martin was at some point sitting on Zimmerman's chest beating the snot out of him like the eye wittness said and which confirms to some degree Zimmerman's account or we need a completely different story. Why? Because EVERYONE does agree that Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest. Thats an undisputed fact. So at some point during the altercation Zimmerman reached for his gun and was able to grab it and shoot Martin. So IF Martin was on top of Zimmerman's chest then Zimmerman was able to get his gun and shoot him. If not something else happened. But again, we do have an eye witness.
> It just doesn't matter how he got his gun. So what? He weasled out from under Martin's knees just for a second or two or three allowing him accsess to the gun. I just don't know how it would matter unless we're trying to prove another story like Zimmerman shot Martin while they were standing up or something.


The simplest explanation is that either Zimmerman threw Martin off of him outright or bumped and rolled into Martin's guard.  I'm not saying Zimmerman was standing up.  Just that he was most likely on top of Martin when the shot occurred.  And yes.  It matters quite a bit how Zimmerman got to his gun.  Because if he established a dominant position first, that reduces the veracity of the self defense claim.

----------


## Captain Shays

> Nope.  I don't "know" that.  In fact I don't think that's true at all.  And Martin wasn't sitting on Zimmerman's knees.  Martin's knees were on Zimmerman's arms according to Zimmerman.  Knees on arms, butt on chest.  If Zimmerman "weaseled his arm free" he still would have Martin sitting on the gun.  At this point Martin would probably have felt the gun and would know he didn't want Zimmerman getting to it.  Oh yeah, and Zimmerman's getting punched in the face the whole time.  From my own submission wrestling experience, and talking to others in self defense, I honestly don't see how Zimmerman got to gun without first getting Martin off of him.  Now I can *easily* see how Zimmerman could get Martin off of him in this situation.  It's a simple matter of bump and roll.  Considering Zimmerman outweighed Martin by 40 to 60 lbs that should have been relatively easy.
> 
> 
> 
> The simplest explanation is that either Zimmerman threw Martin off of him outright or bumped and rolled into Martin's guard.  I'm not saying Zimmerman was standing up.  Just that he was most likely on top of Martin when the shot occurred.  And yes.  It matters quite a bit how Zimmerman got to his gun.  Because if he established a dominant position first, that reduces the veracity of the self defense claim.



I did mean to say Martin's knees were on Zimmerman's arms and his butt to his chest. I don't think it's necessary to go back and edit my statement at this point since I am admitting to the correct description that you outlined.

But come on Drake. It was a struggle. It was moving. If Martin was throwing punches relying only on his knees to hold down Zimmerman's arms while Zimmerman was squirming around trying to free only one arm to grab his gun that to me is every bit as plausible if not more so than Zimmerman doing a complete reverse, getting on top or Martin and shooting him. I don't think there was enough time for that anyway when you consider the eye witness who was on the phone with the dispatcher while the event was actually in progress culminating with the sound of the gun shot in the back ground. By the eye witness account, the guy with the hoodie was on top of the guy in the red sweatshirt and smashing his head into the pavement then BOOM.  The screams for help stopped.

----------


## jmdrake

> I did mean to say Martin's knees were on Zimmerman's arms and his butt to his chest. I don't think it's necessary to go back and edit my statement at this point since I am admitting to the correct description that you outlined.
> 
> But come on Drake. It was a struggle. It was moving. If Martin was throwing punches relying only on his knees to hold down Zimmerman's arms while Zimmerman was squirming around trying to free only one arm to grab his gun that to me is every bit as plausible if not more so than Zimmerman doing a complete reverse, getting on top or Martin and shooting him. I don't think there was enough time for that anyway when you consider the eye witness who was on the phone with the dispatcher while the event was actually in progress culminating with the sound of the gun shot in the back ground. By the eye witness account, the guy with the hoodie was on top of the guy in the red sweatshirt and smashing his head into the pavement then BOOM.  The screams for help stopped.


Come on?  Where are you going?    I've laid out clear reasons why I don't believe Zimmerman's story.  And it's based on my own experience in submission wrestling.   You think otherwise?  Fine.  That's your right.  But it's beyond silly of you to project your own view of what happened on to me.  From the position Zimmerman described, I find him executing the move you are describing to be nearly impossible if not completely impossible *especially* with Martin raining punches down on him.  And if you think reversing positions takes a lot of time, well watch this video.




A position can be reversed in one second or less.

Edit: *AND YOU KEEP IGNORING THE FACT THAT MARTIN WOULD HAVE BEEN SITTING ON THE GUN*!  It's not just "weaseling an arm free".  It's "weaseling an arm free and getting it under someone and grabbing a gun that the person sitting on top of you has most likely already felt".

Edit 2: And there was a witness that said the struggling had stopped *before* the shot.  If that witness is credible then that *really* blows a hole (no pun intended) in the self defense theory.

_http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/05/18/...-main-mostpop2

Trayvon Martin may have been running from Zimmerman at first.

The Seminole County Sheriff’s Department’s Computer Aided Dispatch shows that Zimmerman called police to report a suspicious person, then told them the subject was running from him. The exchange between the dispatcher and Zimmerman shows that he was advised not to continue to follow Martin. One witness interviewed said she saw one of the subjects chasing the other, but could not see who was who. A recording of a female identified as Martin’s longtime friend who was on the phone with him just before the shooting said he began to run when he realized Zimmerman was following him.

• One witness said the fight had ended by the time the shot rang out.

A woman that police interviewed said she could not distinguish who was on top of whom, but after the gunshot one person was holding the other on the ground by pressing on his back. But her friend, who assisted in translating for the eyewitness, was “adamant” that there was no physical fighting taking place when the shot rang out. Both were taken to the police department for more questioning.
_

----------


## Captain Shays

Drake. I grew up with an older brother who used to TORTURE me on a daily basis by sitting on my chest with his knees holding down my arms. He would then have both hands free to slap my face, pinch my nose, pull my eyes, poke my eyes and lick his hand and wipe the wet stuff on my face. Eventually I did learn to break free by getting my arms free and lifting my chest. THAT  is NOT what is depicted in your video.

----------


## jmdrake

> Drake. I grew up with an older brother who used to TORTURE me on a daily basis by sitting on my chest with his knees holding down my arms.


So did I.




> He would then have both hands free to slap my face, pinch my nose, pull my eyes, poke my eyes and lick his hand and wipe the wet stuff on my face. Eventually I did learn to break free by getting my arms free and lifting my chest. THAT  is NOT what is depicted in your video.


Good for you.  Did you go for a gun that your brother was sitting on?  Was he punching you full for in the face?  No?  Then your experience doesn't apply to the scenario.  I didn't say I didn't believe Zimmerman could get an arm free.  I said I didn't think it was plausible that Zimmerman could get his arm free and get to the gun Martin would have been sitting on all the time receiving full force blows to the face.

As for the point of the video, it was to refute your argument that it would take too long for a reversal to happen.  I think it should be pretty obvious to you now that it doesn't take long to do a mount reversal.  And hopefully it took your mind off TM and GZ for a minute.

----------


## farreri

> Most of the people on this site care passionately about liberty.  We react negatively to injustice.  George Zimmerman is a victim of the State.  The prosecutor embodies everything that is evil and wrong with the US Justice system.


The only victim here was the innocent teenage boy who was shot dead by the over-zealous wannabe cop who was carrying a concealed weapon and never identified himself to the boy he was chasing down that he was the Neighborhood Watch.

What about Trayvon's liberty?  Or are people you want to protect gun rights for only entitled to liberty?




> It absolutely boggles my mind how any liberty minded person can't be outraged about this case.


Yeah, I agree!

----------


## farreri

> Considering that calling the cops 46 time over a period of 8 years works out to and average of less than once every 2 months (46 time divided by 8 years equals 5.75 times per years) and plus the fact Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch captain the use of the word "habitually" is somewhat hyperbole.


You skipped commenting about the part that out of those 46 times he called, only *nine* of those times "he saw someone or something suspicious."  

And tell me, how many times have you called 911 since 2004?

----------


## farreri

> Sometimes the rotational forces on the head leave the blood vessels intact but stress the neurons to the point that they cease to function normally, causing a loss of consciousness. The victim then smashes his head on the concrete, which causes bleeding or other catastrophic brain injury. This scenario played out in 2003, when a drunken bar fly in San Diego killed a former Marine with a sucker punch. (Zimmerman’s attorneys will likely emphasize the danger of pavement in a fistfight, as police photos show injuries to the back of his head.)


This is what I don't get.  Zim claims he shot to save his life.  A witness says Trayvon was on top of Zim raining punches down on him "MMA-style."  Zim's brother on TV said Zim was about to pass out from having his head repeatedly bashed into the concrete.  Your article tells of a former Marine dying from being sucker punched and presumably falling and hitting his head on concrete.

How was Zim able grab his gun and make a point-blank shot into Trayvon's heart and then be seen in the police videos acting and walking normal like he had never been touched?

----------


## farreri

> It's not about him being a mean person, but it's about demonstrating an established behavior pattern.  
> Zimmerman has shown himself to be a fairly paranoid and confrontational person.  He has been known to start conflicts with people.  It demonstrates that starting a confrontation with a young black man, was very in-character for him.


I'm glad someone gets it!

And don't forget, Zimmerman started the confrontation with a concealed gun and never identified who he was to the innocent boy (i.e. the Neighborhood Watch, a position of authority like it or not).

----------


## farreri

> He needed to free the arm *and* get his arm under Trayvon because Trayvon was, according to Zimmerman's description, sitting on both arms and on Zimmerman's gun.  Like I said, I'll be interested to see the demonstration.  But right now it sounds far fetched.


All the while "about to pass out" from supposedly having his head repeatedly bashed into the concrete.

----------


## Bruno

> All the while "about to pass out" from supposedly having his head repeatedly bashed into the concrete.


To play devil's advocate, you can almost pass out or even be knocked out and recover in a minute, up walking around a little dazzed but otherwise okay.

----------


## farreri

> Zimmerman wasn't looking for a 'fight'


All the evidence about his character paints him as someone looking for a confrontation.  Remember, he had the concealed weapon.  Why do you Zim-backers seem to let him off the hook for holding any kind of responsibility for carrying a gun on him?




> he was just making sure Trayvon wasn't going to rob anybody's house.


And he could have down that from 50 ft or more away, something any _responsible_ Neighborhood _WATCH_ person with common-sense would do, especially if they were carrying a gun around.




> Apparently Trayvon started the confrontation


According to who?




> Innocent until proven guilty.


Sadly, not for Trayvon.

----------


## farreri

> To play devil's advocate, you can almost pass out or even be knocked out and recover in a minute, up walking around a little dazzed but otherwise okay.


Did Zimmerman look dazed?  In the police videos, he didn't even look like he had gotten in a fight!

----------


## Bruno

> Did Zimmerman look dazed?  In the police videos, he didn't even look like he had gotten in a fight!


I don't know, post the videos and I will check them out.  How many minutes were they taken after the fight was over?  I have seen people get the $#@! kicked out of them and within a few minutes up walking around.  

Did Zimmerman likely overreact and shoot Martin when he shouldn't have?  Likely.  But unless we were in his mind, and without any good witnesses who actually saw the seconds leading up to and including the shooting, it is hard to say.  Glad I am not on the jury.

----------


## farreri

I have a simple question to those who are leaning toward supporting Zimmerman in this case.

If Zimmerman hadn't been carrying a gun on him, do you think he would have chased down the 6'3 black male in a hoodie at night?

----------


## Bruno

> I have a simple question to those who are leaning toward supporting Zimmerman in this case.
> 
> If Zimmerman hadn't been carrying a gun on him, do you think he would have chased down the 6'3 black male in a hoodie at night?


If Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun, would he have followed him back to the car and confronted/hit/smashed his head on the curb?

----------


## Danke

And the insanity continues. You can be attacked and get to your weapon. It is called training.

----------


## farreri

> If Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun, would he have *followed [Zimmerman] back to the car* and confronted/hit/smashed his head on the curb?


Back to Zimmerman's car?  I don't understand what you mean by that.  Can you explain?

----------


## Ender

The simple answer to all this is that Zimmerman, as a NW, was trained to only *Observe and Report*. The cops were on their way and arrived within minutes after his call. His actions were stupid and Martin payed for them with his life.

----------


## Ender

> Back to Zimmerman's car?  I don't understand what you mean by that.  Can you explain?


Zimmerman claims that Martin followed him back to his car- there is no supporting evidence of this.

----------


## farreri

> And the insanity continues. You can be attacked and get to your weapon. It is called training.


People train people by repeatedly bashing their heads into concrete and have them still be able to reach for their gun and fire accurately?  Where do they do _this_ kind of training?!

----------


## Danke

> People train people by repeatedly bashing their heads into concrete and have them still be able to reach for their gun and fire accurately?  Where do they do _this_ kind of training?!


 LEO training.

----------


## Danke

> The simple answer to all this is that Zimmerman, as a NW, was trained to only *Observe and Report*. The cops were on their way and arrived within minutes after his call. His actions were stupid and Martin payed for them with his life.


 and he lost sight so he got out of his car to further observe. So what?

----------


## farreri

> I have a simple question to those who are leaning toward supporting Zimmerman in this case.
> 
> If Zimmerman hadn't been carrying a gun on him, do you think he would have chased down the 6'3 black male in a hoodie at night?


Bump

----------


## farreri

> and he lost sight so he got out of his car to further observe. So what?


Was that before or after being advised not to do that?

----------


## kylejack

> and he lost sight so he got out of his car to further observe. So what?


If he was following Martin to observe, he is a liar. He said he was returning to his car from a perpendicular path when the confrontation happened, yet Martin's body was found 3 houses deep on the other path. Zimmerman is a liar.

----------


## Danke

> Was that before or after being advised not to do that?


 oh god, this $#@! again. "we don't need u to do that.". Thanks,  but don't feel obligated to continue your observations.  Jeez.

----------


## farreri

> oh god, this $#@! again. "we don't need u to do that.". Thanks,  but don't feel obligated to continue your observations.  Jeez.


Thanks for helping to prove my point about Zim-backers here.

----------


## Danke

> If he was following Martin to observe, he is a liar. He said he was returning to his car from a perpendicular path when the confrontation happened, yet Martin's body was found 3 houses deep on the other path. Zimmerman is a liar.


 ok. So was not returning to his car when attack. So?

----------


## farreri

> ok. So was not returning to his car when attack. So?


Why did Zimmerman *lie* that he was and that's when he was supposedly snuck up on and attacked by Trayvon if Zimmerman is so innocent and justified in killing the young teen?

Question for you, do you believe in personal responsibility, especially if you're packing heat?

----------


## Danke

> Thanks for helping to prove my point about Zim-backers here.


What OS your point? I can't freely observe someone on my neighborhood?

----------


## farreri

> What OS your point? I can't freely observe someone on my neighborhood?


Dude, you're clearly in denial about the facts if you think Zimmerman, who was packing heat, was just "observing" Trayvon.

----------


## kylejack

> ok. So was not returning to his car when attack. So?


So people who lie aren't credible, and their stories shouldn't be believed without corroborating evidence.

----------


## Danke

> Why did Zimmerman *lie* that he was and that's when he was supposedly snuck up on and attacked by Trayvon if Zimmerman is so innocent and justified in killing the young teen?
> 
> Question for you, do you believe in personal responsibility, especially if you're packing heat?


 oh, I see u have all the facts in this case. Hope u are never on my jury.

----------


## Danke

> Dude, you're clearly in denial about the facts if you think Zimmerman, who was packing heat, was just "observing" Trayvon.


 ya that's it.

----------


## farreri

> ya that's it.


Answer me this honestly, does a part of you side with Zimmerman because you are afraid gun rights will take a hit if Zim is found guilty?

----------


## Danke

> Answer me this honestly, does a part of you side with Zimmerman because you are afraid gun rights will take a hit if Zim is found guilty?


 no, I gave up on our corrupt court system a long time ago.

----------


## jmdrake

> I have a simple question to those who are leaning toward supporting Zimmerman in this case.
> 
> If Zimmerman hadn't been carrying a gun on him, do you think he would have chased down the 6'3 black male in a hoodie at night?


Actually according to the autopsy report Trayvon was only 5'11".  I have heard the "over 6 ft" claim made repeatedly, but I'm not sure where that came from.

See: http://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/...von_report.pdf

----------


## jmdrake

> And the insanity continues. You can be attacked and get to your weapon. It is called training.


  Sure you can be attacked an get to your weapon.  That is a generally true statement.  And the easiest way to get to your weapon if you are mounted *is to first get the attacker off of you*.  Part of anyone's self defence "training" in the modern world includes (or should include) escape from the mount.  Considering Zimmerman's size and the muscular build, rolling TM off of him wouldn't have been that hard.  In fact it would have been easier than somehow wiggling his hand free then wiggling his hand under Trayvon's groin area, apparently without Trayvon noticing, then pulling his gun out.  I posed a simple question.  It deserves at straightforward answer and not smartass "it's insane" answers or "Oh you know it would work that way because I got may hand free when my brother was tickling me" answers.  George Zimmerman's defence team will have to do better than you.  I expect they will.  We'll see what they come up with.

----------


## Cowlesy

> Sure you can be attacked an get to your weapon.  That is a generally true statement.  And the easiest way to get to your weapon if you are mounted *is to first get the attacker off of you*.  Part of anyone's self defence "training" in the modern world includes (or should include) escape from the mount.  Considering Zimmerman's size and the muscular build, rolling TM off of him wouldn't have been that hard.  In fact it would have been easier than somehow wiggling his hand free then wiggling his hand under Trayvon's groin area, apparently without Trayvon noticing, then pulling his gun out.  I posed a simple question.  It deserves at straightforward answer and not smartass "it's insane" answers or "Oh you know it would work that way because I got may hand free when my brother was tickling me" answers.  George Zimmerman's defence team will have to do better than you.  I expect they will.  We'll see what they come up with.


I still don't think we have enough details.  Although it seems like since it appears Trayvon enjoyed fighting, perhaps it wasn't so easy for Zimmerman to toss him around.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012...e-it-is-again/

----------


## farreri

> Actually according to the autopsy report Trayvon was only 5'11".  I have heard the "over 6 ft" claim made repeatedly, but I'm not sure where that came from.
> 
> See: http://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/...von_report.pdf


Then I'll present my question to Zim-backers like this:

If Zimmerman hadn't been carrying a gun, do you think he would have chased down the taller black male in a hoodie at night?

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Then I'll present my question to Zim-backers like this:
> 
> If Zimmerman hadn't been carrying a gun, do you think he would have chased down the taller black male in a hoodie at night?


Who knows?  And he didn't "chase" Trayvon down.  If you took the time to actually look at the evidence with regards to the phone logs and the maps, you'd see that Trayvon had more than enough time to get back to his house if he wanted to.  He didn't want to.  He either doubled back or he waited for Zimmerman.  But all of this is irrelevant.  The only question from a libertarian perspective is "Is there any evidence a crime was committed here?"  And to that question the answer is a resounding "no".  That's why this case is such an outrage.  We have a guy whose life is being ruined for the sake of politicians pandering to the mobs.

----------


## kylejack

> Who knows?  And he didn't "chase" Trayvon down.  If you took the time to actually look at the evidence with regards to the phone logs and the maps, you'd see that Trayvon had more than enough time to get back to his house if he wanted to.  He didn't want to.  He either doubled back or he waited for Zimmerman.


Actually, the evidence shows that Zimmerman lied. Martin's body was found 3 houses deep on a path Zimmerman says he wasn't on. Zimmerman fired the fatal shot less than two minutes after hanging up with the dispatcher and telling him that he had stopped following (obviously he didn't stop following).

----------


## asurfaholic

Just checked on this thread randomly. Still seems that there are certain people who were THERE in person and know all the facts. I can't arrive to many conclusions, and I have no clue who is really in the wrong, but that's not why I am commenting.

Farreri - the gun didn't kill anybody. Why do you keep making this an issue about guns? Clearly something happened and Z FELT like he had to use lethal force to protect himself. Whether he is actually justified in that decision is the million dollar question, but I don't think for a minute that the gun is guilty. This is nothing more than a glass of muddy water, the facts are tough to get in stone, mostly because the only person there is the only one who survived. 

Btw, z had every right to approach and talk to TM. TM had every right to ignore him. Regardless of whether dispatcher told Z not to go look for TM, z is still his own person and can act on his instints. The rest is muddy water, why not give it a break.. the media has already won in the effect that it blew this story way out of proportion.

----------


## jmdrake

> I still don't think we have enough details.  Although it seems like since it appears Trayvon enjoyed fighting, perhaps it wasn't so easy for Zimmerman to toss him around.
> 
> http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012...e-it-is-again/


I agree we don't have enough details.  But don't forget that it appears Zimmerman enjoyed fighting also.  (Assault against undercover police officer in bar.  And yeah that didn't turn into a full fledged conflagration, but it shows Zimmerman didn't mind mixing it up).  My problem is the conflicting idea that Zimmerman was so bad at fighting that he couldn't toss off a teenager that he (Zimmerman) outweighed by 60 lbs, yet someone he's able to get Trayvon off *just enough* to get to his gun.  Everything I know about ground fighting tells me that reversing the position and/or throwing TM off completely would have been the easier task.  Others disagree.  Fine.  Expect that to be an issue experts are brought in to argue about during the trial.

----------


## kylejack

Zimmerman was fired previously as a security guard because his employers thought he was too aggressive. Some black people in the neighborhood didn't feel comfortable walking around because of his aggressive tactics.

As to pushing Martin off, he would have had to at least a little. Coroner reports Martin was shot from "intermediate range."

----------


## Todd

wow...54 pages on a distraction event.

----------


## jmdrake

> Zimmerman was fired previously as a security guard because his employers thought he was too aggressive. Some black people in the neighborhood didn't feel comfortable walking around because of his aggressive tactics.
> 
> As to pushing Martin off, he would have had to at least a little. Coroner reports Martin was shot from "intermediate range."


Hmmmm....interesting point that I missed.  I tried to Google "intermediate range" and got a bunch of hits of people on different forums discussing Martin/Zimmerman and asking what "intermediate range" means.

----------


## kylejack

> Hmmmm....interesting point that I missed.  I tried to Google "intermediate range" and got a bunch of hits of people on different forums discussing Martin/Zimmerman and asking what "intermediate range" means.


_Dr. Michael Baden, the former New York City medical examiner, said “intermediate” in such cases is defined as the muzzle of the gun being one to 18 inches away from the entry point when fired._

Hm, I suppose it just means it wasn't point blank, or otherwise there'd be a powder burn, maybe.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> My problem is the conflicting idea that Zimmerman was so bad at fighting that he couldn't toss off a teenager that he (Zimmerman) outweighed by 60 lbs, yet someone he's able to get Trayvon off *just enough* to get to his gun.  Everything I know about ground fighting tells me that reversing the position and/or throwing TM off completely would have been the easier task.  Others disagree.  Fine.  Expect that to be an issue experts are brought in to argue about during the trial.


I think you are letting your experience in formal mma training distort the way you are looking at this.  This wasn't a structured fight by two professionals in a gym.  It was a guy pretty much unfamiliar with fighting and totally unprepared for a fight being jumped by a dumb teenager who could have possibly been high.  A street fight between amateurs, in other words.  Your acting like it is Fedor vs Nog.  There are a million different ways Zimmerman could have pushed Martin off of him for enough time to grab his gun and fire.  Have you ever seen an actual street fight?  Especially one where one of the parties wasn't expecting a fight?  They are sloppy.

----------


## dannno

> If Zimmerman hadn't been carrying a gun, do you think he would have chased down the taller black male in a hoodie at night?


Not sure what the relevance of this is. He felt more comfortable protecting his neighborhood while he himself was protected.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> Not sure what the relevance of this is. He felt more comfortable protecting his neighborhood while he himself was protected.


I'm not gonna touch that one. It's just too easy.

----------


## Ender

> I think you are letting your experience in formal mma training distort the way you are looking at this.  This wasn't a structured fight by two professionals in a gym.  It was a guy pretty much unfamiliar with fighting and totally unprepared for a fight being jumped by a dumb teenager who could have possibly been high.  A street fight between amateurs, in other words.  Your acting like it is Fedor vs Nog.  There are a million different ways Zimmerman could have pushed Martin off of him for enough time to grab his gun and fire.  Have you ever seen an actual street fight?  Especially one where one of the parties wasn't expecting a fight?  They are sloppy.


Who was unprepared for street fighting? Zimmerman? Then stay in your car, dude and wait for the police who are only minutes away.

Martin wasn't high- there was not enough THC in his system to warrant that speculation.

Zimmerman did a stupid thing and no amount of chatter is going to change that fact. No matter what anyone one wants to believe, he had no NW jurisdiction in following Martin.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Who was unprepared for street fighting? Zimmerman? Then stay in your car, dude and wait for the police who are only minutes away.
> 
> Martin wasn't high- there was not enough THC in his system to warrant that speculation.
> 
> Zimmerman did a stupid thing and no amount of chatter is going to change that fact. No matter what anyone one wants to believe, he had no NW jurisdiction in following Martin.


 Maybe he was being stupid, maybe he wasn't.  His neighborhood had been ravaged by a crime wave the police had thus far done nothing to prevent.  He lost sight of Martin, and waiting for the police would have been pointless if he didn't know where Martin was.  You are looking at it retrospect.  If Zimmerman had done nothing and Travon broke in to the back door of one of those houses and raped a woman, he be damned for his inaction.  But that is neither here nor there.  Call Zimmerman "stupid" all you want, but stupidity isn't a crime.  This guy is a victim of our corrupt justice system, and that should outrage us all, no matter what we think of the guy's decision making process.

----------


## jmdrake

> I think you are letting your experience in formal mma training distort the way you are looking at this.  This wasn't a structured fight by two professionals in a gym.  *It was a guy pretty much unfamiliar with fighting* and totally unprepared for a fight being jumped by a dumb teenager who could have possibly been high.  A street fight between amateurs, in other words.  Your acting like it is Fedor vs Nog.  There are a million different ways Zimmerman could have pushed Martin off of him for enough time to grab his gun and fire.  Have you ever seen an actual street fight?  Especially one where one of the parties wasn't expecting a fight?  They are sloppy.


I've seen MMA fights and I've seen and participated in streetfights.  And I'm not asking for "one million" explanations for what happened, just one.  So far your side is taking the magical "well it could of happened some sort of way" approach without actually explaining how.  That's BS.  You know and I know it.  Some of my street experience is from having my arms pinned by the knees of someone else with them sitting on my chest.  That's not an easy position to escape from.  And if you get your arm free you aren't in a good position to get to a gun that someone else would be sitting on.  You're interpreting the "facts" in the way that best fits what your own preconceived notion whereas I'm keeping an open mind.  Oh, and I see that you still haven't acknowledged the fact that you were wrong in your initial assertion that the police did not want to charge Zimmerman.  The police actually did.  The DA and police chief intervened for Zimmerman, and that's most likely due to GZ's daddy and GZ's relationship to the police department as a NW block captain.  Finally we have a witness who now says the fight was over before the shot.  Yes the witness could be lying.  A trial is the best way to determine that.

Edit: And if you think George Zimmerman was "unfamiliar with fighting" then you are unfamiliar with this case.  Zimmerman had a prior assault charge against an undercover cop.  Sure that incident didn't blow up into a full fledged brawl, but someone willing to pick a fight in a bar is unlikely to be "unfamiliar with fighting".  You're just making stuff up as you go along.

----------


## jmdrake

> This guy is a victim of our corrupt justice system, and that should outrage us all, no matter what we think of the guy's decision making process.


The corruption started when the DA and the chief of police hijacked the initial investigation.  The lead investigator said charge Zimmerman.  Zimmerman should have been allowed to bail out then make his case to a judge at a preliminary hearing.  The short circuiting of the process caused the problem.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> I've seen MMA fights and I've seen and participated in streetfights.  And I'm not asking for "one million" explanations for what happened, just one.  So far your side is taking the magical "well it could of happened some sort of way" approach without actually explaining how.  That's BS.  You know and I know it.  Some of my street experience is from having my arms pinned by the knees of someone else with them sitting on my chest.  That's not an easy position to escape from.  And if you get your arm free you aren't in a good position to get to a gun that someone else would be sitting on.  You're interpreting the "facts" in the way that best fits what your own preconceived notion whereas I'm keeping an open mind.  Oh, and I see that you still haven't acknowledged the fact that you were wrong in your initial assertion that the police did not want to charge Zimmerman.  The police actually did.  The DA and police chief intervened for Zimmerman, and that's most likely due to GZ's daddy and GZ's relationship to the police department as a NW block captain.  Finally we have a witness who now says the fight was over before the shot.  Yes the witness could be lying.  A trial is the best way to determine that.


He shrugged.  There is your precious "one way" Zimmerman could have gotten free.  He shrugged, and Trayvon fell off.  Zimmerman grabs his gun, fight over.  I mean, seriously, is this so difficult to imagine?  And arresting someone without probable cause to satisfy the whims of a black mob is never the "best" way to solve anything.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> The corruption started when the DA and the chief of police hijacked the initial investigation.  The lead investigator said charge Zimmerman.  Zimmerman should have been allowed to bail out then make his case to a judge at a preliminary hearing.  The short circuiting of the process caused the problem.


Cops aren't qualified to make those sort of calls.  The Florida Statue is clear.  He never should have been arrested.   This was deadly shooting investigation in relatively small town that doesn't get many deadly shootings.  Of course the Chief of Police is going be involved.  Of course the DA is going to be consulted so they don't screw things up.  You act like this case was a routine traffic stop.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> Cops aren't qualified to make those sort of calls.  The Florida Statue is clear.  He never should have been arrested.   This was deadly shooting investigation in relatively small town that doesn't get many deadly shootings.  Of course the Chief of Police is going be involved.  Of course the DA is going to be consulted so they don't screw things up.  You act like this case was a routine traffic stop.


I thought you quit trolling a long time ago. What renewed your interest?

----------


## kylejack

> Maybe he was being stupid, maybe he wasn't.  His neighborhood had been ravaged by a crime wave the police had thus far done nothing to prevent.


Nope. They had already apprehended the previous suspects.




> He lost sight of Martin, and waiting for the police would have been pointless if he didn't know where Martin was.


No it wouldn't. Police are trained to locate and apprehend criminals. Officer Smith arrived on the scene 20 seconds after Zimmerman fired the fatal shot.




> You are looking at it retrospect.  If Zimmerman had done nothing and Travon broke in to the back door of one of those houses and raped a woman, he be damned for his inaction.


Why would he break in and rape a woman when some creepy weirdo was following him?? That's a pretty good way to get caught.

----------


## Captain Shays

> So did I.
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you.  Did you go for a gun that your brother was sitting on?  Was he punching you full for in the face?  No?  Then your experience doesn't apply to the scenario.  I didn't say I didn't believe Zimmerman could get an arm free.  I said I didn't think it was plausible that Zimmerman could get his arm free and get to the gun Martin would have been sitting on all the time receiving full force blows to the face.
> 
> As for the point of the video, it was to refute your argument that it would take too long for a reversal to happen.  I think it should be pretty obvious to you now that it doesn't take long to do a mount reversal.  And hopefully it took your mind off TM and GZ for a minute.


OK I will bet you 100 Ron PAul bumper stickers that Zimmerman's story is closer to mine than to your's

----------


## Captain Shays

> The corruption started when the DA and the chief of police hijacked the initial investigation.  The lead investigator said charge Zimmerman.  Zimmerman should have been allowed to bail out then make his case to a judge at a preliminary hearing.  The short circuiting of the process caused the problem.


Now that is what causes me to doubt Zimmerman's story. We have no proof though. It's not out of the question and could be considered likely by many of us. ALL of us are suspicious of government and connections and back room deals. We see it all the time so on this one I wouldn't be at all surprised.

----------


## jmdrake

> Cops aren't qualified to make those sort of calls.


LOL.  Boy you are a piece of work!  Earlier in the thread you were *certain* that there was no probable cause because the cops didn't want to arrest and charge Zimmerman.  Then when you find out *YOU WERE WRONG* you just throw the cops under the bus.  You know what?  *YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO MAKE THAT SORT OF CALL!  YOU ARE CLEARLY BIASED IN THIS CASE AND YOUR JUDGEMENT IS WARPED!*  If Zimmerman had been anybody but the son of a retired Supreme Court justice with connections to the police department through being a neighborhood watch captain he would have been charged, released on bail, and then had a preliminary hearing.  You know it.  I know it.  Anyone with half a brain knows it.  Besides, we now have a witness that claims the fighting had stopped before the shooting.  You just *IGNORE* what doesn't fit your view and spout of incorrect crap about the Florida stand your ground law.  If that law prevents there being a preliminary hearing in a case like this with disputed facts then the law needs to be repealed.  I don't think it does because I think your interpretation of that law is pure BS.

----------


## jmdrake

> OK I will bet you 100 Ron PAul bumper stickers that Zimmerman's story is closer to mine than to your's


Oh I'm certain Zimmerman's story is closer to yours than mine.  I'm just not certain Zimmerman's story is the *truth*!  To get to the truth the court will need Zimmerman to give an exact account of what happened (not what *might* have happened) during the struggle and an explanation of why a witness might have thought the struggle had ended before the fight as well as an explanation of who was running from who (another witness said he/she saw two men chasing each other) and why.  Was Zimmerman running from Martin?  Was Martin running from Zimmerman?  Was the witness mistaken or lying?  That's why this all can't be swept under a rug with some phony appeal to the "Stand Your Ground" law.

Of course Zimmerman doesn't have to testify.  The burden is on the state.  *But* at the preliminary stages that's a very low burden.  This case could go either way.

----------


## jmdrake

> Now that is what causes me to doubt Zimmerman's story. We have no proof though. It's not out of the question and could be considered likely by many of us. ALL of us are suspicious of government and connections and back room deals. We see it all the time so on this one I wouldn't be at all surprised.


You're right.  We don't have rock solid proof of initial corruption.  Nor do with have rock solid proof of corruption in the current scenario with Zimmerman being charged with 2nd degree murder either.  If we give both prosecutors the benefit of the doubt then both looked at the facts, one thought there was ground for a charge and one thought that there wasn't.  People on one side of this divide will vilify the first prosecutor and people on the other side will vilify the second.  I think the process should just be allowed to go forward.

----------


## cheapseats

**Official** Trayvon Martin thread
Started by Anti Federalist‎, 03-24-2012 

Replies: 2,171
Views: 38,292

----------------


Poll: Attention Media and GOP: "No one but Paul" POLL ADDED
Started by Bruno‎, 09-24-2011 

Replies: 1,032
Views: 30,058

----------


## RickyJ

All you people who think Zimmerman is a monster looking for a fight and that he wanted to kill someone that night are forgetting what Trayvon's own mother said about it, she said it was an accident! 

There is no way she would have ever said that if she thought for a second that it was her son screaming out on those 9/11 tapes. It was clearly Zimmerman that was calling for help, not Trayvon.

----------


## RickyJ

> **Official** Trayvon Martin thread
> Started by Anti Federalist‎, 03-24-2012 
> 
> Replies: 2,171
> Views: 38,292
> 
> ----------------
> 
> 
> ...


Is there a need for you to spam this thread with forum statistics? 

No one is forcing anyone to read this thread or comment on it.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

/thread

Let this beast die.

----------


## TheTexan

> **Official** Trayvon Martin thread
> Started by Anti Federalist‎, 03-24-2012 
> 
> Replies: 2,171
> Views: 38,292
> 
> ----------------
> 
> 
> ...


*sigh*

----------


## dannno

> /thread
> 
> Let this beast die.


Impastabull. 

This is the official thread. Any updates to the story will get tossed in here.

----------


## TheTexan

Trayvon obviously liked skittles.  I wonder if Zimmerman likes skittles too?

----------


## dannno

> Trayvon obviously liked skittles.  I wonder if Zimmerman likes skittles too?


Probably not enough to choose them as his last meal.

----------


## TheTexan

> Probably not enough to choose them as his last meal.


Oh, so you're one of _those_ people.

----------


## Anti Federalist

DO NOT TALK ON THE CEL PHONE.

Everything is under surveillance these days, we are all in the Matrix.

Jesus, when you are under investigation, when the Eye of Sauron is upon you, SHUT THE $#@! UP!!!



*George Zimmerman's Bond Revoked*

http://abcnews.go.com/US/prosecution...ry?id=16476183

BY MATT GUTMAN (@mattgutmanABC) AND SENI TIENABESO (@senijr_abc) 

SANFORD, Fla., June 1, 2012 

A judge revoked bond today for George Zimmerman, who is accused of killing a Florida teenager in his gated community, and ordered the neighborhood watch captain to surrender himself in 48 hours. 

Prosecutors had filed a motion today to revoke his bond, accusing Zimmerman of "deceiving" the court about his finances and his possession of a second passport, which he apparently acquired two weeks after the shooting. 

"The court was led to believe that they didn't have a single penny," said prosecutor Bernie De La Rionda. "If this [the money] wasn't relevant to bond then why did they lie about it? I don't know what other words to use besides that it was a blatant lie." 

The judge seemed to agree. 

"They were well aware of the money that was available," Judge Kenneth Lester. 

In recordings of conversations released today during a court hearing, Zimmerman and his wife cryptically talk about his second passport in a safety deposit box they shared. 

Although one of his passports was due to expire in May, prosecutors said today, Zimmerman applied for a second passport, informing the State Department that the original had been lost lost or stolen. 

In some of the phone calls between the two, she is at a credit union that was linked to his PayPal account and speaking to a teller. The prosecution said that she was "intimately involved in the deposit and transfer of funds and money into various accounts."

----------


## kylejack

Yet another lie from Zimmerman.

----------


## kylejack

We sure that's a covert wiretap? Could be a jailhouse conversation from before he got a bond.

----------


## farreri

> Yet another lie from Zimmerman.


Yes.  Zimmerman's story is full of lies.  Typical narcissist he is.




> "The court was led to believe that they didn't have a single penny," said prosecutor Bernie De La Rionda. "If this [the money] wasn't relevant to bond then *why did they lie about it?* I don't know what other words to use besides that *it was a blatant lie*."
> 
> The judge seemed to agree.
> 
> "They were well aware of the money that was available," Judge Kenneth Lester.


His other big lie was when he told police that Trayvon attacked him from behind near his truck on the street, but then the truth came out the incident took place on the public walkway behind the houses, no where near the street.

I predict Zim will plead guilty to manslaughter when the trial starts so he doesn't get a life sentence, which he deserves.

----------


## kylejack

In short, Zimmerman lied to the State Department claiming to have lost his passport to acquire another two weeks after shooting Trayvon Martin. Then while in jail, he had his wife on the phone at the credit union moving around the $135,000 they had collected from the website, and they were discussing the secret passport that he had in the safety deposit box. Furthermore, they were speaking in code to conceal how much money they were talking about. George Zimmerman's mother is from Peru, and he is entitled to dual citizenship.

I think that this is easily enough to remand him until trial, no matter how much his lawyer begs for a new bond.

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## RickyJ

> Yet another lie from Zimmerman.


Was Trayvon's mother lying too when she said it was an accident? 

She would have never said that if she thought for one moment it was her son screaming for help on that 9/11 tape.

----------


## brushfire

> To be fair, the man had lots of death threats and media circus egging them on at the time.   Its gonna affect your behavior.


Thank you...   Sheesh.. so much for due process.
Forget the courts, we've got ABC, the AP, Pelosi, and Obummer.

----------


## farreri

> To be fair, the man had lots of death threats and media circus egging them on at the time.   Its gonna affect your behavior.


So does playing Sheriff of your neighborhood with a concealed gun, having a ex-judge magistrate Daddy who has bailed you out of previous legal troubles, and also being cozy with the local police department who has a bad history with blacks.

----------


## farreri

> Was Trayvon's mother lying too when she said it was an accident?


What if she was?  How's that relevant to the case?

----------


## specsaregood

> So does playing Sheriff of your neighborhood with a concealed gun, having a ex-judge magistrate Daddy who has bailed you out of previous legal troubles, and also being cozy with the local police department who has a bad history with blacks.


Sure, I don't really give a crap about the guy either way.  But if I was him and felt I was innocent and would eventually be cleared, I'd sure as hell be looking for ways to flee if I had to.  The guy had thousands of people calling for his death and every single douchebag media whore stoking the flames.

----------


## farreri

> Sure, I don't really give a crap about the guy either way.  But if I was him and felt I was innocent and would eventually be cleared, I'd sure as hell be looking for ways to flee if I had to.  The guy had thousands of people calling for his death and every single douchebag media whore stoking the flames.


Zim is a narcissist.  Of course he's going to think he's innocent.  People like that should be justified in fleeing?

----------


## kylejack



----------


## kylejack

This is a coded conversation. All amounts are 1000x as stated. Zimmerman's wife lied to the court and could presumably be charged with perjury.

----------


## specsaregood

> Zim is a narcissist.  Of course he's going to think he's innocent.  People like that should be justified in fleeing?


You must have a reading comprehension problem.  Its ok if you are ESL.

----------


## kylejack

> To be fair, the man had lots of death threats and media circus egging them on at the time.   Its gonna affect your behavior.


All the more reason to remand him through the trial, so he doesn't make any more irrational decisions.

----------


## farreri

> You must have a reading comprehension problem.  Its ok if you are ESL.


If Zim didn't like the fallout, he shouldn't have been playing Sheriff of his neighborhood with a concealed weapon.  He was the self-appointed Neighborhood WATCH.  He crossed that line when he decided to play Neighborhood FOLLOW with a concealed gun, meaning he was playing Neighborhood Sheriff.  It's called personal responsibility.  He has to deal with the consequences of his actions.

----------


## dannno

> If Zim didn't like the fallout, he shouldn't have been playing Sheriff of his neighborhood with a concealed weapon.  He was the self-appointed Neighborhood WATCH.  He crossed that line when he decided to play Neighborhood FOLLOW with a concealed gun, meaning he was playing Neighborhood Sheriff.  It's called personal responsibility.  He has to deal with the consequences of his actions.


What if he was attacked by Trayvon, like he said? I still haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

The point you missed was that he was trying to get a lot of cash together and the passport so he could flee AFTER he was pronounced innocent.

----------


## RickyJ

> To be fair, the man had lots of death threats and media circus egging them on at the time.   Its gonna affect your behavior.


Of course it will. He still has those death threats. He is actually safer in jail.

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## kylejack

> What if he was attacked by Trayvon, like he said? I still haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.
> 
> The point you missed was that he was trying to get a lot of cash together and the passport so he could flee AFTER he was pronounced innocent.


He and his wife perjured themselves to the court so that he could get a lower bond. It's a third degree felony, regardless of the disposition of the shooting case.

----------


## dannno

> He and his wife perjured themselves to the court so that he could get a lower bond. It's a third degree felony, regardless of the disposition of the shooting case.


Is there any evidence that Zimmerman started the altercation yet? 

If there was some evidence, then I MIGHT agree with you, but it sounds like he needs this money because of the media circus surrounding the case. Hardly Zimmerman's fault. Hard to blame the guy or his wife for his actions, if he is in fact innocent.

----------


## farreri

> What if he was attacked by Trayvon, like he said? I still haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.


What if he pushed Trayvon first like Trayvon's female friend on the phone at the time of the indecent suggested?  Why do you keep avoiding that piece of evidence?

Also, Zim was already caught in one lie saying he was attacked from behind as he was trying to get in his car parked on the street.  The incident occured deep in the backyards of the condos.  It's also blatantly clear Zim is a narcissist.




> The point you missed was that he was trying to get a lot of cash together and the passport so he could flee AFTER he was pronounced innocent.


If that was the case, he shouldn't have lied to the authorities about it.  It's all about personal responsibility.  That's a liberty value, right?  Personal responsibility?

----------


## specsaregood

> If that was the case, he shouldn't have lied to the authorities about it.  It's all about personal responsibility.  That's a liberty value, right?  Personal responsibility?


If he feels he is innocent, then I'd argue that his first responsiblity is to his family and himself, not the state.   Whether you need to fight or flee a massive foe, you need all your resources possible.

----------


## dannno

> What if he pushed Trayvon first like Trayvon's female friend on the phone at the time of the indecent suggested?  Why do you keep avoiding that piece of evidence?





> “Trayvon said, ‘What are you following me for,’ and the man said, ‘What are you doing here.’ *Next thing I hear is somebody pushing*, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the headset just fell. I called him again and he didn’t answer the phone,” she said.



Who is the first *somebody*?






> Also, Zim was already caught in one lie saying he was attacked from behind as he was trying to get in his car parked on the street.  The incident occured deep in the backyards of the condos.  It's also blatantly clear Zim is a narcissist.


Ya he honestly doesn't sound like a great guy, but I would think he mis-spoke about that. I'd be pretty nervous if I was being questioned about an incident that could land me in prison for murder. Maybe he meant he got out of the car, then he skipped a bunch of stuff, and then Trayvon attacked him from behind and from his statement it sounded like it happened immediately when it didn't.





> If that was the case, he shouldn't have lied to the authorities about it.  It's all about personal responsibility.  That's a liberty value, right?  Personal responsibility?


I don't know that he ever really lied.

----------


## brushfire

> That's a liberty value, right?  Personal responsibility?


Is trial by media a liberty value?  What do we really know about what happened, and where did we hear it?

As Ron Paul supporters, we, of all people, should know how the media operates.

Zimmerman may be Satan, for all I know, but last I checked he is entitled to a fair trial.

Say for the sake of argument that you defended your life by justly taking another man's life.  Then you wake up to find the media and all its misguided followers out to get you.  You're receiving death threats - the politicians are trying to exploit and control the narrative to meet their agendas.  All local government is being leveraged against you.  Your family is being harassed.  Would you at least want a fair trial?  Would you consider fleeing the country if you were certain that you would not get a fair trial?

This reminds me of another guy from a couple of years ago:



> He posted back in August 2010 a what would you do thread
> http://www.xdtalk.com/forums/xdtalk-...ld-you-do.html
> 
> Actual Home Invasion Thread with news links
> http://www.xdtalk.com/forums/xdtalk-...homa-mine.html
> 
> Lessons learned
> http://www.xdtalk.com/forums/xdtalk-...-oklahoma.html
> 
> ...


Zimmerman may be a bad guy, who knows?  What I do know is that I'm not going to trust the media to conduct that trial.

----------


## angelatc

> Trayvon obviously liked skittles.  I wonder if Zimmerman likes skittles too?


There's possibly more to the skittles and iced tea, too.   


> Purple Lean, or Lean, is an intoxicating beverage also known by the names lean, sizzurp, and liquid codeine. It is commonly abused by southern rappers and wannabe suburban teenagers. It is a mixture of Promethazine/Codeine cough syrup and sprite, or other beverage [such as Arizona Watermelon]  with a few jolly ranchers and/or skittles thrown in.


Looking at his Facebook page, it's pretty clear he was into cough syrup.  And Arizona Watermelon is the drink he bought at the store.  

I am not a lawyer,  so I don't know if the prosecution can put this stuff out there.

----------


## dannno

> There's possibly more to the skittles and iced tea, too.   
> 
> Looking at his Facebook page, it's pretty clear he was into cough syrup.  And Arizona Watermelon is the drink he bought at the store.  
> 
> I am not a lawyer,  so I don't know if the prosecution can put this stuff out there.


Woooo!!! I love it when we're on the same team!!

Excellent song.





That said, he probably wasn't on it at the time, the last thing you wanna do on codeine is fight. He may have been headed home to fix up a brew tho.

----------


## angelatc

> Woooo!!! I love it when we're on the same team!!


You, me, and Amy. The forums shall shudder.




> That said, he probably wasn't on it at the time, the last thing you wanna do on codeine is fight. He may have been headed home to fix up a brew tho.


Does it cause any long term mental side effects though?  I know people say that meth sucks the souls out of people...

----------


## specsaregood

> Does it cause any long term mental side effects though?


well if that song dannno  linked is any indicator, I'd say yes.

----------


## dannno

> You, me, and Amy. The forums shall shudder.
> 
> 
> 
> Does it cause any long term mental side effects though?  I know people say that meth sucks the souls out of people...


It's essentially chemically derived opiates, a little less hardcore than oxycontin.

----------


## pcosmar

> Does it cause any long term mental side effects though?  *I know people say that meth sucks the souls out of people...*


And pot turns everyone into rapists,, 

People say a lot of $#@!,,mostly parroting what they are told in the media.

Codeine has been a common ingredient in cough medicine for years.

----------


## dannno

Not nearly as bad as krokodil

http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2011...ngerous-drugs/

----------


## kylejack

> If he feels he is innocent, then I'd argue that his first responsiblity is to his family and himself, not the state.   Whether you need to fight or flee a massive foe, you need all your resources possible.


That doesn't make committing an easily-uncovered felony a rational choice. It's still a very stupid idea, even if you do intend to flee.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> There's possibly more to the skittles and iced tea, too.   
> 
> Looking at his Facebook page, it's pretty clear he was into cough syrup.  And Arizona Watermelon is the drink he bought at the store.  
> 
> I am not a lawyer,  so I don't know if the prosecution can put this stuff out there.


Purple Drank?

----------


## Kluge

"Sizzurp?" Really?

To think that these folks take themselves seriously.

----------


## Vessol

> Purple Drank?





> "Sizzurp?" Really?
> 
> To think that these folks take themselves seriously.


Don't be hatin'.

...

I'm so white.

Part of the reason I can't stand hanging out with a lot of potheads is because I couldn't understand a damn word they are saying.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Don't be hatin'.
> 
> ...
> 
> I'm so white.
> 
> Part of the reason I can't stand hanging out with a lot of potheads is because I couldn't understand a damn word they are saying.

----------


## QuickZ06

......

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> Woooo!!! I love it when we're on the same team!!
> 
> Excellent song.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That said, he probably wasn't on it at the time, the last thing you wanna do on codeine is fight. He may have been headed home to fix up a brew tho.


Ummm...it's Sprite that you mix codeine cough syrup (or the hydrocodone syrup) with and then you drop skittles into it. Arizona Iced Tea is nasty and putting "lean" into it would make it much nastier. Drop in a few Skittles and you have the nastiest drink ever. 

Did he have codeine in his system too?

----------


## Professor8000

honestly, why are people still on this thread?

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> DO NOT TALK ON THE CEL PHONE.
> 
> Everything is under surveillance these days, we are all in the Matrix.
> 
> Jesus, when you are under investigation, when the Eye of Sauron is upon you, SHUT THE $#@! UP!!!


Was not as cell phone. He was in JAIL where it is made very clear your calls WILL be recorded.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Was not as cell phone. He was in JAIL where it is made very clear your calls WILL be recorded.


My point still stands, and he is exposed as an even bigger idiot for talking about such things on a prison phone.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> My point still stands, and he is exposed as an even bigger idiot for talking about such things on a prison phone.


Not a prison... a Jail.

----------


## angelatc

> And pot turns everyone into rapists,, 
> 
> People say a lot of $#@!,,mostly parroting what they are told in the media.


Yes, but sometimes it's true.  That's why I asked.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Not a prison... a Jail.


Pardon me, a Jail.

----------


## kylejack

Whatever happens with the shooting case, they have he and his wife on Perjury. Looks like he's bound to serve time.

----------


## Pericles

Best analysis of the case so far

https://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpre...es-and-blunts/

Same guy who did an analysis of the EriK Scott case and the lying cops who killed him.

----------


## dannno

> Ummm...it's Sprite that you mix codeine cough syrup (or the hydrocodone syrup) with and then you drop skittles into it. Arizona Iced Tea is nasty and putting "lean" into it would make it much nastier. Drop in a few Skittles and you have the nastiest drink ever. 
> 
> Did he have codeine in his system too?


Correct, sprite is the original mixer, but I believe jolly ranchers were the original flavor enhancer. 

I'm sure hundreds of different recipes have been concocted.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> Best analysis of the case so far
> 
> https://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpre...es-and-blunts/
> 
> Same guy who did an analysis of the EriK Scott case and the lying cops who killed him.



This was worth reading for anyone who hasn't.

----------


## dannno

> Best analysis of the case so far
> 
> https://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpre...es-and-blunts/
> 
> Same guy who did an analysis of the EriK Scott case and the lying cops who killed him.


+rep, I can see the entire thing unfolding with all this new info.

Much shorter distance than some posters have lead-on to believe. 

Also makes sense that Martin would have come up from behind him, or at least from the side.

It looks like Zimmerman got out of his truck and walked up the sidewalk while on the phone from his truck to the blue triangle. Martin headed down the central corridor back to his house, but looked back and saw Zimmerman trying to follow him, and missed the turn. Then Martin HAD to have turned back to Zimmerman to begin the confrontation!!

On his way back to his car, Zimmerman and Martin met, exchanged words and start fighting. To me, it looks like Martin was the one that turned back looking for the confrontation and Zimmerman had turned around and was headed back to his truck.



Here's a picture of the crime scene with Martin under the yellow sheet:




Day time:

----------


## jmdrake

> Whatever happens with the shooting case, they have he and his wife on Perjury. Looks like he's bound to serve time.


Were they under oath?  If they were not under oath perjury doesn't apply.

----------


## brushfire

> This was worth reading for anyone who hasn't.


Absolutely - a must read

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Purple Drank?


Why was Russell given the number 2? That's the number of plays he could remember...

----------


## dannno

> Were they under oath?  If they were not under oath perjury doesn't apply.


I think they may have been during the bail hearing when they said how much money they had, not sure tho.

----------


## farreri

> 


How do we know the red X was the "Actual Location of Confrontation"?

----------


## Zippyjuan

If the red "X" is where the confrontation started, the location of Trayvon's body further down indicates that he was possibly trying to head towards where he was staying and away from Zimmerman. If the confrontation followed Zimmerman trying to get away the action would have more likely been in the direction of his truck. The body is certainly not in a direct line between the "911 Location" and Zimmerman's truck if Zimmerman was trying to leave and Trayvon went after him.

----------


## farreri

> If the red "X" is where the confrontation started


How do we know that, or is that just the blogger's opinion? 




> the location of Trayvon's body further down indicates that he was possibly trying to head towards where he was staying and away from Zimmerman. If the confrontation followed Zimmerman trying to get away the action would have more likely been in the direction of his truck. The body is certainly not in a direct line between the "911 Location" and Zimmerman's truck if Zimmerman was trying to leave and Trayvon went after him.


I tend to agree with you on this.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> If the red "X" is where the confrontation started


As I understood it, the red X is a mark on the sidewalk next to where the body was.  The body eventually wound up to right, in the grass.  The red X is "some 12′ to 16′ south" of the T in the sidewalk.  A scuffle can easily move 12-16 feet in any direction.  I think the author there is theorizing the scuffle started at the T.  Not sure if Zimmerman made that claim or not.  I'm also not sure who pinpointed the end of the 911 call.

----------


## Zippyjuan

The photograph shows that the body was closer to the yellow circle than the red "X". Unless the body was moved, this is definately where the confrontation ended. Note that the yellow tarp is passed the black metal (?) screening of the first unit.  If I ran up the "T" and ambushed Zimmerman as he walked by, my force would cause us to move to the other side of the sidewalk- away from the apartments. You are right that a confrontation could move around but why would it go in the direction where it did- to inside the "T"? 



And just to bring the map over to this page of the thread:

----------


## farreri

You know what else I'm having a hard time believing?  This:




> Zimmerman said he had stepped out of his truck to check the name of the street he was on when Trayvon attacked him from behind as he walked back to his truck, police said.


I'm assuming that street was Retreat View Cr.

You trying to tell me the self-appointed wannbe Sheriff Zimmerman didn't know all the street names of and surrounding the neighborhood he designated himself to protect?  Yeah right.

----------


## Ender

> You trying to tell me the self-appointed wannbe Sheriff Zimmerman didn't know all the street names of and surrounding the neighborhood he designated himself to protect?  Yeah right.


Agreed- I also do not agree with the synopsis on the linked blog above.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> Agreed- I also do not agree with the synopsis on the linked blog above.


Me either, not entirely.  And parts of it are confusing, as I showed above.  lol

I thought it did reference some other interesting information, if you follow the links.  It certainly contains more information than I've seen anyplace else.

I also don't think it matters whether Martin was smoking blunts or not.  That makes people less violent, if anything.  The Zimmerman people using that as an issue seem to not know what they are talking about.

----------


## farreri

> The Zimmerman people using that as an issue seem to not know what they are talking about.


They are despicably trying to justify Trayvon's murder.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Me either, not entirely.  And parts of it are confusing, as I showed above.  lol
> 
> I thought it did reference some other interesting information, if you follow the links.  It certainly contains more information than I've seen anyplace else.
> 
> I also don't think it matters whether Martin was smoking blunts or not.  That makes people less violent, if anything.  The Zimmerman people using that as an issue seem to not know what they are talking about.


Traces of THC were found in Treyvon's system, but that could have been from some time before.  There is still nothing indicated to show why Trayvon was considered a "threat" for walking by carrying snacks either.  If Zimmerman's attourney's want to play the drugs angle, it was also reported that Zimmerman was on medications which effect behavior as well. 
http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...in=usnews&lite




> An autopsy by the Volusia County Medical Examiner on Martin's body found that the teenager was killed by a shot to the heart and that traces of THC -- or tetrahydrocannabinol, the active ingredient in marijuana -- were found in Martin's blood, though below the level that medical studies indicate would have caused "performance impairment."






> Zimmerman himself was on a prescription for Tamazepam, according to the paramedic's incident report reproducing his medical records. (Tamazepam is also known as Restoril and is prescribed for anxiety and insomnia.)

----------


## RickyJ

> Best analysis of the case so far
> 
> https://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpre...es-and-blunts/
> 
> Same guy who did an analysis of the EriK Scott case and the lying cops who killed him.


This a tragic event described as an "accident" by Trayvon's mother, that could have been avoided. Zimmerman made some bad judgements, and it appears Trayvon did as well. The one thing certain about this case is that with the available evidence out now it will not get a verdict of guilty for murder.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> Traces of THC were found in Treyvon's system, but that could have been from some time before.  There is still nothing indicated to show why Trayvon was considered a "threat" for walking by carrying snacks either.  If Zimmerman's attourney's want to play the drugs angle, it was also reported that Zimmerman was on medications which effect behavior as well. 
> http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...in=usnews&lite



Yeah, that was mentioned in some of the links from that blog, and I haven't seen it mentioned in the news.  News is just piss poor with about everything.

----------


## farreri

> The photograph shows that the body was closer to the yellow circle than the red "X". Unless the body was moved, this is definately where the confrontation ended. Note that the yellow tarp is passed the black metal (?) screening of the first unit.  If I ran up the "T" and ambushed Zimmerman as he walked by, my force would cause us to move to the other side of the sidewalk- away from the apartments. You are right that a confrontation could move around but why would it go in the direction where it did- to inside the "T"?


Good question.

Also, how could Mr. Paranoid Gun-Packing Wannabe Sheriff Zimmerman, all pumped up with adrenaline running around looking for the "dangerous" young black male he called 911 about and that eluded him, be able to get surprised attacked in the first place, especially at dark and I say that because it was dark and people tend to be more on "alert" when it's dark out.

----------


## farreri

> Traces of THC were found in Treyvon's system, but that could have been from some time before.


I don't see why any deal should be made against Trayvon for having THC in his system.  Can someone explain to me why there should be?

If anything, it should go to Trayvon's favor, because pot is a "pacifist" drug and logically, he'd be less likely to attack or fight back while stoned.

I agree with Trayvon's family's attorney on this one, this is just another despicable attempt to slander Trayvon's character and to somehow justify his murder.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> I also don't think it matters whether Martin was smoking blunts or not.  That makes people less violent, if anything.  The Zimmerman people using that as an issue seem to not know what they are talking about.


They are only "using" it to refute the line put out by the Martin family- namely that Zimmerman thought Martin looked suspicious only because he was black, not because, as he says flat out in his call to the police while the incident is occurring, that Martin looks suspicious and appears to be on drugs or something.  It's pretty rich for the Martin Family's race hustling shysters to now claim this is all an "irrelevancy" and "attempted smear" after they were the ones who originally brought the matter to the fore in their own merciless slandering of Zimmerman's character over a period of weeks.  Martin's lawyers were able to con the media in to reporting a number of lies about this case, which is the only reason Zimmerman was arrested in the first place.  Zimmerman's camp has a big job ahead of them in terms of overcoming all the MSM propaganda surrounding the case.

----------


## Zippyjuan

The autopsy report which indicated the THC levels also said they were too low to have had any sort of impairment effect on Treyvon.



> An autopsy by the Volusia County Medical Examiner on Martin's body found that the teenager was killed by a shot to the heart and that traces of THC -- or tetrahydrocannabinol, the active ingredient in marijuana -- were found in Martin's blood, *though below the level that medical studies indicate would have caused "performance impairment."*

----------


## farreri

*Shellie Zimmerman Arrested: George Zimmerman's Wife Charged With Perjury* 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1591153.html

----------


## kahless

The article comments are sickening.  He certainly cannot hold a job while in jail so I see nothing wrong with them paying their bills with the donations.  If it was not for the defense fund they would be broke.  So I really do not see the point how it is perjury.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> The article comments are sickening.  He certainly cannot hold a job while in jail so I see nothing wrong with them paying their bills with the donations.  If it was not for the defense fund they would be broke.  So I really do not see the point how it is perjury.


Because they lied about it.  That's perjury.

Seems pretty straightforward.

----------


## Contumacious

*"Judge" sets $1M bail for George Zimmerman*

*Bondsman Lobby Targets {FLORIDA'S] Pretrial Release Programs

by Laura Sullivan*

.

----------


## Kluge

George Zimmerman accused of molestation by female relative:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...86F0YV20120716




> Reuters) - A female relative accused George Zimmerman, charged in the murder of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin, of sexually molesting her from age 6 to 16, according to new documents made public on Monday by prosecutors.
> 
> The female relative's name and exact relationship to Zimmerman was deleted from an audio tape version of her witness statement that was released to the media. Identified only as 'Witness #9' she would be aged about 27 now.
> 
> A spokesman for Zimmerman's lawyer Mark O'Mara told Reuters the defense team was preparing a response to the molestation allegations to post on its website later this afternoon and had no immediate comment.
> 
> Seminole County Circuit Judge Kenneth R. Lester ordered the document released under Florida's public records law.
> 
> O'Mara made an unsuccessful 11th hour attempt on Monday to stop the public release of the woman's statement, filing a motion barely four minutes before prosecutors' scheduled release of the audio recording which went ahead as planned.
> ...


I might be inclined to a rare agreement with Dannno in this situation.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Hat tip to @Danke

----------


## Valli6

Dec 4, 2019
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...r-100-million/




> BARTOW, Fla. (AP)  Neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, who was acquitted of the 2012 killing of Trayvon Martin, is suing the teens parents, family attorney, the attorneys book publisher and prosecutors who tried his case, claiming he was *defamed when they allowed a witness to give false testimony* in an attempt to incriminate him.
> 
> Zimmermans lawsuit, filed Wednesday, said *a trial witness pretended to be the last person to talk to Martin by phone* before he was killed *when the witness was actually the half-sister of the caller.*
> 
> According to the lawsuit, *Brittany Diamond Eugene didnt want to testify* that she had been talking to Martin before he was killed. *So her half-sister, Rachel Jeantel, pretended that she was talking to the teen before he was fatally shot. Jeantel ended up testifying at Zimmermans 2013 trial* in Sanford, Florida...
> 
> ...In a statement on Wednesday, Martin family attorney _Benjamin Crump_ called the allegations unfounded and reckless....
> 
> ...Zimmermans lawyer in the lawsuit, *Larry Klayman, was planning news conference in South Florida on Thursday* to discuss the complaint. The lawsuit, filed in a central Florida county where Zimmerman is now living, seeks *$100 million for allegations of malicious prosecution and conspiracy.*
> ...

----------


## Grandmastersexsay

Lol. Look at this Wikipedia entry for Klayman. 




> Larry Elliot Klayman (born July 20, 1951) is an American right-wing[1][2] conspiracy theorist, racist lawyer[3][4] and former U.S. Justice Department prosecutor.[5] He is the founder of self-styled watchdog groups Judicial Watch[6] and Freedom Watch.[7]
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Klayman


Edited last by an anonymous user 1 hour ago. Every liberal personality of course has their page locked so only certain people can edit those pages.

----------


## Madison320

> Lol. Look at this Wikipedia entry for Klayman. 
> 
> 
> 
> Edited last by an anonymous user 1 hour ago. Every liberal personality of course has their page locked so only certain people can edit those pages.


No bias there!

I saw an ABC news clip on the lawsuit. No mention at all of why Zimmerman was suing. Just a blatant attack on Zimmerman and his lawyer.

It seems pretty obvious that the prosecution substituted another witness unless that family has two sisters named Diamond Eugene.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Lol. Look at this Wikipedia entry for Klayman. 
> 
> 
> 
> Edited last by an anonymous user 1 hour ago. Every liberal personality of course has their page locked so only certain people can edit those pages.


Fake link (noting the"m")?  Doesn't look like a Wiki page either.    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Klayman

----------


## Danke

> Fake link (noting the"m")?  Doesn't look like a Wiki page either.    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Klayman


Probably sent from a mobile device, hence the m.

Looks the same otherwise.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Probably sent from a mobile device, hence the m.
> 
> Looks the same otherwise.


Thanks. Either way, I don't see the words he quotes. Somebody could make an edit and claim to have discovered the edit. Looks like it was corrected almost immediately.  According to the edit history, it was only up for a minute on December 5th.  He could not have seen it an hour after it was done.  

Edit made 22:32 on December 5th via mobile.  Reverted 22:33 on that same date.  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...action=history




> *Edited last by an anonymous user 1 hour ago.* Every liberal personality of course has their page locked so only certain people can edit those pages.


Same person did it twice.  First time it was up for ten minutes.

----------


## Grandmastersexsay

> Thanks. Either way, I don't see the words he quotes. Somebody could make an edit and claim to have discovered the edit. Looks like it was corrected almost immediately.  According to the edit history, it was only up for a minute on December 5th.  He could not have seen it an hour after it was done.  
> 
> Edit made 22:32 on December 5th via mobile.  Reverted 22:33 on that same date.  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...action=history
> 
> 
> 
> Same person did it twice.  First time it was up for ten minutes.


That's because it was posted on December 4th, not the 5th. Here is a link to the edited page I was quoting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...ldid=929307668

Looks like it was up for 3 hour and 25 minutes. 

My more important point was that if he was a liberal, anonymous users wouldn't be able to edit his page.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> That's because it was posted on December 4th, not the 5th. Here is a link to the edited page I was quoting:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...ldid=929307668
> 
> Looks like it was up for 3 hour and 25 minutes. 
> 
> My more important point was that if he was a liberal, anonymous users wouldn't be able to edit his page.


Wikipedia is heavily controlled by both CIA and FBI IP’s

----------


## Madison320

> That's because it was posted on December 4th, not the 5th. Here is a link to the edited page I was quoting:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...ldid=929307668
> 
> Looks like it was up for 3 hour and 25 minutes. 
> 
> My more important point was that if he was a liberal, anonymous users wouldn't be able to edit his page.


It'll be interesting to see how this trial plays out. Hopefully it'll be a real trial, not that fake trial the Nazi guy got last year for running over someone after having his car attacked. I think it'll be a real trial since Zimmerman hired a real lawyer. That Nazi guy had a court appointed fake lawyer.

----------

