# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  The Zimmerman Trial

## angelatc

Anybody watching it? No, me either.  Instapundit just opened my eyes about why the media has been so quiet on the daily coverage:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/171502/




> UPDATE: Reader Bill Lux writes: If their goal is prepping the battlefield then they might get their wish. The mainstream coverage of the trial is so abysmal that I dont think casual observers realize what a farce this is and how weak the States case is (Andrew Brancas tweeting has been indispensable). If theres an acquittal, many people will be outraged because theyre so ill-informed. Thats not by accident.


There's only one more paragraph, but you should definitely click over and read it, too.  It's dead on.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Anybody watching it? No, me either.  Instapundit just opened my eyes about why the media has been so quiet on the daily coverage:
> 
> http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/171502/
> 
> 
> 
> There's only one more paragraph, but you should definitely click over and read it, too.  It's dead on.


Yep, and the "tweeking" of the videos that were done assisted in this "cause".

----------


## V3n

I expect it will end in riots.

----------


## sluggo

Star witness is an imbecile.

----------


## Nobexliberty

If non-guilty we will have *riots* claiming the justice system is racist and if guilty the will be *protest* about how there was not enough evidence to prove Zimmerman guilty. The only reason why this is a high profile case is because it is a hate crime, is murder that is not a "hate crime" also bad?

----------


## Dr.3D

> If non-guilty we will have *riots* claiming the justice system is racist and if guilty the will be *protest* about how there was not enough evidence to prove Zimmerman guilty. The only reason why this is a high profile case is because it is a hate crime, is murder that is not a "hate crime" also bad?


All murder is a hate crime.

----------


## CaptUSA

> Star witness is *...an imbecile*.


...a typical American teenager.
...a future welfare case.
...a likely guest on The Maury Show.
...a drain on society.
...a voter.

Ok, now I'm ascared.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> All murder is a hate crime.


Nah, some murder is just murder.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Nah, some murder is just murder.


So is it worse to hate somebody while you are murdering them?

----------


## Nobexliberty

> All murder is a hate crime.


 Big brother does not agree.

----------


## Red Green

> Nah, some murder is just murder.


Yeah, it's kinda like cooking: sometimes it's 'good', sometimes its 'bad', but if it's a Paula Deen recipe, now that's straight-up hate cooking right there.

----------


## angelatc

> If non-guilty we will have *riots* claiming the justice system is racist and if guilty the will be *protest* about how there was not enough evidence to prove Zimmerman guilty. The only reason why this is a high profile case is because it is a hate crime, is murder that is not a "hate crime" also bad?


I don't think there will be much protesting if Zimmerman is found guilty.  Appeals, yes. Protests, no.

If you read the link, you'd see a different theory about why this is a high profile case.

----------


## jmdrake

I knew Zimmerman / Martin would eventually be dredged back up here.  It was a matter of time.  So I'm going to say the most un-PC think possible from either "side" of the Zimmerman / Martin divide.  If Obama and "big sis" get their way, there will be a lot more Zimmermans, only they will be liberals.  Hell, Zimmerman himself might be liberal or might have been before all this. Remember Obama talking about a "civilian national security force?"  One of the things that prosecutors have been trying to get brought into this trial is all of Zimmerman's false alarms.  Someone in his neighborhood that didn't look like him and he didn't recognize?  He would "see something, say something."  Every unfamiliar face was a potential criminal suspect.  Well....isn't that the world we are headed to?  And sure, right now they're using Zimmerman as a "disarm the public" scapegoat.  But Obama said he wanted his civilian national security force to be "just as well armed and just as well funded" as the military.  I know some want to hold Zimmerman up as the poster child for responsible gun rights.  I no more see him like that than I see Trayvon Martin as the poster child of the sweet innocent black kid.  I see Zimmerman as a statist that got caught up by the same statist system that he idolized and secretly wanted to be part of.

----------


## Zippyjuan

You know you might be in trouble when your own lawyer starts off with a knock knock joke. Especially one that implies the jury is stupid.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> I see Zimmerman as a statist that got caught up by the same statist system that he idolized and secretly wanted to be part of.



Probably, yes.  This case has nothing to do with the "stand your ground" laws being referenced, but those will be attacked again regardless of verdict.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> I don't think there will be much protesting if Zimmerman is found guilty.  Appeals, yes. Protests, no.
> 
> If you read the link, you'd see a different theory about why this is a high profile case.


 You caught me making a bad post, busted

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> So is it worse to hate somebody while you are murdering them?


 I don't know.  Maybe?  But in any case, it is possible to murder without hatred.

I'll kill a man in a fair fight...
or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight...
or if he bothers me, or if there's a woman...
or if I'm getting paid. 

Mostly only when I'm getting paid.







http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-_uG...about_reavers/

The embed is not working for me on this video.  Does it work for anyone else?  Maybe they need you go to the actual Metacafe site to watch their commercial.

----------


## fisharmor

> claiming the justice system is racist


The thing that bothers me most is that people need a scapegoat to think this.
I mean, COPS has been showing how racist our system of justice is for 20 years now, on prime-time TV.
Why do people need a high-profile case to come to this conclusion?

----------


## Henry Rogue

> The embed is not working for me on this video.  Does it work for anyone else?  Maybe they need you go to the actual Metacafe site to watch their commercial.


My script blocker is blocking it and it doesn't block most videos posted on this forum.

----------


## moostraks

> I knew Zimmerman / Martin would eventually be dredged back up here.  It was a matter of time.  So I'm going to say the most un-PC think possible from either "side" of the Zimmerman / Martin divide.  If Obama and "big sis" get their way, there will be a lot more Zimmerman's, only they will be liberals.  Hell, Zimmerman himself might be liberal or might have been before all this. Remember Obama talking about a "civilian national security" force?  One of the things that prosecutors have been trying to get brought into this trial is all of Zimmerman's false alarms.  Someone in his neighborhood that didn't look like him and he didn't recognize?  He would "see something, say something."  Every unfamiliar face was a potential criminal suspect.  Well....isn't that the world we are headed to?  And sure, right now they're using Zimmerman as a "disarm the public" scapegoat.  But Obama said he wanted his civilian national security force to be "just as well armed and just as well funded" as the military.  I know some want to hold Zimmerman up as the poster child for responsible gun rights.  I no more see him like that than I see Trayvon Martin as the poster child of the sweet innocent black kid.  I see Zimmerman as a statist that got caught up by the same statist system that he idolized and secretly wanted to be part of.


I agree with you wholeheartedly. So if it's un-pc then we both are, go figure...

----------


## KEEF

> My script blocker is blocking it and it doesn't block most videos posted on this forum.


 No video for me either... just for the sake of saying it then... TUBE!!!!

----------


## Antischism

Interesting case. I don't really have a strong opinion either way at this point, I simply believe both were in the wrong in their own way, with the unfortunate outcome being a dead young man. Hopefully the trial will shed some light and make it a little clearer. I already know people have an agenda to push on both sides, so it's not very surprising to hear terrible arguments in favor of either side.

----------


## rpfocus

> Interesting case. I don't really have a strong opinion either way at this point, I simply believe both were in the wrong in their own way, with the unfortunate outcome being a dead young man. Hopefully the trial will shed some light and make it a little clearer. I already know people have an agenda to push on both sides, so it's not very surprising to hear terrible arguments in favor of either side.


Well stated. I'm not bothering with this trial. It seems to simply further bigoted arguments in both directions. I have better things to do.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

I haven't watched any of the trial. He'll be found innocent. There will be some riots. The verdict timing will be perfect for riots. Riots are far more likely in the summer heat.

It will be a great distraction from real issues. The Ministry of Truth can turn on a dime, and the fury of the ignorant masses can be redirected at will.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Curious how a "self defense" theory will work when one person with a gun runs after another unarmed person who was simply walking down the street even after the people at 911 told him not to go after the person. Person with the gun was the one who felt "threatened"? And that fear was somehow eased by running after the other guy rather than staying away from them while the cops were on their way?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

He'll be found guilty of the lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter, sentenced to a suspended sentence, given 10 years supervised probation.

Blacks will be pissed at the injustice, probably rightfully so.

I feel bad for Zimmerman insofar as he has hired a real special kind of idiot to represent him.

----------


## devil21

It's already turning into a circus.  

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=19504826




> In a painfully embarrassing moment, Jeantel was forced to admit that she did not write a letter that was sent to Martin's mother describing what she allegedly heard on a phone call with Martin moments before he was shot. It came when West asked her to read the letter aloud in court.
> 
> "Are you able to read that at all?" West asked.
> 
> Jeantel, head bowed, eyes averted whispered into the court microphone, "Some but not all. I don't read cursive."
> 
> It sent a hush through the packed courtroom.
> 
> She was unable to read any of the letter save for her name, date and the words "thank you." 
> ...

----------


## rpfocus

> It's already turning into a circus.  
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=19504826


Proof that allowing remedials to advance grades doesn't help anyone.

----------


## YesI'mALiberal

> I feel bad for Zimmerman insofar as he has hired a real special kind of idiot to represent him.


Richard Gilbert?

----------


## liveandletlive

You can't fix stupid. Our public school education system on display with that witness. A 19 year old who is "functionally illiterate" with the millions we spend on education. 

I feel for Trayvons father...who probably wanted to strangle that girls neck

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Richard Gilbert?


Whoever opened up with a knock knock joke isn't fit to represent anyone for a traffic ticket let alone a murder charge. I haven't been following the case much but I believe Zimmerman is the one who hired him. He has to be kicking himself for that one. To have your representation make jokes at a murder trial... well I can't imagine it's ever been done. Certainly after how it went over, it won't be happening again any time soon.

----------


## dannno

> Curious how a "self defense" theory will work when one person with a gun runs after another unarmed person who was simply walking down the street even after the people at 911 told him not to go after the person. Person with the gun was the one who felt "threatened"? And that fear was somehow eased by running after the other guy rather than staying away from them while the cops were on their way?


Where is the proof that this is what happened?

That isn't how our legal system works, you can't just make up a story and say that somebody is guilty.

First of all, just because 911 told Zimmerman not to follow skittleboy doesn't mean he was not in his right to follow skittleboy. Skittleboy could have very easily felt threatened by the presence of Zimmerman and attacked Zimmerman!! In fact, witnesses said that skittleboy was on TOP of Zimmerman, punching him in the head when Zimmerman pulled out his gun and shot him.

All of that evidence leads to a good argument for self defense. Now, it's very possible that Zimmerman attacked skittleboy, but there really isn't any evidence of that, is there? You actually have to PROVE that Zimmerman attacked skittleboy in this country in order to find him guilty, and I haven't seen any evidence of that.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> First of all, just because 911 told Zimmerman not to follow skittleboy doesn't mean he was not in his right to follow skittleboy. Skittleboy could have very easily felt threatened by the presence of Zimmerman and attacked Zimmerman!! In fact, witnesses said that skittleboy was on TOP of Zimmerman, punching him in the head when Zimmerman pulled out his gun and shot him.
> 
> All of that evidence leads to self defense. Now, it's very possible that Zimmerman attacked skittleboy, but there really isn't any evidence of that, is there?



Well, he had no reason or authority to follow him in the first place.  The fact that he was told not to...  well, that was good advice he didn't take, even though it came from a 911 dispatcher.

Given everything he knows now, I bet Zimmerman would have been thrilled to take that advice.  

If someone is following me around...  what am I supposed to think about that?   95% of the time, I wouldn't care.  The other 5%, ???

----------


## RickyJ

> You know you might be in trouble when your own lawyer starts off with a knock knock joke. Especially one that implies the jury is stupid.



They are stupid. That was a good joke. They didn't laugh or smile because they felt bad about lying to get on the jury.

----------


## brandon

I've had a bad fever all week, which means I've stayed home from work bed ridden. I've watched the entirety of day 2 and day 3 of the trial, and part of todays.

I concur with the OP. I'm absolutely flabergasted at the media coverage of this. The state's case is a complete cluster$#@!. They don't have a single credible witness. The star witness is an illiterate, rude, thug girl who has previously lied under oath and has already changed her testimony several times. If there were an odds market for this case, I'd bet "not guilty" would currently be running about 99 to 1. Yet when I turn on the TV I hear the exact opposite.  It makes no sense.

----------


## Dr.3D

What is to say, Zimmerman didn't turn to go back to his vehicle only to be attacked by Trayvon for following him?

We have not heard enough of the evidence or even the story to even guess about what happened.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> I've had a bad fever all week, which means I've stayed home from work bed ridden. I've watched the entirety of day 2 and day 3 of the trial, and part of todays.
> 
> I concur with the OP. I'm absolutely flabergasted at the media coverage of this. The state's case is a complete cluster$#@!. They don't have a single credible witness. The star witness is an illiterate, rude, thug girl who has previously lied under oath and has already changed her testimony several times. If there were an odds market for this case, I'd bet "not guilty" would currently be running about 99 to 1. Yet when I turn on the TV I hear the exact opposite.  It makes no sense.



And you can bet that will cause an uproar regarding "stand your ground" laws.  That's what this is about, even though it doesn't fit the facts of the case.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I've had a bad fever all week, which means I've stayed home from work bed ridden. I've watched the entirety of day 2 and day 3 of the trial, and part of todays.
> 
> I concur with the OP. I'm absolutely flabergasted at the media coverage of this. The state's case is a complete cluster$#@!. They don't have a single credible witness. The star witness is an illiterate, rude, thug girl who has previously lied under oath and has already changed her testimony several times. If there were an odds market for this case, I'd bet "not guilty" would currently be running about 99 to 1. Yet when I turn on the TV I hear the exact opposite. * It makes no sense.*


The media has already found Zimmerman guilty.   They spread the story months ago.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> What is to say, Zimmerman didn't turn to go back to his vehicle only to be attacked by Trayvon for following him?
> 
> We have not heard enough of the evidence or even the story to even guess about what happened.




Ummm... don't go looking for a fight unless you want one?

----------


## dannno

> Well, he had no reason or authority to follow him in the first place.  The fact that he was told not to...  well, that was good advice he didn't take, even though it came from a 911 dispatcher.


Authority?? Free $#@!ing country. You have no argument here, except that in this case I will admit it was good advice he _could_ have followed, but there is no reason he had to follow it. What if skittleboy turned out to be the person robbing the neighborhood and Zimmerman instead caught him and held him until police arrived? A 911 dispatcher would recommend against this, but it is perfectly legal. But how would Zimmerman or 911 dispatcher know this before it happened? The 911 dispatcher in this case was lucky and happened to give the correct advise.





> Given everything he knows now, I bet Zimmerman would have been thrilled to take that advice.  
> 
> If someone is following me around...  what am I supposed to think about that?   95% of the time, I wouldn't care.  The other 5%, ???


If somebody was following me around I would either head straight home or confront them by casually saying 'hi' and starting up a conversation. I'm pretty sure Zimmerman would have acted like a total dick, but after skittleboy explained he was visiting his aunt and gave him the address of where she lived he would have backed off.. but instead, according to Zimmerman, he just straight up attacked him. 

Now, again, I wasn't there, I have no idea what actually transpired, but in order to convict Zimmerman of murder, you have to prove that he wasn't attacked by skittleboy and that is going to be very difficult now that our star witness for skittleboy, who was not only his gf but was on a cell phone and didn't actually see what happened anyway.. she can barely read and that testimony is sounding really weak.

----------


## dannno

> Ummm... don't go looking for a fight unless you want one?


Who was looking for a fight? I thought Zimmerman was looking for a burglar.

You are putting actions into Zimmerman's arms that weren't necessarily there.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Ummm... don't go looking for a fight unless you want one?


That could be said for the one who attacked and was defended against as well.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Where is the proof that this is what happened?
> 
> That isn't how our legal system works, you can't just make up a story and say that somebody is guilty.
> 
> First of all, just because 911 told Zimmerman not to follow skittleboy doesn't mean he was not in his right to follow skittleboy. Skittleboy could have very easily felt threatened by the presence of Zimmerman and attacked Zimmerman!! In fact, witnesses said that skittleboy was on TOP of Zimmerman, punching him in the head when Zimmerman pulled out his gun and shot him.
> 
> All of that evidence leads to a good argument for self defense. Now, it's very possible that Zimmerman attacked skittleboy, but there really isn't any evidence of that, is there? You actually have to PROVE that Zimmerman attacked skittleboy in this country in order to find him guilty, and I haven't seen any evidence of that.


Skittleboy?

Here's the facts: Wannabe-Rent-a-pig stares down Trayvon Martin. Wannabe-Rent-a-pig chases after a man he had no business in accosting. Trayvon Martin rightfully defended himself from a man who was chasing him down. Wannabe-Rent-a-pig can't fight, so wannabe-Rent-a-pig gets knocked to the ground. Trayvon Martin beat wannabe-Rent-a-pig who probably did fear for his life. Wannabe-Rent-a-pig shot Trayvon Martin.

The fact remains the same that had wannabe-Rent-a-pig not been a wannabe-Rent-a-pig and chased down a teenager minding his own business, Trayvon Martin would still be alive.

Wannabe-Rent-a-pig is largely to blame and should be held accountable for his actions. Wannabe-Rent-a-pig should do some time. Now what wannabe-Rent-a-pig should be convicted on I can't say. Second degree murder seems somewhat appropriate. After all, it was wannabe-Rent-a-pig's actions that led to the confrontation, Wannabe-Rent-a-pig wouldn't have been beat to death, and you know what? He probably deserved being fended off. Someone chases me up the road it is only going to be so far until I turn around to defend myself.

Here's what the dispatcher should have said, or wannabe-Rent-a-pig's parents should have taught him at some point in his life. "Mind your own goddamn business you nosy $#@!." Might have him from some years and the teenager would still be alive.

Whatever happens... meh. He killed the kid. You can't argue self-defense when you accost someone, instigate a fight, and end up getting your ass rightfully whooped. It's not the end of the world to have a few lumps or even the lacerations that he had. He should have taken it as a lesson and moved on. But he was a wannabe-Rent-a-pig, he was ascared. You don't want to scare wannabe-Rent-a-pig, rent-a-pigs, or pigs, that's how people get mistakenly shot, or just shot in general.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> Who was looking for a fight? I thought Zimmerman was looking for a burglar.
> 
> You are putting actions into Zimmerman's arms that weren't necessarily there.



I'll accept that.  Why is Zimmerman looking for burglars?

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> I'll accept that.  Why is Zimmerman looking for burglars?



Just to be clear...  there is one person in my home looking for burglars.  Wanna guess how to find me?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> They are stupid. That was a good joke. They didn't laugh or smile because they felt bad about lying to get on the jury.


You don't joke at a murder trial. That is such a fundamentally understood concept, I doubt they spend more than 10 seconds or so covering the subject at Law School. 

If that was my lawyer, I'd be rightfully pissed. If I ended up getting convicted I'd be rightfully pissed. Now he hired him so I don't know how far it would be for grounds for an appeal but seriously, the joke wasn't even funny, (when the opening to the joke is four times longer than the joke, let's just say you aren't a comedian) *and even if it were* your client is facing 20 some years. Tf are you telling jokes for in a situation as grave as that?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> If somebody was following me around I would either head straight home or confront them by casually saying 'hi' and starting up a conversation. I'm pretty sure Zimmerman would have acted like a total dick, *but after skittleboy explained he was visiting his aunt and gave him the address of where she lived he would have backed off.*. but instead, according to Zimmerman, he just straight up attacked him.


Wow.

Who the $#@! is wannabe-rent-a-pig that he ought to be answered to?

----------


## dannno

> I'll accept that.  Why is Zimmerman looking for burglars?


Because there had been a lot of robberies in the neighborhood recently.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

I'm of the opinion that the "Joke" may work.  He was putting the jury on notice.  It really wasn't a joke, it was a conscience awakener.

----------


## RickyJ

> You don't joke at a murder trial. That is such a fundamentally understood concept, I doubt they spend more than 10 seconds or so covering the subject at Law School. 
> 
> If that was my lawyer, I'd be rightfully pissed. If I ended up getting convicted I'd be rightfully pissed. Now he hired him so I don't know how far it would be for grounds for an appeal but seriously, the joke wasn't even funny, (when the opening to the joke is four times longer than the joke, let's just say you aren't a comedian) *and even if it were* your client is facing 20 some years. Tf are you telling jokes for in a situation as grave as that?


I heard plenty of people laughing in the court room, apparently none of them were jurors though. He was getting a reading on the jury he was dealing with here. It is  better to know that at the start of the trial than midway through or near the end. Now he knows the right path to take for his defense of Zimmerman. He knows many on this jury probably were not telling the truth when they said they never heard of George Zimmerman before. That is very important info for a defense attorney to know about.

----------


## RickyJ

> I'm of the opinion that the "Joke" may work.  He was putting the jury on notice.  It really wasn't a joke, it was a conscience awakener.


Right, he was making many of them feel bad for lying to get on the jury. Who the heck hadn't heard of George Zimmerman in Florida last year? Cave dwellers?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I'm of the opinion that the "Joke" may work.  He was putting the jury on notice.  It really wasn't a joke, it was a conscience awakener.


Well, you never know. Maybe it did awaken the jury to the fact that this has been a media spectacle since day one.

I wouldn't be betting my freedom on it, that's for sure though. Thinking about it, I'm sure he probably talked it over with Zimmerman. If my freedom was in limbo for a day, though, I'd be upset at my representation. If I was facing the sort of time he is it would be hard not to get upset. It isn't My Cousin Vinny. There are serious consequences the man faces. I'd prefer my lawyer understand the seriousness of those consequences.

Everyone deserves adequate representation. I find it kind of kangarooish.

----------


## dannno

> Skittleboy?
> 
> Here's the facts: Wannabe-Rent-a-pig stares down Trayvon Martin. Wannabe-Rent-a-pig chases after a man he had no business in accosting. Trayvon Martin rightfully defended himself from a man who was chasing him down. Wannabe-Rent-a-pig can't fight, so wannabe-Rent-a-pig gets knocked to the ground. Trayvon Martin beat wannabe-Rent-a-pig who probably did fear for his life. Wannabe-Rent-a-pig shot Trayvon Martin.
> 
> The fact remains the same that had wannabe-Rent-a-pig not been a wannabe-Rent-a-pig and chased down a teenager minding his own business, Trayvon Martin would still be alive.
> 
> Wannabe-Rent-a-pig is largely to blame and should be held accountable for his actions. Wannabe-Rent-a-pig should do some time. Now what wannabe-Rent-a-pig should be convicted on I can't say. Second degree murder seems somewhat appropriate. After all, it was wannabe-Rent-a-pig's actions that led to the confrontation, Wannabe-Rent-a-pig wouldn't have been beat to death, and you know what? He probably deserved being fended off. Someone chases me up the road it is only going to be so far until I turn around to defend myself.
> 
> Here's what the dispatcher should have said, or wannabe-Rent-a-pig's parents should have taught him at some point in his life. "Mind your own goddamn business you nosy $#@!." Might have him from some years and the teenager would still be alive.
> ...


There are a lot of things in here that aren't facts. We don't know if Zimmerman chased him, he could have merely followed him, which he has every right to do, and then as Dr. 3D said he may have even turned around to head back and skittleboy just comes up behind him and attacks him. In that case, Zimmerman didn't cause anything. Then there is the grey area of in between where some sort of verbal confrontation occurred, and then one of them attacked the other. We have no idea what went down, but you have to PROVE that Zimmerman wasn't attacked, otherwise there is reasonable doubt because he could have been attacked based on the evidence.




> Wow.
> 
> Who the $#@! is wannabe-rent-a-pig that he ought to be answered to?


That's where option 1 comes in - go straight home. What if skittleboy didn't go straight home? What if he turned around and went after Zimmerman who was following him? 

I'm just saying what I would do personally, if I were in a strange neighborhood that is gated and some guy was concerned that I was there I might start a conversation like a normal human being, maybe tell them who I'm staying with. If it's not a gated community then I'd feel more inclined to ignore the person, but if it's a gated community then they probably know the person I'm staying with and once they know then I know I will be able to walk around there without freaking out people who get worried about that crap and I can give the person I'm staying with's neighbor some peace of mind.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> Authority?? Free $#@!ing country. You have no argument here, except that in this case I will admit it was good advice he _could_ have followed, but there is no reason he had to follow it. What if skittleboy turned out to be the person robbing the neighborhood and *Zimmerman instead caught him and held him until police arrived?* A 911 dispatcher would recommend against this, but it is perfectly legal. But how would Zimmerman or 911 dispatcher know this before it happened? The 911 dispatcher in this case was lucky and happened to give the correct advise.



That's not realistic.  You ever see people running around on the net who call themselves "sheepdogs"?  They're not cops, but still think they need to run around protecting people who didn't ask for it?  

Either of those clowns can push up on my door and see how it works out.

----------


## moostraks

> Authority?? Free $#@!ing country. You have no argument here, except that in this case I will admit it was good advice he _could_ have followed, but there is no reason he had to follow it. What if skittleboy turned out to be the person robbing the neighborhood and Zimmerman instead caught him and held him until police arrived? A 911 dispatcher would recommend against this, but it is perfectly legal. But how would Zimmerman or 911 dispatcher know this before it happened? The 911 dispatcher in this case was lucky and happened to give the correct advise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If somebody was following me around I would either head straight home or confront them by casually saying 'hi' and starting up a conversation. I'm pretty sure Zimmerman would have acted like a total dick, but after skittleboy explained he was visiting his aunt and gave him the address of where she lived he would have backed off.. but instead, according to Zimmerman, he just straight up attacked him. 
> 
> Now, again, I wasn't there, I have no idea what actually transpired, but in order to convict Zimmerman of murder, you have to prove that he wasn't attacked by skittleboy and that is going to be very difficult now that our star witness for skittleboy, who was not only his gf but was on a cell phone and didn't actually see what happened anyway.. she can barely read and that testimony is sounding really weak.


And the same goes both ways as far as free country. Upon who's authority is Zimmerman entitled to chase down someone and demand their itinerary? I don't think burglaries occurring entitle homeowners to chase down pedestrians and demand their name,address, and family relationships as they are walking through the neighborhood. I am not a buttinski neighbor though and I absolutely detest those that take it upon themselves to interfere in the lives of others. To blame the dead guy for having an illiterate girlfriend by saying it somehow helps the defenses case, well that's sad.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I heard plenty of people laughing in the court room, apparently none of them were jurors though. He was getting a reading on the jury he was dealing with here. It is  better to know that at the start of the trial than midway through or near the end. Now he knows the right path to take for his defense of Zimmerman. He knows many on this jury probably were not telling the truth when they said they never heard of George Zimmerman before. That is very important info for a defense attorney to know about.


I doubt they questioned whether or not the people had _heard of_ Zimmerman during jury selection. They surely questioned how much they had heard though.

At best, 3 of the 6 could have told the prosecutor they had not heard anything about the trial, the prosecutor could read them as having their mind made up and select them. Or the defense could have found three people who said the same thing, he might read them as not having their mind made up and select them. It isn't really a yes or no kind of question but a question of to what extent. (at least, if the people were at all competent, which is hard to argue for) 

There are other things that would play roles in their decision as well. The defense should generally have an idea of who the jurors are.

The joke might work in his favor, I doubt it. Unless Zimmerman was aware and agreed to it I find it offensive that that would be the standard of his representation. Even if he was the one who hired the man.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I doubt they questioned whether or not the people had _heard of_ Zimmerman during jury selection. They surely questioned how much they had heard though.
> 
> At best, 3 of the 6 could have told the prosecutor they had not heard anything about the trial, the prosecutor could read them as having their mind made up and select them. Or the defense could have found three people who said the same thing, he might read them as not having their mind made up and select them. It isn't really a yes or no kind of question but a question of to what extent. (at least, if the people were at all competent, which is hard to argue for) 
> 
> There are other things that would play roles in their decision as well. The defense should generally have an idea of who the jurors are.
> 
> *The joke might work in his favor, I doubt it. Unless Zimmerman was aware and agreed to it I find it offensive that that would be the standard of his representation*. Even if he was the one who hired the man.


I'm trying to think of what would work when you have a jury that has seen videos that were scrubbed to make it look like Zimmerman had no injuries, the threat of being looked at as racist, and all of the other media playout.  It's a rough way to start a trial.  I think the joke was a shock...look at all the shock even from non-jurists.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> That's where option 1 comes in - go straight home. What if skittleboy didn't go straight home? What if he turned around and went after Zimmerman who was following him?


Then I would say Wannabe-Rent-a-pig got what was coming his way. You remember being a kid and if you asked someone's business they would say MYOB? I guess no one ever told Wannabe-Rent-a-pig that. Or being a Wannabe-Rent-a-pig was ingrained in his blood, as is the case with many a nosy neighbor.

----------


## devil21

> I've had a bad fever all week, which means I've stayed home from work bed ridden. I've watched the entirety of day 2 and day 3 of the trial, and part of todays.
> 
> I concur with the OP. I'm absolutely flabergasted at the media coverage of this. The state's case is a complete cluster$#@!. They don't have a single credible witness. The star witness is an illiterate, rude, thug girl who has previously lied under oath and has already changed her testimony several times. If there were an odds market for this case, I'd bet "not guilty" would currently be running about 99 to 1. Yet when I turn on the TV I hear the exact opposite.  It makes no sense.


Where are you watching the trial?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Then I would say Wannabe-Rent-a-pig got what was coming his way.


And the one who drew first blood got what he deserved too.

----------


## brandon

> Where are you watching the trial?


https://www.youtube.com/user/croaker...?feature=watch

This youtube account uploads all the raw video of the trials.

----------


## devil21

> https://www.youtube.com/user/croaker...?feature=watch
> 
> This youtube account uploads all the raw video of the trials.


Thanks.  I guess the days of Court TV type broadcasts are over.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

Not sure why media owners/Obama pupms are pushing this hard in news cycle?  It is a tiny story in the current affairs.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Not sure why media owners/Obama pupms are pushing this hard in news cycle?  It is a tiny story in the current affairs.


Perhaps it's a distraction from his violating his oath of office.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

What the Dr said.

This is a total distraction ploy by media owners.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> And the one who drew first blood got what he deserved too.


That sounds like something my generation would say. Instead of a fist fight (in this case a rightfully deserved fight Zimmerman instigated) people are simply shooting each other.

Fact of the matter remains, had Zimmerman's parents (a lot of blame on our media as a whole) instilled the value of staying out of people's business when you don't belong, Martin would be alive and Zimmerman not facing trial. As simple as that.

I suppose that's where I'm different from the average Merican. I honestly do not care what my neighbors are doing. I don't pay attention to a person simply because they are walking down the road. I could care less about fashion and gossip and the rest of that petty $#@!. I was raised different. For one, keep family business in the family and two, mind your own business. If Trayvon Martin was not violating Zimmerman, Zimmerman had no right whatsoever to follow him, chase him, any. The retaliation he got was a predictable reaction to his actions. Would you chase someone down the road and not expect them to confront you? To possibly "attack" you? (rightfully so, I'd add) Had the same scenario happened and Trayvon Martin took the gun, I would have no problem with the man being held at bay with his own weapon. I certainly wouldn't let him have it. If I determined everything had subsided I would take his magazine clear the chamber and give the gun back. I'd go on my way.

If Zimmerman tried to attack after the gun was hypothetically taken from him, and Martin shot him, THAT would be standing your ground. Martin didn't ask to be followed and harassed down the road. Zimmerman took it upon himself because he is indeed, a nosy, wannabe pig. You have to understand though, only cops can do what he did and not get charged. When you are a simple serf, provoke a confrontation and the result is someone dying, you're going to jail.

The media coverage is shameful, bringing up STYG laws as a defense is ridiculous. What he should be convicted of I do not know. The fact remains, had he gotten in his car and left, he would still be free.

I feel the same way about "Guardian Angels" and the rest who think they are the police or think they have the authority to demand an answer to a question. Martin should have told him rightfully so, "Get the $#@! away me. It's none of your goddamn business what I'm doing here." I imagine he did.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Not sure why media owners/Obama pupms are pushing this hard in news cycle?  It is a tiny story in the current affairs.


They want riots.  Note the complete disconnect between the way the talking heads have been portraying the trial and the way the trial is actually playing out.  I don't think I've ever seen a more laughable presentation of a criminal case than the one the prosecution has laid out thus far.  But the media is playing it like they are winning.  Why?  Because they know blacks aren't watching the trial itself and the media want them to think it is a slam dunk so when the inevitable acquittal comes, they will go on a rampage.  The trial itself is a distraction, sure, but it will pale compared to the race riots that ensue.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Not sure why media owners/Obama pupms are pushing this hard in news cycle?  It is a tiny story in the current affairs.


To sow dissent and make people feel unrepresented. It's a lot easier to rule with people divided.

If they find Zimmerman not guilty people will probably riot. Nothing like Rodney King but I wouldn't doubt some windows get broken and some militarized police officers cracking skulls in badgeless riot gear.

Democracy works best when everyone is at eachother's throats. Blacks, whites, Hispanics - everyone - working together things would change. Keep the groups small and subdivided.

----------


## Dr.3D

> That sounds like something my generation would say. Instead of a fist fight (in this case a rightfully deserved fight Zimmerman instigated) people are simply shooting each other.
> 
> Fact of the matter remains, had Zimmerman's parents (a lot of blame on our media as a whole) instilled the value of staying out of people's business when you don't belong. Martin would be alive and Zimmerman not facing trial. As simple as that.
> 
> I suppose that's where I different from the average Merican. I honestly do not care what my neighbors are doing. I don't pay attention to a person simply because they are walking down the road. I could care less about fashion and gossip and the rest of that petty $#@!. I was raised different. To one, keep family business in the family and two, mind your own business. If Trayvon Martin was not violating Zimmerman, Zimmerman had no right whatsoever to follow him, chase him, any. The retaliation he got was a predictable reaction to his actions. Would you chase someone down the road and not expect them to confront you? To possibly "attack" you? (rightfully so, I'd add) Had the same scenario happened and Trayvon Martin took the gun, I would have no problem with the man being held at bay with his own weapon. I certainly wouldn't let him have it. If I determined everything had subsided I would take his magazine clear the chamber and give the gun back. I'd go on my way.
> 
> If Zimmerman tried to attack after the gun was hypothetically taken from him, and Martin shot him, THAT would be standing your ground. Martin didn't ask to be followed and harassed down the road. Zimmerman took it upon himself because he is indeed, a nosy, wannabe pig. You have to understand though, only cops can do what he did and not get charged. When you are a simple serf, provoke a confrontation and the result is someone dying, you're going to jail.
> 
> The media coverage is shameful, bringing up STYG laws as a defense is ridiculous. What he should be convicted of I do not know. The fact remains, had he gotten in his car and left, he would still be free.
> ...


If somebody had me pinned to the ground and said they were going to kill me and then started punching my face in, I would draw my pistol and shoot that person too.

----------


## RonPaulMall

Yeah, the reason SYG doesn't apply in this case is because Zimmerman was on his back on the ground.  He had no option to retreat, so whether Florida is a SYG jurisdiction or not is irrelevant.  The shooting would be justified even in a pure "duty to retreat" state.  We don't even have to get in to SYG.

----------


## RickyJ

> To sow dissent and make people feel unrepresented. It's a lot easier to rule with people divided.
> 
> If they find Zimmerman not guilty people will probably riot. Nothing like Rodney King but I wouldn't doubt some windows get broken and some militarized police officers cracking skulls in badgeless riot gear.
> 
> *Democracy works best when everyone is at eachother's throats. Blacks, whites, Hispanics - everyone - working together things would change. Keep the groups small and subdivided.*


Just as long as people leave the Jews alone, it is A-OK with this government if everyone else is fighting each other.

----------


## Schifference

I think is is a sad state when one ethnicity can use vocabulary that is considered ordinary language and when another ethnicity utilizes the same vocabulary they are deemed as racist.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Yeah, the reason SYG doesn't apply in this case is because Zimmerman was on his back on the ground.  He had no option to retreat, so whether Florida is a SYG jurisdiction or not is irrelevant.  The shooting would be justified even in a pure "duty to retreat" state.  We don't even have to get in to SYG.


When he called the cops, the officer could hear him (Zimmerman) breathing heavily.  They asked are you following Martin.  He said yes.  They said don't- they were on their way.  The conflict where Martin died was a quite a ways from there.  Is running after somebody "standing your ground"?  Hardly. Was he afraid of Martin?  Zimmerman had a gun.  Martin had skittles.  Martin had made no threats to Zimmerman.  He had no reason to run after the boy.  That too is not standing your ground when under threat. If he had stood his ground when he made his calls to 911, the confrontation would never have happened and nobody shot.

Partial transcript: http://bizsecurity.about.com/od/crea...olice-Call.htm




> Dispatcher
> 
> Yeah we've got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else.
> 
> Zimmerman
> 
> Okay. These (expletive) they always get away. Yep. When you come to the clubhouse you come straight in and make a left. Actually you would go past the clubhouse.
> 
> Dispatcher
> ...

----------


## Antischism

I've been watching the trial from the start for a couple of hours now, and all I can really say so far is that the defense attorney is really sloppy and not very convincing. The prosecution looks much sharper and sure thus far.

From what I'm hearing, Trayvon's friend made a fool of herself, so I'm anticipating that part of the trial. I don't know how much of it I'll be watching, but I've got a bad cold that's keeping me down so this is something I can watch while lying down for some time.

----------


## talkingpointes

> When he called the cops, the officer could hear him (Zimmerman) breathing heavily.  They asked are you following Martin.  He said yes.  They said don't- they were on their way.  The conflict where Martin died was a quite a ways from there.  Is running after somebody "standing your ground"?  Hardly. Was he afraid of Martin?  Zimmerman had a gun.  Martin had skittles.  Martin had made no threats to Zimmerman.  He had no reason to run after the boy.  That too is not standing your ground when under threat. If he had stood his ground when he made his calls to 911, the confrontation would never have happened and nobody shot.
> 
> Partial transcript: http://bizsecurity.about.com/od/crea...olice-Call.htm


Have you watched any of the trial yet ? If not you might want to wait before making any conclusions. Trayvons "friend" is openly bigoted and it's not looking good for the prosecutor. Peter Schiff has a hilarious video talking about some of it. This girl apparently wrote a letter to Trayvon but she couldn't even read it. She must be 20 years old and can't even read.

----------


## talkingpointes

> That sounds like something my generation would say. Instead of a fist fight (in this case a rightfully deserved fight Zimmerman instigated) people are simply shooting each other.
> 
> Fact of the matter remains, had Zimmerman's parents (a lot of blame on our media as a whole) instilled the value of staying out of people's business when you don't belong, Martin would be alive and Zimmerman not facing trial. As simple as that.
> 
> I suppose that's where I'm different from the average Merican. I honestly do not care what my neighbors are doing. I don't pay attention to a person simply because they are walking down the road. I could care less about fashion and gossip and the rest of that petty $#@!. I was raised different. For one, keep family business in the family and two, mind your own business. If Trayvon Martin was not violating Zimmerman, Zimmerman had no right whatsoever to follow him, chase him, any. The retaliation he got was a predictable reaction to his actions. Would you chase someone down the road and not expect them to confront you? To possibly "attack" you? (rightfully so, I'd add) Had the same scenario happened and Trayvon Martin took the gun, I would have no problem with the man being held at bay with his own weapon. I certainly wouldn't let him have it. If I determined everything had subsided I would take his magazine clear the chamber and give the gun back. I'd go on my way.
> 
> If Zimmerman tried to attack after the gun was hypothetically taken from him, and Martin shot him, THAT would be standing your ground. Martin didn't ask to be followed and harassed down the road. Zimmerman took it upon himself because he is indeed, a nosy, wannabe pig. You have to understand though, only cops can do what he did and not get charged. When you are a simple serf, provoke a confrontation and the result is someone dying, you're going to jail.
> 
> The media coverage is shameful, bringing up STYG laws as a defense is ridiculous. What he should be convicted of I do not know. The fact remains, had he gotten in his car and left, he would still be free.
> ...


After you have someone like Trayvon (a misguided youth) break into your home -- you will be literally eating your words. Trayvon OPENLY bragged on his FB about robbing women.

----------


## Ender

> That sounds like something my generation would say. Instead of a fist fight (in this case a rightfully deserved fight Zimmerman instigated) people are simply shooting each other.
> 
> Fact of the matter remains, had Zimmerman's parents (a lot of blame on our media as a whole) instilled the value of staying out of people's business when you don't belong, Martin would be alive and Zimmerman not facing trial. As simple as that.
> 
> I suppose that's where I'm different from the average Merican. I honestly do not care what my neighbors are doing. I don't pay attention to a person simply because they are walking down the road. I could care less about fashion and gossip and the rest of that petty $#@!. I was raised different. For one, keep family business in the family and two, mind your own business. If Trayvon Martin was not violating Zimmerman, Zimmerman had no right whatsoever to follow him, chase him, any. The retaliation he got was a predictable reaction to his actions. Would you chase someone down the road and not expect them to confront you? To possibly "attack" you? (rightfully so, I'd add) Had the same scenario happened and Trayvon Martin took the gun, I would have no problem with the man being held at bay with his own weapon. I certainly wouldn't let him have it. If I determined everything had subsided I would take his magazine clear the chamber and give the gun back. I'd go on my way.
> 
> If Zimmerman tried to attack after the gun was hypothetically taken from him, and Martin shot him, THAT would be standing your ground. Martin didn't ask to be followed and harassed down the road. Zimmerman took it upon himself because he is indeed, a nosy, wannabe pig. You have to understand though, only cops can do what he did and not get charged. When you are a simple serf, provoke a confrontation and the result is someone dying, you're going to jail.
> 
> The media coverage is shameful, bringing up STYG laws as a defense is ridiculous. What he should be convicted of I do not know. The fact remains, had he gotten in his car and left, he would still be free.
> ...


I agree 1000%.

I did a lot of studying on the whole Trayvon/Zimmerman incident and everything that I have found leads back to Zimmerman not minding his own business and trying to be the bad ass.

----------


## Ender

> After you have someone like Trayvon (a misguided youth) break into your home -- you will be literally eating your words. Trayvon OPENLY bragged on his FB about robbing women.


You mean the phony FB page that turned out NOT to be Trayvon? 

And what you are advocating is Minority Report crap.

----------


## talkingpointes

> You mean the phony FB page that turned out NOT to be Trayvon? 
> 
> And what you are advocating is Minority Report crap.


Yeah, exactly. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/us...rtin.html?_r=0

Was he bringing that gun around in his suburban neighborhood to protect himself. Are you that dense?

----------


## Ender

> Yeah, exactly. 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/us...rtin.html?_r=0


Oh the NY Times! The paper no believes unless it's convenient.

And gangsta rap is still rap- nothing more. It has nothing to do with Zimmerman causing the whole fiasco.

----------


## talkingpointes

> Oh the NY Times! The paper no believes unless it's convenient.
> 
> And gangsta rap is still rap- nothing more. It has nothing to do with Zimmerman causing the whole fiasco.


So you think that's all fake -- eventhough it's from his OWN phone?

For the record I do have a bias I have been robbed and beaten half to death by 7 black men. Yeah it's hard to not be angry but they did it because I was a "racist". I was best friends with the brother of the guy that lead in the guys that did it. Fact is they were the racist and the criminals, it's easier to call someone else the names and make them the bad guy. 

I generally can't stand people that talk like he does -- sorry. It takes me back to being in my room on my knees while one man held a gun to my head and another beat the $#@! out of me and 5 others kept asking me for a safe. 

The second time they raped my gf at the time.(I jumped out my window and ran into a neighbors house) Sorry it was 1 mexican and 4 black guys that I had never met that kicked down my door at 3am in the morning. 

For the record I was growing mushrooms. But that didn't make me a criminal, and most certainly not a racist.

If you want me too be really honest. I never spoke to my best friend again and never told him why, and since then it's still hard for me to be around black men. I'm sorry. I didn't want this.

(4 of the first 7 are dead, he's brother was killed with the other 3 two weeks later when they attempted to rob a mexican gangs gun house - I honestly didn't feel bad for him and that was probably the last words we ever shared- I do blame him. I had never, ever met his brother)

----------


## Zippyjuan

The key is who initiated the confrontation.  By Zimmerman's own words, Treyvon was seen walking down the street, doing nothing besides "looking odd".  Treyvon walked away from Zimmerman and Zimmerman went after him- even after being told not to. If he want to plead "Stand Your Ground" it does not look good that he went after the person who had done nothing to him.




> Zimmerman
> 
> Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy, uh, it's Retreat View Circle, um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. 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.*
> 
> Dispatcher
> 
> OK, and this guy is he white, black, or hispanic?
> 
> Zimmerman
> ...

----------


## Red Green

> The key is who initiated the confrontation.  By Zimmerman's own words, Treyvon was seen walking down the street, doing nothing besides "looking odd".  Treyvon walked away from Zimmerman and Zimmerman went after him- even after being told not to. If he want to plead "Stand Your Ground" it does not look good that he went after the person who had done nothing to him.


He can watch and follow Treyvon all he wants.  It was a public place after all.  Just because you're following someone does not mean you are initiating a confrontation.

----------


## Dr.3D

> He can watch and follow Treyvon all he wants.  It was a public place after all.  Just because you're following someone does not mean you are initiating a confrontation.


That's right.  I should be able to follow someone around all I want without fear they are going to try to kill me.

----------


## talkingpointes

> He can watch and follow Treyvon all he wants.  It was a public place after all.  Just because you're following someone does not mean you are initiating a confrontation.


Especially when everyone else is at work and he had never seen the person before. 

Has anyone else in this thread ever been robbed.

----------


## Zippyjuan

He is claiming not guilty because of "Stand your Ground".  In "Stand your ground" you must feel threatened.  If he is following Treyvon, he is obviously not feeling threatened by him.

----------


## Antischism

"He looked at me... and he called me a 'motherfucker!'"

Man, this is real hard-hitting stuff.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> I agree 1000%.
> 
> I did a lot of studying on the whole Trayvon/Zimmerman incident and everything that I have found leads back to Zimmerman not minding his own business and trying to be the bad ass.


They were both Wannabees.  Zimmerman wanted to be a tough security guy and Treyvon wanted to pretend to be Gangsta (doesn't mean he did more than pretend though- Zimmerman did more than pretend).

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Curious how a "self defense" theory will work when one person with a gun runs after another unarmed person who was simply walking down the street even after the people at 911 told him not to go after the person. Person with the gun was the one who felt "threatened"? And that fear was somehow eased by running after the other guy rather than staying away from them while the cops were on their way?


That's what I'm wondering.  You can't start a fight and then claim self defense when you lose.

----------


## Dr.3D

> That's what I'm wondering.  You can't start a fight and then claim self defense when you lose.


Who threw the first punch?

----------


## BlackTerrel

> What the Dr said.
> 
> This is a total distraction ploy by media owners.


If it's so irrelevant why are all of us here talking about.

It's irrelevant to you - great.  Good for you.

What impacts me personally?  I think it's far likelier someone kills me or someone in my family and ends up not charged because of cronyism and/or a racist justice system then of being hurt by a drone or having the NSA spy on my phone calls.

Just because you're above it all doesn't make you superior.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> To sow dissent and make people feel unrepresented. It's a lot easier to rule with people divided.
> 
> If they find Zimmerman not guilty people will probably riot. Nothing like Rodney King but I wouldn't doubt some windows get broken and some militarized police officers cracking skulls in badgeless riot gear.
> 
> Democracy works best when everyone is at eachother's throats. Blacks, whites, Hispanics - everyone - working together things would change. Keep the groups small and subdivided.


If the powers that be want people divided they're doing a pretty $#@!ty job.  Race relations are better than ever and if you look at American history in 10 year increments it's a chart that keeps getting better.  We're not that many generations off from slavery and Jim Crow laws.  When was the last riot?

Most media, TV, movies, music shows racial harmony.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> So you think that's all fake -- eventhough it's from his OWN phone?
> 
> For the record I do have a bias I have been robbed and beaten half to death by 7 black men. Yeah it's hard to not be angry but they did it because I was a "racist". I was best friends with the brother of the guy that lead in the guys that did it. Fact is they were the racist and the criminals, it's easier to call someone else the names and make them the bad guy. 
> 
> I generally can't stand people that talk like he does -- sorry. It takes me back to being in my room on my knees while one man held a gun to my head and another beat the $#@! out of me and 5 others kept asking me for a safe. 
> 
> The second time they raped my gf at the time.(I jumped out my window and ran into a neighbors house) Sorry it was 1 mexican and 4 black guys that I had never met that kicked down my door at 3am in the morning. 
> 
> For the record I was growing mushrooms. But that didn't make me a criminal, and most certainly not a racist.
> ...


That's a great story and all but let's be real here.  You can't be impartial.  You don't like or want to be around black people - by your own admission.  That's by definition collectivist and racist.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Who threw the first punch?


If you punch someone is that enough to kill you?  I've been punched and punched others plenty of times before I hit 18.  That's life.  Everyone of these should end in a death?

----------


## Dr.3D

> If you punch someone is that enough to kill you?  I've been punched and punched others plenty of times before I hit 18.  That's life.  Everyone of these should end in a death?


In my case, it could end in their death.   I'm an old man and if some kid thinks he is going to beat the crap out of me and possibly kill me, I'll end up in court just like Zimmerman.

Edit: And if the person actually says, "I'm going to kill you."   That's enough for me to believe him and use lethal force to stop him from doing so.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> If you punch someone is that enough to kill you?  I've been punched and punched others plenty of times before I hit 18.  That's life.  Everyone of these should end in a death?


I don't think that's what you think it is.

First, if everyone that wanted to carry carried, and did so responsibly, there might be less punching. What's the saying, "Your freedom ends where my nose begins"?  And, that has to do with respect for others.  

And, there are mutual fist fights, and that's okay.  I don't think anyone is saying that every time someone throws a punch it's time to get out the gun.  But there are times when you know that someone wants to take your head off, and that's when the gun could come out.  But I agree that de-escalation should always be sought when carrying.

----------


## talkingpointes

> That's a great story and all but let's be real here.  You can't be impartial.  You don't like or want to be around black people - by your own admission.  That's by definition collectivist and racist.


No, I said it's hard. But it's not that I don't hang around them, it's that I'm just afraid of when I am. Is that really so bad? If it makes you feel better I'm dating someone of mixed race.

----------


## talkingpointes

> If you punch someone is that enough to kill you?  I've been punched and punched others plenty of times before I hit 18.  That's life.  Everyone of these should end in a death?


Yes, one hit to the temple is enough to kill most men and women. Granted noone is going to throw a hook like that and they are going to kick you in the front of the face, not the side. I have had the left side  of my face collapsed besides my cheek and lived. (from the robbery I have pictures-- broken nose, 3 bones around my eye, I thought I was going to be blind, turned out I just need glasses, whew)

----------


## BlackTerrel

> I don't think that's what you think it is.
> 
> First, if everyone that wanted to carry carried, and did so responsibly, there might be less punching. What's the saying, "Your freedom ends where my nose begins"?  And, that has to do with respect for others.  
> 
> And, there are mutual fist fights, and that's okay.  I don't think anyone is saying that every time someone throws a punch it's time to get out the gun.  But there are times when you know that someone wants to take your head off, and that's when the gun could come out.  But I agree that de-escalation should always be sought when carrying.


There are always going to be people fighting.  We're guys - that's what we do.  I'm not 30 yet and when I was a kid they almost never ended with someone getting shot.  Now it seems they all do...that benefits no one.

Gun should be used to defend yourself from others similarly armed.  Not to escalate the situation.

EDIT: By the way if a cop killed an unarmed man 100% of the people here would say the cop is guilty right?  So Zimmerman is innocent because he's not a cop.

----------


## talkingpointes

This is a non-biased source. I don't think this guy is going be fairly tried no matter what. In the end I don't think he should of fatally shot him, the size difference would make most guys shutter. When someone has a 6' reach on you that's equivalent to fighting stretch armstrong, and good luck unless you can get on the inside. Which Trayvon was -17 I think and his stamina would of made that impossible. 

From their age and size differences alone if Zimmerman started it he should receive an involuntary - if he did start it, then premeditated since he followed him. 

But his attorney is going to lampoon this girl and destroy any credibility. The will have to try to have whatever they can struck from the record becuase they are so emotionally damning to some people. I would think 50/50 chance of being found guilty. 

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documen...r-scrub-748092

----------


## Dr.3D

> There are always going to be people fighting.  We're guys - that's what we do.  I'm not 30 yet and when I was a kid they almost never ended with someone getting shot.  Now it seems they all do...that benefits no one.
> 
> *Gun should be used to defend yourself from others similarly armed.  Not to escalate the situation.*
> 
> EDIT: By the way if a cop killed an unarmed man 100% of the people here would say the cop is guilty right?  So Zimmerman is innocent because he's not a cop.


So a guy that's 70 should be able to keep himself from getting beat to death by a guy that's 30 without using a gun?  Sorry buddy, I don't plan on spending my life working out in the gym.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Just as long as people leave the Jews alone, it is A-OK with this government if everyone else is fighting each other.


Your statement is an example of the problem I was talking about.

We have black, white, Hispanic, Asian, gay, straight, Northerner, Southerner, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Atheists with a likely majority of all groups being good people with the same concerns as you. Many are misguided in their political viewpoints, many propose different solutions, at the end of the day we are faced with the same problems.

That being global rigging of the currency supply, crony-capitalist (borderline fascist) back room deals and a majority of politicians with no spine and no moral code backing their words. No philosophy to speak of, and a thirst for power. I'd imagine the position attracts the type like flies to $#@!. There are a few exceptions of course but by and large We are unrepresented, propaganda is used to paint a certain narrative for people to follow, and they toe the line. When one gets out of line, a la Snowden, he is harshly dealt with and the band plays on.

We need everyone to wake up. We are marketed to and like products, pimped like whores, and most have no idea what I'm even referring to or think I am being hyperbolic or my rhetoric is out of line. I could make the comparison.

In my opinion this story draws away from what we should be focusing on... that being, what secret is Miley Cyrus threatening her dad with!? I mean, if they expect me to sleep at night with that on my conscience they're very mistaken.

Oh the worth of my fiat is being taken from between my fingertips? Big interests are raping the world over with shady backdoor deals and bribes? Two headed babies?

They'll beat this story for all it's [not] worth and no matter the outcome people will be pissed either way.

----------


## 69360

The kid and the shooter were both dumbasses of the highest order, when they met bad things happened.

The press isn't covering this anymore because the government's case is weak to non-existent and the racebaiters don't like to lose.

----------


## angelatc

> The kid and the shooter were both dumbasses of the highest order, when they met bad things happened.
> 
> The press isn't covering this anymore because the government's case is weak to non-existent and the racebaiters don't like to lose.


That's sort of what the original article said, except that he feels the whole thing was dragged into the spotlight to tinge the 2012 election season with racial overtones, and that an acquittal will just be a big race tool for 2014.

Its not that they don't like to lose - they want to lose.  But they can't cover this 24/7 because the state's case is so weak, so they're going to ignore it, then feign outrage when the acquittal comes down. (I'm going by what he said - I haven't seen any of the trial.)

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> *There are always going to be people fighting.  We're guys - that's what we do*.  I'm not 30 yet and when I was a kid they almost never ended with someone getting shot.  Now it seems they all do...that benefits no one.
> 
> Gun should be used to defend yourself from others similarly armed.  Not to escalate the situation.
> 
> EDIT: By the way if a cop killed an unarmed man 100% of the people here would say the cop is guilty right?  So Zimmerman is innocent because he's not a cop.


Sorry if I disappoint other males, but that's not what I have ever done.  I don't look for nor enjoy fighting other people.  I fight myself, what can I accomplish or learn today that I could not, or did not, yesterday.  I expect others to take care of themselves, and it's none of my business how as long as they don't infringe on others.

I don't go for the stereotyping of males as fighting others.  I don't find it macho to punch and kick or kill.

A cop is in a profession and one that is known to be risky (or should be).  He's paid to take a bullet if necessary to protect the innocent (although that is debatable, some say they are only there to enforce the will of the elite, but I digress).

----------


## William R

America Will See Its Worst Race Riot Yet This Summer 

 Sanford, FLYes, the George Zimmerman trial here has thousands of African-Americans getting ready for some serious bloodletting.
I dont want to make idle and dire predictions but this nation has never been so divided and racially sensitive.  Or African-American President took sides on this case at the very beginning.  That ratified a George Zimmerman guilty verdict in the minds of millions.
Theres just one little problem, and that is the murder case should have never been filed.  It was filed purely for political reasons despite the fact that it was a simple justifiable 

http://www.crimefilenews.com/2013/06...race-riot.html

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> After you have someone like Trayvon (a misguided youth) break into your home -- you will be literally eating your words. Trayvon OPENLY bragged on his FB about robbing women.


If Martin broke into Zimmerman's home and Zimmerman shot him I would be defending his right. As it stands, he chased the teen down. I've met Zimmerman's type. I don't like them. There's standing your ground and then there's instigating an incident.

And FWIW, I have been robbed after my house was "broken into." They wrote me a receipt for $212 dollars. (I had over $350 on me, but the 212 was kept anyways so what's the difference. Whether it went towards the court or the cop's personal pocket doesn't change the fact I didn't have it anymore)

So like I said, had Martin broke into someone's house and was shot you wouldn't hear a word edgewise from me. I'm not sure if it's different some places, but staring at someone, asking what their business is etc. is looking for a fight. Zimmerman should have minded his own business. Point blank period.

That is not to say I support the media's overblown bull$#@! about the case, his kangaroo lawyer, etc. but let's be honest. Mind your own damn business. He didn't see the teen commit any crime.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> EDIT: By the way if a cop killed an unarmed man 100% of the people here would say the cop is guilty right?  So Zimmerman is innocent because he's not a cop.


Well actually, since you mentioned it, if Zimmerman is found guilty it will be because he was not a cop.

----------


## James Madison

> America Will See Its Worst Race Riot Yet This Summer 
> 
>  Sanford, FL—Yes, the George Zimmerman trial here has thousands of African-Americans getting ready for some serious bloodletting.
> I don’t want to make idle and dire predictions but this nation has never been so divided and racially sensitive.  Or African-American President took sides on this case at the very beginning.  That ratified a George Zimmerman guilty verdict in the minds of millions.
> There’s just one little problem, and that is the murder case should have never been filed.  It was filed purely for political reasons despite the fact that it was a simple justifiable 
> 
> http://www.crimefilenews.com/2013/06...race-riot.html


If welfare-heads wanna burn down their homes and make themselves an even bigger joke than they already are, I won't stop them.

----------


## RickyJ

> America Will See Its Worst Race Riot Yet This Summer 
> 
>  Sanford, FLYes, the George Zimmerman trial here has thousands of African-Americans getting ready for some serious bloodletting.
> I dont want to make idle and dire predictions but this nation has never been so divided and racially sensitive.  Or African-American President took sides on this case at the very beginning.  That ratified a George Zimmerman guilty verdict in the minds of millions.
> Theres just one little problem, and that is the murder case should have never been filed.  It was filed purely for political reasons despite the fact that it was a simple justifiable 
> 
> http://www.crimefilenews.com/2013/06...race-riot.html


There may or may not be a riot, but if there is a riot then the rioters will be shot just like Trayvon.

----------


## RickyJ

> So a guy that's 70 should be able to keep himself from getting beat to death by a guy that's 30 without using a gun?  Sorry buddy, I don't plan on spending my life working out in the gym.


If you got no choice, use your weapon before someone uses it on you. Zimmerman probably did exactly that, and yet on a liberty site we have people wanting his head for this. That is a shame.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Judge, jury and executioner all in one. No rights- no accusations and trial. How do you know when you are at the point of having no choice? Change "Zimmerman" to "policeman" and watch the comments change.  Suddenly he isn't a hero.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> If the powers that be want people divided they're doing a pretty $#@!ty job.  Race relations are better than ever and if you look at American history in 10 year increments it's a chart that keeps getting better.  We're not that many generations off from slavery and Jim Crow laws.  When was the last riot?
> 
> Most media, TV, movies, music shows racial harmony.


I agree. Every generation "race relations" (one of those overused terms that I really don't like to use) has gotten better.

That is not to say a strategy for keeping the people down or preventing a revolt is to divide them into manageable subsections to target with different messages of propaganda.

You'll see what I mean if he is found not guilty, people take to the street, and their heads are cracked open by a multi-racial police force ranging of every hue under the sun.

They will be manageable. Social media and cameras everywhere have changed this mentality, not by much in my opinion.

----------


## fr33

> Judge, jury and executioner all in one. No rights- no accusations and trial. How do you know when you are at the point of having no choice? Change "Zimmerman" to "policeman" and watch the comments change.  Suddenly he isn't a hero.


I don't think anyone here is calling Zimmerman a hero. IMO he is an $#@! but from the evidence I've seen I couldn't convict him of murder. Too much reasonable doubt surrounding the head-wound.

The difference between this and most police initiated aggression is that we don't have a dash cam or witnesses. The system is supposed to error on the side of innocence. Liberty requires a lot of alert vigilance rather than a careless conviction.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> I don't think anyone here is calling Zimmerman a hero. IMO he is an $#@! but from the evidence I've seen I couldn't convict him of murder. Too much reasonable doubt surrounding the head-wound.


Forget reasonable doubt, this case doesn't even have probable cause.  There is no evidence that Zimmerman started the fight (Precious' testimony  that she "heard" a push and magically could tell through the phone that Zimmerman was the pusher aside).  To the contrary, what evidence that exists (wounds on the back of Zimmerman's head) suggest he was the victim.  The entire trial is a joke.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Forget reasonable doubt, this case doesn't even have probable cause.  There is no evidence that Zimmerman started the fight (Precious' testimony  that she "heard" a push and magically could tell through the phone that Zimmerman was the pusher aside).  To the contrary, what evidence that exists (wounds on the back of Zimmerman's head) suggest he was the victim.  The entire trial is a joke.


I for one would like to know if Martin had any head wounds.   Did he have any evidence of having used his fists to strike somebody?   So far I have not heard a thing about what wounds other than gunshot wounds Martin had.

----------


## RickyJ

> *Judge, jury and executioner all in one.* No rights- no accusations and trial. How do you know when you are at the point of having no choice? Change "Zimmerman" to "policeman" and watch the comments change.  Suddenly he isn't a hero.


Zimmerman is being railroaded here by the press and people here are cheering it on. Self-defense is still a right in this nation, get use to it because if riots occur like many think they will, there will be a lot of bloodshed. People have had enough and aren't scared of thugs anymore, they are ready to take them down.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> He can watch and follow Treyvon all he wants.  It was a public place after all.  Just because you're following someone does not mean you are initiating a confrontation.


Yes, it does.

Try following behind someone, when they stop you stop, when they walk again keep following. The following could end as simple as the person being followed stating "What the $#@! are you doing, get away from me." If you continued following and were attacked, I'd say you brought it on yourself.

You don't know why they are following you. They may be setting up to rob you. Liberty to me is you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone, until so far as you encroach on me or my rights. Following me fits into that.

I was being followed around when I was walking. I stopped to light a cigarette, I noticed out of the corner of my eye he stopped too. I start walking again he starts walking again. After two block and turning into a small generally unused alley I stopped and turned around and said "What the $#@! do you want?" (I figured the guy was trying to rob me.. how was I to know?) He mumbled something, turned and left.

Later I found out who he was, a schizophrenic who probably thought he was tracking someone or lord knows what. He does it to a lot of people downtown apparently. Hisses and growls at people in his apartment building. This was the first time I ever saw the man, I turned around to see why he was following me and asked him as much. The situation was deescalated.

The point of my story is to say that while following someone incidentally isn't an act of aggression, following someone intentionally is. Or could be construed as as much by the average person. Someone overtly following me or trying to chase me down are going to get what they deserved or rather, asked for.

Public place or not, a reaction should be expected. (of course there are extremes) Martin did the right thing by trying to get away from him.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Forget reasonable doubt, this case doesn't even have probable cause.  There is no evidence that Zimmerman started the fight (Precious' testimony  that she "heard" a push and magically could tell through the phone that Zimmerman was the pusher aside).  To the contrary, what evidence that exists (wounds on the back of Zimmerman's head) suggest he was the victim.  The entire trial is a joke.


The entire trial _is_ a joke.

That being said, Zimmerman admitted to following the teen. He was breathing heavy as if chasing. He said Martin took off running.

What right does he have to chase him down?

Or rather, what expectation of chasing someone down _not_ resulting in violence is there? He had a gun. He didn't fear for his life. Not until Martin turned around and reasonably fought back at the person chasing him. When he started getting his ass whooped is when he most probably feared for his life.

The fact remains the same that had he not initiated it, he would have never been attacked. His actions led to the death of the teen.

It isn't SYG. Trayvon Martin tried to stand HIS ground. A wannabe pig felt the need to chase him down, received a predictable response, and then shot him. I have no doubt he feared for his life. I can go down the road, harass every person I see, chase people around and question where they are going. If they try to fight me fight and then if I'm losing shoot them and _I'm_ standing my ground? A horrible representation of SYG. He instigated it. What did he expect?

----------


## RickyJ

> Try following behind someone, when they stop you stop, when they walk again keep following. The following could end as simple as the person being followed stating "What the $#@! are you doing, get away from me." If you continued following and were attacked, I'd say you brought it on yourself.


If you attack someone because you think they are following you then you are the one that is asking for it. What the heck has happened to people on this forum? Crazy pills or something?

----------


## RickyJ

> Forget reasonable doubt, this case doesn't even have probable cause.  There is no evidence that Zimmerman started the fight (Precious' testimony  that she "heard" a push and magically could tell through the phone that Zimmerman was the pusher aside).  To the contrary, what evidence that exists (wounds on the back of Zimmerman's head) suggest he was the victim.  The entire trial is a joke.


Yes it is a joke and a distraction from the Senate passing the immigration/amnesty/H1-B visa bill. They are trying to get this passed while getting people worked up over a self-defense case and we have people here falling for it!

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> If you attack someone* because you think they are following* you then you are the one that is asking for it. What the heck has happened to people on this forum? Crazy pills or something?


Is that what I said? When I know someone is following me, in other words harassing or impeding my freedom, I will react.

The person who *is* following me ought to have expected a response.

What's so hard about that to understand?

You see, leave people alone and they leave you alone. What's wrong with that message? Harass people or pester or antagonize, I am not the type to feel sorry. I did say it could be taken to extremes and the implication of my "of course" was to discourage someone from using the hypothetical of "he went down the same road as me so I attacked him." That isn't what I'm saying.

Someone overtly following me, it's only happened once in my lifetime, will get a response. It isn't as if you are trying to fight someone, you are showing them that their behavior is unacceptable. Working through the situation with words is best, of course.

----------


## CPUd



----------


## kcchiefs6465

> 


Before watching this dude almost got shot right? lmao

It isn't that unhuman a reaction to get upset. 

I think this is the one.

ETA: This is a different one. The one prank I watched they had a guy screaming apparently on the phone with a girl he slept with's boyfriend. He'd say "Yeah, I'm right here, MF come see what happens" and then say, "Yeah I'm the guy in the white shirt" or whatever describing random people in the store. People got pissed.

Pointless thread derail but hilarious.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> It isn't SYG. Trayvon Martin tried to stand HIS ground. A wannabe pig felt the need to chase him down, received a predictable response, and then shot him. I have no doubt he feared for his life. I can go down the road, harass every person I see, chase people around and question where they are going. If they try to fight me fight and then if I'm losing shoot them and _I'm_ standing my ground? A horrible representation of SYG. He instigated it. What did he expect?


Stand Your Ground has nothing to do with this case.  There are two kinds of broad self defense rules that exist a situation where you are being assaulted:  Duty to Retreat, or Stand Your Ground.  In States that go by Duty to Retreat Doctrine, if you can reasonably and safely disengage from the situation, you have a duty to do so before using deadly force.  Typically, in Duty to Retreat states there is an exception for assaults that occur in the home.  There is no duty to retreat in your own home.  This is sometimes called the Castle Doctrine.  In Stand Your Ground states, everywhere a person is legally entitled to be is essentially their castle.  There is no duty to retreat anywhere a person is legally entitled to be.  If someone attacks you in a way that causes you to fear great bodily harm, you can use deadly force to defend yourself _even if you were physically able to safely get away_.

But in the Zimmerman case, none of that matters because Zimmerman was on his back with his head being bashed against the sidewalk.  Whether the attack happened in a "Duty to Retreat" state or a "Stand Your Ground" state is irrelevant because that _ is only an issue if Zimmerman was able to safely retreat_, which clearly wasn't the case.  So stop going on about Stand Your Ground.  You are _always_ allowed to use deadly force in a situation in which you can't retreat, are being assaulted, and fear great bodily harm.  

The only possible way Zimmerman could lose this case is if the prosecution could show that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon.  But they have no evidence to support that.  The wounds on the back of Zimmerman's head in fact, suggest the opposite.  There is literally nothing to back up the prosecution's charges here.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Consider you are walking home.  You see a guy in a truck staring at you and talking on his phone. You start to walk away.  He jumps out of his truck and starts running towards you.  What do you do? Figure he is exercising his rights to freely follow whomever he wants?

Getting his head injured does not necessarily mean he did not start the confrontation. It only shows that a physical confrontation did take place before the shooting. Treyvon may have been defending himself.  Why didn't Zimmerman stay at his truck? How did he end up close enough to Martin to get hit in the first place?  (Martin's route indicated he was headed towards the house he was staying in- his uncle's place). Here is a map.  The 7-11 he stopped at is on Oregon Avenue- just outside the upper left corner in this image. 

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...QEwAw&dur=5156

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> But in the Zimmerman case, none of that matters because Zimmerman was on his back with his head being bashed against the sidewalk.  Whether the attack happened in a "Duty to Retreat" state or a "Stand Your Ground" state is irrelevant because that _ is only an issue if Zimmerman was able to safely retreat_, which clearly wasn't the case.  So stop going on about Stand Your Ground.  You are _always_ allowed to use deadly force in a situation in which you can't retreat, are being assaulted, and fear great bodily harm.  
> 
> The only possible way Zimmerman could lose this case is if the prosecution could show that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon.  But they have no evidence to support that.  The wounds on the back of Zimmerman's head in fact, suggest the opposite.  There is literally nothing to back up the prosecution's charges here.


Meh. Someone chasing another person down, I feel little sympathy when they are attacked. Wannabe pigs are just that, THOSE WITHOUT QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.

To be clear, SYG is irrelevant to this case. Zimmerman accosted, that is, chased the teen down after the teen was leaving, and initiated the confrontation. WHETHER TRAYVON THREW THE FIRST PUNCH OR NOT. What right is it of someone to harass another person? I'm not saying Zimmerman very well didn't fear for his life.. many punk, pussy, pigs state the same thing as they shoot down toy dogs and beat men to death. He wasn't one, badged that is, otherwise it wouldn't be an issue. He initiated the conflict. A few lumps, laceration included probably would have taught his ass not to go accosting people.

I know the "police scout" type. The honorary "badge" and whistle. Zimmerman is the epitome of it.

Frankly, let him be found guilty or not guilty. I do not care. I have a reasonable vision of how it went down, he was in the wrong, but whatever. We can all celebrate the victory for freedom, or as you put it, self defense. We can chase kids around the neighborhood and shoot them if they try to fight us.

As if Zimmerman is some kind of symbol of freedom. I couldn't give a damn either way. Justice isn't justice but how close to the regurgitated truth you can get. Be happy with the verdict. I won't particularly, at all really, care.

----------


## Kregisen

> Curious how a "self defense" theory will work when one person with a gun runs after another unarmed person who was simply walking down the street even after the people at 911 *told him not to go after the person.* Person with the gun was the one who felt "threatened"? And that fear was somehow eased by running after the other guy rather than staying away from them while the cops were on their way?


False. The 911 operator said "you don't have to do that". That is not a command. Just like when a cop asks you to "walk in a straight line", it is VOLUNTARY. A 911 operator has no authority to command you to do anything.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Actually it was:



> Dispatcher
> 
> Are you following him?
> 
> Zimmerman
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> Dispatcher
> ...


http://bizsecurity.about.com/od/crea...olice-Call.htm

which if an officer says that to you, that means stop doing it- you better quit doing it. Sure  you have the option to obey or not to obey- he made the choice to go after Martin.  You can listen here: http://www.wftv.com/videos/news/raw-...-police/vGZq9/

It does sound like he quit running shortly after that but he does say that he would meet the police by the mailboxes (#1 on the map- he was near #2 at the time) but instead ends up going the opposite direction.  If Trevon was coming after him, why did the confrontation occur closer to where he was staying rather than closer to where Zimmerman told the cops where he would be? He seems to be still headed home when Zimmerman caught up to him.




> Dispatcher
> 
> Okay do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes then?
> 
> Zimmerman
> 
> Yeah that's fine.
> 
> Dispatcher
> ...


"These $#@!s- they always get away!"  I guess he wanted to make sure Trevon wouldn't get away.

Whose actions seem more agressive?  Who seemed to have a more valid reason to fear for their safety?

----------


## RonPaulMall

> "These $#@!s- they always get away!"  I guess he wanted to make sure Trevon wouldn't get away.
> 
> Whose actions seem more agressive?  Who seemed to have a more valid reason to fear for their safety?


Whether his actions seem "aggressive" or not have nothing to do with the legal charges at hand.  Zimmerman says he was assaulted.  The physical evidence and witness testimony is consistent with his claim of being on his back getting hit.  In such a scenario, he is legally justified in using deadly force to defend himself.  Whether you think it was polite or socially proper for him to confront this kid and ask him what he was doing wandering around between houses is irrelevant from a legal perspective.  For the prosecution to have a case, they need to provide evidence that Zimmerman _assaulted_ Trayvon.  Not that he was bugging him, or that Trayvon found his behavior annoying or obnoxious.  Zimmerman has to have physically assaulted him.  They have no evidence for that other than Precious' testimony that she "heard" pushing and could "hear" that it was Zimmerman doing the pushing because her keenly developed senses can distinguish who was pushing who over the phone.  In other words, they have no evidence.  Arguing whether Zimmerman was being rude or needlessly aggressive in his watch over the neighborhood may be valid, but don't belong in this thread as they have nothing to do with the legal question being presented.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> .... but don't belong in this thread as they have nothing to do with the legal question being presented.


Good points. I'd only add that lawyers and legal positioning have $#@!ed this country six ways from Sunday.

Probably doesn't belong in this thread either as we don't need to determine what was right or wrong, just what can be verbally and 'evidencially' manipulated into reasonable doubt. - Which is a very valid point.

I believe Zimmerman was in the wrong and by and large caused the incident to unfold as it did. In the eyes of the law (lowercase intentional) that is not what matters.

Let's not forget that this is the same _law_ who put a mother in jail for twenty years for firing warning shots at her boyfriend or the many, many, many other injustices perpetrated in Florida. Right and wrong doesn't mean anything in the "justice system." (an oxymoron in itself) Might is right. (might being money, of course) - Why some people get 20 years MMS and some people get off. So I'm clear though, everyone deserves adequate representation and the knock knock joke still was insulting to a seemingly lower than ever possibly thought low "just-us" system. Kangaroos around.

----------


## Ender

> Whether his actions seem "aggressive" or not have nothing to do with the legal charges at hand.  Zimmerman says he was assaulted.  The physical evidence and witness testimony is consistent with his claim of being on his back getting hit.  In such a scenario, he is legally justified in using deadly force to defend himself.  Whether you think it was polite or socially proper for him to confront this kid and ask him what he was doing wandering around between houses is irrelevant from a legal perspective.  For the prosecution to have a case, they need to provide evidence that Zimmerman _assaulted_ Trayvon.  Not that he was bugging him, or that Trayvon found his behavior annoying or obnoxious.  Zimmerman has to have physically assaulted him.  They have no evidence for that other than Precious' testimony that she "heard" pushing and could "hear" that it was Zimmerman doing the pushing because her keenly developed senses can distinguish who was pushing who over the phone.  In other words, they have no evidence.  Arguing whether Zimmerman was being rude or needlessly aggressive in his watch over the neighborhood may be valid, but don't belong in this thread as they have nothing to do with the legal question being presented.


Zimmerman wasn't on watch that night- which makes the argument on his aggressiveness absolutely valid; he took things into his own hands when he was asked to stand down.

----------


## Wooden Indian

Did I wander into the wrong forum? Are people here actually complaining that Zimm DIDN'T listen to the orders of the badged madmen? Can't have it both ways, folks.

----------


## Kregisen

> Actually it was:
> 
> http://bizsecurity.about.com/od/crea...olice-Call.htm
> 
> which if an officer says that to you, that means stop doing it- you better quit doing it.[/url]


Uhhh yeah I don't think so. 

#1. Since when are 911 operators cops?

#2. You do not need to abide by all commands by cops, because not all are legal. 

#3. It wasn't a command, and like I previously said, it's as much of a suggestion as when cops try to get people to do sobriety tests so they can make up stuff to arrest people on a DUI (happened to me before). Suggestions by cops are meaningless in a court of law.

----------


## Wooden Indian

Careful. Zippy just may report you to our ruling class masters. 
You're given an order, you follow that order, civilian!

----------


## AFPVet

> False. The 911 operator said "you don't have to do that". That is not a command. Just like when a cop asks you to "walk in a straight line", it is VOLUNTARY. A 911 operator has no authority to command you to do anything.


Well, not only that, but* E911 dispatchers are not law enforcement officers*... they are civilians. They have no authority to give you a lawful order. 

Was Zimmerman stupid for getting out of his vehicle? Absolutely. Did he deserve to be assaulted like he was? No. When someone has overwhelming physical superiority over you, it doesn't matter if they are unarmed or not. Disparity of force treats that person as if they were armed even if they were not. 

Now, if you initiate the confrontation (wanting a fight), then you pretty much screwed yourself because you basically asked for it. The question is did Zimmerman want to fight? If he did not, then he didn't initiate a confrontation.

Zimmerman should have stayed in his vehicle and waited for the cops to come. As a former cop myself, would I get out of my vehicle and 'talk' to a big guy wearing a hoodie? Hell no! You wait until other officers show up. Most officer shootings actually involve the cop being shot with his/her own weapon. There is always at least one gun at every situation... yours. When you get into a fight, guess what, someone might get to your weapon and you're done. 

All of this said, being 'suspicious' is not a crime. If this kid was in the process of jacking someone, then, yes... Zimmerman should have jacked him up, but that wasn't the case here. Zimmerman was an idiot, but he was technically justified (official report conclusion of the officers). They had to get a special DA to file charges because the cops knew that he was justified and were not going to file bogus charges (one of the rare cases of this lol).

----------


## gwax23

> Star witness is an imbecile.


Shes illiterate methinks.

----------


## brandon

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...fatal-gunshot/

This case is so over. Unless the jurors are smoking crack, no way a guilty verdict comes down. There's barely even anything to deliberate on.

----------


## dannno

> And the same goes both ways as far as free country. Upon who's authority is Zimmerman entitled to chase down someone and demand their itinerary? I don't think burglaries occurring entitle homeowners to chase down pedestrians and demand their name,address, and family relationships as they are walking through the neighborhood. I am not a buttinski neighbor though and I absolutely detest those that take it upon themselves to interfere in the lives of others. To blame the dead guy for having an illiterate girlfriend by saying it somehow helps the defenses case, well that's sad.


But you have no proof that Zimmerman chased down anybody.. He could have followed him for a while, turned around and then been attacked from behind. In fact, that's pretty much what Zimmerman claimed happened. He claimed he was confronted by skittleboy from behind, turned around and he got attacked. Do you have any evidence that isn't what happened?

----------


## angelatc

> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...fatal-gunshot/
> 
> This case is so over. Unless the jurors are smoking crack, no way a guilty verdict comes down. There's barely even anything to deliberate on.


Brandon I haven't watched one second of it.  Yesterday on Twitter, after the bad witness, a Spanish speaking witness appeared, and Twitter seemed to think that she said Zimmerman was on top of Martin, which meant Zimmerman was lying about the escapade.  Did you see any of that?

----------


## dannno

> Whether his actions seem "aggressive" or not have nothing to do with the legal charges at hand.  Zimmerman says he was assaulted.  The physical evidence and witness testimony is consistent with his claim of being on his back getting hit.  In such a scenario, he is legally justified in using deadly force to defend himself.  Whether you think it was polite or socially proper for him to confront this kid and ask him what he was doing wandering around between houses is irrelevant from a legal perspective.  For the prosecution to have a case, they need to provide evidence that Zimmerman _assaulted_ Trayvon.  Not that he was bugging him, or that Trayvon found his behavior annoying or obnoxious.  Zimmerman has to have physically assaulted him.  They have no evidence for that other than Precious' testimony that she "heard" pushing and could "hear" that it was Zimmerman doing the pushing because her keenly developed senses can distinguish who was pushing who over the phone.  In other words, they have no evidence.  Arguing whether Zimmerman was being rude or needlessly aggressive in his watch over the neighborhood may be valid, but don't belong in this thread as they have nothing to do with the legal question being presented.


+rep

----------


## dannno

> Zimmerman wasn't on watch that night- which makes the argument on his aggressiveness absolutely valid; he took things into his own hands when he was asked to stand down.


No, you're wrong, read RonPaulMall's post again, it is absolutely 100% correct. This has nothing to do with any authority or neighborhood watch, forget it even exists. You are absolutely 100% wrong that Zimmerman is not allowed to walk around his neighborhood or that some how walking around your neighborhood constitutes a threat to somebody else. Unless Zimmerman attacked Trayvon, which there is no evidence of, then assuming Treyvon attacked Zimmerman which is what the only witness says happened and there is no contradictory evidence to hold Zimmerman for murder. 

Once again - NOTHING illegal about walking around your neighborhood, or running for that matter, even if you are walking or running following another individual, unless you threaten them or assault them.

----------


## Ender

> No, you're wrong, read RonPaulMall's post again, it is absolutely 100% correct. This has nothing to do with any authority or neighborhood watch, forget it even exists. You are absolutely 100% wrong that Zimmerman is not allowed to walk around his neighborhood or that some how walking around your neighborhood constitutes a threat to somebody else. Unless Zimmerman attacked Trayvon, which there is no evidence of, then assuming Treyvon attacked Zimmerman which is what the only witness says happened and there is no contradictory evidence to hold Zimmerman for murder. 
> 
> Once again - NOTHING illegal about walking around your neighborhood, or running for that matter, even if you are walking or running following another individual, unless you threaten them or assault them.


Disagree. 

Your premise is wrong. Zimmerman has a track record of an overzealous cop wannabe. He had called 911 many times for no reason and was itching to be a hero. 

Trayvon didn't just wander into the community- he had left for a short time and was then coming back to the house he was staying at. If Zimmerman was around at that time, he saw him; if someone else was on watch, they too would have seen him.

The only thing wrong that Trayvon did was to wear a hoodie. Oh the horror!

Zimmerman can walk around his own neighbor, true- BUT to follow/harrass someone else who had already been in the community was negligent on his part, to say the very least.

----------


## dannno

> Disagree. 
> 
> Your premise is wrong. Zimmerman has a track record of an overzealous cop wannabe. He had called 911 many times for no reason and was itching to be a hero.


That's not evidence of anything that happened. That is character witness stuff that is supposed to ACCOMPANY some evidence of what happened.





> Trayvon didn't just wander into the community- he had left for a short time and was then coming back to the house he was staying at. If Zimmerman was around at that time, he saw him; if someone else was on watch, they too would have seen him.


Well he didn't see him, he wasn't on any official 'watch', he just happened to see him on the way home and he thought he was a robber. There had been a lot of robberies, so its no wonder that somebody in the neighborhood was concerned that somebody they didn't know was just walking around the houses in a gated community.




> The only thing wrong that Trayvon did was to wear a hoodie. Oh the horror!


ASSumptions make asses out of you and me. According to Zimmerman, Trayvon came up behind him and assaulted him. Is there any witness testimony or evidence contradicting this? Then I rest my case.





> Zimmerman can walk around his own neighbor, true- BUT to follow/harrass someone else who had already been in the community was negligent on his part, to say the very least.


Zimmerman had never seen this kid before, again, he was staying there with his dad's fiance or something, he was a new person in the neighborhood. 

There is nothing illegal about following somebody and even asking them questions is 100% within the law. If you are trying to tell me that if I ask somebody on the street a question who I have followed and tracked down, they have a right to assault me that is insane. That is basically what you're saying.

----------


## CaptUSA

> The only thing wrong that Trayvon did was to wear a hoodie. Oh the horror!


Do you have proof of that?  I mean, there certainly isn't wrong with approaching a stranger in your neighborhood, is there?  If Trayvon was approached and took offense or was scared it is possible he assaulted Zimmerman upon his approach.

The problem is that there doesn't seem to be enough evidence to know who did what.

----------


## AFPVet

> Do you have proof of that?  I mean, there certainly isn't wrong with approaching a stranger in your neighborhood, is there?  If Trayvon was approached and took offense or was scared it is possible he assaulted Zimmerman upon his approach.
> 
> The problem is that there doesn't seem to be enough evidence to know who did what.


I talked about this incident extensively with a Florida retired detective friend of mine who stated that down there, the only people wearing hoodies are the thugs (or wannabes). Statistics provide for enough evidence to make this generalization. 

Even if Martin wasn't a real 'thug', he was dressing the part.

----------


## angelatc

> I talked about this incident extensively with a Florida retired detective friend of mine who stated that down there, the only people wearing hoodies are the thugs (or wannabes). Statistics provide for enough evidence to make this generalization. 
> 
> Even if Martin wasn't a real 'thug', he was dressing the part.



If the shooting had happened in July, I'd agree.  But this happened in February, and it does get chilly in Florida in the winter, because the humidity makes it seem colder than it is.

----------


## Ender

> I talked about this incident extensively with a Florida retired detective friend of mine who stated that down there, the only people wearing hoodies are the thugs (or wannabes). Statistics provide for enough evidence to make this generalization. 
> 
> Even if Martin wasn't a real 'thug', he was dressing the part.


When this incident happened some "conservative" forums were all abuzz about how Trayvon  deserved it because he was wearing a hoodie. I was teaching at an art school and looked around at my class, who were outstanding students- everyone, including the girls, was wearing a hoodie.

----------


## Antischism

> When this incident happened some "conservative" forums were all abuzz about how Trayvon  deserved it because he was wearing a hoodie. I was teaching at an art school and looked around at my class, who were outstanding students- everyone, including the girls, was wearing a hoodie.


Yeah, the argument that people who wear hoodies should be looked at more suspiciously is beyond ridiculous.

----------


## AFPVet

> When this incident happened some "conservative" forums were all abuzz about how Trayvon  deserved it because he was wearing a hoodie. I was teaching at an art school and looked around at my class, who were outstanding students- everyone, including the girls, was wearing a hoodie.


It's all about timing. Obviously, you wouldn't wear a ski mask in the summer time just as you wouldn't be wearing a hoodie in the summer time. Granted, the timing of this incident is key. 

Let's not dodge the main issue here. As I have said before, being suspicious isn't a crime. I believe there must be a victim in order for there to be a crime. However, wrong or not, Zimmerman got his ass beat by a person who was significantly more powerful and was subsequently fighting for his life. The question is... did he go into the situation looking to fight, or was he just trying to 'talk' to the guy?

----------


## Antischism

I think I'm just about done with the questioning at the trial of Trayvon's friend. Oh man, they nailed her. Not that it was difficult to do given her apparent tendency to lie and difficulty speaking/reading.

----------


## brandon

How do the states witnesses get selected?  All the ones that I heard helped the defense more than the prosecution. I dont understand why the prosecution would ever subpeona them in the first place... unless they had to for some reason. Anyone know how that works?

----------


## BlackTerrel

> No, I said it's hard. But it's not that I don't hang around them, it's that I'm just afraid of when I am. Is that really so bad? If it makes you feel better I'm dating someone of mixed race.


OK fine.  Being around black men scares you.  Point being - you're not exactly impartial.  You see people as a collective.

----------


## angelatc

> How do the states witnesses get selected?  All the ones that I heard helped the defense more than the prosecution. I dont understand why the prosecution would ever subpeona them in the first place... unless they had to for some reason. Anyone know how that works?


You have to remember that the state didn't even want to press charges originally. (Now we know why.)  They were pressured into this by the Obama administration looking to gin up racial unrest for the election season.

----------


## brushfire

I've been "watching" the trial, every day.  Even during jury selection.  I probably only get about 20% of it, as I'm also doing work.  I have seen some unbelievably stupid human beings though.  It amazes me that some have enough brain capacity to maintain critical bodily functions (i.e. heart beat, respiration, etc)

I feel horrible for Zimmerman, despite his doing some dumb things, I do believe he's innocent based on the trial thus far.  Of course, its alarming that the media is so quiet - they will try to "maximize their investment" in a likely outcry when he is rightfully found innocent.

----------


## QuickZ06

Reading through this I have a couple of questions for you guys/gals. How many robberies have occurred in the past? 

http://www.wagist.com/wp-content/upl...aryReports.pdf




> Frank Taaffe, a former neighborhood watch captain, told CNN's "Starting Point" that his house was in the process of being robbed on Feb. 2, but Zimmerman called Sanford police, who thwarted the robbery.
> 
> *"My house was being robbed, and George on his nightly rounds watched this burglary in progress, called Sanford P.D., waited for them, and helped ensure that nothing bad happened to my house," Taaffe said. "And it's documented in the 911 call for February 2.*  That was my residence that George Zimmerman helped stop." Zimmerman shot and killed Martin on Feb. 26.
> 
> "Neighbor-hood, that's a great word," Taaffe said.
> 
> Taaffe said that "young black males" were the perpetrators in the attempted robbery of his home. "We had eight burglaries in our neighborhood all perpetrated by young black males in the 15 months prior to Trayvon being shot," Taaffe said. "It would have been nine."
> 
> Taaffe denied that he told the New York Times that burglaries were done by "Trayvon-like dudes with their pants down."
> ...



Also when reading the transcript Zippy posted...




> Zimmerman
> 
> Okay. These (expletive) they always get away.


So now we ask, was it a smart idea to follow him on foot to make sure he was not getting away as he did look "suspicious" so the police could have a talk with him?

Remember Zimmerman seems like a guy who takes this job pretty seriously as you will see but it does not matter if he is on or off duty.  I would think a guy who does these patrols as much as he does, he would tend to notice certain things or certain people out of place thus bringing us to Trayvon Martin.  




> In all, police have records of 46 calls from Zimmerman since 2004, both to 911 and a nonemergency number, sometimes for reasons as mundane as reporting a pothole blocking a road, as he did in 2005. The sheriff’s office released the records after Sanford police detectives requested them as part of the investigation into Martin’s death, Cannaday said.


The part we do not have a very good understanding of is what exactly happened once the gap (distance) was closed between the two parties.

Also how many robberies have occurred since this incident has happened?

----------


## angelatc

> I've been "watching" the trial, every day.  Even during jury selection.  I probably only get about 20% of it, as I'm also doing work.  I have seen some unbelievably stupid human beings though.  It amazes me that some have enough brain capacity to maintain critical bodily functions (i.e. heart beat, respiration, etc)
> 
> I feel horrible for Zimmerman, despite his doing some dumb things, I do believe he's innocent based on the trial thus far.  Of course, its alarming that the media is so quiet - they will try to "maximize their investment" in a likely outcry when he is rightfully found innocent.


I feel horrible for everybody.   That boy shouldn't be dead, but he is.

----------


## QuickZ06

Could this be a 2nd amendment issue? If more of those homeowners had a gun for home and self defense, would these robberies occur as much as they did? If every neighbor had a sign telling them this, could this whole scenario have been avoided as well as many others?

----------


## RickyJ

> I feel horrible for everybody.   That boy shouldn't be dead, but he is.


Well, if had not of attacked a stranger then he would still be alive today. He had a history of attacking people like that, it was bound to happen sooner or later. It is his own fault.  He made a bad choice.

----------


## cindy25

I just hope the inevitable and justified not guilty verdict does not result in race riots

----------


## RickyJ

> You have to remember that the state didn't even want to press charges originally. (Now we know why.)  They were pressured into this by the Obama administration looking to gin up racial unrest for the election season.


Civil rights groups, the NAACP, and Jesse Jackson along with a compliant media had a lot to do with it too.

----------


## RickyJ

> I just hope the inevitable and justified not guilty verdict does not result in race riots


I wouldn't be so sure it will be a not guilty verdict. Juries in cases like this tend be irrational.

----------


## HigherVision

> OK fine.  Being around black men scares you.  Point being - you're not exactly impartial.  You see people as a collective.


A black person is statistically much more likely to attack you than a non-black so it's not irrational to be fearful of them. You should be denouncing the violence of other black people for creating this environment where non-blacks are rationally fearful of you.

----------


## RickyJ

> A black person is statistically much more likely to attack you than a non-black so it's not irrational to be fearful of them. You should be denouncing the violence of other black people for creating this environment where non-blacks are rationally fearful of you.


It is not irrational to be guarded around them, or anyone else for that matter until you get to know them, but unless you have more than just skin color to go on, I see no reason to fear them. There is no such thing as a non-violent race of people.

----------


## QuickZ06

> It is not irrational to be guarded around them, or anyone else for that matter until you get to know them, but unless you have more than just skin color to go on, *I see no reason to fear them.* *There is no such thing as a non-violent race of people.*


Yep, color does not matter at all. And the laws and police officers do not help black folks out either. The government keeps them uneducated and the stuff they do teach them is to worship the state. The government has created this mess.

----------


## muh_roads

Is there anything known about the jurors in terms of education level?  I remember them saying that not a single one of the OJ Simpson jurors had a college education of any kind and many never even finished high school but just had GED's instead.

----------


## phill4paul

If I would ever need a jury of peers I would hope that it was selected from members of RPF. Even the ones I don't like.

----------


## RickyJ

> If I would ever need a jury of peers I would hope that it was selected from members of RPF. Even the ones I don't like.


I would want jurors that would not be intimidated and have shown consistency in using logic to come to conclusions. That would rule most people out.

----------


## muh_roads

I want to be a juror on a non-violent drug offender case.  I would do everything I can to make it a hung jury.

----------


## phill4paul

> I would want jurors that would not be intimidated and have shown consistency in using logic to come to conclusions. That would rule most people out.


  Jurors are denied or allowed by both prosecution and defense. On a basis of those that are, at least, informed then I would be confident with an RPF jury. I might not always agree but we, here, are smarter than the average bear.

----------


## brushfire

> I feel horrible for everybody.   That boy shouldn't be dead, but he is.


Although that is tragic, and I agree it is horrible for such a young man (I wouldn't necessarily call him a boy), I feel worse for the guy who's living.  The trial is not over, but so far I believe Zimmerman acted in self defense.  Zimmerman's has also become the target of a political campaign, one which has wrongly put him on trial.  Granted, Zimmerman is alive, but he will spend his life paying legal fees, and hearing the gurgling gaps of that young man's dying breath.

Also, I think the "boy's" situation is a direct result of a poor decision he made.  I believe he sought out Zimmerman, and attacked him while Zimmerman was walking back to his truck.  The "boy", quite capable of lethal force, had pulled a bad card from the deck when I decided to ground and pound a man with a gun.

 My view of this could very well change, but given the direction this trial has been heading in since Feb 2012, I doubt it.  There's probably another 2 weeks left to this trial, we'll see I suppose.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> I might not always agree but we, here, are smarter than the average bear.


 That does not include me, but I will not have the powers to be on a jury yet.

----------


## Natural Citizen

I don't understand the fascination with this

----------


## RickyJ

> That does not include me, but I will not have the powers to be on a jury yet.


Are you under 18?

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Are you under 18?


 Yep, and I am not a citizen of the US either.

----------


## brushfire

> Disagree. 
> 
> Your premise is wrong. Zimmerman has a track record of an overzealous cop wannabe. He had called 911 many times for no reason and was itching to be a hero. 
> 
> Trayvon didn't just wander into the community- he had left for a short time and was then coming back to the house he was staying at. If Zimmerman was around at that time, he saw him; if someone else was on watch, they too would have seen him.
> 
> The only thing wrong that Trayvon did was to wear a hoodie. Oh the horror!
> 
> Zimmerman can walk around his own neighbor, true- BUT to follow/harrass someone else who had already been in the community was negligent on his part, to say the very least.


It was raining and quite unusual to see someone walking in the rain at night.  Prior phone activity, and the presence of a community watch program, suggest that there were incidents in the past.  Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer, and nothing like a "Cop Wannabe".  On the very calls you cite, you can hear him asking for police, and doing so in a very passive manner.  Also, although the dispatch for 911 and non emergency are the same, Zimmerman had called the non-emergency line, as the neighborhood watch protocol required.

Also, where is the harassment?  Before I even go into that, I will just urge you to watch the trial.  I going to go out on a limb here and guess that you've been getting your "facts" from the ever reliable mainstream media.  Your opinion may benefit from getting raw information, directly from the source...

----------


## brushfire

> I don't understand the fascination with this


For me its how the justice system is manipulated to favor a political agenda.  If you carry a firearm for personal defense, its quite easy to become a "George Zimmerman".  This one has a lot of attention because its a pet trial, but this crap happens all the time.  I recall a man's wife shooting 2 intruders, killing one.  The media came out and advertised the deceased as "the victim", not releasing the deceased's name, while simultaneously announcing the name and address of the woman (The real victim).

Even more fascinating is how effective the media and government are at duping people - even a savvy bunch like RPF'rs.

----------


## Antischism

> Well, if had not of attacked a stranger then he would still be alive today. He had a history of attacking people like that, it was bound to happen sooner or later. It is his own fault.  He made a bad choice.


If you're going to character assassinate a dead man, it might also be relevant to bring up Zimmerman's history in the interest of fairness.

Plenty of people would also bring up the argument that Zimmerman should have been minding his own business instead of playing SUPERHERO COP. If he had refrained and taken the suggestion he got over the phone to back off, none of this would have happened, either.

This is a case where as of now, I still believe both parties were in the wrong. I'm still watching the trial, so my mind can obviously change, but I understand both sides of the argument.

On another note, certain people here have incredibly apparent (self-admitted) racial biases, so they would be very unfit to make a judgment on this case.

----------


## brushfire

> Plenty of people would also bring up the argument that Zimmerman should have been minding his own business instead of playing SUPERHERO COP. If he had refrained and taken the suggestion he got over the phone to back off, none of this would have happened, either.


1.  What constitutes "Superhero Cop"?  I stopped 2 car loads of vandals (9 teens) from vandalizing my neighbor's house.  Does that make me a Superhero Cop too?  Or is that only when the media deems me so?

2.  Who says he didnt "back off"?  He exited his car, but he states that he was walking back, and there is no evidence to the contrary?  Even the wind noise in the phone subsides.  His location at the "scene" in correlation to other testimony supports that he was on his way back to the truck.  Regardless, there's simply no evidence to suggest that he continued to pursue Martin, where are you getting this?

Racist?  About the most compelling evidence of "racism" were in Jeantel's testimony - Martin repeatedly referred to Zimmerman as a N**ger, and called him a "Crazy a$$ cracker".  So far the closest thing I can see to any racism is an unnecessary description of his neighbor as being "caucasian".

Holy sh!t people??  I challenge you to step beyond the narrative here.  Not since Erik Scott have I seen such manipulation of the judicial system.

----------


## RickyJ

> If you're going to character assassinate a dead man, it might also be relevant to bring up Zimmerman's history in the interest of fairness.
> 
> *Plenty of people would also bring up the argument that Zimmerman should have been minding his own business instead of playing SUPERHERO COP.* If he had refrained and taken the suggestion he got over the phone to back off, none of this would have happened, either.
> 
> This is a case where as of now, I still believe both parties were in the wrong. I'm still watching the trial, so my mind can obviously change, but I understand both sides of the argument.
> 
> On another note, certain people here have incredibly apparent (self-admitted) racial biases, so they would be very unfit to make a judgment on this case.


He was elected by the residents as the captain of the neighborhood watch. What do you want him to do, sit on his ass and do nothing while another burglary could be taking place? Calling the cops is not always good enough, they take forever to respond.

----------


## Kregisen

> Plenty of people would also bring up the argument that Zimmerman should have been minding his own business instead of playing SUPERHERO COP. If he had refrained and taken the suggestion he got over the phone to back off, none of this would have happened, either.


You are saying it's Zimmerman's fault he got attacked (assuming he did get attacked, which is the safest assumption until there is evidence to the contrary) because he wasn't "minding his own business".


You are using the exact same logic as blaming women for getting raped because their clothing was too sexy or too revealing.

In short, your argument is dumb.

Would you be okay if someone shot and killed a 15 year old kid at 2am? "Oh, you were out past curfew, so it's your fault that you died."

Ridiculousness.

----------


## Ender

> He was elected by the residents as the captain of the neighborhood watch. What do you want him to do, sit on his ass and do nothing while another burglary could be taking place? Calling the cops is not always good enough, they take forever to respond.


Neighborhood Watch Organizations that are recognized by the National Sheriffs' Association? In fact, their Executive Director, Aaron D. Kennard, said this in a press statement:

_"The alleged action of a 'self-appointed neighborhood watchman' last month in Sanford, FL significantly contradicts the principles of the Neighborhood Watch Program...NSA has no information indicating the community where the incident occurred has ever even registered with the NSA Neighborhood Watch program."
_

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.

----------


## RickyJ

> Neighborhood Watch Organizations that are recognized by the National Sheriffs' Association? In fact, their Executive Director, Aaron D. Kennard, said this in a press statement:
> 
> _"The alleged action of a 'self-appointed neighborhood watchman' last month in Sanford, FL significantly contradicts the principles of the Neighborhood Watch Program...NSA has no information indicating the community where the incident occurred has ever even registered with the NSA Neighborhood Watch program."
> _
> 
> From the Florida NWIntro Booklet:
> 
> http://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/on...rev610.pdf.pdf
> 
> ...




It doesn't matter what the neighborhood watch program is or isn't. He and everyone else in the community has a right to protect themselves from criminals. The police cannot be relied upon, you call them and they come when they get and good and ready (they eat their last dounghnut at the Dunkin Doughnuts).
 People have got killed waiting for the police to arrive. He did what a hero would have done, and this charge of murder and slandering him in the press is what he gets for his good deed?

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> NSA has no information indicating the community where the incident occurred has ever even *registered* with the NSA Neighborhood Watch program.




WHAAAAAAAA - you didn't join OUR CLUB!!!!

http://www.usaonwatch.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhood_watch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Observer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Angels
(more at first wikipedia link)

I also remember hearing about some groups in AZ after sandy hook that were training people via the sheriffs dept and I believe holds and citizen arrests were part of it.  IIRC, Steven Segal was part of it too.

-t

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Angels
> 
> I also remember hearing about some groups in AZ after sandy hook that were training people via the sheriffs dept and I believe holds and citizen arrests were part of it.  IIRC, Steven Segal was part of it too.
> 
> -t


I will applaud the person who stands their ground against the Guardian Angels. 

It's funny you'd mention Steven Segal. Wasn't he the one whoring for publicity on the back of the APC running down some guy's gate in the raid that eventually resulted in the killing of all the man's roosters and dog with that gestapo $#@! Joe Arpaio?

Why am I not surprised some people applaud this statist organization and statist pig. Did you ever watch his tv show?

Zimmerman probably jerked off to it.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> I will applaud the person who stands their ground against the Guardian Angels. 
> 
> It's funny you'd mention Steven Segal. Wasn't he the one whoring for publicity on the back of the APC running down some guy's gate in the raid that eventually resulted in the killing of all the man's roosters and dog with that gestapo $#@! Joe Arpaio?
> 
> Why am I not surprised some people applaud this statist organization and statist pig. Did you ever watch his tv show?
> 
> Zimmerman probably jerked off to it.


Segal has a TV show or Arpaio has a TV show? - I guess that answers your question - lol!

Didn't hear about the incident with Segal.  He's a  decent actor, he's into martial arts, Native American philosophy and an environmentalist.  That's about all I know about him without looking up his wikipedia page, which I might do later...

My point was that there are lots of neighborhood watch organizations.

Didn't we agree that having neighborhood watch and arming teachers was a lot better for protecting schools than putting a cop in every school?

As to Sheriff Arpaio, I thought he wrote that book about the Sheriff being the top law man, trumping state and feds.  Am I confusing him with another sheriff?

I haven't really paid attention to the Zimmerman trial other than briefly looking in.  You seem to think he's guilty.  All I've seen is a very weak case.  I might revise my opinion.

-t

----------


## HigherVision

> There is no such thing as a non-violent race of people.


Maybe not but there's no such thing as an equal amount of violent behavior distributed among the races either, some are statistically more violent than others at least as far as street crime goes. So by the law of averages you have more of a chance being attacked by people of certain races than others.

----------


## Antischism

> 1.  What constitutes "Superhero Cop"?  I stopped 2 car loads of vandals (9 teens) from vandalizing my neighbor's house.  Does that make me a Superhero Cop too?  Or is that only when the media deems me so?
> 
> 2.  Who says he didnt "back off"?  He exited his car, but he states that he was walking back, and there is no evidence to the contrary?  Even the wind noise in the phone subsides.  His location at the "scene" in correlation to other testimony supports that he was on his way back to the truck.  Regardless, there's simply no evidence to suggest that he continued to pursue Martin, where are you getting this?
> 
> Racist?  About the most compelling evidence of "racism" were in Jeantel's testimony - Martin repeatedly referred to Zimmerman as a N**ger, and called him a "Crazy a$$ cracker".  So far the closest thing I can see to any racism is an unnecessary description of his neighbor as being "caucasian".
> 
> Holy sh!t people??  I challenge you to step beyond the narrative here.  Not since Erik Scott have I seen such manipulation of the judicial system.


1. Well, the argument is that Treyvon was minding his own business until Zimmerman began to stalk him and follow him around. What was Treyvon doing at the time that would make him suspicious enough for Zimmerman to assume he was up to no good and try to take matters into his own hands? The idea is that he seemed to have a disposition to jump into action, which is especially apparent when he says, "$#@!ing punks... they always get away." But he was dead-set on being a hero that evening and getting the young man, thinking in his mind that he was clearly up to no good. That's one argument, not necessarily my own.

Good for you. Really, that's great. But were you stalking those teens assuming they were going to do bad things before they actually did? Or had they already begun vandalizing when you took action? Had you seen them doing this in the past leading you to conclude they were up to no good again, or did you profile them?

2. And where's your evidence that it was indeed Treyvon Martin who closed the gap between them or that Zimmerman was definitely going back to his car before being "brutally attacked" by Treyvon? Do we even know who threw the first punch or shove? I'm not the one with a horse in this race, you are. I'm still watching the trial and haven't made up my mind entirely as there isn't enough evidence. As it stands, both were in the wrong that evening in my eyes. Or in other words, both did stupid $#@!.

3. What are you talking about? I've already seen someone in this thread state that they're more wary and/or afraid of black people than any other color. My statement was that people who hold such views would make for terrible jurors in this case.

----------


## Antischism

> You are saying it's Zimmerman's fault he got attacked (assuming he did get attacked, which is the safest assumption until there is evidence to the contrary) because he wasn't "minding his own business".
> 
> 
> You are using the exact same logic as blaming women for getting raped because their clothing was too sexy or too revealing.
> 
> In short, your argument is dumb.
> 
> Would you be okay if someone shot and killed a 15 year old kid at 2am? "Oh, you were out past curfew, so it's your fault that you died."
> 
> Ridiculousness.


Way to selectively read. I was merely stating what some people believe to be the case; I haven't made up my mind yet (I may never), I'm still watching the trial. As things are, I'm still of the opinion both were in the wrong in one way or another.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Segal has a TV show or Arpaio has a TV show? - I guess that answers your question - lol!


Arpaio makes appearances on a few shows documenting tent city. He put someone in the hole for saying the conditions were $#@!ty. "Talking back." Steven Segal had a reality television show called "Lawman" (IIRC) He routinely treated people like $#@!, harassing people, and acting as if he is some sort of bad ass.




> Didn't hear about the incident with Segal.  He's a  decent actor, he's into martial arts, Native American philosophy and an environmentalist.  That's about all I know about him without looking up his wikipedia page, which I might do later...


He did a publicity stunt raid with Joe Arpaio over alleged cockfighting. (a misdemeanor) They used an APC to run down the man's gate and it was highly publicized. It was done to promote his new show. In the process somehow all of the man's roosters were euthanized  and his puppy shot and killed. As far as I remember the charges were dropped or possibly pled out? Can't recall the exact circumstances. Segal and Arpaio were sued for the raid which the defendant said was unwarranted and excessive.




> My point was that there are lots of neighborhood watch organizations.
> 
> Didn't we agree that having neighborhood watch and arming teachers was a lot better for protecting schools than putting a cop in every school?


Indeed. My idea of freedom is not a group of wannabe pigs accosting and interrogating anyone they wish walking down that particular section of street. It is the antithesis of freedom. An example would be the Guardian Angels who routinely stops people and expects the people they accost to be required to answer their question. They routinely mace and hit people who tell them to $#@! off. (rightfully so) I don't know how someone hasn't opened fired on those $#@!s by now. (Stood Their Ground.. against illegal detention and a tyrannical wannabe pig mob) I don't know if you've ever seen the show "COPS." That was where I first seen the group. They are a street gang harassing average citizens and ought not be tolerated. They are worse than the police and whose antics should not be tolerated in a free society.




> As to Sheriff Arpaio, I thought he wrote that book about the Sheriff being the top law man, trumping state and feds.  Am I confusing him with another sheriff?


I am not too sure. You are probably correct. In either case he is a statist pig whose policies are despicable. I am not even referring to the gestapo "papers please" tactics. I am referring to everything else he has done. I've wrote pages on it. Before retyping I would want to try and find it and paste it. A few grievances, aside from putting people in the hole for free speech, bragging his dog's dog food costs more than jail inmate food, failing to investigate hundreds of child molestation cases (sometimes whatsoever, many times never followed up on), his tent camp, the targeting of political opponents with bull$#@! child pornography charges, (quite a few) and in general his entire attitude. (not to mention the publicity stunts with Steven Segal etc.)

The man is elected by scared old people. People who espouse their "law and order" (what a joke) views on everything from locking up them dirty dopers to making sure every Mexican has their papers present. By and large a disgusting section of society.




> I haven't really paid attention to the Zimmerman trial other than briefly looking in.  You seem to think he's guilty.  All I've seen is a very weak case.  I might revise my opinion.
> -t


I haven't either. This thread is about the only time I've ever talked about it. I believe he is guilty of instigating the confrontation. He reminds me of the Guardian Angels, the Steven Segals, the nosy $#@! up the road who watches and calls the police every two damn days for whatever the petty reason. I know their type. They don't represent freedom, in fact, they represent quite the opposite and I really couldn't find sympathy for them if I tried. (except to say they deserve adequate representation when one of their antagonistic bull$#@! harassments turns violent or in this deadly) The state's case might be weak and he very well me let go, that has nothing to do with my opinion. Reasonable doubt before sentencing a man to up to decades in prison in a "court of law" and reasonable doubt for me to say it was his actions that directly led to the death of this teen are two entirely different things. Not that Martin wasn't possibly in the wrong. What right have you to follow around someone and ask or demand answers from someone? To follow and harass someone? You have none.

People should be responsible for their own safety, their own property. Neighbors seeing a crime being committed and acting is entirely separate from accosting or following people around like you're Inspector Gadget or a piglet demanding answers to your inquiries.

You know what the Guardian Angels remind me of? Wannabe gangstas of wannabe gangstas. "What hood you from Blood?" equates to "Where do you live and what are your reasons for being here?" They both accost people for walking down certain sections of road to question them. Depending your answer you may beat or detained and at the least harassed. I fail to see liberty in the concept. 

You leave me be and I'll leave you be. That's freedom. I have a theory that people are authoritarian in nature and wish to exert petty power over other people. They get off on it. That and they are trained to be nosy since day one in the womb listening to what celebrity gossip and petty conversation. I'll probably end up moving to the mountains or far into the country. Surburbia doesn't sound too appealing, all things considered.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Maybe not but there's no such thing as an equal amount of violent behavior distributed among the races either, some are statistically more violent than others at least as far as street crime goes. So by the law of averages you have more of a chance being attacked by people of certain races than others.


Some are statistically more likely to live in metropolitans where all of policy, at the end of the day, bubbles down to that cesspool and breeds misery, poverty and violence.

Take cities (population greater than 250,000 or so) out of the equation and let me know what the statistics look like.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> Some are statistically more likely to live in metropolitans where all of policy, at the end of the day, bubbles down to that cesspool and breeds misery, poverty and violence.
> 
> Take cities (population greater than 250,000 or so) out of the equation and let me know what the statistics look like.


soo true!
+rep

As to Areaio and the Guardian Angles, don't follow either much.  I'd heard of the tent city.  Might have even seen a brief news clip about it.
Assuming you've lived in NYC and AZ?  These things are often reported more locally than nationally - or maybe they are just off my radar.

-t

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> soo true!
> +rep
> 
> As to Areaio and the Guardian Angles, don't follow either much.  I'd heard of the tent city.  Might have even seen a brief news clip about it.
> Assuming you've lived in NYC and AZ?  These things are often reported more locally than nationally - or maybe they are just off my radar.
> 
> -t


I've lived in AZ, never in NYC but have traveled there a couple times.

I first saw the Guardian Angels on a COPS episode 10-12 years ago. (they have branches all over the US) They stopped a man to ask him what he was doing in that neighborhood and where he lived. They said he walked off and "acted suspiciously." They tackled him, maced him, searched him and found a small amount of drugs. They detained the man until the cops came and took the guy into custody. Even back then when I saw it I was disgusted by their attitude and tactics. They are a street gang that harasses people of certain neighborhoods asking questions that are not required to be answered. They will physically accost you if you simply walk by them or tell them to mind their own damn business. I see little difference with them and other street gangs that do that same thing. If there is a crime in progress that is one thing but just to randomly stop people like that, that is an entirely different matter. You can find pictures of them looking hard, fists clenched in fighting stances. What a joke.

I first saw Sheriff Joe on the documentary "Drug War: America's Last White Hope." He was bragging about feeding his inmates on less of a budget than they feed the K9s. He reminded me of a few other "law and order" types I've met (authoritarians) and I was not impressed. I watched a few other documentaries on tent city and I've been following a couple of the lawsuits. He has had Judges charged with child pornography or DUIs and ruined careers of four or five political dissidents. I remember Steven Segal's show and the commercial showed him with Arpaio on an APC in fully militarized SWAT gear. I watched the show a few times and Steven Segal is a spitting example of why I despise cops. Granted the show may have been scripted and he was just trying to show off to the law and order types of being a bad ass. I heard a year or so later that a dog was shot during the raid and all the chickens put down. (that was the premise of the raid, to save the animals) I just despise the mentality a lot of people seem to have of having right over another person.

Freedom to me, in its simplest form or definition is, you leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. As long as you aren't infringing on anyone's rights, that is. Some of these guys think they are fighting a war. If it was up to them they'd turn this country into a prison to enforce their code of "morality." (which isn't moral at all, they are just twisted in the head or authoritarians by blood)

----------


## Zippyjuan

> It doesn't matter what the neighborhood watch program is or isn't. He and everyone else in the community has a right to protect themselves from criminals. The police cannot be relied upon, you call them and they come when they get and good and ready (they eat their last dounghnut at the Dunkin Doughnuts).
>  People have got killed waiting for the police to arrive. He did what a hero would have done, and this charge of murder and slandering him in the press is what he gets for his good deed?


What criminal activity was Martin involved in?  He bought a drink and some Skittles at the 7-11 and was walking home to his uncle's place where he was staying.  That is it.  What "threat" was Zimmerman protecting his property from?  Is it a "Good deed" to follow neighbors around?




> People have got killed waiting for the police to arrive. He did what a hero would have done, and this charge of murder and slandering him in the press is what he gets for his good deed?


Zimmerman was the one with the gun and nobody had threatened him.  If he had waited for the police, nobody would have been killed in this sitiuation.

----------


## angelatc

> Well, if had not of attacked a stranger then he would still be alive today. He had a history of attacking people like that, it was bound to happen sooner or later. It is his own fault.  He made a bad choice.


He was walking home from 7-11 with a cold drink and some candy.  If Zimmerman hadn't seen him, none of this would have happened.  It's just a tragedy.

If the colors were reversed, we would not blame the kid one bit for thinking he was about to get robbed or beaten and confronting his stalker.

----------


## belian78

> Zimmerman was the one with the gun and nobody had threatened him.  If he had waited for the police, nobody would have been killed in this sitiuation.


I can't believe that I'm actually agreeing with Zippy.  Mark the calendar folks.  But he's right, this is the simple truth.  Had Zimmerman not tried to be a hero, and left Martin alone, Martin would be alive today and Zimmerman wouldn't find himself in jail.

----------


## Kregisen

> I've lived in AZ, never in NYC but have traveled there a couple times.
> 
> I first saw the Guardian Angels on a COPS episode 10-12 years ago. (they have branches all over the US) They stopped a man to ask him what he was doing in that neighborhood and where he lived. They said he walked off and "acted suspiciously." They tackled him, maced him, searched him and found a small amount of drugs. They detained the man until the cops came and took the guy into custody. Even back then when I saw it I was disgusted by their attitude and tactics. They are a street gang that harasses people of certain neighborhoods asking questions that are not required to be answered. They will physically accost you if you simply walk by them or tell them to mind their own damn business. I see little difference with them and other street gangs that do that same thing. If there is a crime in progress that is one thing but just to randomly stop people like that, that is an entirely different matter. You can find pictures of them looking hard, fists clenched in fighting stances. What a joke.
> 
> I first saw Sheriff Joe on the documentary "Drug War: America's Last White Hope." He was bragging about feeding his inmates on less of a budget than they feed the K9s. He reminded me of a few other "law and order" types I've met (authoritarians) and I was not impressed. I watched a few other documentaries on tent city and I've been following a couple of the lawsuits. He has had Judges charged with child pornography or DUIs and ruined careers of four or five political dissidents. I remember Steven Segal's show and the commercial showed him with Arpaio on an APC in fully militarized SWAT gear. I watched the show a few times and Steven Segal is a spitting example of why I despise cops. Granted the show may have been scripted and he was just trying to show off to the law and order types of being a bad ass. I heard a year or so later that a dog was shot during the raid and all the chickens put down. (that was the premise of the raid, to save the animals) I just despise the mentality a lot of people seem to have of having right over another person.


The cops in AZ in general are the worst (esp Gilbert). Almost every encounter I have I'm dealing with an $#@!. One time I got arrested for DUI. I agreed to 1 sobriety test and afterwards turned the rest down. On the sobriety test I did do (HGN = follow the light) he wrote down I had all 6 cues of impairment, which is the MAXIMUM you can fail it. (if you get 6 cues you have an 80% chance of being over .1 BAC, which is a ton) He also wrote down as I was trying to stand still talking to him, I was swaying back and forth 2.5 inches. He also said my eyes were bloodshot red and that he smelled moderate amount of alcohol on me. And he pulled me over for what he claims was my wheel going over a line as I was turning. He arrested and me and towed my car (was not required to)

Got my blood drawn at a DUI station and 3 months later it came back as .01. Virtually sober. The guy did not exaggerate, he literally made everything up.

If I actually was driving under the influence? I would have gone to Tent City to be sheriff joe's bitch. Joe is an attention whore who loves wasting public funds on whatever he can.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> I can't believe that I'm actually agreeing with Zippy.  Mark the calendar folks.  But he's right, this is the simple truth.  Had Zimmerman not tried to be a hero, and left Martin alone, Martin would be alive today and Zimmerman wouldn't find himself in jail.


And had Martin not gone to buy Skittles, he'd probably be alive today.  That's a simple truth too.  So what?  Zimmerman was doing community watch in his high crime neighborhood.  He saw a suspicious looking kid walking between houses in the rain and went out to investigate.  He's allowed to do that.  And if the person he confronts acts like an animal and punches him in the face and hops on top of him, he's allowed to put that animal down.

----------


## Kregisen

> And had Martin not gone to buy Skittles, he'd probably be alive today.  That's a simple truth too.  So what?  Zimmerman was doing community watch in his high crime neighborhood.  He saw a suspicious looking kid walking between houses in the rain and went out to investigate.  He's allowed to do that.  And if the person he confronts acts like an animal and punches him in the face and hops on top of him, he's allowed to put that animal down.


Please stop, you're making way too much sense.

Here, take my rep.

----------


## Ender

> And had Martin not gone to buy Skittles, he'd probably be alive today.  That's a simple truth too.  So what?  Zimmerman was doing community watch in his high crime neighborhood.  He saw a suspicious looking kid walking between houses in the rain and went out to investigate.  He's allowed to do that.  And if the person he confronts acts like an animal and punches him in the face and hops on top of him, he's allowed to put that animal down.


That's total BS.

It's amazing how people will defend Zimmerman's right to follow someone around and scare the hell out of them in the name of "taking care of the neighborhood" (which is AGAINST all Neighborhood Watch rules, BTW), while astounded on another thread on the forum about plainclothes cops who confronted and attacked girls over a pack of water.

Either they are both right or both wrong.

Talk about not understanding freedom-

----------


## kahless

> That's total BS.
> 
> It's amazing how people will defend Zimmerman's right to follow someone around and scare the hell out of them in the name of "taking care of the neighborhood" (which is AGAINST all Neighborhood Watch rules, BTW), while astounded on another thread on the forum about plainclothes cops who confronted and attacked girls over a pack of water.
> 
> Either they are both right or both wrong.
> 
> Talk about not understanding freedom-


Another total reliance on law enforcement poster.  This case in the national spotlight is having the intended propaganda effect.

----------


## belian78

> And had Martin not gone to buy Skittles, he'd probably be alive today.  That's a simple truth too.  So what?  Zimmerman was doing community watch in his high crime neighborhood.  He saw a suspicious looking kid walking between houses in the rain and went out to investigate.  He's allowed to do that.  And if the person he confronts acts like an animal and punches him in the face and hops on top of him, he's allowed to put that animal down.


That's utter bull$#@!.  I read these forums everyday and read people demonize cops/security/any authority figure for the 'guilty before proven innocent' mindset.  Yet here Zimmerman takes that mentality and he's a frickin neighborhood hero and a victim to some thug?  Forgive my language but $#@! that.  Dude followed a kid walking home.  So what that it was raining, I walk around in the rain all the damn time, and in hoodies.  Does that mean I need to be harrassed?  Just cause I'm walking in the raid with a hoodie on?  Again, $#@! that.  

Zimmerman was being an authoritarian prick, pushed and issue and created a situation that he couldn't handle.  Then he took Martin's life because of the situation that HE created for HIMSELF.  That wasn't self defense.

----------


## Ender

> Another total reliance on law enforcement poster.  This case in the national spotlight is having the intended propaganda effect.


Read much? Comprehension problem?

If it is wrong for plainclothes cops to suddenly confront girls over what they perceive as beer- then it is also wrong for a plainclothes citizen to follow and scare the hell out of someone walking down the street.

Zimmerman was the one that wanted the NW; HE is the one that started it in his community; HE is the one with a violent background; HE is the one that didn't keep to the rules of the NW that HE instigated.

----------


## belian78

> Another total reliance on law enforcement poster.  This case in the national spotlight is having the intended propaganda effect.


How the hell does pointing out the hypocrisy showing total reliance on the law enforcement?  Oh right, it doesn't.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> That's total BS.
> 
> It's amazing how people will defend Zimmerman's right to follow someone around and scare the hell out of them in the name of "taking care of the neighborhood" (which is AGAINST all Neighborhood Watch rules, BTW), while astounded on another thread on the forum about plainclothes cops who confronted and attacked girls over a pack of water.
> 
> Either they are both right or both wrong.
> 
> Talk about not understanding freedom-


I would argue you are the one who doesn't understand freedom if you can equate pulling a gun on a bunch of girls in a parking lot because you don't like the voluntary business transaction they just conducted with the store owner with a guy approaching a suspicious character in his own neighborhood to ask what said character is up to.  The former is an example of a police state and a violation of the non aggression principle on more than one level.  The latter is the sort of organic voluntaryist service that develops naturally, and notably doesn't violate the non aggression principle at all.

----------


## Ender

> That's utter bull$#@!.  I read these forums everyday and read people demonize cops/security/any authority figure for the 'guilty before proven innocent' mindset.  Yet here Zimmerman takes that mentality and he's a frickin neighborhood hero and a victim to some thug?  Forgive my language but $#@! that.  Dude followed a kid walking home.  So what that it was raining, I walk around in the rain all the damn time, and in hoodies.  Does that mean I need to be harrassed?  Just cause I'm walking in the raid with a hoodie on?  Again, $#@! that.  
> 
> Zimmerman was being an authoritarian prick, pushed and issue and created a situation that he couldn't handle.  Then he took Martin's life because of the situation that HE created for HIMSELF.  That wasn't self defense.


Amen, Brother!

Zimmerman is at least guilty of utter stupidity.

----------


## belian78

> I would argue you are the one who doesn't understand freedom if you can equate pulling a gun on a bunch of girls in a parking lot because you don't like the voluntary business transaction they just conducted with the store owner with a guy approaching a suspicious character in his own neighborhood to ask what said character is up to.  The former is an example of a police state and a violation of the non aggression principle on more than one level.  The latter is the sort of organic voluntaryist service that develops naturally, and notably doesn't violate the non aggression principle at all.


You do not have a right to walk up to someone that is doing nothing wrong and demanding anything of them!!!  I don't care if you were beaten senseless everyday by people in hoodies, just cause you see someone walking with a hoodie, that doesn't give you the right to treat them like they are a criminal when they have done no wrong to anyone.  That makes you the aggressor, and you in the wrong.

----------


## Ender

> I would argue you are the one who doesn't understand freedom if you can equate pulling a gun on a bunch of girls in a parking lot because you don't like the voluntary business transaction they just conducted with the store owner with a guy approaching a suspicious character in his own neighborhood to ask what said character is up to.  The former is an example of a police state and a violation of the non aggression principle on more than one level.  The latter is the sort of organic voluntaryist service that develops naturally, and notably doesn't violate the non aggression principle at all.


Again, utter BS.

Who has the right to call anyone suspicious? Is this the Minority Report?

Zimmerman broke the rules that HE rallied for, and got someone killed who was not doing him, or anyone else, any harm.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> You do not have a right to walk up to someone that is doing nothing wrong and demanding anything of them!!!  I don't care if you were beaten senseless everyday by people in hoodies, just cause you see someone walking with a hoodie, that doesn't give you the right to treat them like they are a criminal when they have done no wrong to anyone.  That makes you the aggressor, and you in the wrong.


Actually I do have the right to walk up to anybody I want and demand something from them.  Just as that person has the right to refuse my demands and tell me to buzz off.  Having conversations with strangers is not "aggression".  Aggression is when you respond to a stranger's queries by punching them in the face.

----------


## belian78

> Actually I do have the right to walk up to anybody I want and demand something from them.  Just as that person has the right to refuse my demands and tell me to buzz off.  Having conversations with strangers is not "aggression".  Aggression is when you respond to a stranger's queries by punching them in the face.


If you come up to me and treat me like a criminal when I'm walking home, you are the one that is initiating aggression towards me.  I'm going to tell you to $#@! off and if you press the issue I'm gonna break your nose.  So I deserve to have my life taken from me, when I was the one walking not harming anyone, and you are the one that aggressed against me!?

----------


## belian78

Seriously, that last reply blows my mind.  You can walk up to anyone, at anytime for any reason and demand them tell you what they are doing and that's supposed to be ok?  Really!?  Antagonizing someone until they attack you physically, then killing them in 'self defense' is ok!?  That's exactly what the $#@! our government does to every other third world nation in the world, and we scream for our 'leaders' to be tried for war crimes for god's sake!  But in this case it's ok?  

My mind is blown.

----------


## aGameOfThrones

> If you come up to me and treat me like a criminal when I'm walking home, you are the one that is initiating aggression towards me.  I'm going to tell you to $#@! off and if you press the issue I'm gonna break your nose.  So I deserve to have my life taken from me, when I was the one walking not harming anyone, and you are the one that aggressed against me!?


Not if it's a cop.

----------


## belian78

> Not if it's a cop.


You seem to be under the impression that I wouldn't defend myself against wrongful arrest.

----------


## aGameOfThrones

> You seem to be under the impression that I wouldn't defend myself against wrongful arrest.




There is a high probability you wont be able to.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

> You seem to be under the impression that I wouldn't defend myself against wrongful arrest.


nice knowing ya, and your dog

----------


## Ender

> If you come up to me and treat me like a criminal when I'm walking home, you are the one that is initiating aggression towards me.  I'm going to tell you to $#@! off and if you press the issue I'm gonna break your nose.  So I deserve to have my life taken from me, when I was the one walking not harming anyone, and you are the one that aggressed against me!?


Apparently. 

Freedom of travel does not seem to be comprehended by some so-called "liberty lovers".

----------


## Ender

> Not if it's a cop.


So, if its wrong for a cop, why is it right for a mundane?

----------


## Dr.3D

> So, if its wrong for a cop, why is it right for a mundane?


Cuz we don't have a badge, silly.

----------


## kahless

> I would argue you are the one who doesn't understand freedom if you can equate pulling a gun on a bunch of girls in a parking lot because you don't like the voluntary business transaction they just conducted with the store owner with a guy approaching a suspicious character in his own neighborhood to ask what said character is up to.  The former is an example of a police state and a violation of the non aggression principle on more than one level.  *The latter is the sort of organic voluntaryist service that develops naturally, and notably doesn't violate the non aggression principle at all.*


^This.

If someone is walking around under the over hang of my house or my neighbors house and I ask them "do you live here?"  That is not aggression. 

I applaud any of my neighborhoods if they do the same for me.  

I have been questioned by neighbors in the middle of night walk that were new to the area and did not know who I was.  I did not attack them or start to throw punches.  We had a normal conversation.

----------


## rpfocus

> Seriously, that last reply blows my mind.  You can walk up to anyone, at anytime for any reason and demand them tell you what they are doing and that's supposed to be ok?  Really!?  Antagonizing someone until they attack you physically, then killing them in 'self defense' is ok!?  That's exactly what the $#@! our government does to every other third world nation in the world, and we scream for our 'leaders' to be tried for war crimes for god's sake!  But in this case it's ok?  
> 
> My mind is blown.


LOL don't forget this is supposed to be the liberty and freedom crowd.

----------


## kahless

> LOL don't forget this is supposed to be the liberty and freedom crowd.


Liberty and freedom to be safe in your home without hoodlums creeping around the windows of my house.  If someone is doing that your damn right I am going to question them.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

This thread is full of fail.

----------


## rpfocus

And after you're done chasing down a (much smaller) high schooler for daring to walk down your street, and he turns around and beats your ass, you can just shoot them, right? Comical. Liberty indeed.

----------


## kahless

> And after you're done chasing down a (much smaller) high schooler for daring to walk down your street, and he turns around and beats your ass, you can just shoot them, right? Comical. Liberty indeed.


Amazing that some people think it is wrong to question someone that is creeping around the windows of a house.  Obviously big difference from the bull$#@! you just posted.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Amazing that some people think it is wrong to question someone that is creeping around the windows of a house.  Obviously big difference from the bull$#@! you just posted.


It was my understanding he was walking down the street. "Creeping around the windows".... "creeping."

I see what you did there.

----------


## AuH20

Did Zimmerman lay a finger on Martin before Martin proceeded to attack him??????? That's the million dollar question. If not, then no violation of the sacred non-aggression principle.

----------


## rpfocus

> Amazing that some people think it is wrong to question someone that is creeping around the windows of a house.  Obviously big difference from the bull$#@! you just posted.


Because you're completely shifting the narrative. Zimmerman's call was about a 'suspicious' person walking about, not someone 'creeping around the windows of a house'. Zimmerman 'questioned him', Zimmerman chased him down (in defense? lol), rightfully got his ass kicked when he caught up to him, then shot him. 

There's not much chance at rational debate on this issue though. Way to much bigotry lurking under the surface.

----------


## AuH20

Now regarding the psychological profile of Martin, based off reports, I suspect he was your typical punk kid (irrespective of race I might add; ignorance and bravado is a youth calling card) that thought he was mightier than the world and invulnerable to anything. We usually pick up the remains of these type of kids off the Southern State Parkway after they recklessly speed around blind turns and end up dismembering themselves & their vehicle. 

Martin being of the larger stature, thought he would teach the much smaller Zimmerman a stark lesson by beating him into a coma for dare questioning him. However, as we all know, life tends to throw one a curveball from time to time, which Martin found out firsthand. With that said, maybe the most appropriate sentencing if anything, would be a lesser manslaughter charge for Zimmerman.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Did Zimmerman lay a finger on Martin before Martin proceeded to attack him??????? That's the million dollar question. If not, then no violation of the sacred non-aggression principle.


As far as I'm concerned, interrogating someone as to where they live and their reasons for being on "your" street is aggression. Chasing someone down is aggression. If the person didn't take heed to the warning of "Leave me the $#@! alone," or "None of your damn business" and continued following or harassing the person and the person being harassed turned around and defended himself, that's to be expected and the results of which are to blame on the aggression of the person following/harassing. That's the million dollar question - Did Zimmerman do that, as the 9-1-1 call and area where the fight took place seems to indicate, or was he walking back to his car and the "creeper" ran over and attacked him for no reason? (as the 9-1-1 call and area of the fight seem to rule out)

----------


## Dr.3D

> Did Zimmerman lay a finger on Martin before Martin proceeded to attack him??????? That's the million dollar question. If not, then no violation of the sacred non-aggression principle.


That's right.   I find it interesting how many people here seem to believe it's okay to just walk up to somebody and punch them in the face.

----------


## kahless

> It was my understanding he was walking down the street. "Creeping around the windows".... "creeping."
> 
> I see what you did there.


Not saying he was but was specifically referring to the exaggeration and never questioning someone which I think is ridiculous.

According to wikipedia Zimmerman said the guy was walking behind the town homes instead of on the street or the sidewalk in a neighborhood which had break-ins.

If true and he was acting suspiciously as claimed by Zimmerman, why not stop and have a conversation.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> That's right.   I find it interesting how many people here seem to believe it's okay to just walk up to somebody and punch them in the face.


If someone is following me (harassing, menacing) they could very well be fended off. That is not simply walking up and punching someone in the face. Discouraging further harassment is actually quite a reasonable response. Of course I would ask (and have) why they were following me.

There are neighborhoods like that, you know. Where you are stopped because of the colors of your clothes and asked where you live.. what you're doing there, who you know. If you try to run you are chased down. (gang neighborhoods) You'd be singing a different tune if a white kid defended himself from that sort of harassment by a black man. Most people here would. Now, I myself, I'd be singing the same tune of that the person minding his own business walking down the road has every reasonable expectation of not being harassed. This is America. I'll walk down any damn road I wish. You come chasing after me or asking who I know, I'll rightfully tell you none of your goddamn business, depending tone and the reason for your inquiry. You continue following me or harassing me, I will rightfully fend you off. (i.e. punch them in the face)

----------


## rpfocus

> Martin being of the larger stature, thought he would teach the much smaller Zimmerman a stark lesson by beating him into a coma for dare questioning him.



Per Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin)
Zimmerman height and weight: 5'9" 200lbs
Martin height and weight: 6'0" 160lbs

Hmm I wouldn't call Martin's 3 inches in height an advantage over Zimmerman's extra 40 pounds. Could be why Martin chose to run, and Zimmerman had to chase him down "in defense."

----------


## belian78

> Amazing that some people think it is wrong to question someone that is creeping around the windows of a house.  Obviously big difference from the bull$#@! you just posted.


He wasn't 'creeping around windows', he was walking home.  He wasn't bothering anyone and as such, he's protected under the 4th amendment to not be stopped by douchebags treating him like a criminal when he's not doing anything wrong.

----------


## AuH20

> Zimmerman height and weight: 5'9" 200lbs
> Martin height and weight: 6'0" 160lbs
> 
> Hmm I wouldn't call Martin's 3 inches in height an advantage over Zimmerman's extra 40 pounds. Could be why Martin chose to run, and Zimmerman had to chase him down "in defense".


Martin was an active football player, while Zimmerman was a doughy & out of shape dwarf. I suspect the muscle mass comparison was heavily skewed into Trayvon's direction, due to his youth and body type. If anyone ran into George Zimmerman in a dark alleyway, they would probably giggle.

----------


## belian78

> That's right.   I find it interesting how many people here seem to believe it's okay to just walk up to somebody and punch them in the face.


I'm amazed at how people here think it's ok to walk up to someone walking down the street and give them the gestapo treatment.

----------


## belian78

Man, if I lived in some of y'all's world growin up, I'da been shot dead many times over.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I'm amazed at how people here think it's ok to walk up to someone walking down the street and give them the gestapo treatment.


The line is usually drawn at physical violence.

----------


## kahless

> He wasn't 'creeping around windows', he was walking home.  He wasn't bothering anyone and as such, he's protected under the 4th amendment to not be stopped by douchebags treating him like a criminal when he's not doing anything wrong.


I did not say he was, that is taken out of context.

According to wikipedia Zimmerman said the guy was walking behind the town homes instead of on the street or the sidewalk in a neighborhood that had break-ins.  

Nothing wrong with simply having a conversation.  I never said anything about searching him or holding him for questioning.

----------


## belian78

> The line is usually drawn at physical violence.


Would that physical violence even have taken place had Zimmerman not chased down Martin and tried to be the hero?  No, it wouldn't have.  Martin would have been back home watching the second half of that basketball game.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Would that physical violence even have taken place had Zimmerman not chased down Martin and tried to be the hero?  No, it wouldn't have.  Martin would have been back home watching the second half of that basketball game.


Makes no difference what excuse the one being violent wishes to use, they were wrong when they drew first blood.

----------


## rpfocus

> Martin was an active football player, while Zimmerman was a doughy & out of shape dwarf. I suspect the muscle mass comparison was heavily skewed into Trayvon's direction, due to his youth and body type. If anyone ran into George Zimmerman in a dark alleyway, they would probably giggle.


5'9" is a dwarf now? I know I wouldn't be giggling if a 5'9" "dwarf" with a concealed handgun came to interrogate me on a rainy night for walking down the street. Looks like we need to give kids CCW licences now to even the playing field.

----------


## Dr.3D

> 5'9" is a dwarf now? I know I wouldn't be giggling if a 5'9" "dwarf" with a concealed handgun came to interrogate me on a rainy night for walking down the street. Looks like we need to give kids CCW licences now to even the playing field.


Na, just don't physically assault the "dwarf" and he wouldn't have an excuse to shoot you.

----------


## matt0611

> Would that physical violence even have taken place had Zimmerman not chased down Martin and tried to be the hero?  No, it wouldn't have.  Martin would have been back home watching the second half of that basketball game.


Who cares if it wouldn't have? 

Its not illegal to simply follow someone in a public place who you think is suspicious. Or even talk to them and ask questions.

And if Trayvon never left the house that night this wouldn't have happened either. So???

----------


## RonPaulMall

> If someone is walking around under the over hang of my house or my neighbors house and I ask them "do you live here?"  That is not aggression. 
> 
> I applaud any of my neighborhoods if they do the same for me.  
> 
> I have been questioned by neighbors in the middle of night walk that were new to the area and did not know who I was.  I did not attack them or start to throw punches.  We had a normal conversation.


Yeah, this is the real issue with what happened.  A normal person isn't going to go crazy and attack a neighbor just because they are asking who they are or what they are up to.  They'd probably just shrug it off.  Maybe they'd get peeved if they thought it was unreasonable.  If they were really peeved maybe they'd make a mental note and not invite the guy to the next bar-b-que.  But under no circumstances would they punch the person in the face.  Trayvon's problem is that the "thug" culture he grew up in led him to treat what was at most annoying behavior as some kind of assault on his manhood.  He felt "dissed" and his culture teaches him that "disses" must be met with violence.  A lot of times that wouldn't be a fatal character flaw.  But this time he messed with the wrong guy, and he's dead as a result.

----------


## rpfocus

> Na, just don't physically assault the "dwarf" and he wouldn't have an excuse to shoot you.


Oh trust me, I'd be the one facing murder charges if Zimmerman had tried that with me. Then again, I'm not a kid and have a CCW permit. If I'm walking down the street minding my own business, it would be a... mistake... to interrogate me.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> He wasn't 'creeping around windows', he was walking home.  He wasn't bothering anyone and as such, he's protected under the 4th amendment to not be stopped by douchebags treating him like a criminal when he's not doing anything wrong.


The 4th Amendment protects you from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.  It doesn't protect you from conversations with your neighbors.

----------


## AuH20

> The 4th Amendment protects you from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.  It doesn't protect you from conversations with your neighbors.


Very true. From the police report, it's not like Zimmerman physically pounced on Martin from out of the blue and then to proceeded to rifle though his belongings.

----------


## matt0611

> Oh trust me, I'd be the one facing murder charges if Zimmerman had tried that with me. Then again, I'm not a kid and have a CCW permit. If I'm walking down the street minding my own business, it would be a... mistake... to interrogate me.


Yes, you definitely would be facing murder charges if you simply shot and killed someone for asking you questions in a public place.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Oh trust me, I'd be the one facing murder charges if Zimmerman had tried that with me. Then again, I'm not a kid and have a CCW permit. If I'm walking down the street minding my own business, it would be a... mistake... to interrogate me.


Sounds like you have a propensity toward violence.

----------


## AuH20

> Yeah, this is the real issue with what happened.  A normal person isn't going to go crazy and attack a neighbor just because they are asking who they are or what they are up to.  They'd probably just shrug it off.  Maybe they'd get peeved if they thought it was unreasonable.  If they were really peeved maybe they'd make a mental note and not invite the guy to the next bar-b-que.  But under no circumstances would they punch the person in the face.  Trayvon's problem is that the "thug" culture he grew up in led him to treat what was at most annoying behavior as some kind of assault on his manhood.  He felt "dissed" and his culture teaches him that "disses" must be met with violence.  A lot of times that wouldn't be a fatal character flaw.  But this time he messed with the wrong guy, and he's dead as a result.


Trayvon was a thug in training. Not sure he deserved to die because he was pigheaded teen, since I know plenty. It was just an unfortunate series of events.

----------


## Danan

> Oh trust me, I'd be the one facing murder charges if Zimmerman had tried that with me. Then again, I'm not a kid and have a CCW permit. If I'm walking down the street minding my own business, it would be a... mistake... to interrogate me.


You would shoot someone who is approaching you asking you what you're doing? That's just crazy. Even more crazy than punching the guy in the face.

I don't know what happend in the Martin/Zimmerman case, but even if you believe asking someone a question or following someone is rude, unnecessary or inappropriate - it is by no means an excuse to use physical violance against this person. And if you are using violance to resolve this, I'm honestly hoping the other guy wins out in the end, whatever that might mean.

----------


## rpfocus

> Sounds like you have a propensity toward violence.


I could probably turn violent in certain situations. However, past behavior would indicate that I don't have a propensity toward violence.

----------


## rpfocus

> That's right.  I should be able to follow someone around all I want without fear they are going to try to kill me.


Good luck with that.

----------


## kahless

> Yeah, this is the real issue with what happened.  A normal person isn't going to go crazy and attack a neighbor just because they are asking who they are or what they are up to.  They'd probably just shrug it off.  Maybe they'd get peeved if they thought it was unreasonable.  If they were really peeved maybe they'd make a mental note and not invite the guy to the next bar-b-que.  But under no circumstances would they punch the person in the face.  Trayvon's problem is that the "thug" culture he grew up in led him to treat what was at most annoying behavior as some kind of assault on his manhood.  He felt "dissed" and his culture teaches him that "disses" must be met with violence.  A lot of times that wouldn't be a fatal character flaw.  But this time he messed with the wrong guy, and he's dead as a result.


That about sums it up.  

In my case I was not acting suspiciously or near any homes. It was in the middle of the night.  I was pissed and my neighbor was out of line. 

If I had kept walking and he followed, it still would have developed into a conversation since I see no reason to open up with punches but then again I was not raised in that culture.

Turns out the house next to him and me had been robbed twice in the 6 months in broad daylight after that.  Maybe my neighbor being a dick asking strangers if they are from around here is not so bad.

----------


## belian78

Holy hell, I hate when folks throw out the race card, 99.99% of the time it's an excuse to end an argument.  But in this case I just cannot explain any other reason that Zimmerman's actions being defended here, and the automatic assumption that Martin was some 'violent thug'.  Sure you can question someone in your neighborhood that's acting suspicious, sure.  But walking home in the rain is not suspicious, at least it's not to average folks that aren't looking for reasons to be a hero.  

When Zimmerman had to chase down Martin, that's when he went beyond reasonable, that's where he goes into the indefensible.  Sure, someone walking around you or a neighbor's house, sure ask em what they're up to.  But when someone is walking down the street minding their own business, when you follow that person and harass them, then you are in the wrong.  

We'll never know exactly how the confrontation between the two men went down because of Zimmerman's actions.

----------


## belian78

> Trayvon was a thug in training. Not sure he deserved to die because he was pigheaded teen, since I know plenty. It was just an unfortunate series of events.


How the hell do you know who Martin was?  You can't all you can do is ASSume based off the color of his skin and the caps in his teeth.  He didn't deserved to be chased down and harrassed by a wannabe cop giving him the gestapo routine for walking home in the rain.

----------


## mad cow

I don't know if this has been posted yet,but here is Zimmerman's side of the story,recorded the day after it happened.

----------


## rpfocus

> I don't know if this has been posted yet,but here is Zimmerman's side of the story,recorded the day after it happened.


Good thing he killed the other side of the story, eh?

----------


## mad cow

> Good thing he killed the other side of the story, eh?


He killed Martin,he admits it in this video.Good or bad are in the eye of the beholder,or in this case,a jury in Florida.

----------


## Kregisen

> That's total BS.
> 
> It's amazing how people will defend Zimmerman's right to follow someone around and scare the hell out of them in the name of "taking care of the neighborhood" (which is AGAINST all Neighborhood Watch rules, BTW), while astounded on another thread on the forum about plainclothes cops who confronted and attacked girls over a pack of water.
> 
> Either they are both right or both wrong.
> 
> Talk about not understanding freedom-


You obviously have no idea what freedom is if you don't understand how cops pulling guns on people/arresting them for no reason is the same as a man walking around his neighborhood since it's robbed once or twice a week following someone. 

1 of these two scenarios is taking away the freedom of others - while the other is an EXERCISE of freedom. You're being a statist right now if you're trying to say we should make laws forbidding citizens to walk around their neighborhood because they are suspicious of someone.





> You do not have a right to walk up to someone that is doing nothing wrong and demanding anything of them!!


Actually, in America, you do have the right to walk up to someone and demand whatever you want. They also have the freedom to reject you and walk away. 





> Would that physical violence even have taken place had Zimmerman not chased down Martin and tried to be the hero?  No, it wouldn't have.  Martin would have been back home watching the second half of that basketball game.


Are you implying that rapes are the woman's fault if she wore sexy or revealing clothing?

And are you implying that if a 15-year old gets shot at by police at 3am it's his fault because he was out past curfew?

After all, neither of those would have happened if the woman didn't dress sexy and stayed at home, and if the 15-year old wasn't out so late. 

It's hard to respect someone that would make an argument like that belian. Simply not making any sense here.

----------


## belian78

I'll just say, if Zimmerman were to take the stand with the statements he used in this video, the defense lawyer would have a field day.

----------


## belian78

> You obviously have no idea what freedom is if you don't understand how cops pulling guns on people/arresting them for no reason is the same as a man walking around his neighborhood since it's robbed once or twice a week following someone. 
> 
> 1 of these two scenarios is taking away the freedom of others - while the other is an EXERCISE of freedom. You're being a statist right now if you're trying to say we should make laws forbidding citizens to walk around their neighborhood because they are suspicious of someone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, in America, you do have the right to walk up to someone and demand whatever you want. They also have the freedom to reject you and walk away. 
> 
> ...


It's hard to respect someone that puts words in others' mouths and use strawmen too.

----------


## AuH20

> How the hell do you know who Martin was?  You can't all you can do is ASSume based off the color of his skin and the caps in his teeth.  He didn't deserved to be chased down and harrassed by a wannabe cop giving him the gestapo routine for walking home in the rain.


It was widely circulated via his own twitter and facebook network that Martin was recently involved in two physical altercations in high school. He was caught with woman's jewelry and then was busted for vandalizing school property with a spray paint can. There was no assuming on my part. He was a wet-behind-the-ears kid who thought he had all the answers. Unfortunately, the world has the propensity to chew on and then spit out these type of kids.

----------


## AuH20

Anyway see Trayvon the Wise's tweets? He was a regular street Copernicus. (NSFW language)

http://www.rightwingnews.com/10-rand...guage-warning/

----------


## brushfire

> 1. Well, the argument is that Treyvon was minding his own business until Zimmerman began to stalk him and follow him around. What was Treyvon doing at the time that would make him suspicious enough for Zimmerman to assume he was up to no good and try to take matters into his own hands? The idea is that he seemed to have a disposition to jump into action, which is especially apparent when he says, "$#@!ing punks... they always get away." But he was dead-set on being a hero that evening and getting the young man, thinking in his mind that he was clearly up to no good. That's one argument, not necessarily my own.
> 
> Good for you. Really, that's great. But were you stalking those teens assuming they were going to do bad things before they actually did? Or had they already begun vandalizing when you took action? Had you seen them doing this in the past leading you to conclude they were up to no good again, or did you profile them?
> 
> 2. And where's your evidence that it was indeed Treyvon Martin who closed the gap between them or that Zimmerman was definitely going back to his car before being "brutally attacked" by Treyvon? Do we even know who threw the first punch or shove? I'm not the one with a horse in this race, you are. I'm still watching the trial and haven't made up my mind entirely as there isn't enough evidence. As it stands, both were in the wrong that evening in my eyes. Or in other words, both did stupid $#@!.
> 
> 3. What are you talking about? I've already seen someone in this thread state that they're more wary and/or afraid of black people than any other color. My statement was that people who hold such views would make for terrible jurors in this case.


1.  Yes, the vandals had struck my neighbor 3 times that summer.  The 2 times it wasnt as destructive - toilet paper, shaving creme, road horses were also taken from a construction site and left in their driveway (obstructing vehicles).  I'd become progressively worse, even to the point where they had tried to enter the sunroom in the back.  So its a scenario which is quite similar.  It just so happened on the last time they'd come while I was awake (was watching lord of the rings on DVD - so I was feeling extra heroic LOL).  Its easily argued that Treyvon was profiled - but in the presence of other evidence, I dont believe that is as relevant as its been made to be.  Treyvon simply stood out.  He was out for a stroll at night in the rain, in a gated community that had some incidents of crime.  He's black, and stood out, as far as the norm.  That's why he was "stalked".

2.  The problem with this is that Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty.  The evidence is not conclusive, but there's nothing to dispute it either.  The trial is strictly based on whether Zimmerman's act was in self defense.  Zimmerman was on the phone with the dispatch at the time he got out of his car.  The tone of his voice when he said "$#@!ing punks", was not nearly as charged as the defense lawyers had portrayed it.  The whole thing can be heard on the non-emergency call.

3.  I didnt realize you were addressing particular posts, I'm sorry for that.  I've been having a hard time watching this trial unfold - I personally believe Zimmerman should not even be on trial, so I may have jumped the gun on you.  The whole race card has been played to death on this case...  To your point, it is unfortunate that some people are racist, to varying degrees.  One thing is for sure, I would hope to never have my freedom subject to a jury trial - especially one like this.

----------


## Madison320

Let's assume Zimmerman ran down Martin and attacked him, even though that would appear to be highly unlikely. Does that give Martin the right to kill Zimmerman? 

Suppose I start a fight but the other guy starts kicking my ass. I give up and concede defeat. The other guy is on top and starts bashing my head into the ground over and over even though I'm crying out for him to stop and losing consciousness. Isn't this attempted murder even though I started it? It's one thing to be in a fight but if you win the fight and then keep pounding the loser's head into concrete that's attempted murder.

----------


## Zippyjuan

How did Zimmerman end up where Martin was killed? He was by the main gate to the complex when he saw Martin walk by with his Skittles and soda.  He drove about a block because Martin "looked odd" and calls the police.  During that conversation he hops out of the truck and starts chasing Martin who is walking away (towards where he was living).  Police tell him to "Not be doing that" (following Martin).  He says OK and also says he will meet the police back at the main gate.  But Martin is killed farther from the gate- in the opposite direction.  The confrontation occured because Zimmerman went after Martin- therefor, he bears responsiblity and cannot say that what he did was any form of self defence.   Self defence is when somebody else comes after you.

----------


## Contumacious

> How did Zimmerman end up where Martin was killed? He was by the main gate to the complex when he saw Martin walk by with his Skittles and soda.  He drove about a block because Martin "looked odd" and calls the police.  During that conversation he hops out of the truck and starts chasing Martin who is walking away (towards where he was living).  Police tell him to "Not be doing that" (following Martin).  He says OK and also says he will meet the police back at the main gate.  But Martin is killed farther from the gate- in the opposite direction.  The confrontation occured because Zimmerman went after Martin- therefor, he bears responsiblity and cannot say that what he did was any form of self defence.   Self defence is when somebody else comes after you.


Yo Zippy

Isn't the neighborhood watchman supposed to monitor the suspect's whereabouts until the police gets there?

Isn't it the responsibility of the guest in a GATED COMMUNITY to show that he has the right to be there?

Doesn't Florida law allow citizens' arrests?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Isn't the neighborhood watchman supposed to monitor the suspect's whereabouts until the police gets there?


The cops told him not to follow Martin- that they were on their way. 




> Doesn't Florida law allow citizens' arrests?


Arrest for what? Walking?  Martin had committed no crime and there was no reason to reasonably think he had. 




> Isn't it the responsibility of the guest in a GATED COMMUNITY to show that he has the right to be there?


Usually having a key is enough.  There isn't some doorman checking IDs on everybody like at a military base. Martin had the same right to be there as Zimmerman.  Zimmerman didn't have the right or power to check if people lived there or not.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...watch/2455163/



> The *president of the homeowners association* for the community where the shooting took place testified that he* didn't think a neighborhood watch program was needed* and that Zimmerman was in charge of the community's program from the very beginning.
> 
> Donald O'Brien stressed that the *homeowners association had nothing to do with the neighborhood watch program* but that he did attend a meeting to start it. *Residents were told to "stay away" from suspicious people and call police*, O'Brien said.


http://thegrio.com/2012/03/21/zimmer...-organization/




> *George Zimmerman not a member of recognized neighborhood watch organization*
> 
> When 28-year-old George Zimmerman was discovered by Sanford, Florida police standing over the body of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, they accepted Zimmerman’s claim that he killed in self-defense as a neighborhood watch captain. Now, through a statement released by the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) — the parent organization of USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch — it has been revealed that *Zimmerman was not a member of any group recognized by the organization. Zimmerman violated the central tenets of Neighborhood Watch by following Martin, confronting him and carrying a concealed weapon.*
> 
> “In no program that I have ever heard of does someone patrol with a gun in their pocket,” Carmen Caldwell, the Executive Director of Citizens’ Crime Watch of Miami-Dade, told theGrio. “Every city and municipality has their own policies. Here in Miami-Dade we train people only to be the eyes and ears of their communities. Not to follow and most definitely not to carry a weapon.” 
> 
> Despite this, Zimmerman admitted that he had fired a weapon on the night of the incident. In addition, the non-emergency call Zimmerman placed on February 26 before the shooting revealed he had been pursuing Martin by car before accosting the youth on foot — *all direct violations of Neighborhood Watch policies.*

----------


## kahless

> The cops told him not to follow Martin- that they were on their way.


They said "we do not need you to do that".  That was a statement, not an order.  She was neither a police officer nor a 911 operator. He called the non-emergency number as he was instructed to do. In her testimony, she stated that for liability reasons, they do not give orders.

It is amazing that you believe a neighborhood watch person in a gated community should not ask questions or keep an eye on someone.  This case and people like you are putting the average citizens safety at risk by pushing this narrative which we all know where it leads.

----------


## Contumacious

> The cops told him not to follow Martin- that they were on their way.


The 911 operator suggestion is not the law. Zimmerman was a property owner in the gated community. He has the right to protect the peace and tranquility of the residents.






> Arrest for what? Walking?  Martin had committed no crime and there was no reason to reasonably think he had.[


Martin did not have a sign on his forehead stating that he was a resident or an authorized guest. 






> Usually having a key is enough.  There isn't some doorman checking IDs on everybody like at a military base. Martin had the same right to be there as Zimmerman.  Zimmerman didn't have the right or power to check if people lived there or not.


The residents of the PRIVATE COMMUNITY decided to have a neighborhood watch due to many crimes. They had all the right in the world to prevent their PRIVATE GATED COMMUNITY from becoming another Cabrini–Green project.

.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Martin did not have a sign on his forehead stating that he was a resident or an authorized guest.


Neither do any other residents including Zimmerman. 




> The residents of the PRIVATE COMMUNITY decided to have a neighborhood watch due to many crimes. They had all the right in the world to prevent their PRIVATE GATED COMMUNITY from becoming another Cabrini–Green project.


If you read my post, you would see that the homeowners association said one was not needed.

In case that was missed:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...watch/2455163/



> The *president of the homeowners association* for the community where the shooting took place testified that he* didn't think a neighborhood watch program was needed* and that Zimmerman was in charge of the community's program from the very beginning.
> 
> Donald O'Brien stressed that the *homeowners association had nothing to do with the neighborhood watch program* but that he did attend a meeting to start it. *Residents were told to "stay away" from suspicious people and call police*, O'Brien said.


http://thegrio.com/2012/03/21/zimmer...-organization/




> *George Zimmerman not a member of recognized neighborhood watch organization*
> 
> When 28-year-old George Zimmerman was discovered by Sanford, Florida police standing over the body of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, they accepted Zimmerman’s claim that he killed in self-defense as a neighborhood watch captain. Now, through a statement released by the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) — the parent organization of USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch — it has been revealed that *Zimmerman was not a member of any group recognized by the organization. Zimmerman violated the central tenets of Neighborhood Watch by following Martin, confronting him and carrying a concealed weapon.*
> 
> “In no program that I have ever heard of does someone patrol with a gun in their pocket,” Carmen Caldwell, the Executive Director of Citizens’ Crime Watch of Miami-Dade, told theGrio. “Every city and municipality has their own policies. Here in Miami-Dade we train people only to be the eyes and ears of their communities. Not to follow and most definitely not to carry a weapon.” 
> 
> Despite this, Zimmerman admitted that he had fired a weapon on the night of the incident. In addition, the non-emergency call Zimmerman placed on February 26 before the shooting revealed he had been pursuing Martin by car before accosting the youth on foot — *all direct violations of Neighborhood Watch policies.*


What actions did Martin commit which would make him a crime suspect- beyond being a black youth?

----------


## Contumacious

> Neither do any other residents including Zimmerman. 
> 
> 
> 
> If you read my post, you would see that the homeowners association said one was not needed.
> 
> In case that was missed:
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...watch/2455163/
> ...


Bull$#@!.


* In Florida, A Gated Community is Not Open To The Public. Should Zimmerman Have Ignored a Trespasser?*

.

----------


## Zippyjuan

He was living there with his uncle.  He wasn't a trespasser and he wasn't committing any crimes.

----------


## RickyJ

> Neither do any other residents including Zimmerman. 
> 
> 
> 
> If you read my post, you would see that the homeowners association said one was not needed.
> 
> In case that was missed:
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...watch/2455163/
> ...


So what are you trying to say Zippyjuan? Do you think that Zimmerman was just looking to shoot someone, is that it? Because I think that is ludicrous to assume considering he just called the police because of this suspicious person. It makes much more sense that he was trying to find out what this guy was up to walking slowly in the dark on the grass while it was raining with his hood up. That is about as suspicious as it gets!

----------


## Zippyjuan

I don't think he intended to go and shoot somebody but yes, he did want this person stopped and he was going to make sure he did not get away. 

Transcript of his phonecall to the police: http://bizsecurity.about.com/od/crea...olice-Call.htm




> Okay. *These (expletive) they always get away.* Yep. When you come to the clubhouse you come straight in and make a left. Actually you would go past the clubhouse.


His description of the "criminal activity":



> 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*.


Map for some perspective: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...9QEwAA&dur=925


He entered the main gate at the top. "D" is where he was staying and "F" is where he was killed. "B" is where he said he would meet the police.

----------


## Contumacious

> He was living there with his uncle.  He wasn't a trespasser and he wasn't committing any crimes.


IF TRUE....that fact wasn't available to Mr Z.

.

----------


## kahless

> Neither do any other residents including Zimmerman. 
> 
> 
> 
> If you read my post, you would see that the homeowners association said one was not needed.
> 
> In case that was missed:
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...watch/2455163/
> ...


You are complaining that he was not a member of an official neighborhood watch organization to perform the duties of a neighborhood watch. You got to be kidding me. 

Did you even bother to read the USA Today link you provided. See below.




> O'Brien added that police indicated it was acceptable to follow suspicious persons at a safe distance.
> 
> She added that she believe Zimmerman was a professional person who wanted to make a change in his community, which had been targeted by burglars. 
> 
> Zimmerman lawyer Don West asked Dorival whether a person walking in rain between houses without a particular purpose — a description of Trayvon the night of the shooting — was suspicious. Dorival said yes and added that she encourages neighbors to know who doesn't belong and to call police.

----------


## Zippyjuan

"At a safe distance". Close enough to get into a fight is not a safe distance.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> They said "we do not need you to do that".  That was a statement, not an order.  She was neither a police officer nor a 911 operator. He called the non-emergency number as he was instructed to do. In her testimony, she stated that for liability reasons, they do not give orders.
> 
> It is amazing that you believe a neighborhood watch person in a gated community should not ask questions or keep an eye on someone.  This case and people like you are *putting the average citizens safety at risk by pushing this narrative which we all know where it leads.*


Average citizens safe from wanna-be cops with guns harrassing people walking down the street? That is freedom?  Is it any different from real cops doing the same thing?

"He doesn't look right.  Better pull over and check him out!"

----------


## matt0611

> The cops told him not to follow Martin- that they were on their way.


No they didn't. Stop repeating this lie.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> No they didn't. Stop repeating this lie.


From the transcript:
http://bizsecurity.about.com/od/crea...olice-Call.htm




> Dispatcher
> 
> He's running? Which way is he running?
> Ambient sounds are heard which may be Zimmerman unbuckling his seat belt and his vehicle's "open door" chime sounding. The change in his voice and the sound of wind against his cell phone mic indicate that he has left his vehicle and is now walking. The dispatcher seems to pick up on these changes and sounds concerned when he later asks Zimmerman if he is following Martin.
> Zimmerman
> 
> Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
> 
> Dispatcher
> ...


A polite way to say quit doing that.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Oh trust me, I'd be the one facing murder charges if Zimmerman had tried that with me. Then again, I'm not a kid and have a CCW permit. If I'm walking down the street minding my own business, it would be a... mistake... to interrogate me.


So, you are saying you believe it would be fine to kill someone for asking you a question?  Seriously?

----------


## matt0611

> From the transcript:
> http://bizsecurity.about.com/od/crea...olice-Call.htm
> 
> 
> 
> A polite way to say quit doing that.


Nope. Notice the very careful SPECIFIC language. We don't NEED you to do that. As in, you have a choice not to do that, its not required of you.

That is VERY different than telling him NOT to follow him. It was not an imperitive order not to do something. Merely stating a fact.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Nope. Notice the very careful SPECIFIC language. We don't NEED you to do that. As in, you have a choice not to do that, its not required of you.
> 
> That is VERY different than telling him NOT to follow him.


OK- I lied.  They told Zimmerman to run and catch up to Martin.

"We don't need you to be doing that" is not a litteral directive but it is a very strong suggestion you should follow if you are wise. If they didn't care if he was following Martin, the would not have said that.  It is not a lie to say they told him to stop following Martin.

----------


## TheTexan

It doesn't matter what 911 said.  It was not an order.  It was not even advice.  It was a CYA on their end.

----------


## Contumacious

> Neither do any other residents including Zimmerman. 
> 
> 
> 
> If you read my post, you would see that the homeowners association said one was not needed.
> 
> In case that was missed:
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...watch/2455163/
> ...


Look , if I was the owner of a home in a PRIVATE GATED COMMUNITY I would monitor the security of MY property, I would carry a firearm and if I don't recognize your ass I will follow follow you until I see you LAWFULLY enter one of the residences. I would not give a $#@! if my neighborhood watch was not recognized by Obama or God Almighty.

Capisce?

.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> It doesn't matter what 911 said.  It was not an order.  It was not even advice.  It was a CYA on their end.


Not even advice?  Really?  It was a police dispatcher- not 911.

----------


## matt0611

> OK- I lied.  They told Zimmerman to run and catch up to Martin.
> 
> "We don't need you to be doing that" is not a litteral directive but it is a very strong suggestion you should follow if you are wise. If they didn't care if he was following Martin, the would not have said that.  It is not a lie to say they told him to stop following Martin.


No, they were covering their ass but letting him know that he didn't need to do this. Of course it was up to him. It wasn't advice.

Don't follow him = a directive
We don't recommend you follow him = advice
You don't need to follow him = covering their ass by letting him know he doesn't need to do this

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Look , if I was the owner of a home in a PRIVATE GATED COMMUNITY I would monitor the security of MY property, I would carry a firearm and if I don't recognize your ass I will follow follow you until I see you LAWFULLY enter one of the residences. I would not give a $#@! if my neighborhood watch was not recognized by Obama or God Almighty.
> 
> Capisce?
> 
> .


Do you then follow everybody who walks down the street past your house?  You must not get much done around the house.  How do you react when somebody follows you?  Go after them as well? 




> Capisce?


Ah. An Italian mobster.

----------


## matt0611

> "At a safe distance". Close enough to get into a fight is not a safe distance.


According to Zimmerman he was far away, then Zimmerman lost TM and when he was walking back to his truck Trayvon said something to him from a distance and then ran to Zimmerman and attacked him.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> According to Zimmerman he was far away, then Zimmerman lost TM and when he was walking back to his truck Trayvon said something to him from a distance and then ran to Zimmerman and attacked him.


We don't get to hear Martin's side of the story but anyhow- lets check the map again. 


He says he was walking from point E to point C.  If Martin ran up and attacked him along that route, how did they end up at point F?



http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...9QEwBg&dur=247

----------


## kahless

> "At a safe distance". Close enough to get into a fight is not a safe distance.


He did and at one point Martin circled his truck. Zimmerman rolled up the window to avoid a confrontation at that point.  Was he supposed to run away from Martin.  He is the friggin neighborhood watch guy.  What do you expect him to do.




> Average citizens safe from wanna-be cops with guns harrassing people walking down the street? That is freedom?  Is it any different from real cops doing the same thing?
> 
> "He doesn't look right.  Better pull over and check him out!"


The gun only came out after Martin was beating him within an inch of his life.  So you advocate against both government, private security and simply asking someone "what is you business here" in a neighbor that has had an onslaught of burglaries?

----------


## matt0611

> We don't get to hear Martin's side of the story but anyhow- lets check the map again. 
> 
> 
> He says he was walking from point E to point C.  If Martin ran up and attacked him along that route, how did they end up at point F?



So what? Then you have nothing to go on except conjecture. If you say he was following him closely then back it up.

Ummm, he walked from D to F? How is that beyond belief? There's a path there...

He thought Zimmerman was probably following him and backtracked and/or hid maybe? How is that so hard to believe? I don't get it.

----------


## Ender

> Trayvon was a thug in training. Not sure he deserved to die because he was pigheaded teen, since I know plenty. It was just an unfortunate series of events.


Ah...yes...and poor Zimmerman was just an innocent soul protecting his neighborhood.

Zimmerman has been arrested for assaulting a police officer and for domestic violence. In addition, he reportedly lost his job as a bouncer because of his temper. A onetime coworker of Zimmerman told the New York Daily News:

"He had a temper and he became a liability," he recalled. "One time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool and totally overreacted. ... It was weird, because he was such a cool guy, but he got all nuts. He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out."

That happened in 2005, the same year he faced charges of "resisting officer with violence" and "battery of law enforcement officer." He got the charges dropped by undertaking an alcohol education program. Knowing that Zimmerman had a pattern of violence certainly casts doubt on his version of events in the killing of Trayvon.

----------


## AuH20

> Ah...yes...and poor Zimmerman was just an innocent soul protecting his neighborhood.
> 
> Zimmerman has been arrested for assaulting a police officer and for domestic violence. In addition, he reportedly lost his job as a bouncer because of his temper. A onetime coworker of Zimmerman told the New York Daily News:
> 
> "He had a temper and he became a liability," he recalled. "One time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool and totally overreacted. ... It was weird, because he was such a cool guy, but he got all nuts. He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out."
> 
> That happened in 2005, the same year he faced charges of "resisting officer with violence" and "battery of law enforcement officer." He got the charges dropped by undertaking an alcohol education program. Knowing that Zimmerman had a pattern of violence certainly casts doubt on his version of events in the killing of Trayvon.


No one here is saying Zimmerman was a pillar of society.

----------


## Ender

> He did and at one point Martin circled his truck. Zimmerman rolled up the window to avoid a confrontation at that point.  Was he supposed to run away from Martin.  He is the friggin neighborhood watch guy.  What do you expect him to do.
> 
> The gun only came out after Martin was beating him within an inch of his life.  So you advocate against both government, private security and simply asking someone "what is you business here" in a neighbor that has had an onslaught of burglaries?


And where did this info come from?

----------


## Ender

> No one here is saying Zimmerman was a pillar of society.


It certainly is intimated when Trayvon is accused of all kinds of stuff and Zimmerman's past actions are totally ignored.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Look , if I was the owner of a home in a PRIVATE GATED COMMUNITY I would monitor the security of MY property, I would carry a firearm and if I don't recognize your ass I will follow follow you until I see you LAWFULLY enter one of the residences. I would not give a $#@! if my neighborhood watch was not recognized by Obama or God Almighty.
> 
> Capisce?
> 
> .


I wonder where we would be if Martin was concerned about Zimmerman skulking around, to the point that he followed the guy and confronted him, Zimmerman refused to answer questions, then was killed as Martin realized Zimmerman had a gun and it was kill or be killed.

If someone were following me around the neighborhood and asking me questions at night, I would not necessarily stop.  I would like to think this would not cause 9-1-1 to be called on me, or someone to continue to follow me.

----------


## MelissaWV

> And where did this info come from?


I'd also like to know how he was beat "within an inch of his life" and was then on video walking around and talking soon afterwards.

It does neither side any favors to rely on hyperbole.

----------


## Contumacious

> Ah...yes...and poor Zimmerman was just an innocent soul protecting his neighborhood.
> 
> Zimmerman has been arrested for assaulting a police officer and for domestic violence. In addition, he reportedly lost his job as a bouncer because of his temper. A onetime coworker of Zimmerman told the New York Daily News:
> 
> "He had a temper and he became a liability," he recalled. "One time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool and totally overreacted. ... It was weird, because he was such a cool guy, but he got all nuts. He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out."
> 
> That happened in 2005, the same year he faced charges of "resisting officer with violence" and "battery of law enforcement officer." He got the charges dropped by undertaking an alcohol education program. Knowing that Zimmerman had a pattern of violence certainly casts doubt on his version of events in the killing of Trayvon.


Assuming that all those allegations are true how are they relevant to the case?

Let me ask you, if you ever accuse of me of rape, would it be OK if me consigliere introduced evidence at trial that you are a slut?

.

----------


## matt0611

> I wonder where we would be if Martin was concerned about Zimmerman skulking around, to the point that he followed the guy and confronted him, Zimmerman refused to answer questions, then was killed as Martin realized Zimmerman had a gun and it was kill or be killed.
> 
> If someone were following me around the neighborhood and asking me questions at night, I would not necessarily stop.  I would like to think this would not cause 9-1-1 to be called on me, or someone to continue to follow me.


Zimmerman shot TM at point blank range. 

If you knew someone had a gun you would lunge at him from a distance?

It makes more sense that GZ pulled out the gun while he was being attacked on the ground.

Please, this was not "killed or be killed" from TMs perspective.

----------


## TheTexan

> Not even advice?  Really?  It was a police dispatcher- not 911.


911, police dispatcher, same thing.

They always say the same thing.  Could be a home burglar, a mass shooter, a tornado, the response is always the same.  "Sir, please stay where you are, help is on the way"

It's a CYA.  Not advice.

----------


## Ender

> Nope. Notice the very careful SPECIFIC language. We don't NEED you to do that. As in, you have a choice not to do that, its not required of you.
> 
> That is VERY different than telling him NOT to follow him. It was not an imperitive order not to do something. Merely stating a fact.


OH, I GET IT.

GUIDELINES, REALLY. So why call 911 if you are not going to do as they ask- especially when YOU are not in danger?

BTW- Neighborhood Watch does give orders. You are only to Watch and Report. 

NOTHING MORE.

----------


## matt0611

> OH, I GET IT.
> 
> GUIDELINES, REALLY. So why call 911 if you are not going to do as they ask- especially when YOU are not in danger?
> 
> BTW- Neighborhood Watch does give orders. You are only to Watch and Report. 
> 
> NOTHING MORE.


They didn't give him an order or ask him to do something. STOP LIEING.

He called 911 to send a police officer, he kept following him because he wanted to do that until the police got there so he wouldn't get away.

Even if you think it was stupid move it still wasn't illegal or grounds for TM to attack GZ.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> So what? Then you have nothing to go on except conjecture. If you say he was following him closely then back it up.
> 
> *Ummm, he walked from D to F? How is that beyond belief? There's a path there...*
> He thought Zimmerman was probably following him and backtracked and/or hid maybe? How is that so hard to believe? I don't get it.


Point D is where Martin was staying.  Are you saying that Zimmerman was there?  F is on the route Martin would have taken towards where he was staying but it is NOT along the route Zimmerman would have taken back to his truck which he claims he was doing when the confrontation occured.  Zimmerman said he was going from point E to point C. F is not along that route.

----------


## Contumacious

> OH, I GET IT.
> 
> GUIDELINES, REALLY. So why call 911 if you are not going to do as they ask- especially when YOU are not in danger?
> 
> BTW- Neighborhood Watch does give orders. You are only to Watch and Report. 
> 
> NOTHING MORE.


How long will it take an officer to arrive after you call 911?

In Newton , Conn it took the gendarmes 9 $#@!ing minutes to get there.

You do the math.

.

----------


## Ender

> Assuming that all those allegations are true how are they relevant to the case?
> 
> Let me ask you, if you ever accuse of me of rape, would it be OK if me consigliere introduced evidence at trial that you are a slut?
> 
> .


Actually, yes, it would be OK- as a slut you would have a history that could put a lot of questions on sexual accusations.

Zimmerman has a history of violence- should that not be taken into consideration?

And BTW- my post was about attacks on Trayvon's character while saying nothing about Zimmerman.

----------


## Ender

> How long will it take an officer to arrive after you call 911?
> 
> In Newton , Conn it took the gendarmes 9 $#@!ing minutes to get there.
> 
> You do the math.
> 
> .


Trayvon was walking down the street and Zimmerman didn't like his looks- if Zimmerman had followed NW rules, both would probably still be alive.

----------


## kahless

> Ah...yes...and poor Zimmerman was just an innocent soul protecting his neighborhood.
> 
> Zimmerman has been arrested for assaulting a police officer


He shoved an officer who was questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking at an Orange County bar.  According to Zimmerman the undercover officer did not tell him he was a police officer and assaulted him first.




> and for domestic violence.


He shoved her. A fight ensued, she said, and her dog bit Zimmerman's cheek. Zimmerman filed his own petition the day after his ex-fiancée's, in which he claimed that she had been the aggressor in the fight




> In addition, he reportedly lost his job as a bouncer because of his temper. A onetime coworker of Zimmerman told the New York Daily News:
> 
> "He had a temper and he became a liability," he recalled. "One time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool and totally overreacted. ... It was weird, because he was such a cool guy, but he got all nuts. He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out."
> 
> That happened in 2005, the same year he faced charges of "resisting officer with violence" and "battery of law enforcement officer." He got the charges dropped by undertaking an alcohol education program. Knowing that Zimmerman had a pattern of violence certainly casts doubt on his version of events in the killing of Trayvon.


An overreacting bouncer, not unusual and not something I agree with but that hardly makes someone a murderer.

----------


## matt0611

> Point D is where Martin was staying.  Are you saying that Zimmerman was there?  F is on the route Martin would have taken towards where he was staying but it is NOT along the route Zimmerman would have taken back to his truck which he claims he was doing when the confrontation occured.  Zimmerman said he was going from point E to point C. F is not along that route.


The struggle ended up going towards point F after TM confronted GZ and attacked him. This is according to GZ, I don't find that hard to believe at all.

----------


## Ender

> They didn't give him an order or ask him to do something. STOP LIEING.
> 
> He called 911 to send a police officer, he kept following him because he wanted to do that until the police got there so he wouldn't get away.
> 
> Even if you think it was stupid move it still wasn't illegal or grounds for TM to attack GZ.


Well, first PROVE that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.

----------


## Ender

> He shoved an officer who was questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking at an Orange County bar.  According to Zimmerman the undercover officer did not tell him he was a police officer and assaulted him first.
> 
> 
> 
> He shoved her. A fight ensued, she said, and her dog bit Zimmerman's cheek. Zimmerman filed his own petition the day after his ex-fiancée's, in which he claimed that she had been the aggressor in the fight
> 
> 
> 
> An overreacting bouncer, not unusual and not something I agree with but that hardly makes someone a murderer.


Neither does a hoodie is February.

----------


## Contumacious

> Well, first PROVE that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.


Here in the US of A the prosecution has the burden of proof - the presumption of innocence standard requires evidence beyond reasonable doubt . So knock yourself out.....

----------


## MelissaWV

> Zimmerman shot TM at point blank range. 
> 
> If you knew someone had a gun you would lunge at him from a distance?
> 
> It makes more sense that GZ pulled out the gun while he was being attacked on the ground.
> 
> Please, this was not "killed or be killed" from TMs perspective.


Way to not read what I wrote.  I said what if the roles were REVERSED?

It was kill or be killed from Zimmerman's position, or at least that is what is being alleged, since he was in danger from Martin and feared for his life both from the beating and from his sense that Martin was reaching for his gun.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Well, first PROVE that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.


The facts seen so far indicate that Martin was walking home and bothering nobody.  Zimmerman on the otherhand went out of his way to go after him.  Who was the agressor?

----------


## matt0611

> Neither does a hoodie is February.


I gave you an explanation of why GZ called 911 and what he was doing. It makes sense and its logical. 

If you want to put GZ away for murder its up to you to show beyond a resonable doubt that GZ murdered TM. 

Good luck with that.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Here in the US of A the prosecution has the burden of proof - the presumption of innocence standard requires evidence beyond reasonable doubt . So knock yourself out.....


Perhaps you can prove that Martin should have been followed for "walking in the rain" and "not looking right" accoring to Zimmerman.  He has been tried by some and seen as a threat to the community without having done anything. What threat did he pose?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> I gave you an explanation of why GZ called 911 and what he was doing. It makes sense and its logical. 
> 
> If you want to put GZ away for murder its up to you to show beyond a resonable doubt that GZ murdered TM. 
> 
> Good luck with that.


I don't think it was first degree murder but I also don't see it as self defense.    Martin had more reason to fear for his own safety that night with somebody following him.

----------


## Contumacious

> The facts seen so far indicate that Martin was walking home and bothering nobody.  Zimmerman on the otherhand went out of his way to go after him.  Who was the agressor?


The facts seem to indicate that TM was inside a PRIVATE GATED COMMUNITY.

A ​creepy-ass-cracker testified on Friday that TM was on top.

Can you say Mr Z is NOT GUILTY?

Next case, puhleeze.

.

----------


## matt0611

> Way to not read what I wrote.  I said what if the roles were REVERSED?
> 
> It was kill or be killed from Zimmerman's position, or at least that is what is being alleged, since he was in danger from Martin and feared for his life both from the beating and from his sense that Martin was reaching for his gun.


I did read it I guess I just misunderstood what you were saying. I apologize.

In my view for GZ it was "kill or be killed" and that' why GZ pulled the gun and shot TM.

----------


## matt0611

> I don't think it was first degree murder but I also don't see it as self defense.    Martin had more reason to fear for his own safety that night with somebody following him.


Well he's on trial for murder. If you don't see it as murder or self defense then what was it?

----------


## Danan

> The facts seen so far indicate that Martin was walking home and bothering nobody.  Zimmerman on the otherhand went out of his way to go after him.  Who was the agressor?


What does "go after him" mean? Did he follow him? Ask him what he was doing, who he as and what he was up to? If so, may have been rude and his actions may have been unnecessary, but he was in no meaningful way "aggressing" against him. If Martin responded to that with extreme physical violance and shooting him was the only possibility to defend himself, then Zimmerman should not be convicted of a crime.

If, however, Zimmerman physically attacked Martin first, then it's another story. If the prosecuter can show this beyond any reasonable doubt Zimmerman should be convicted. But not for following someone around and getting his life beaten out of him for daring to do so and responding to this with shooting his gun.

I don't know what exactly happened and frankly I don't really care for this particular case. I do care about the principle, however. And following someone is not aggressing. It is not initiating violence. It may be a stupid, rude or a dick move (depending on the circumstance), but it's never a justification to punch someone in the face.

----------


## mad cow

> Well, first PROVE that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.


Zimmerman's story is laid out by him in the video in post #258.He didn't even have to give this deposition,he could have remained completely silent.

In our legal system,he doesn't have to prove that this is true.The State has to prove that something other than this,and describe that something other than this,occurred,beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thank God.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Well he's on trial for murder. If you don't see it as murder or self defense then what was it?


First degree means he intended to kill Martin.  I don't think that was his intent.  But it was a result of his actions.  The confrontation would not have happened if he had not gone after Martin after the police said he better not do that.   Martin was not a threat to him and Martin had done nothing wrong that night.

----------


## kahless

> And where did this info come from?





> *When he saw a young black man walking toward his pickup in the rain, George Zimmerman rolled up the window because he was afraid, he told police.*
> 
> http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...ase-statements





> I'd also like to know how he was beat "within an inch of his life" and was then on video walking around and talking soon afterwards.
> 
> It does neither side any favors to rely on hyperbole.





> *Wrote lead Investigator Chris Serino, "Investigative findings show the physical injuries displayed by George Michael Zimmerman were marginally consistent with a life-threatening episode as described by him."*


Don't you people read what is going on or do you spend all your time reading activist forums that spout bull$#@! and lies for the purpose of the disarmament agenda.  Make an effort next time and perform a simple google search before accusing people of 'hyperbole'.

----------


## Zippyjuan

"Marginally consistant" with life- threatening injuries. Not quite life threatening.   What led to the injuries?  Did he try to grab Martin or did Martin attack him?  No question a confrontation did occur.  Who caused it?





> When he saw a young black man walking toward his pickup in the rain, George Zimmerman rolled up the window *because he was afraid,* he told police.
> 
> http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...ase-statements





> Dispatcher
> 
> OK, he's just walking around the area…
> 
> Zimmerman
> 
> looking at all the houses.
> 
> Dispatcher
> ...


http://bizsecurity.about.com/od/crea...olice-Call.htm

Scary stuff!  Especially for a guy sitting in his truck with a gun.

----------


## kahless

> First degree means he intended to kill Martin.  I don't think that was his intent.  But it was a result of his actions.  The confrontation would not have happened if he had not gone after Martin after the police said he better not do that.   Martin was not a threat to him and Martin had done nothing wrong that night.


Other than beat someone within an inch of his life, no he did nothing wrong.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Don't you people read what is going on or do you spend all your time reading activist forums that spout bull$#@! and lies for the purpose of the disarmament agenda.  Make an effort next time and perform a simple google search before accusing people of 'hyperbole'.


"marginally consistent with a life-threatening episode" =/= "beaten within an inch of his life"

I can have a tiny scratch on my arm which is consistent with my story that I leapt out of the way of a vehicle trying to run me over.  Perhaps it has gravel in it that is consistent with where I claim I landed.

This does not mean that the scratch almost killed me.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> Not sure why media owners/Obama pupms  are pushing this hard in news cycle?  It is a tiny story in the current  affairs.






> Perhaps it's a distraction from his violating his oath of office.


How did media owners suuceed in making it a headline?

It seems like a distraction / waste of time  to focus on one crime among many taking place every day.


Obama pupms/Syria civil war planners  behind pushing this story to keep simple minded folks occupied while they do their thing?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Other than beat someone within an inch of his life, no he did nothing wrong.


What had he done to invite the confrontation which led to that?  Nothing.

----------


## Dr.3D

> *How did media owners suuceed in making it a headline?*
> 
> It seems like a distraction / waste of time  to focus on one crime among many taking place every day.
> 
> 
> Obama pupms/Syria civil war planners  behind pushing this story to keep simple minded folks occupied while they do their thing?


Yeah,   It's sort of like pointing at something shiny and directing attention there instead of letting people see what's really important.

----------


## kahless

dupe

----------


## TheTexan

> I don't know if this has been posted yet,but here is Zimmerman's side of the story,recorded the day after it happened.


According to this testimony, Trayvon initiated the confrontation.

Innocent, until proven guilty.

----------


## kahless

> "marginally consistent with a life-threatening episode" =/= "beaten within an inch of his life"
> 
> I can have a tiny scratch on my arm which is consistent with my story that I leapt out of the way of a vehicle trying to run me over.  Perhaps it has gravel in it that is consistent with where I claim I landed.
> 
> This does not mean that the scratch almost killed me.


LOL.  Here I was blaming you for not reading and I missed the one word of what I quoted which changes the meaning. I got lazy and quoted the article from last year. 

I was thinking more along these lines of what I read in recent testimony. If you are taking a beating like this I believe it is life threatening.




> http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimm...6#.Uc-HZJy-E4k
> 
>  Under cross examination by Zimmerman's lawyer, Good said he believes he saw Martin on top punching Zimmerman "MMA style," a reference to mixed martial arts.
> 
> "The person on top was ground and pounding the person on the bottom?"asked Zimmerman attorney Mark O'Mara.
> 
> "Correct," said Good





> "He had blood running down his nose from both nostrils and over his lips," Manalo told Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda. 
> 
> described seeing one person straddling another and throwing punches down at the person,which he described in a statement as a "ground and pound."
> 
> MMA-style" move of "ground and pound". The witness also said during testimony that the person on the bottom was unable to move under a flurry of punches.
> 
> O'Mara if Zimmerman's injuries were consistent with a fist strike to the nose, she replied that it was very possible.
> 
> Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/28...#ixzz2XetTqhbW

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> If someone were following me around the neighborhood and asking me questions at night, I would not necessarily stop.  I would like to think this would not cause 9-1-1 to be called on me, or someone to continue to follow me.


This is America. Home of the, "Where do you live" and, "Who do you know."

Of course walking down someone's street is going to get you interrogated, harassed, chased and/or police called. What else would you expect in a _free society?_

See something, say something and all that. "Police scouts" surveilling with their little walkie-talkies since they were knee-highs. Really not surprising they grow up and think/act like they're police. It's ingrained in their blood. They were pork since birth. Imitation pork... salami or some such $#@!, but really pork none the less.

----------


## Kregisen

I'm surprised there are a handful of people on these forums who are defending Martin when there is still no evidence Zimmerman even broke the law. Facts:

1. The only witness who saw it has testified he believes Martin was the one on top, throwing punches on Zimmerman

2. Zimmerman has cuts on the back of his head, supporting his general story

3. Any calls recorded are not accurate enough at pinpointing whose screams they are, and as such, these expert opinions are not allowed in court.

In order to convict, you need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. This does not come remotely close to existing. Zimmerman will go free, and if all of us were jurors, all of us would have to agree on a not-guilty verdict due to the substantial lack of evidence.

Is it POSSIBLE Zimmerman assaulted Martin first? Sure, but there is not enough evidence supporting this.

Case closed? Or should we keep making up stories like "the cops told him to stay back"?






> Well, first PROVE that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.


I don't think you understand how law works in the U.S....you're done....lol.

----------


## outspoken

If it were a black man who was a member of a neighborhood watch group and this 17 year old was the member of a gang waltzing thru a row of homes which had recently been robbed this would have been a closed case... And was such til the media spun the race element devoid of the facts.  This case should have never made it to trial on the basis of 2nd degree murder based on the evidence presented us far and is an utter waste of tax payer money.  More troubling will be the violence that ensues when the not guilty verdict is read and the media reports it as injustice.  Zimmerman has already has his life irreperably changed as a result of the media finding him guilty before his day in court.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> If you are taking a beating like this it is life threatening.



He didn't feel it was "life threatening" enough to go to the hospital.  Didn't even see a doctor until the next day and didn't follow up with any more visits.

Report of Zimmerman's injuries:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimm...ry?id=16353532




> A medical report compiled by the family physician of Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Martin during an alleged altercation.





> *The morning after the shooting,* on Feb. 27, *Zimmerman sought treatment at the offices of a general physician at a family practice* near Sanford, Fla. The doctor notes Zimmerman sought an appointment to get legal clearance to return to work. 
> 
> The record shows that Zimmerman also suffered bruising in the upper lip and cheek and lower back pain. The two lacerations on the back of his head, one of them nearly an inch long, the other about a quarter-inch long, were first revealed in photos obtained exclusively by ABC News last month.
> 
> But the report also shows *Zimmerman declined hospitalization the night of the shooting, and then declined the advice of his doctor to make a follow-up appointment with an ear nose and throat doctor.*
> 
> In addition to his physical injuries, Zimmerman complained of stress and "occasional nausea when thinking about the violence." But he *was not diagnosed with a concussion.* The doctor noted that it was "imperative" that Zimmerman "be seen with [sic] his psychologist for evaluation."
> 
> According to the report, prior to the shooting *Zimmerman had been prescribed Adderall and Temazepam, medications that can cause side effects such as agitation and mood swings*, but in fewer than 10 percent of patients.
> ...

----------


## kahless

> He didn't feel it was "life threatening" enough to go to the hospital.  Didn't even see a doctor until the next day and didn't follow up with any more visits.
> 
> Report of Zimmerman's injuries:
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimm...ry?id=16353532


When someone is on top of you beating you in that manner how do you know he is going to stop and not beat you to death?

----------


## MelissaWV

> LOL.  Here I was blaming you for not reading and I missed the one word of what I quoted which changes the meaning. I got lazy and quoted the article from last year. 
> 
> I was thinking more along these lines of what I read in recent testimony. If you are taking a beating like this I believe it is life threatening.


Again, you are saying "WITHIN AN INCH OF HIS LIFE" which is a specific thing.  Something can be life-threatening without an outcome of being nearly dead.  He had injuries to his head and his nose.  Nearly dead?  No.  To say so is absolutely hyperbole, considering he was walking around afterwards and talking to police after medical attention.  Was he injured?  Yes.  Nearly killed?  No.  Not sure why there's a problem here.  It does not change any of the OTHER facts of the case, which are the ones that will determine guilt or lack of it in the eyes of the law.  One has to only THINK they might be beaten within an inch of one's life, or even a yard or a mile of one's life, in order to defend oneself.

I don't believe Zimmerman's life was hanging by a thread and that he had no alternatives, nor do I believe that Martin was a choir boy cautiously and quietly making his way back home, trying to avoid the strange man asking him questions and only reluctantly dragged into conflict.  This is the nonsense both sides are trying to spew and it really will just fuel riots and discontent, under cover of which laws will be passed that tighten the noose on all the rest of us.

----------


## TheTexan

> He didn't feel it was "life threatening" enough to go to the hospital.  Didn't even see a doctor until the next day and didn't follow up with any more visits.


I'm not sure why you're even arguing about whether or not the *wounds* were "life threatening."  The *encounter* was certainly life threatening, as I believe most reasonable people in GZ's situation would have feared for their life.  Especially after Trayvon reached for GZ's weapon.  This is what justifies the self defense.. not the wounds...

----------


## Zippyjuan

> I'm surprised there are a handful of people on these forums who are defending Martin when there is still no evidence Zimmerman even broke the law. Facts:
> 
> 1. The only witness who saw it has testified he believes Martin was the one on top, throwing punches on Zimmerman
> 
> 2. Zimmerman has cuts on the back of his head, supporting his general story
> 
> 3. Any calls recorded are not accurate enough at pinpointing whose screams they are, and as such, these expert opinions are not allowed in court.
> 
> In order to convict, you need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. This does not come remotely close to existing. Zimmerman will go free, and if all of us were jurors, all of us would have to agree on a not-guilty verdict due to the substantial lack of evidence.
> ...


There is more evidence of Zimmerman being the agressor.  You are right- we don't know who started the final fight.  That doesn't make Zimmerman innocent of killing Martin which he admits to doing.

----------


## TheTexan

> There is more evidence of Zimmerman being the agressor.


Lay it out.  I'm relatively uninformed on this case (compared to some of you anyway).  What evidence is there that Zimmerman was the aggressor, other than "he was following Trayvon"?




> You are right- we don't know who started the final fight. That doesn't make Zimmerman innocent of killing Martin which he admits to doing.


Innocent, is the default position.... until proven otherwise....

----------


## Zippyjuan

He is documented going towards Martin.  Martin is documented as going away from Zimmerman.  If Zimmerman was afraid and acting in "self defense" why would he go after such a person knowing police were on the way?

He said he was going back to his truck when Martin jumped him yet the location of the confrontation and Martin's body is not along the route he would have taken back to his truck.  This seems to indicate he was not trying to avoid a confrontation but possibly seeking one.

----------


## mad cow

> That doesn't make Zimmerman innocent of killing Martin which he admits to doing.


Zippy,he admitted that within minutes,if not seconds of pulling the trigger!
That has *never* been in question.

----------


## TheTexan

> He is documented going towards Martin.  Martin is documented as going away from Zimmerman.  If Zimmerman was afraid and acting in "self defense" why would he go after such a person knowing police were on the way?


What documentation are you referring to?  The testimony in #258 documents Martin as coming towards Zimmerman.

And I understand that "following" someone is a tricky subject, and you see that as aggression, but is that all you're going on?  Is there no other evidence?  

Even if Zimmerman was in fact "following" Trayvon (which, if I understand correctly, has yet to be proven), the only evidence available (Z's testimony) suggests that Trayvon is the one that escalated it physically.

----------


## Zippyjuan

You are right- that isn't in question.  The question is was it self defense and was he afraid for his life.  If he was afraid, why go after Martin with police on the way?

----------


## RickyJ

> He is documented going towards Martin.  Martin is documented as going away from Zimmerman.  If Zimmerman was afraid and acting in "self defense" why would he go after such a person knowing police were on the way?
> 
> *He said he was going back to his truck when Martin jumped him yet the location of the confrontation and Martin's body is not along the route he would have taken back to his truck.*  This seems to indicate he was not trying to avoid a confrontation but possibly seeking one.


Yes it is, watch the video of Zimmerman reenacting what happened that night.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> What documentation are you referring to?  The testimony in #258 documents Martin as coming towards Zimmerman.
> 
> And I understand that "following" someone is a tricky subject, and you see that as aggression, but is that all you're going on?  Is there no other evidence?  
> 
> *Even if Zimmerman was in fact "following" Trayvon (which, if I understand correctly, has yet to be proven),* the only evidence available (Z's testimony) suggests that Trayvon is the one that escalated it physically.


He said he was. 




> Dispatcher
> 
> Are you following him?
> 
> Zimmerman
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> Dispatcher
> ...


http://bizsecurity.about.com/od/crea...olice-Call.htm

----------


## kahless

> Again, you are saying "WITHIN AN INCH OF HIS LIFE" which is a specific thing.  Something can be life-threatening without an outcome of being nearly dead.  He had injuries to his head and his nose.  Nearly dead?  No.  To say so is absolutely hyperbole, considering he was walking around afterwards and talking to police after medical attention.  Was he injured?  Yes.  Nearly killed?  No.  Not sure why there's a problem here.  It does not change any of the OTHER facts of the case, which are the ones that will determine guilt or lack of it in the eyes of the law.  One has to only THINK they might be beaten within an inch of one's life, or even a yard or a mile of one's life, in order to defend oneself.
> 
> I don't believe Zimmerman's life was hanging by a thread and that he had no alternatives, nor do I believe that Martin was a choir boy cautiously and quietly making his way back home, trying to avoid the strange man asking him questions and only reluctantly dragged into conflict.  This is the nonsense both sides are trying to spew and it really will just fuel riots and discontent, under cover of which laws will be passed that tighten the noose on all the rest of us.


Saying the possibility is not there IS hyperbole on your part.  When some stranger is on top of you beating you in that manner how do you know he is going to stop and not beat you to death? 

It is possible he may have been able to walk around afterwards and not need an ambulance because of his actions.  If you are bleeding and getting beaten in that manner what do you think is going on in your head?  Are you going to risk being possibly beaten to death or permanent injury or defend yourself.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Let's assume Zimmerman ran down Martin and attacked him, even though that would appear to be highly unlikely. Does that give Martin the right to kill Zimmerman? 
> 
> Suppose I start a fight but the other guy starts kicking my ass. I give up and concede defeat. The other guy is on top and starts bashing my head into the ground over and over even though I'm crying out for him to stop and losing consciousness. Isn't this attempted murder even though I started it? It's one thing to be in a fight but if you win the fight and then keep pounding the loser's head into concrete that's attempted murder.


This is a very good question and is the reason why I am not sure exactly what Zimmerman should be convicted of. I am of the opinion he initiated the contact with Martin who was walking home. That Martin tried to get away and that after Zimmerman continued following him Martin turned around. Who threw the first punch I wouldn't have a clue. Somewhere along the line Zimmerman fell or was knocked to the ground with Martin getting on top of him. It is possible Zimmerman truly did fear for his life but as the one who initiated the confrontation (following/chasing the teen down) much of the blame for this teen's death is still on his hands. First degree murder, no. Second degree murder, possibly. Because you have a right to defend yourself and are armed does not mean to pick fights with people or create confrontations.

I am not sure what he should be convicted of. I have no doubts that no matter what happens in this case people will be pissed.

----------


## MelissaWV

> You are right- that isn't in question.  The question is was it self defense and was he afraid for his life.  If he was afraid, why go after Martin with police on the way?


You can become afraid for your life when a situation gets beyond your control.  

A grown man might not have thought Martin was a threat to his person (but was a threat to the neighborhood in some way).  When the final fight started, that perception changed rapidly.  It does not make it a smart thing to do (following Martin), but it makes sense to me that he definitely felt more threatened once he was getting socked in the face.

----------


## mad cow

> You are right- that isn't in question.  The question is was it self defense and was he afraid for his life.  If he was afraid, why go after Martin with police on the way?


I think he was afraid that one of his neighbors was about to be burglarized.

I don't think he was afraid for his life until the dude was on top of him pounding his skull into the pavement and reaching for his gun.

----------


## TheTexan

> He said he was. 
> 
> 
> http://bizsecurity.about.com/od/crea...olice-Call.htm


Right, but in his testimony the day after he clarified that he meant that as being "in the area" because he had gotten out to look for a street name.  ie, the "following" was incidental, not intentional.

Either way, please answer this, as I'm curious:



> And I understand that "following" someone is a tricky subject, and you see that as aggression, but is that all you're going on? Is there no other evidence?

----------


## MelissaWV

> Saying the possibility is not there IS hyperbole on your part.  When some stranger is on top of you beating you in that manner *how do you know he is going to stop and not beat you to death?* 
> 
> It is possible he may have been able to walk around afterwards and not need an ambulance because of his actions.  If you are bleeding and getting beaten in that manner what do you think is going on in your head?  Are you going to risk being possibly beaten to death or permanent injury or defend yourself.


Being "beaten within an inch of your life" means IT HAPPENED, not that you THINK IT MIGHT HAPPEN.

You keep using that phrase but it's obvious he did not sustain injuries that NEARLY KILLED HIM.

Saying "he was in a life-threatening situation" would be accurate because, as you said, there was a possibility of Martin not stopping.  

Saying "he was beaten within an inch of his life" is not accurate, even though you keep saying it.  "Within an inch of your life" would indicate a prolonged hospital stay, severe injuries that required ventilators, perhaps even CPR, the setting of bones, multiple surgeries, and so on.  It really does have a specific connotation.  It does not fit this case.

----------


## Kregisen

> He is documented going towards Martin.  Martin is documented as going away from Zimmerman.  If Zimmerman was afraid and acting in "self defense" why would he go after such a person knowing police were on the way?


1. He followed Martin. Legal. If this is your evidence, charges dropped. Done.




> He said he was going back to his truck when Martin jumped him yet the location of the confrontation and Martin's body is not along the route he would have taken back to his truck.  This seems to indicate he was not trying to avoid a confrontation but possibly seeking one.


The fight is within feet of his path from the house to the car. The position does not mean his story is true, but it coincides with it. If this is your evidence, charges dropped. Done.


This "debate" is just getting silly. There is no argument. There is no evidence. We will likely never find out exactly what happened, but he will be found not guilty, and given the evidence we have, it is obviously the right call.

Case closed.

----------


## Madison320

> He said he was. 
> 
> 
> http://bizsecurity.about.com/od/crea...olice-Call.htm


Why do you keep cutting out the part where Zimmerman says "OK"? First off I think it's irrelevant to the case whether he ignored police advice but HE DID NOT!!!

The 911 operator told Zimmerman AFTER he was following Martin that "you don't need to do that". And Zimmerman COMPLIED!! Holy crap, Batman!!!! 

You see when someone gives you an instruction, you have only ignored the instruction if you don't follow the instruction AFTER it's given. You can't ignore an instruction that has not been given yet.

Maybe you need an explanation:

Scenario #1 :  You're walking and someone says "stop walking" and then you stop. You have complied with the instruction.

Scenario #2 :  You're walking and someone says "stop walking" and then you keep walking. You have NOT complied with the instruction.

Understand?

----------


## kahless

> Being "beaten within an inch of your life" means IT HAPPENED, not that you THINK IT MIGHT HAPPEN.
> 
> You keep using that phrase but it's obvious he did not sustain injuries that NEARLY KILLED HIM.
> 
> Saying "he was in a life-threatening situation" would be accurate because, as you said, there was a possibility of Martin not stopping.  
> 
> Saying "he was beaten within an inch of his life" is not accurate, even though you keep saying it.  "Within an inch of your life" would indicate a prolonged hospital stay, severe injuries that required ventilators, perhaps even CPR, the setting of bones, multiple surgeries, and so on.  It really does have a specific connotation.  It does not fit this case.


If some stranger is on top of me beating me I would think I am an inch from losing my life and may possibly shoot before what you describe occurs.  If time passes too long the opportunity to save my life is over.

btw - since the phrase was open to debate from you there were a flurry of posts from me after that where I changed it to asking, "how do you know he is going to stop and not beat you to death?"  So it is not like I "keep saying it".

----------


## Madison320

> This is a very good question and is the reason why I am not sure exactly what Zimmerman should be convicted of. I am of the opinion he initiated the contact with Martin who was walking home. That Martin tried to get away and that after Zimmerman continued following him Martin turned around. Who threw the first punch I wouldn't have a clue. Somewhere along the line Zimmerman fell or was knocked to the ground with Martin getting on top of him. It is possible Zimmerman truly did fear for his life but as the one who initiated the confrontation (following/chasing the teen down) much of the blame for this teen's death is still on his hands. First degree murder, no. Second degree murder, possibly. Because you have a right to defend yourself and are armed does not mean to pick fights with people or create confrontations.
> 
> I am not sure what he should be convicted of. I have no doubts that no matter what happens in this case people will be pissed.


Maybe some kind of negligence. Definitely not murder. If you listen to the whole unedited 911 call there's a part where Zimmerman says it looks like Martin is crazy or something like that. Maybe getting near a crazy person when you are carrying a weapon is negligent in some way. 

What really pisses me off about this case is how badly we were lied to by the news media. Extreme blatant lies. First they said Zimmerman was white. Then they showed the picture where Zimmerman looked mean and weighed about 230 pounds and Martin looked like a little boy. Turns out they were about the same weight and Martin was clearly more likely to win a fight. Then they said Zimmerman used a racial slur, but he didn't. Then they said Zimmerman ignored a command not to follow Martin. That's a lie, he complied with that command. Then they said Zimmerman had no visible signs of injury, they said it was a smoking gun. Turns out he was pretty beat up. There's a few more I'm forgetting but if they told that many blatant lies why should I believe ANYTHING the media says?

----------


## matt0611

> You are right- that isn't in question.  The question is was it self defense and was he afraid for his life.  If he was afraid, why go after Martin with police on the way?


Seriously? He wasn't afraid for his life...*until* TM started beating on GZ while GZ was on his back, and thats when GZ fought back by pulling out his pistol and shooting TM at point blank range.

That why it was self defense, GZ thought TM looked suspicious, called the police and tried to follow him. 

Why would GZ start a fist fight with TM? TM was a much stronger person. It makes no sense for GZ to start the fight or murder TM while he knew the police were on their way.

This should never have gone to trial and will result in GZ walking away not guilty.

----------


## QuickZ06

....

----------


## AuH20

> This is a very good question and is the reason why I am not sure exactly what Zimmerman should be convicted of. I am of the opinion he initiated the contact with Martin who was walking home. That Martin tried to get away and that after Zimmerman continued following him Martin turned around. Who threw the first punch I wouldn't have a clue. Somewhere along the line Zimmerman fell or was knocked to the ground with Martin getting on top of him. It is possible Zimmerman truly did fear for his life but as the one who initiated the confrontation (following/chasing the teen down) much of the blame for this teen's death is still on his hands. First degree murder, no. Second degree murder, possibly. Because you have a right to defend yourself and are armed does not mean to pick fights with people or create confrontations.
> 
> I am not sure what he should be convicted of. I have no doubts that no matter what happens in this case people will be pissed.


Second degree murder, legally speaking is 99% predicated upon an assault  and given the fact that Martin was trying to crack Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk like a walnut, I don't think it's applicable . I think you're talking about manslaughter which could be a distinct possibility.

----------


## AuH20

> Maybe some kind of negligence. Definitely not murder. If you listen to the whole unedited 911 call there's a part where Zimmerman says it looks like Martin is crazy or something like that. Maybe getting near a crazy person when you are carrying a weapon is negligent in some way. 
> 
> *What really pisses me off about this case is how badly we were lied to by the news media. Extreme blatant lies. First they said Zimmerman was white. Then they showed the picture where Zimmerman looked mean and weighed about 230 pounds and Martin looked like a little boy. Turns out they were about the same weight and Martin was clearly more likely to win a fight. Then they said Zimmerman used a racial slur, but he didn't. Then they said Zimmerman ignored a command not to follow Martin. That's a lie, he complied with that command. Then they said Zimmerman had no visible signs of injury, they said it was a smoking gun. Turns out he was pretty beat up. There's a few more I'm forgetting but if they told that many blatant lies why should I believe ANYTHING the media says?*


Very true. It was amazing how Zimmerman was portrayed as almost a racist German American who chased down the pure as driven snow Martin and then proceeded to murder him in cold blood. That was the narrative being pushed right from the get-go.

----------


## TheTexan

Also, skittles.  Everyone knows, if you have a bag of skittles in your pocket, you won't commit a crime.  It just doesn't happen.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Second degree murder, legally speaking is 99% predicated upon an assault  and given the fact that Martin was trying to crack Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk like a walnut, I don't think it's applicable . I think you're talking about manslaughter which could be a distinct possibility.


It could be a negligent homicide or voluntary manslaughter. The jury can decide off evidence presented. Florida also has weird laws compared to states I've lived and I'm not exactly sure the name of the law in that particular state. Weird sentencing guidelines too.

I mean that Zimmerman has a lot of blame in the cause of this teen's death. It isn't strictly self-defense if you are the one who initiated the contact/conflict, end up losing the fight, and shoot. Zimmerman very well may have been in fear for his life at that particular time. That doesn't change the fact that some of his actions led to the confrontation which then led to the shooting.

No matter what they convict him of or don't convict him of I really don't particularly care. I care insofar as in my ideal free society people would not feel they have any right to question the comings and goings of anyone and that they'd recognize that the best way to get respect is to treat people with respect. Clearly that is not the case in America.

My prediction is that he'll be convicted of voluntary manslaughter, given time served and around a 10 year suspended sentence, and given 10 years of reporting probation. Take it with a grain of salt though, I really find the whole thing to be a spectacle. Media/Court.. all of it.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> I mean that Zimmerman has a lot of blame in the cause of this teen's death. It isn't strictly self-defense if you are the one who initiated the contact/conflict, end up losing the fight, and shoot. Zimmerman very well may have been in fear for his life at that particular time. That doesn't change the fact that some of his actions led to the confrontation which then led to the shooting.


Actually, it is self defense.  if I come up to talk to you, and you punch me in the face and start beating me, I can legally kill you.  It doesn't matter whether I'm the one who initiated the conversation.  The only thing that matters in self defense is who initiated the _assault_.  For Zimmerman to be found guilty, the prosecution has to prove Zimmerman punched Martin first, and not the other way around.  They've offered no evidence on that score, and common sense tells us it is far more likely that Martin initiated the assault.  This never should have gone to trial.  In honestly, there isn't even probable cause for an arrest.  This trial is pure politics.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Actually, it is self defense.  if I come up to talk to you, and you punch me in the face and start beating me, I can legally kill you.  It doesn't matter whether I'm the one who initiated the conversation.  The only thing that matters in self defense is who initiated the _assault_.  For Zimmerman to be found guilty, the prosecution has to prove Zimmerman punched Martin first, and not the other way around.  They've offered no evidence on that score, and common sense tells us it is far more likely that Martin initiated the assault.  This never should have gone to trial.  In honestly, there isn't even probable cause for an arrest.  This trial is pure politics.


Well, the thing is, I said confrontation, not conversation. Another thing is as I've said, our "justice system" (just-us system) is fundamentally broken and justice is hardly if ever served. Especially considering things often times aren't simply black and white. Now if you come up and say, "Nice weather we're having" and I turn and punch you; You shooting me for that act is not self defense. (no matter how many one off cases of a single punch killing someone there are) If I caused you to fear for your life, I punched you and continue to attack, or attacked you with a weapon or that sort of thing, deadly force is authorized *in my eyes.* Laws in different states may agree or disagree with me, like I said, lawyers/their ilk and their verbal masturbatory semantics have $#@!ed this country in a way that is hard to rival. The law (lowercase) says many things. My Law, of actual crimes, is something different. (this is just a simple right vs wrong, victim or no victim.. I don't try to enforce or inflict my morals on other people) Let me note that I am not suggesting every fist fight turning into a homicide. Lumps and scrapes are a lot different from cracked skulls and broken bones.

For Zimmerman to be convicted of first degree murder they'd have to prove that he planned and executed the homicide. That he got mad, thought it over for however long, later assaulted Martin and shot and killed him. For Zimmerman to be found guilty of Second degree murder they'd have to show that the homicide was intentional but not premeditated. Usually they'll charge with first degree. If the evidence is particularly flimsy they may offer up a deal for a plea to second degree murder.

There are other options.

You could have a negligible manslaughter, for example. Which is when, _The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection_. 

You could have a voluntary manslaughter conviction too, for example. Which is,_ 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.

If adequate provocation is established, a murder charge may be reduced to manslaughter. Generally there are four conditions that must be fulfilled to warrant the reduction: (1) the provocation must cause rage or fear in a reasonable person; (2) the defendant must have actually been provoked; (3) there should not be a time period between the provocation and the killing within which a reasonable person would cool off; and (4) the defendant should not have cooled off during that period._

I am not sure what the man should be convicted of. I have not been presented all of the evidence nor am I on the jury. If I were, I'd be paying a lot more attention to the case. (lol) I believe that Zimmerman accosted the teen. I believe his actions led to the confrontation. I believe that during that confrontation the teen was killed. Zimmerman is liable. First or second degree murder seems a stretch but they always overcharge. I predict that he will be found guilty of the lesser crime of voluntary manslaughter. He won't be sentenced to any time and if is will only be a few years at most. Again though, I haven't been following the trial like many have. I find it kind of kangarooish and a spectacle. (especially his damn lawyer, I can't get over that one.) Media coverage is worse though, especially directly after this. People are beat to death weekly by the police, the police get medals. People are shot and killed daily, no one cares. But when it fits their narrative to divide people into sections, alienate groups and increase their power structure, they'll drum the $#@! out of that story for months.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> Oh trust me, I'd be the one facing murder charges if Zimmerman had tried that with me. Then again, I'm not a kid and have a CCW permit. If I'm walking down the street minding my own business, it would be a... mistake... to interrogate me.


What kind of violent jackhole are you?  This is a liberty forum and if somebody exercises free speech and asks you some questions on public or HOA community property, then you're going to shoot them with your CCW???

What the $#@!.

And you're taking Martin's side in this?  You openly advocate murdering people who ask you questions in public, and you are not on Zimmerman's side?  Seriously, WHAT THE $#@!?!

----------


## The Free Hornet

> Oh trust me, I'd be the one facing murder charges if Zimmerman had tried that with me. Then again, I'm not a kid and have a CCW permit. If I'm walking down the street minding my own business, it would be a... mistake... to interrogate me.


Not to beat a dead horse but...

1) you have a CCW

2) you admit you willingness to murder in a public forum

so if....

3) you ever actually have to stand behind your big words and that CCW

then ...

4) you have provided evidence to state prosecution to charge you with murder

Why would you admit this on a public forum?  Maybe you are sufficiently anonymous or would have the good sense to shut your mouth if the $#@! ever really goes down... but I doubt it.

----------


## juleswin

> What kind of violent jackhole are you?  This is a liberty forum and if somebody exercises free speech and asks you some questions on public or HOA community property, then you're going to shoot them with your CCW???
> 
> What the $#@!.
> 
> And you're taking Martin's side in this?  You openly advocate murdering people who ask you questions in public, and you are not on Zimmerman's side?  Seriously, WHAT THE $#@!?!


I think its a bit different from just someone coming up to you on the street in daylight to ask you a question. Think of it this way, a guy in a truck is stalking you at night as you try to get to your house, he is on the phone the whole time talking to someone and then he decides to come out of his truck to confront you. All the while you did nothing illegal. 

I dont know about you but I will act to protect myself if I was in the same situation and how I will protect my self depends on how GZ behaved.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> If you come up to me and treat me like a criminal when I'm walking home, you are the one that is initiating aggression towards me.  I'm going to tell you to $#@! off and if you press the issue I'm gonna break your nose.


OK, so will 'break the nose' of somebody asking you tough questions.  Are you some kind of kung fu surgeon who can break noses without a risk of deadly or permanent injury to your victims?





> So I deserve to have my life taken from me, when I was the one walking not harming anyone, and you are the one that aggressed against me!?


It is not that you deserve to die, but peaceful people have the right to protect themselves against violent motherfuckers.  Even if that peaceful person is an $#@!.

----------


## matt0611

> I think its a bit different from just someone coming up to you on the street in daylight to ask you a question. Think of it this way, a guy in a truck is stalking you at night as you try to get to your house, he is on the phone the whole time talking to someone and then he decides to come out of his truck to confront you. All the while you did nothing illegal. 
> 
> I dont know about you but I will act to protect myself if I was in the same situation and how I will protect my self depends on how GZ behaved.


So instead of simply going to your house or talking to that guy you lunge at him and attack him and beat him? Because that's what Zimmerman is alleging what happened. 

And to be honest, it makes total sense to me. Zimmerman was following him cause he thought he looked and was acting suspicious, called police to send someone, GZ lost TM, was walking back to his truck. TM was offended that someone was following him and was pissed, TM wanted to confront GZ, he did, he attacked him out of anger and was looking for a fight, GZ took his pistol out and shot him at point blank to stop TM.

----------


## Madison320

> So instead of simply going to your house or talking to that guy you lunge at him and attack him and beat him? Because that's what Zimmerman is alleging what happened. 
> 
> And to be honest, it makes total sense to me. Zimmerman was following him cause he thought he looked and was acting suspicious, called police to send someone, GZ lost TM, was walking back to his truck. TM was offended that someone was following him and was pissed, TM wanted to confront GZ, he did, he attacked him out of anger and was looking for a fight, GZ took his pistol out and shot him at point blank to stop TM.


No you got it wrong. Zimmerman was a white racist, saw a black guy and decided to kill him. Then he called the police just to make sure he got caught for murder. Then he ran down the football player Martin with his blinding speed and attacked him. Then when he realized he couldn't kill Zimmerman with his bare hands he shot him. That's what happened ... dammit.

----------


## Madison320

> Actually, it is self defense.  if I come up to talk to you, and you punch me in the face and start beating me, I can legally kill you.  It doesn't matter whether I'm the one who initiated the conversation.  The only thing that matters in self defense is who initiated the _assault_.  For Zimmerman to be found guilty, the prosecution has to prove Zimmerman punched Martin first, and not the other way around.  They've offered no evidence on that score, and common sense tells us it is far more likely that Martin initiated the assault.  This never should have gone to trial.  In honestly, there isn't even probable cause for an arrest.  This trial is pure politics.


I don't think it's who initiated the attack that matters. If I come up to you and punch you in the face do you have the right to kill me? I think you have to be in fear for your life to defend yourself with deadly force. I guess it's a fine line but I think even a few punches wouldn't be enough unless I was a professional boxer. I think you need to really be taking a beating before you can shoot the other guy. And in this case Zimmerman really was taking a dangerous beating so it was justified. So in other words it's not how a fight starts but how it ends.

----------


## TheTexan

> I mean that Zimmerman has a lot of blame in the cause of this teen's death. It isn't strictly self-defense *if you are the one who initiated the contact/conflict*


There is no evidence that he did.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> No you got it wrong. Zimmerman was a white racist, saw a black guy and decided to kill him. Then he called the police just to make sure he got caught for murder. Then he ran down the football player Martin with his blinding speed and attacked him. Then when he realized he couldn't kill Zimmerman with his bare hands he shot him. That's what happened ... dammit.


Racist or not, he's not white, he's hispanic. Beyond that, I don't know much nor really care about this atall.

----------


## mrsat_98

Trayvon Martin’s Involvement In Local Burglaries Covered Up By Media, School, Police, Prosecutors

http://patdollard.com/2013/06/trayvo...school-police/

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> *I don't think it's who initiated the attack that matters. If I come up to you and punch you in the face do you have the right to kill me?* I think you have to be in fear for your life to defend yourself with deadly force. I guess it's a fine line but I think even a few punches wouldn't be enough unless I was a professional boxer. I think you need to really be taking a beating before you can shoot the other guy. And in this case Zimmerman really was taking a dangerous beating so it was justified. So in other words it's not how a fight starts but how it ends.



It matters quite a bit.  How many times should I let you hit me?  And what places should I allow you to strike before I decide to defend myself?

One punch to the face equal three to the shoulder?  What if I'm really fast, and make you miss the first 3 tries?  Then what?  

Do I have to wait for you to connect one to the face to decide you're trying to harm me?  One free shot, to see if you stop afterward?

This is all very confusing.



I think what some people here are saying is that it is threatening simply to be followed.  I would feel threatened if some random stranger were following me.  Would I find it necessary to confront them?  I don't know.  That would very much be on a case by case basis.  Are they trying to herd me someplace?  Do I have a clear route of escape?  Can I just walk in my door?  Why are they following me at all?  Maybe I don't want them to know where I live.  There are a lot of variables going on.

But regardless... the fact that Zimmerman was following him around makes this not a SYG case, imo.  That's just what will be attacked, regardless of verdict.

----------


## hardrightedge

> So instead of simply going to your house or talking to that guy you lunge at him and attack him and beat him? Because that's what Zimmerman is alleging what happened. 
> 
> And to be honest, it makes total sense to me. Zimmerman was following him cause he thought he looked and was acting suspicious, called police to send someone, GZ lost TM, was walking back to his truck. TM was offended that someone was following him and was pissed, TM wanted to confront GZ, he did, he attacked him out of anger and was looking for a fight, GZ took his pistol out and shot him at point blank to stop TM.



//

----------


## rpfocus

> Blah blah blah


Good luck with your interrogations. Just pray I'm not one of the people you decide to interrogate.

----------


## angelatc

> Trayvon Martin’s Involvement In Local Burglaries Covered Up By Media, School, Police, Prosecutors
> 
> http://patdollard.com/2013/06/trayvo...school-police/


Dollard should be sued for copyright infringement for that.  The original is here: http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...burglary-tool/

And until the owner actually identifies the jewelry, it is not evidence of anything, just a neocon making noise.

----------


## rpfocus

> More blah blah blah


If you decide to take it upon yourself to be neighborhood interrogator, at least you now know there may be detrimental consequences. I'd suggest calling the police instead, but hey, good luck. I think you'll find there aren't many who will recognize your authority to question them. I'm definitely not one of them. And if I know you're armed beforehand? lol.

----------


## matt0611

> If you decide to take it upon yourself to be neighborhood interrogator, at least you now know there may be detrimental consequences. I'd suggest calling the police instead, but hey, good luck. I think you'll find there aren't many who will recognize your authority to question them. I'm definitely not one of them. And if I know you're armed beforehand? lol.


If someone approaches you to ask you questions and you shoot and kill them, that's not self-defense, that's murder. 

You condone muder? That's disgusting. 

You say they don't have authority to question you but yet you have authority to end their life for approaching and questioning you? 

If this trial keeps going like its going it looks like GZ will be walking away from this one and justice will prevail thankfully.

If you attack an armed person for simply following you in a public place then there could very well be consequences. I'm very glad GZ was armed.

----------


## rpfocus

I would simply suggest to the wannabe Zimmerman's to let the proper authorities do their job. Not heeding that advice might cause you to wind up in situations you'd rather not be in. Is it worth it?

----------


## Madison320

> It matters quite a bit.  How many times should I let you hit me?  And what places should I allow you to strike before I decide to defend myself?
> 
> One punch to the face equal three to the shoulder?  What if I'm really fast, and make you miss the first 3 tries?  Then what?  
> 
> Do I have to wait for you to connect one to the face to decide you're trying to harm me?  One free shot, to see if you stop afterward?
> 
> This is all very confusing.
> 
> 
> ...


Why does it matter who started the fight? If I walk up to a stranger and shove him for no reason does he have the right to shoot me? The important thing for self defense is you have to be in fear for your life. It doesn't matter if you think Zimmerman is an overzealous watchman or Martin is a thug. The only question should be "was Zimmerman in fear for his life?"

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> Why does it matter who started the fight? If I walk up to a stranger and shove him for no reason does he have the right to shoot me? The important thing for self defense is you have to be in fear for your life. It doesn't matter if you think Zimmerman is an overzealous watchman or Martin is a thug. The only question should be "was Zimmerman in fear for his life?"


A.  One is the aggressor.  B.  It depends.  If you touch me without my consent, I may assume a "shove" is a threat.


Has anyone competent ever hit you before?  A single punch can render the average person defenseless.  

You didn't answer a single one of my questions.  Did you notice that?  I did.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Why does it matter who started the fight? If I walk up to a stranger and shove him for no reason does he have the right to shoot me? The important thing for self defense is you have to be in fear for your life. It doesn't matter if you think Zimmerman is an overzealous watchman or Martin is a thug. *The only question should be "was Zimmerman in fear for his life?*"


No one can get into the mind of Zimmerman. The only person who would know for sure what was in his mind would be Zimmerman himself.   So they are just going to have to take his word for it.  He said he was in fear for his life.

----------


## matt0611

> I would simply suggest to the wannabe Zimmerman's to let the proper authorities do their job. Not heeding that advice might cause you to wind up in situations you'd rather not be in. Is it worth it?


GZ did call the police but was trying not to lose TM until the police got there...

Its not like he ran up to TM and grabbed him and demanded TM to tell him who he was and why is walking around there.

----------


## phill4paul

> I'd suggest calling the police instead,


  Many, many, examples as to how that does not work out quite like the caller planned. But hey, don't let me stop you.

----------


## AFPVet

If someone who is physically overwhelmingly superior to you causes you to fear for your life (makes obvious move to cause serious bodily injury/death), you are justified in using deadly force in my state. If someone who is 6'2 punches a person who is 5'8 with full contact force, the smaller person will be in serious peril. This is without adding the fact that the smaller person was armed into the equation.

Like I said, Zimmerman should not have gotten out of his vehicle. When you are armed you have a responsibility to ALWAYS avoid a fight whenever possible because EVERY fight will be a life/death matter for the simple reason that a firearm is present. Zimmerman was stupid, but we really don't know if he wanted to fight or not. We haven't seen all of the evidence; however,* the initial report from the LEOs would suggest that Zimmerman was completely justified and did not initiate a confrontation.* Take the police report as it is and reserve your own opinions, but it is what it is.

----------


## kahless

> I would simply suggest to the wannabe Zimmerman's to let the proper authorities do their job. Not heeding that advice might cause you to wind up in situations you'd rather not be in. Is it worth it?


Yes lets worship at the altar of government law enforcement.  Yes, no one should keep an eye out for our neighbors despite the recent robberies and instead lets pray the police will do a better job of policing. 

I think I see someone behind my neighbors house instead of on the side walk out front and I am going ask are you looking for something, do you live next door?  According to you just for asking, that gives that person the right to pump me full of bullets.

Does the non-aggression principle meaning anything to you?

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> If someone who is physically overwhelmingly superior to you causes you to fear for your life (makes obvious move to cause serious bodily injury/death), you are justified in using deadly force in my state. If someone who is 6'2 punches a person who is 5'8 with full contact force, the smaller person will be in serious peril. This is without adding the fact that the smaller person was armed into the equation.



I want to agree with you fully there, except I think a person who is 5'8 can also floor someone who is 6'2.  Even if you want to add weight into that equation, a well placed hand strike can render someone completely defenseless.  

I do agree with you fully regarding avoidance, whether someone thinks they may have an advantage or not.  Unless they're your sparring partner and you're in a ring or something, you just have no idea.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> America Will See Its Worst Race Riot Yet This Summer 
> 
>  Sanford, FL—Yes, the George Zimmerman trial here has thousands of African-Americans getting ready for some serious bloodletting.
> I don’t want to make idle and dire predictions but this nation has never been so divided and racially sensitive.  Or African-American President took sides on this case at the very beginning.  That ratified a George Zimmerman guilty verdict in the minds of millions.
> There’s just one little problem, and that is the murder case should have never been filed.  It was filed purely for political reasons despite the fact that it was a simple justifiable 
> 
> http://www.crimefilenews.com/2013/06...race-riot.html


I would usually couch my language but this is an unbelievably stupid prediction.  Worst riot yet?  Like worse than LA in the 90's?  Worse than what we saw in the 60's?

Bull$#@!.  If you actually believe what you type then let's place a bet on it.  Let's place a bet on it and bump this thread when there's a verdict.  And I know you won't because we all know nothing is going to go down.  You'll either have nothing or you'll have a few idiots who are looking for an excuse who will use this as an excuse.  

The race war fear mongerers here annoy me to no end.  And no one calls them on it everytime they are wrong.  When the Trayvon thing first happened there were threads and Alex Jones links telling us it was about to be blood in the streets.  That movie machete was going to come out and as soon as it was going to come out it was going to be an all out race war.  I called bull $#@! then and said Alex Jones was a paranoid SOB and I was accused of having my head in the sand and manipulated by TPTB.  Well where is it?  Where is this $#@!ing race war y'all have been fear mongering about for so long.

$#@! ain't going to happen.  Americans get along better than ever - stop talking $#@! and stop being hyperbolic.

... end rant.




> I just hope the inevitable and justified not guilty verdict does not result in race riots


I'll say a prayer for you.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> 1.  You have to remember that the state didn't even want to press charges originally. (Now we know why.) 2. They were pressured into this by the Obama administration looking to gin up racial unrest for the election season.


1.  Which is SHADY AS $#@!.  How many cases do you know where an armed guy shoots an unarmed guy and isn't arrested?  I know basically zero.  I repeat that was shady as $#@! and that's why it got so much attention.  I can guaran $#@!ing tee you that if I shot someone they would arrest me first and ask questions later.  That's how cops operate.  The fact that nothing was done until the case got attention is evidence of all kinds of bull$#@! - some of it likely racial.

2.  Come on angel.  You know that's not true.  Why would Obama want racial unrest before election season?  A) black people were voting for him anyway and B) that would only make white people less likely to vote for him.  And really C) there was no real racial unrest before election season.  Come on man.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> "My house was being robbed, and George on his nightly rounds watched this burglary in progress, called Sanford P.D., waited for them, and helped ensure that nothing bad happened to my house," Taaffe said. "And it's documented in the 911 call for February 2. That was my residence that George Zimmerman helped stop." Zimmerman shot and killed Martin on Feb. 26.
> 
> "Neighbor-hood, that's a great word," Taaffe said.
> 
> Taaffe said that "young black males" were the perpetrators in the attempted robbery of his home. "We had eight burglaries in our neighborhood all perpetrated by young black males in the 15 months prior to Trayvon being shot," Taaffe said. "It would have been nine."


So because Trayvon shared the same age and skin tone as the people who robbed some houses in this neighborhood - it is now ok for Zimmerman to follow him around and immediately treat him as a suspect and a criminal?  Why not treat him as a citizen?

Am I on the right forum?  90% of the posts her complain of this sort of treatment.  Why is this case suddenly it becomes alright?

----------


## green73

> 1.  Which is SHADY AS $#@!.  How many cases do you know where an armed guy shoots an unarmed guy and isn't arrested?  I know basically zero.  I repeat that was shady as $#@! and that's why it got so much attention.  I can guaran $#@!ing tee you that if I shot someone they would arrest me first and ask questions later.  That's how cops operate.  The fact that nothing was done until the case got attention is evidence of all kinds of bull$#@! - some of it likely racial.
> 
> 2.  Come on angel.  You know that's not true.  Why would Obama want racial unrest before election season?  A) black people were voting for him anyway and B) that would only make white people less likely to vote for him.  And really C) there was no real racial unrest before election season.  Come on man.


It was more of an attack on the right to bear arms. If they could play the race card at the same time, so be it. That is something they never hesitate to use. They thrive on racial/class division.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Could this be a 2nd amendment issue? If more of those homeowners had a gun for home and self defense, would these robberies occur as much as they did? If every neighbor had a sign telling them this, could this whole scenario have been avoided as well as many others?


2nd amendment doesn't mean everyone is required by law to have a gun.  It means if you want one you can have one.  I assume some of the homeowners didn't want a gun or weren't at home when the robberies occurred.  That is their right - it's called personal liberty.

----------


## Ender

> So because Trayvon shared the same age and skin tone as the people who robbed some houses in this neighborhood - it is now ok for Zimmerman to follow him around and immediately treat him as a suspect and a criminal?  Why not treat him as a citizen?
> 
> Am I on the right forum?  90% of the posts her complain of this sort of treatment.  Why is this case suddenly it becomes alright?


Make ya wonder, doesn't it?

*This is what we DO know-*

-Zimmerman wanted the Neighborhood Watch
-HOA president did not think they needed a NW
-As NW, Zimmerman was trained NOT to take action- only watch & report
-Zimmerman was not on duty the night of the shooting
-Trayvon was legally on the property
-Zimmerman called 911
-Was advised not to follow
-There was an altercation
-Trayvon was found lying *face down*, hands under him; no blood or bruises on hands
-Zimmerman was not seriously injured; did not seek medical care
-Original police reports altered witness testimonies

My POV is that Zimmerman is guilty of pride and stupidity, which, unfortunately, took someone's life.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> A black person is statistically much more likely to attack you than a non-black so it's not irrational to be fearful of them.


That's completely irrational?  What % of black people do you think would randomly attack you?  0.5%?

...I guess cops should now be on guard against citizens 

How come every time race comes up certain members will go against everything the forum is usually on consensus about?




> You should be denouncing the violence of other black people for creating this environment where non-blacks are rationally fearful of you.


Good point.  Never thought of it that way.  I will make sure to bring this up in my next meeting.  Would you be willing to come as my special guest?

----------


## rpfocus

> Yes lets worship at the altar of government law enforcement.  Yes, no one should keep an eye out for our neighbors despite the recent robberies and instead lets pray the police will do a better job of policing. 
> 
> I think I see someone behind my neighbors house instead of on the side walk out front and I am going ask are you looking for something, do you live next door?  According to you just for asking, that gives that person the right to pump me full of bullets.
> 
> Does the non-aggression principle meaning anything to you?


Again, if I'm walking down the street minding my own business (not climbing out of your neighbors window carrying a tv set) and you come to interrogate me, a Trayvon/Zimmerman level confrontation is guaranteed. I'd suggest you call the police, but apparently that means "worshiping at the altar of law enforcement" (lol?) I don't recognize your authority to stop and interrogate me. If you feel it is your duty to interrogate people walking down your street, my guess is that eventually you will attempt to interrogate the wrong person.

----------


## green73

> Make ya wonder, doesn't it?
> 
> *This is what we DO know-*
> 
> -Zimmerman wanted the Neighborhood Watch
> -HOA president did not think they needed a NW
> -As NW, Zimmerman was trained NOT to take action- only watch & report
> -Zimmerman was not on duty the night of the shooting
> -Trayvon was legally on the property
> ...


The only thing that matters is who initiated the violence.

----------


## Ender

> The only thing that matters is who initiated the violence.


Which we do not know.

Also, the little matter of Trayvon lying face down in the grass. How did THAT happen if he was on top of Zimmerman? Plus the grass seems to be several feet from cement.

----------


## green73

> Which we do not know.
> 
> Also, the little matter of Trayvon lying face down in the grass. How did THAT happen if he was on top of Zimmerman? Plus the grass seems to be several feet from cement.


After Zimmerman rolled his dead body off of him?

----------


## green73

> Which we do not know.
> 
> Also, the little matter of Trayvon lying face down in the grass. How did THAT happen if he was on top of Zimmerman? Plus the grass seems to be several feet from cement.


Or maybe he wound up that way after crawling off of Zimmerman.

----------


## Ender

> Or maybe he wound up that way after crawling off of Zimmerman.


Supposedly, he died instantly.

Screaming- shot- immediate silence is the witness scenario and you think Trayvon was still alive enough to crawl off and land on his face? And Zimmerman would have laid there quietly and let him do it? If Trayvon was on top Zimmerman would have flipped him off and onto his back.

----------


## green73

> If Trayvon was on top Zimmerman would have flipped him off and onto his back.


Not necessarily.

----------


## Ender

> Not necessarily.


Try it.

----------


## green73

> Try it.


Ok, but first give me a shot of adrenaline.

----------


## matt0611

> Again, if I'm walking down the street minding my own business (not climbing out of your neighbors window carrying a tv set) and you come to interrogate me, a Trayvon/Zimmerman level confrontation is guaranteed. I'd suggest you call the police, but apparently that means "worshiping at the altar of law enforcement" (lol?) I don't recognize your authority to stop and interrogate me. If you feel it is your duty to interrogate people walking down your street, my guess is that eventually you will attempt to interrogate the wrong person.


1. He did call the police

2. What's your evidence that GZ "stopped and interrogated TM" ? That's not at all what happened according to GZ.

----------


## Ender

> Ok, but first give me a shot of adrenaline.


Law of physics, dude.

You are not going to get a dead body to flip over without a lot of exertion- especially with the hands underneath them. 

Second, Zimmerman claims he was fighting for his life but Trayon had NO MARKS on his hands.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> Make ya wonder, doesn't it?
> 
> *This is what we DO know-*
> 
> -Zimmerman wanted the Neighborhood Watch
> -HOA president did not think they needed a NW
> -As NW, Zimmerman was trained NOT to take action- only watch & report
> -Zimmerman was not on duty the night of the shooting
> -Trayvon was legally on the property
> ...



The commonly used term for that is "sheepdog."  Not only do we have a class of dipshits running around "policing" with the blessing of the state, but there's also a lot of people who think that they are "sheepdogs" and they need to protect the "sheep" from the "wolves."  Hang around a few firearms forums, and you'll see that $#@! all of the time.  Dumb $#@!...  I don't know what else to call it.

----------


## green73

> Law of physics, dude.
> 
> You are not going to get a dead body to flip over without a lot of exertion- especially with the hands underneath them. 
> 
> Second, Zimmerman claims he was fighting for his life but Trayon had NO MARKS on his hands.


I suppose after the fact, he could have done this to his nose..



as well as put the abrasions on the back of his own head.

----------


## rpfocus

> 1. He did call the police
> 
> 2. What's your evidence that GZ "stopped and interrogated TM" ? That's not at all what happened according to GZ.


" if I'm walking down the street minding my own business (not climbing out of your neighbors window carrying a tv set) and you come to interrogate me"

I'm not going to get into semantics about what is and what isn't considered interrogation. You take your chances when you decide to play the neighborhood policeman.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> That's total BS.
> 
> It's amazing how people will defend Zimmerman's right to follow someone around and scare the hell out of them in the name of "taking care of the neighborhood" (which is AGAINST all Neighborhood Watch rules, BTW), while astounded on another thread on the forum about plainclothes cops who confronted and attacked girls over a pack of water.
> 
> Either they are both right or both wrong.
> 
> Talk about not understanding freedom-


This +1000.

Am I on the wrong forum?

How come when race is injected everyone suddenly takes an opposite view?

----------


## Ender

> I suppose after the fact, he could have done this to his nose..
> 
> 
> 
> as well as put the abrasions on the back of his own head.


We've all seen this picture. Zimmerman still did not seek medical care.

And, tell me- where is the blood and marks that should have been on Trayvon's hands?

----------


## green73

> The commonly used term for that is "sheepdog."  Not only do we have a class of dipshits running around "policing" with the blessing of the state, but there's also a lot of people who think that they are "sheepdogs" and they need to protect the "sheep" from the "wolves."  Hang around a few firearms forums, and you'll see that $#@! all of the time.  Dumb $#@!...  I don't know what else to call it.


Yeah, $#@! these people who don't want to leave it to the inept police, who want to help protect their neighborhoods. People like that are what's wrong with this country!

----------


## rpfocus

> I suppose after the fact, he could have done this to his nose..
> 
> as well as put the abrasions on the back of his own head.


Awww a highschooler beat him up after he chased him down so he killed him. And got a bloody nose for his trouble. If TM was armed, maybe all he would have is a bloody nose and some head scratches.

----------


## matt0611

> " if I'm walking down the street minding my own business (not climbing out of your neighbors window carrying a tv set) and you come to interrogate me"
> 
> I'm not going to get into semantics about what is and what isn't considered interrogation. You take your chances when you decide to play the neighborhood policeman.


Now you're just sidestepping the issue. 

Define "stop and interrogate". Because according to GZ that's not at all what happened. GZ did not "stop" TM, he did NOT "interrogate" him.

If you attack an armed person for simply following you and asking you questions you take your chances that they are armed and will possibly shoot and kill you like GZ did to TM. Which is exactly what happened in this case. What TM did was wrong and illegal. It was stupid and it got him killed. GZ didn't do anything illegal and was perfectly within his right to defend himself against TM.

----------


## green73

> We've all seen this picture. Zimmerman still did not seek medical care.
> 
> And, tell me- where is the blood and marks that should have been on Trayvon's hands?



He had a broken noes. Do you dispute that? Was he suppose to leave the scene and go to the hospital? 

I totally deny your premise that there should be marks on his hands.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> Yeah, $#@! these people who don't want to leave it to the inept police, who want to help protect their neighborhoods. People like that are what's wrong with this country!



Do you want Zimmerman protecting you?  Do you want Zimmerman stepping into save you from fights that you could avoid all by your little self?  I don't.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> It was more of an attack on the right to bear arms. If they could play the race card at the same time, so be it. That is something they never hesitate to use. They thrive on racial/class division.


Really?  Have gun laws changed?  Have polls on views on 2nd amendment changed due to this case?

Who is "they"?  And how come they keep trying to start racial division and races are more united than ever?

----------


## matt0611

> He had a broken noes. Do you dispute that? Was he suppose to leave the scene and go to the hospital? 
> 
> I totally deny your premise that there should be marks on his hands.


Exactly. I am a little puzzled by the argument Martin could not have caused the injuries to Zimmerman as Martin lacked evidence on his fists. The biggest danger with punching someone is hitting their teeth as they will lacerate your hand. But the nose, orbital sockets, cheeks, and jaw are all soft and pose no real risk

----------


## Ender

> Yeah, $#@! these people who don't want to leave it to the inept police, who want to help protect their neighborhoods. People like that are what's wrong with this country!


YEAH! Screw those stupid people who do not tolerate vigilantes and wannabe ass-hole cops who barge into peoples lives and want to take away their God-given rights. Who cares about the right to travel or innocent until proven guilty?

----------


## rpfocus

> This +1000.
> 
> Am I on the wrong forum?
> 
> How come when race is injected everyone suddenly takes an opposite view?


Liberty and freedom apparently mean being subject to questioning at any time, by anyone, for any reason, as long as you "look like you're up to no good."  

Just don't try it on me.

----------


## matt0611

> Liberty and freedom apparently mean being subject to questioning at any time, by anyone, for any reason, as long as you "look like you're up to no good."  
> 
> Just don't try it on me.


Right, and liberty according to you is being murdered for following someone you think is suspicious. 

You don't have a right to be free from anyone walking up to you and asking you questions.

----------


## Ender

> Now you're just sidestepping the issue. 
> 
> Define "stop and interrogate". Because according to GZ that's not at all what happened. GZ did not "stop" TM, he did NOT "interrogate" him.
> 
> If you attack an armed person for simply following you and asking you questions you take your chances that they are armed and will possibly shoot and kill you like GZ did to TM. Which is exactly what happened in this case. What TM did was wrong and illegal. It was stupid and it got him killed. GZ didn't do anything illegal and was perfectly within his right to defend himself against TM.


There is no proof of any of that.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> Do you want Zimmerman protecting you?  Do you want Zimmerman stepping into save you from fights that you could avoid all by your little self?  I don't.



I'll make this more clear.  It is one thing to help someone who is clearly being attacked.  It is a completely different thing to appoint yourself as a protector of people who aren't asking for it.  That's what "sheepdogs" think they do.

----------


## green73

> Do you want Zimmerman protecting you?  Do you want Zimmerman stepping into save you from fights that you could avoid all by your little self?  I don't.


What a stupid statement.

----------


## Ender

> Right, and liberty according to you is being murdered for following someone you think is suspicious. 
> 
> You don't have a right to be free from anyone walking up to you and asking you questions.


Zimmerman did the murdering.

----------


## green73

> YEAH! Screw those stupid people who do not tolerate vigilantes and wannabe ass-hole cops who barge into peoples lives and want to take away their God-given rights. Who cares about the right to travel or innocent until proven guilty?


Another stupid statement...

----------


## matt0611

> There is no proof of any of that.


If you want to put GZ away for murder then its up to you to prove that he murdered TM, not the other way around.

He's just assuming that GZ "stopped and interrogated TM" which  there is no evidence for.

----------


## green73

> Really?  Have gun laws changed?  Have polls on views on 2nd amendment changed due to this case?
> 
> Who is "they"?  And how come they keep trying to start racial division and races are more united than ever?


it all plays to they're massive assault on our right to bear arms.

Who is "they"? Get $#@!ing serious.

----------


## rpfocus

> Right, and liberty according to you is being murdered for following someone you think is suspicious. 
> 
> You don't have a right to be free from anyone walking up to you and asking you questions.


You can follow me all you want. You'd wind up regretting it though. Especially if you're armed and stopped me for interrogation.

----------


## matt0611

> You can follow me all you want. You'd wind up regretting it though. Especially if you're armed and stopped me for interrogation.


And you'd be rightfully put away for murder if there was any justice if that happened.

----------


## Ender

> Another stupid statement...


Really.

You're worried about gun-rights and yet you advocate following and harassing "suspicious" people until someone gets shot?

Who's stupid?

----------


## green73

> Really.
> 
> You're worried about gun-rights and yet you advocate following and harassing "suspicious" people until someone gets shot?
> 
> Who's stupid?


You're too corrupted by PC bull$#@! to have an honest conversation with.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> What a stupid statement.




Not based on your response below, which is what I was responding to.  





> Yeah, $#@! these people who don't want to leave it to the inept police, who want to help protect their neighborhoods. People like that are what's wrong with this country!

----------


## amy31416

> You're too corrupted by PC bull$#@! to have an honest conversation with.


I've been following this thread, but have sorta been trying to stay out of it, but you made too good of a point.

I was held up at gunpoint by three black kids (in hoodies, for what it's worth), because I had that PC notion crammed down my throat. I was sitting in a driveway in a nice neighborhood when I noticed the three black kids walking down the street and my initial notion was "they are up to no good and don't belong here." Yes, it was an all-white neighborhood. If I would have listened to my initial thought, rather than the PC one that came after, "they have every right to be here, don't be racist," then I would have gone into the house, locked the door and watched them from the window.

Instead, I sat in my car, finishing my conversation with my friend and next time I looked out my rear-view mirror, they were coming up the driveway. Got a gun shoved in my face, wallets stolen--at least I kept the car b/c the punks couldn't drive stick.

I've tried to stay out of this b/c I don't know if that's anything like what went down with Zimmerman/Martin, but I am saying that I went with my gut instinct over the PC sentiment ever since then and it's served me well.

----------


## green73

> Not based on your response below, which is what I was responding to.


Sometimes I wonder what forums I'm on. But then I soon remember that, like with everywhere else, there are a lot of loudmouths here that don't have a clue.

----------


## rpfocus

> I'm not going to get into semantics about what is and what isn't considered interrogation.





> Now you're just sidestepping the issue. 
> 
> Define "stop and interrogate". Because according to GZ that's not at all what happened. GZ did not "stop" TM, he did NOT "interrogate" him.


Here we go with the semantics. Saw this one coming. Asking what someone "is doing around here" qualifies as examining by question. 

I will simply provide the definition of interrogate. You can argue the semantics with someone else. 

in·ter·ro·gate  [in-ter-uh-geyt]  Show IPA verb, in·ter·ro·gat·ed, in·ter·ro·gat·ing.
verb (used with object)
1.
to ask questions of (a person), sometimes to seek answers or information that the person questioned considers personal or secret.
2.
to examine by questions; question formally: The police captain interrogated the suspect.

----------


## MelissaWV

> If some stranger is on top of me beating me I would think I am an inch from losing my life and may possibly shoot before what you describe occurs.  If time passes too long the opportunity to save my life is over.
> 
> btw - since the phrase was open to debate from you there were a flurry of posts from me after that where I changed it to asking, "how do you know he is going to stop and not beat you to death?"  So it is not like I "keep saying it".


Yes, you did change it.  Interesting, isn't it?  You also put words in my mouth by saying I was not open to the possibility his life was in danger, which was funny because you were quoting me saying that he was obviously injured and that...



> One has to only THINK they might be beaten within an inch of one's life, or even a yard or a mile of one's life, in order to defend oneself.


You can ask "How do you know he is going to stop and not beat you to death?" as if I haven't already responded to the issue, if you'd like, but really your responses have nothing to do with my posts at this point, and only serve to twist meanings and shove words in my mouth.

----------


## rpfocus

> Another stupid statement...


No! You're stupid! Poopy pants!

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> Sometimes I wonder what forums I'm on. But then I soon remember that, like with everywhere else, there are a lot of loudmouths here that don't have a clue.



What do I not have a clue about?

Be specific.  Otherwise, you're just throwing ad-homs for no reason.

----------


## green73

> I've been following this thread, but have sorta been trying to stay out of it, but you made too good of a point.
> 
> I was held up at gunpoint by three black kids (in hoodies, for what it's worth), because I had that PC notion crammed down my throat. I was sitting in a driveway in a nice neighborhood when I noticed the three black kids walking down the street and my initial notion was "they are up to no good and don't belong here." Yes, it was an all-white neighborhood. If I would have listened to my initial thought, rather than the PC one that came after, "they have every right to be here, don't be racist," then I would have gone into the house, locked the door and watched them from the window.
> 
> Instead, I sat in my car, finishing my conversation with my friend and next time I looked out my rear-view mirror, they were coming up the driveway. Got a gun shoved in my face, wallets stolen--at least I kept the car b/c the punks couldn't drive stick.
> 
> I've tried to stay out of this b/c I don't know if that's anything like what went down with Zimmerman/Martin, but I am saying that I went with my gut instinct over the PC sentiment ever since then and it's served me well.


Amy, you are so racist. How dare you?

xx

----------


## matt0611

> Here we go with the semantics. Saw this one coming. Asking what someone "is doing around here" qualifies as examining by question. 
> 
> I will simply provide the definition of interrogate. You can argue the semantics with someone else. 
> 
> in·ter·ro·gate  [in-ter-uh-geyt]  Show IPA verb, in·ter·ro·gat·ed, in·ter·ro·gat·ing.
> verb (used with object)
> 1.
> to ask questions of (a person), sometimes to seek answers or information that the person questioned considers personal or secret.
> 2.
> to examine by questions; question formally: The police captain interrogated the suspect.


Even if GZ did "interrogate" TM. Asking someone questions isn't illegal.

You think because you ask someone asks you questions you're in youre right to attack them?

Person A: "Hey, excuse me...I don't recognize you from around here, do you live here? are you lost?"

Person B: *Attacks person A*

You think that's OK? WTF? What is wrong with you?

----------


## green73

> No! You're stupid! Poopy pants!


I've seen enough of your comments to know how enlightened you are. You're now the 3rd person I've put on ignore. Congrats

----------


## tmg19103

Zimmerman states he got out of his car to keep on eye on Martin from a distance so he could tell the police where he was.

This link provides facts that Martin doubled back and attacked Zimmerman, pounding his head into the pavement. Zimmerman said only after Martin went after his gun, then he used it in self-defense.

All the evidence is either on Zimmerman's side or can't be proven one way or the other. Easy acquittal. Prosecution case is a joke - as are their witnesses. The credible prosecution witnesses back Zimmerman's story.

Martin doubled back and went after Zimmerman:

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-lineh...n-doubled-back

----------


## amy31416

> Amy, you are so racist. How dare you?
> 
> xx


Yeppp. I can't even claim to have any black friends at this point either.

----------


## rpfocus

> I've seen enough of your comments to know how enlightened you are. You're now the 3rd person I've put on ignore. Congrats


Oh thank God. He called me an idiot on a negative rep, I give him one back as a shrug, then I get this lol:

_06-30-2013 04:41 PM
green73
Thread: The Zimmerman Trial
Ouch. I can play neg rep retaliation all day. Your measly -1 to my -5. I can probably get you down to 0 by midnight._

Now THAT'S enlightenment lol. Pure comedy.

----------


## MelissaWV

Bottom line for me: they both acted stupidly at different points throughout the timeline.  This is glaringly evident in hindsight, but the whole thing could have been avoided by either party at several crucial events.

Given that we don't know who was responsible for the ULTIMATE stupid act (the initiation of violence at the last altercation), you can't convict Zimmerman.  You can be mad at him, and the family may sue him for wrongful death, but the media circus involuntarily involving family members, and the race riots (there might be some manufactured marches and such... after all there were marches of folks wearing hoodies originally) are way over the top.  There is not enough evidence that we've been told about to support the charge in this case.  Maybe there's some kind of smoking gun or a diary where Zimmerman writes that he's going to kill the next black kid he sees walking through his neighborhood at night, but first he's going to call the cops... maybe.  But as of now?  How the hell can you convict?

----------


## Ender

> You're too corrupted by PC bull$#@! to have an honest conversation with.


I have always found that these kinds of comments come from people who have no argument so they start with the insults.

BTW- I am probably more unPC than anyone on this board.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Amy, you are so racist. How dare you?
> 
> xx


Weirdly most of the criminals around here are quite white, but there is a lot to be said about gut instinct.  I doubt it was solely skin color.  If the three guys in this scenario were dressed in nice, neat clothes (school uniforms? suits?), walking down the street with lovely posture and carrying on what appeared to be an intellectual conversation, I don't think Amy would have gotten the notion they were up to no good.  It's just a general impression you get in that split second you see folks.  Maybe you feel silly after they pass by and nothing happens, but going with your gut and removing yourself from the situation almost never results in anything worse.

----------


## amy31416

> Weirdly most of the criminals around here are quite white, but there is a lot to be said about gut instinct.  I doubt it was solely skin color.  If the three guys in this scenario were dressed in nice, neat clothes (school uniforms? suits?), walking down the street with lovely posture and carrying on what appeared to be an intellectual conversation, I don't think Amy would have gotten the notion they were up to no good.  It's just a general impression you get in that split second you see folks.  Maybe you feel silly after they pass by and nothing happens, but going with your gut and removing yourself from the situation almost never results in anything worse.


This was pretty much a neighborhood of prep school kids, mostly Italian Catholic, so that would have been normal. I probably would have known them. If I were in the projects with another friend of mine, these three still would have set off some alarm bells, but perhaps I wouldn't have felt that PC notion as strongly there--and I'm not entirely sure why. White guilt is lessened when you're "slumming it?" I don't know.

I've run the scenario through my head a thousand different ways, and the only thing I can conclude is that the second thought I had was entirely influenced by the PC movement and put my and my passenger's life in danger.

----------


## MelissaWV

> I've run the scenario through my head a thousand different ways, and the only thing I can conclude is that the second thought I had was entirely influenced by the PC movement and put my and my passenger's life in danger.


Yep and that is an increasing danger.  We're all taught to try to think the best of everyone and be "fair," but that first impression is true instinct.  Probably goes back to our ancestor who thought "that leopard cuddly and soft and I want to pet it... but somehow I get the feeling I shouldn't."

----------


## amy31416

> Yep and that is an increasing danger.  We're all taught to try to think the best of everyone and be "fair," but that first impression is true instinct.  Probably goes back to our ancestor who thought "that leopard cuddly and soft and I want to pet it... but somehow I get the feeling I shouldn't."


Indeed it is. And it's one of the reasons that I'm probably going to home school, at least part-time. But the answer isn't to be a racist prick either.

Political correctness is progressivism taken to a stupid extreme that pushes you to deny what you sense in the world. But....I'm a racist for saying that, I suppose.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> I've been following this thread, but have sorta been trying to stay out of it, but you made too good of a point.
> 
> I was held up at gunpoint by three black kids (in hoodies, for what it's worth), because I had that PC notion crammed down my throat. I was sitting in a driveway in a nice neighborhood when I noticed the three black kids walking down the street and my initial notion was "they are up to no good and don't belong here." Yes, it was an all-white neighborhood. If I would have listened to my initial thought, rather than the PC one that came after, "they have every right to be here, don't be racist," then I would have gone into the house, locked the door and watched them from the window.
> 
> Instead, I sat in my car, finishing my conversation with my friend and next time I looked out my rear-view mirror, they were coming up the driveway. Got a gun shoved in my face, wallets stolen--at least I kept the car b/c the punks couldn't drive stick.
> 
> I've tried to stay out of this b/c I don't know if that's anything like what went down with Zimmerman/Martin, but I am saying that I went with my gut instinct over the PC sentiment ever since then and it's served me well.


What exactly does that mean?  So now you judge people based on their skin color as opposed to that "PC bull$#@!" of viewing people equally?  Wow - so smart.




> Amy, you are so racist. How dare you?
> 
> xx


Didn't a second ago you say that "they" wanted us not trusting each other?  Now you condone Amy's post about judging people based on race.

Are you one of them?




> Yeppp. I can't even claim to have any black friends at this point either.


Congratulations.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> This was pretty much a neighborhood of prep school kids, mostly Italian Catholic, so that would have been normal. I probably would have known them. If I were in the projects with another friend of mine, these three still would have set off some alarm bells, but perhaps I wouldn't have felt that PC notion as strongly there--and I'm not entirely sure why. White guilt is lessened when you're "slumming it?" I don't know.
> 
> I've run the scenario through my head a thousand different ways, and the only thing I can conclude is that the second thought I had was entirely influenced by the PC movement and put my and my passenger's life in danger.


Can you explain what was the PC corruption?  To view people as individuals rather than assuming black kids were out to get you?

So collectivism is good... is the point you are making.

----------


## amy31416

> Can you explain what was the PC corruption?  To view people as individuals rather than assuming black kids were out to get you?
> 
> So collectivism is good... is the point you are making.


No. As Melissa pointed out, I had a gut reaction that something was wrong, and the PC sentiment that was force-fed in public school aided me in ignoring that and go for the PC sentiment and stay in harm's way instead.

It was an Italian neighborhood, full of white prep-school kids. Three black kids in hoodies is abnormal there whether you like it or not, just as I would be an anomaly on North Avenue in Baltimore.

Was it simply their color? No. Was that part of it? Yes.

If you don't want honesty, put me on ignore. Those kids WERE out to get me, and they did--you're insane if you think I'll put myself in that position again just to appease you or anyone else.

----------


## amy31416

> Congratulations.


You missed so many of the points in this post, that all I can say is that it must be because you're black.

Oh wait, that's what you want me to say, right? Well piss off.

(You do know that if those kids had been white, I would have simply gone with my gut reaction, right? That's kind of the point of my post railing against political correctness.)

----------


## Icymudpuppy

My Paranoia is equal opportunity.  I perceive everyone as a potential thug until proven otherwise.  I also project the image of a person that will not take any $#@!, and as such, petty trouble makers generally clear a path for me.  I remember walking through a bad neighborhood with little gangbanger wannabe's on all sides shouting slurs, but I noticed they parted for my passage like the red sea parted for Moses.  They wouldn't come within 20 feet of me.  The real dangerous ones, I always make eye contact and make sure they know that it isn't worth the trouble to mess with me.  It works the same way with the wild animals I work with daily.

----------


## kahless

> Yes, you did change it.  Interesting, isn't it?  You also put words in my mouth by saying I was not open to the possibility his life was in danger, which was funny because you were quoting me saying that he was obviously injured and that...
> 
> 
> You can ask "How do you know he is going to stop and not beat you to death?" as if I haven't already responded to the issue, if you'd like, but really your responses have nothing to do with my posts at this point, and only serve to twist meanings and shove words in my mouth.


Either I misinterpreted your posts or the other way around.  Sorry that you believe that MelissaWV since that was not my intention.

----------


## green73

> Can you explain what was the PC corruption?  To view people as individuals rather than assuming black kids were out to get you?
> 
> So collectivism is good... is the point you are making.


hahaha.

----------


## green73

> What exactly does that mean?  So now you judge people based on their skin color as opposed to that "PC bull$#@!" of viewing people equally?  Wow - so smart.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't a second ago you say that "they" wanted us not trusting each other?  Now you condone Amy's post about judging people based on race.
> 
> Are you one of them?
> 
> 
> ...


Wake the $#@! up.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Wake the $#@! up.


Amen.

I will try this another way, and maybe it will make sense to BT.

Let's say you're an elderly gentleman with skin on the very darkest end of the spectrum.  You're sitting on a bench waiting for a bus, or maybe just taking a rest in the park before moving on.  You look around at all the wonderful people enjoying the day.  You catch sight of, to your left, three guys.  They are white guys, walking together in a triangular type pattern, and they seem to be coming directly at you.  They aren't noticing anyone else; they are walking straight towards you, maybe just a little faster or more purposefully than they should be.  You can see, with your fading eyesight, that there's some kind of tattoo they all have.  

Scared, or no?  Should you tell yourself "oh c'mon I shouldn't assume they have bad intent," or just listen to your gut?  It is more than "he's black" or "he's white," but the OVERRIDE is the PC bull$#@! that Amy and I and others are referring to.  The override that forces you to sit there and smile and say "Good afternoon, gentlemen!" even as the first of the three guys that were stomping towards you lets fly with a racial epithet and the second goes for your wallet, because you insist to yourself that you will not prejudge people of another race, even if the danger signs are plentiful.

----------


## kahless

> Sometimes I wonder what forums I'm on.


I agree with you in this thread but you are not all that consistent in your beliefs either. I remember making a similar comment like the one above after your posts in support of Amazons internet tax which are counter to what RP and C4L are currently battling against.

----------


## brushfire

> Exactly. I am a little puzzled by the argument Martin could not have caused the injuries to Zimmerman as Martin lacked evidence on his fists. The biggest danger with punching someone is hitting their teeth as they will lacerate your hand. But the nose, orbital sockets, cheeks, and jaw are all soft and pose no real risk


There is also hand conditioning.  People who fight regularly (MMA fighters for instance) have their tissue and bone conditioned to handle the blows without damaging the tissue.   Add to that the landing of blows on softer tissue/cartilage and its possible for the hands to not show any damage.  All that said, MMA fighters also use their forearms, which can cause damage like what Zimmerman had sustained.

As for the blood, lets not forget, it was raining, and had been for some time until the officer was able to put the medical blanket over Martin.  Based the testimony of several witnesses, there was no blood found at the scene (Martin's or Zimmerman's), due to the rain.

Its hard to say, also, if Martin died "instantly".  I've heard he was hit in the heart, and just above the heart.  I also heard that he had a gurgling (sucking chest wound).  There was no over penetration though.  Zimmerman said that Martin said "you got me" after he shot him.  If Martin was "grounding and pounding", he would have been straddling Zimmerman's chest, with his heel's locked in, and both fists/arms going to town.  This much is consistent with eye witness testimony, and would also explain how Martin fell face down.  Zimmerman could have been out from beneath Martin, even before Martin was dead.

As for having Zimmerman for a neighbor, based on the facts presented thus far, I'd have no problems having Zimmerman in my neighborhood.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

Zimmerman said Martin said "You got me"?

----------


## WM_in_MO

Move this to off topic please.

----------


## mad cow

> Zimmerman said Martin said "You got me"?


Yes,or something to that effect.It is in the video.

----------


## Antischism

> Amen.
> 
> I will try this another way, and maybe it will make sense to BT.
> 
> Let's say you're an elderly gentleman with skin on the very darkest end of the spectrum.  You're sitting on a bench waiting for a bus, or maybe just taking a rest in the park before moving on.  You look around at all the wonderful people enjoying the day.  You catch sight of, to your left, three guys.  They are white guys, walking together in a triangular type pattern, and they seem to be coming directly at you.  They aren't noticing anyone else; they are walking straight towards you, maybe just a little faster or more purposefully than they should be.  You can see, with your fading eyesight, that there's some kind of tattoo they all have.  
> 
> Scared, or no?  Should you tell yourself "oh c'mon I shouldn't assume they have bad intent," or just listen to your gut?  It is more than "he's black" or "he's white," but the OVERRIDE is the PC bull$#@! that Amy and I and others are referring to.  The override that forces you to sit there and smile and say "Good afternoon, gentlemen!" even as the first of the three guys that were stomping towards you lets fly with a racial epithet and the second goes for your wallet, because you insist to yourself that you will not prejudge people of another race, even if the danger signs are plentiful.


It's pretty interesting for me to hear such stories (Amy's and your example) considering that I've lived right smack in the middle of New York City since birth. I encounter people from all walks of life, different cultures, colors, etc. It really is a melting pot. There hasn't been a single day where I've feared for my life or gotten bad vibes from people based on how they're dressed or the color of their skin. I walk through every kind of neighborhood without a care in the world, at all hours of the day. Most New Yorkers do. Maybe I'm lucky? I don't know. I've never felt like anyone was a threat to my safety besides the cops, because "normal" doesn't exist. You literally see everyone and everything here.

However, I can understand the gut instinct to get away if something seems to be out of the norm in your particular neighborhood and you encounter a group of people who look like they're walking in your direction with a sort of focus. I don't think race is the defining characteristic here, rather the way they're carrying themselves and how common it is for people who dress in their particular style to walk around that area. I understand the thought process, and I don't think there's anything wrong with being cautious and going into your home if you feel something's off.

I don't think Amy's particular post can be related to the Treyvon case at all, unless the conclusion is that Treyvon had a right to feel fearful or threatened because he was being chased or "stalked" by Zimmerman for a while. That Treyvon's gut instinct was to be fearful of his safety because some random stranger was closely watching and following him.

----------


## Ender

> My Paranoia is equal opportunity.  I perceive everyone as a potential thug until proven otherwise.  I also project the image of a person that will not take any $#@!, and as such, petty trouble makers generally clear a path for me.  I remember walking through a bad neighborhood with little gangbanger wannabe's on all sides shouting slurs, but I noticed they parted for my passage like the red sea parted for Moses.  They wouldn't come within 20 feet of me.  The real dangerous ones, I always make eye contact and make sure they know that it isn't worth the trouble to mess with me.  It works the same way with the wild animals I work with daily.


I absolutely agree with this.

This is the way I train and work with dogs- have always wondered why police depts didn't have enough sense to train cops on how to handle a dog on the loose.

I also believe it is absolutely wise to be discerning in all situations. I was raised with no racial prejudice but that does not mean I am stupid enough to walk into the Barrio at midnight by myself. It is smart to follow one's instincts but this does not mean starting a bad situation that would never have existed w/o one's interference.

This is my problem with Zimmerman. 

As I have stated before, I believe his major "crime" was stupidity mixed with a big glob of pride. Obviously, black people lived in the "gated community" or Trayvon would never have been there, in the first place. Zimmerman broke the very rules he was asked to comply with and a kid is dead.

I also have a problem with people who have immediately jumped on the Zimmerman bandwagon, while accusing everyone who disagrees as being stupid and PC. The only real "witness" is Zimmerman, yet many believe everything he has said because of their own prejudices about a black kid in a hoodie. I have no patience with that.

Was Trayvon perfect? Of course not. Did he deserve to die that night? I highly doubt it.

And BTW- Trayvon's body was about 6 feet from any cement.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Yes,or something to that effect.It is in the video.


I'd assume he misheard Martin say "You shot me."

"You got me" sounds like something out of an old Western.

----------


## brushfire

> Zimmerman said Martin said "You got me"?


Yes, that was supposedly what Martin said when he was shot in the chest.  To me, the "translation" of those words could either mean "the gun trumps the fist", "I give up", or "you shot me".  I'm not real sure the exact meaning, but suspect it was meant as a submissive statement that Martin gave after he realized he had been shot.


Also, there is a blogger who has the autopsy report.  I'm checking this out now:

http://lawofselfdefense.com/zimmerma...rayvon-martin/

----------


## matt0611

> I absolutely agree with this.
> 
> This is the way I train and work with dogs- have always wondered why police depts didn't have enough sense to train cops on how to handle a dog on the loose.
> 
> I also believe it is absolutely wise to be discerning in all situations. I was raised with no racial prejudice but that does not mean I am stupid enough to walk into the Barrio at midnight by myself. It is smart to follow one's instincts but this does not mean starting a bad situation that would never have existed w/o one's interference.
> 
> This is my problem with Zimmerman. 
> 
> As I have stated before, I believe his major "crime" was stupidity mixed with a big glob of pride. Obviously, black people lived in the "gated community" or Trayvon would never have been there, in the first place. Zimmerman broke the very rules he was asked to comply with and a kid is dead.
> ...


I believe GZ's story because it sounds very probable and it matches up pretty nicely with a lot of the evidence that I've seen. 

Even if I didn't believe GZ fully I still don't believe there's enough evidence to convict him of murder.

I just don't believe GZ hunted down TM that night and shot him, it just doesn't make sense to me.

----------


## mad cow

> I believe GZ's story because it sounds very probable and it matches up pretty nicely with a lot of the evidence that I've seen. 
> 
> Even if I didn't believe GZ fully I still don't believe there's enough evidence to convict him of murder.
> 
> I just don't believe GZ hunted down TM that night and shot him, it just doesn't make sense to me.


And called the police first and gave them a running commentary of events as they unfolded....because?

----------


## MelissaWV

> It's pretty interesting for me to hear such stories (Amy's and your example) considering that I've lived right smack in the middle of New York City since birth. I encounter people from all walks of life, different cultures, colors, etc. It really is a melting pot. There hasn't been a single day where I've feared for my life or gotten bad vibes from people based on how they're dressed or the color of their skin. I walk through every kind of neighborhood without a care in the world, at all hours of the day. Most New Yorkers do. Maybe I'm lucky? I don't know. I've never felt like anyone was a threat to my safety besides the cops, because "normal" doesn't exist. You literally see everyone and everything here.
> 
> However, I can understand the gut instinct to get away if something seems to be out of the norm in your particular neighborhood and you encounter a group of people who look like they're walking in your direction with a sort of focus. *I don't think race is the defining characteristic here*, rather the way they're carrying themselves and how common it is for people who dress in their particular style to walk around that area. I understand the thought process, and I don't think there's anything wrong with being cautious and going into your home if you feel something's off.
> 
> I don't think Amy's particular post can be related to the Treyvon case at all, unless the conclusion is that Treyvon had a right to feel fearful or threatened because he was being chased or "stalked" by Zimmerman for a while. That Treyvon's gut instinct was to be fearful of his safety because some random stranger was closely watching and following him.


My point wasn't that race was the defining characteristic, but that attempting to override your gut instinct because it might be construed as racist can lead to problems.

It's great that none of you have ever felt threatened, honestly.  Nothing has ever caused you to deviate from your intended plans or path, or to shift the weapon you are carrying in preparation for a confrontation that has no more than "a gut feeling" to suggest it will even occur.  You have never looked twice at someone who was giving you a strange look, or seemed to be following you.  You have never looked at someone who seemed to be standing outside your house and trying to look in your windows and thought they might be up to something (rather than admiring your decorating).  It must be amazing to live in a place where people are never threatening in any vague way that arouses that gut feeling of unease, despite all of their actions being legal and simple.

----------


## green73

> I agree with you in this thread but you are not all that consistent in your beliefs either. I remember making a similar comment like the one above after your posts in support of Amazons internet tax which are counter to what RP and C4L are currently battling against.


It's not "Amazon's tax." Politicians have an insatiable appetite for your money.  They've been after Amazon for years. Don't fault their quarry for clinging to what best suits them and their thousands of employees. You can hate on them, but you're hating on a company that actually does good for the world, when you should be hating on the parasite of the state, which does zero good for the world.

----------


## Madison320

I have a question for those that think Zimmerman is guilty of murder. Is there ANY scenario where you think it's justified for an armed person to shoot an unarmed person?

----------


## Antischism

> My point wasn't that race was the defining characteristic, but that attempting to override your gut instinct because it might be construed as racist can lead to problems.
> 
> It's great that none of you have ever felt threatened, honestly.  Nothing has ever caused you to deviate from your intended plans or path, or to shift the weapon you are carrying in preparation for a confrontation that has no more than "a gut feeling" to suggest it will even occur.  You have never looked twice at someone who was giving you a strange look, or seemed to be following you.  You have never looked at someone who seemed to be standing outside your house and trying to look in your windows and thought they might be up to something (rather than admiring your decorating).  It must be amazing to live in a place where people are never threatening in any vague way that arouses that gut feeling of unease, despite all of their actions being legal and simple.


I know what your point was, I was agreeing with it.

And yes, it's pretty damn great not having to conform to fear based on how a person looks or dresses. People are just people. That has been my personal experience living in NYC, although I know the narrative on RPF is to hate big cities. I have more to fear from the cops here than any group of people. That's my concern. No, NYC is not a bastion of freedom, but that's not what this conversation is about; it's about my experience living in a culturally/racially mixed city. Maybe the experience is different for others, and like I said, maybe I've been lucky, but I'm simply relating my personal experiences.

I can understand how other people may feel in different situations, living in areas where it may be uncommon to encounter people of a different race or culture. It's easier in those cases to feel uncomfortable or become suspicious. Whether rightfully so or not, it's not up to me to distinguish. But if someone is fearful about a situation, the last thing they should care about is how PC their thought process is. I can agree with that.

----------


## MelissaWV

> I know what your point was, I was agreeing with it.
> 
> And yes, it's pretty damn great not having to conform to fear based on how a person looks or dresses. People are just people. That has been my personal experience living in NYC, although I know the narrative on RPF is to hate big cities. I have more to fear from the cops here than any group of people. That's my concern. No, NYC is not a bastion of freedom, but that's not what this conversation is about; it's about my experience living in a culturally/racially mixed city. People tend not to care about how others dress or how their skin is shaded because when you live in the middle of it all, different cultures are accepted and tolerated.


*innocent look* Why are you talking to me as if I have no experience with diverse, densely-populated cities?  It's almost like you made a judgment based on something ...

----------


## Antischism

> *innocent look* Why are you talking to me as if I have no experience with diverse, densely-populated cities?  It's almost like you made a judgment based on something ...


Okay, now you're just being silly and trying to make me out to be the bad guy. :[

I was just trying to relate my personal experience, nothing more. Whether or not you've experienced living in a city like Manhattan wasn't really on my mind while I was typing.

----------


## hardrightedge

> I know what your point was, I was agreeing with it.
> 
> And yes, it's pretty damn great not having to conform to fear based on how a person looks or dresses. People are just people. That has been my personal experience living in NYC, although I know the narrative on RPF is to hate big cities. I have more to fear from the cops here than any group of people. That's my concern. No, NYC is not a bastion of freedom, but that's not what this conversation is about; it's about my experience living in a culturally/racially mixed city. Maybe the experience is different for others, and like I said, maybe I've been lucky, but I'm simply relating my personal experiences.
> 
> I can understand how other people may feel in different situations, living in areas where it may be uncommon to encounter people of a different race or culture. It's easier in those cases to feel uncomfortable or become suspicious. Whether rightfully so or not, it's not up to me to distinguish. But if someone is fearful about a situation, the last thing they should care about is how PC their thought process is. I can agree with that.



It's all love in the big city...

----------


## kahless

> It's not "Amazon's tax." Politicians have an insatiable appetite for your money.  They've been after Amazon for years. Don't fault their quarry for clinging to what best suits them and their thousands of employees. You can hate on them, but you're hating on a company that actually does good for the world, when you should be hating on the parasite of the state, which does zero good for the world.


They were a good company until they testified before Congress to effectively eliminate taxation with representation allowing us to be audited and taxed from any one of the 9600 US sales tax jurisdictions.  The insanity of that legislation and that an RPF member would defend a company that is promoting it is astounding.

You think the heavy handed state tactics posted here are bad now.  Just wait until this legislation that Amazon lobbied for gets passed.  You will be reading all kinds of bizarre enforcement stories.

But that debate is for another thread.

----------


## Antischism

> It's all love in the big city...


Here we go, the narrative begins with a sarcastic comment implying that I'm stating big cities are all proper and lovely for all people at all times.

I don't know why I even bothered to bring it up here. I'm done with this discussion.


Back on topic, I'm still finishing up the parts of the trial so far that are up on YouTube. The biggest impression so far has been how horribly the star witness did. That was a big score for the defense.

----------


## dillo

I wonder if they ever figured out who was doing the robberies in the neighborhood

----------


## Antischism

> I wonder if they ever figured out who was doing the robberies in the neighborhood


Well, after becoming incredibly high profile due to this incident, I don't think anyone's going to be robbing houses in that neighborhood. Or at least, no half-way intelligent thief would.

----------


## tmg19103

All this banter is fine and dandy. We will never know for sure if Zimmerman went after Martin, or if Zimmerman was just trying to keep him in sight for the police and Martin attacked him. 

Should Zimmerman have stayed in the car? In retrospect, yes, but if he just had good intentions of telling the police where Martin went, then I don't see that at issue.

Fact is the prosecutors still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not "reasonably believe" he was "in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm" during the altercation. That is a heavy burden to prove.

Even if the jurors believe the fight would not have occurred except for Zimmerman "following" Martin -- which will forever remain a matter of dispute -- and even if they are convinced that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, that alone is not enough to convict under Florida law. 

This is an easy acquittal with no winners.

----------


## RickyJ

> All this banter is fine and dandy. We will never know for sure if Zimmerman went after Martin, or if Zimmerman was just trying to keep him in sight for the police and Martin attacked him. 
> 
> Should Zimmerman have stayed in the car? In retrospect, yes, but if he just had good intentions of telling the police where Martin went, then I don't see that at issue.
> 
> Fact is the prosecutors still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not "reasonably believe" he was "in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm" during the altercation. That is a heavy burden to prove.
> 
> Even if the jurors believe the fight would not have occurred except for Zimmerman "following" Martin -- which will forever remain a matter of dispute -- and even if they are convinced that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, that alone is not enough to convict under Florida law. 
> 
> *This is an easy acquittal with no winners.*


And the OJ Simpson case was an easy guilty verdict, but you saw what happened there. Jurors can be easily influenced in many different ways, not all of them legal.

----------


## brushfire

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/216417.php

----------


## tmg19103

> And the OJ Simpson case was an easy guilty verdict, but you saw what happened there. Jurors can be easily influenced in many different ways, not all of them legal.


Agreed, but the way this is going - the majority of prosecution witnesses are in Zimmerman's favor and the defense has yet to present what will be a strong case of self-defense.

No chance at 2nd degree murder. Slim chance at manslaughter.

Hate to bring race into it in this manner, but OJ got off with a primarily black jury. This jury is 5 white women and one mixed race. If there is a racial bias by the jury, it will be against Martin.

----------


## liveandletlive

> Agreed, but the way this is going - the majority of prosecution witnesses are in Zimmerman's favor and the defense has yet to present what will be a strong case of self-defense.
> 
> No chance at 2nd degree murder. Slim chance at manslaughter.
> 
> Hate to bring race into it in this manner, but OJ got off with a primarily black jury. This jury is 5 white women and one mixed race. If there is a racial bias by the jury, it will be against Martin.


Maybe but its white women in 2013 here. I seriously doubt they will be biased racially.

----------


## jmdrake

> Because there had been a lot of robberies in the neighborhood recently.


And?  There was not burglary or robbery (I hope you realize there is a difference) reported that night.  Imagine if Zimmerman had been a cop?  I wonder if you would be defending his every action so hard?  Somehow I doubt it.  I could be wrong.  That said, I'm pretty sure Zimmerman isn't guilty of first degree murder.  Not sure about 2nd degree or manslaughter.  But he's certainly guilty of being a dumbass.

----------


## Ender

> And?  There was not burglary or robbery (I hope you realize there is a difference) reported that night.  Imagine if Zimmerman had been a cop?  I wonder if you would be defending his every action so hard?  Somehow I doubt it.  I could be wrong.  That said, I'm pretty sure Zimmerman isn't guilty of first degree murder.  Not sure about 2nd degree or manslaughter.  But he's certainly guilty of being a dumbass.


Thank you!

I have been saying this over and over.

----------


## Zippyjuan

I have changed my position on this now.  I do believe that other than walking down the street that Martin did nothing to warrant having the police called and that this and Zimmerman getting out of his car to check on him precipitated everything but having finally watched his telling of the story (I appoligize for taking so long to do so- earned all the negative comments I got for not doing that), the ultimate confrontation does seem to have been started by Martin.  

Both over-reacted to their situations and the result was tragic. Zimmerman was mad that there had been reports of burglaries in the area and that "they always get away with it".  He wanted to be sure this one didn't get away- even if there was no evidence he had done anthing.   Martin was angry that somebody was watching him and then eventually following him so he confronted his stalker.  At that point, Zimmerman no longer became the agressor but was indeed defending himself. Was the shooting justified?  Still not convinced on that.

----------


## AuH20

> I have changed my position on this now.  I do believe that other than walking down the street that Martin did nothing to warrant having the police called and that this and Zimmerman getting out of his car to check on him precipitated everything but having finally watched his telling of the story (I appoligize for taking so long to do so- earned all the negative comments I got for not doing that), the ultimate confrontation does seem to have been started by Martin.  
> 
> Both over-reacted to their situations and the result was tragic. Zimmerman was mad that there had been reports of burglaries in the area and that "they always get away with it".  He wanted to be sure this one didn't get away- even if there was no evidence he had done anthing.   Martin was angry that somebody was watching him and then eventually following him so he confronted his stalker.  At that point, Zimmerman no longer became the agressor but was indeed defending himself. *Was the shooting justified?  Still not convinced on that.*


Maiming him could have been an option, but then again Zimmerman could have been close to losing consciousness.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I have changed my position on this now.  I do believe that other than walking down the street that Martin did nothing to warrant having the police called and that this and Zimmerman getting out of his car to check on him precipitated everything but having finally watched his telling of the story (I appoligize for taking so long to do so- earned all the negative comments I got for not doing that), the ultimate confrontation does seem to have been started by Martin.  
> 
> Both over-reacted to their situations and the result was tragic. Zimmerman was mad that there had been reports of burglaries in the area and that "they always get away with it".  He wanted to be sure this one didn't get away- even if there was no evidence he had done anthing.   Martin was angry that somebody was watching him and then eventually following him so he confronted his stalker.  At that point, Zimmerman no longer became the agressor but was indeed defending himself. Was the shooting justified?  Still not convinced on that.


There are no good answers to the questions raised by this incident.  If only no racial component was involved, and then the media had played no part in stirring up more seeds of division, then justice for both Zimmerman and Martin might have a chance. As it is, I'm not confident that it can be so.

----------


## tmg19103

> Maybe but its white women in 2013 here. I seriously doubt they will be biased racially.


Then if the jury is not biased, Zimmerman gets off. 

The whole thing is a tragedy with no winners. Zimmerman will regret for the rest of his ruined life getting out of that car, but I don't believe Zimmerman had any more intent than following Martin so the cops knew where Martin was.

You don't call the cops and then attack someone while they are on the way. There would have been evidence/conflicting statements on that. None on Zimmerman. 

Makes me think how the cops where I live (just outside Philly now) always state through the local paper on unsolved burglaries to call them if you see anyone who is "suspicious". Now, they don't say follow that person, but they don't say not to - and they don't define what "suspicious" is.

One thing this Zimmerman case will do is get a lot of people to mind their own business. May be a good thing. May also let some bad guys get away with crimes.

My view has always been to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are law-abiding. Not going to mess with me or my home. Doing so will get you legally detained or shot. Problem is to many people make their homes and themselves soft and easy targets. Not my problem.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> Was the shooting justified?  Still not convinced on that.


Legally or morally ?

----------


## green73

> http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/216417.php


So Martin was walking through people's yards?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> So Martin was walking through people's yards?


I think there are sidewalks there, which may be obscured in the pic by the red and yellow lines.

----------


## matt0611

> So Martin was walking through people's yards?


Technically yes, but there's a path there and it also leads to his father's residence. So it very well may have been his normal route back home.

The more important thing to note is that it appears that Martin backtracked back up to near point 6 after he was at point 4 (near his father's residence).

----------


## cajuncocoa

What if George Zimmerman hadn't been armed that night?  What would have happened to Zimmerman?  Would he have felt as empowered to exit his vehicle?  If so, how would it have played out then?

----------


## Dr.3D

> What if George Zimmerman hadn't been armed that night?  What would have happened to Zimmerman?  Would he have felt as empowered to exit his vehicle?  If so, how would it have played out then?


He would have probably been found dead at the same place Martin was found.  This time though, no one would know who killed him.

----------


## dillo

> And the OJ Simpson case was an easy guilty verdict, but you saw what happened there. Jurors can be easily influenced in many different ways, not all of them legal.


like when the cop plead the 5th when he was asked if he planted evidence at Ojs house

----------


## krugminator

I watched some of the highlights to get up to speed on this thing.  I don't feel that great about Zimmerman but it would be absolutely nuts to convict him of second degree murder. Just on the facts out there, I don't see how I would vote even for manslaughter.

If you combine it with the other stuff  about Martin that isn't part of the trial (school suspensions, drug use, racial slurs, his tweets, etc), it is pretty easy to believe that Martin was a thug who jumped out of the bushes and was pounding Zimmerman to death.

----------


## AngryCanadian

From what i see it seems George Zimmerman acted in self defensive and it would seem George Zimmerman  was worried if Martin thats why he acted after being struck still he should have shot him in the leg not head. As the user above me stated Martin does seem to be an Thug. Just imagine if this was done by a white  person.

----------


## Ender

> I watched some of the highlights to get up to speed on this thing.  I don't feel that great about Zimmerman but it would be absolutely nuts to convict him of second degree murder. Just on the facts out there, I don't see how I would vote even for manslaughter.
> 
> If you combine it with the other stuff  about Martin that isn't part of the trial (school suspensions, drug use, racial slurs, his tweets, etc), it is pretty easy to believe that Martin was a thug who jumped out of the bushes and was pounding Zimmerman to death.


AND-
If you combine it with the other stuff  about Zimmerman that isn't part of the trial (assault on cops, domestic violence, throwing a woman across a bar as a bouncer, racial slurs, breaking NW rules, and 911 calls etc), it is pretty easy to believe that Zimmerman was also a thug who caused all of this to happen w/o much help from Martin.

----------


## green73

> From what i see it seems George Zimmerman acted in self defensive and it would seem George Zimmerman  was worried if Martin thats why he acted after being struck still he should have shot him in the leg not head. As the user above me stated Martin does seem to be an Thug. Just imagine if this was done by a white  person.


He wasn't a thug, clearly. He just didn't like some "cracker" worrying that he might be a thug. So, he decided to jump his ass.

----------


## krugminator

> AND-
> If you combine it with the other stuff  about Zimmerman that isn't part of the trial (assault on cops, domestic violence, throwing a woman across a bar as a bouncer, racial slurs, breaking NW rules, and 911 calls etc), *it is pretty easy to believe that Zimmerman was also a thug who caused all of this to happen w/o much help from Martin.*


I doubt that Zimmerman is a great guy.  It is easy for me to see Zimmerman being a wannabe cop who has a sense of empowerment because of his gun.

That said the bolded is clearly not true.  Is there any evidence that Zimmerman was robbing the guy or threatening the guy with a gun?Zimmerman called the police.  Given that Zimmerman had a broken nose and head injuries it is clear that Martin played a major role in bringing about his own death.

----------


## FrankRep

*Prosecution Witness Admits Media's Young Trayvon Photos Deceived Her*

Breitbart.com
26 Jun 2013



In the George Zimmerman trial on Wednesday, witness Jeannee Manalo testified that she heard “howling” sounds in her living room. Later, she said, she heard cries for help and a struggle, presumably between Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. She saw two people on the ground, she explained, but didn’t know who was on top. She then testified that she thought based on body size that Zimmerman was on top.

On cross-examination, however, *she revealed that she based her estimate of body size on media photos which showed Martin as a 12-year-old*. In reality, Martin was 17 years old, and in the incident report was listed as 6 feet tall and 160 lbs., as opposed to Zimmerman, who was listed at 5’9”. Manalo admitted that *she didn’t know “who’s bigger now.”*

----------


## green73

Zimmerman was mentoring blacks? 

He's guilty.

----------


## Flugel89

> From what i see it seems George Zimmerman acted in self defensive and it would seem George Zimmerman  was worried if Martin thats why he acted after being struck still he should have shot him in the leg not head. As the user above me stated Martin does seem to be an Thug. Just imagine if this was done by a white  person.


He shot him in the chest, not the head. 

You NEVER aim for the leg.  If shooting someone in the leg would be adequate in stopping the threat in a specific scenario, then the requirements for defense with a deadly weapon have not been met in said scenario.  You aim COM.

This is aside from the difficulty involved with hitting a quickly moving extremity. Whole other can of worms. 

Sorry. This is just a pet peeve of mine.


For an "angry Canadian" (Haha, oxymoron) you are quite thoughtful of an alleged/hypothetical attacker's well being. You guys are all too nice. 

(I hope the Canada joke doesn't hit too hard. No harm meant. Just having fun.)

----------


## green73

OMG. I have to turn Piers off. Jesus Christ. That this $#@! passes for acceptable journalism is a sad, sad testament to boobus americanus.

----------


## devil21

> OMG. I have to turn Piers off. Jesus Christ. That this $#@! passes for acceptable journalism is a sad, sad testament to boobus americanus.


CNN, that bastion of journalistic integrity.  Same one that broadcast Zimmerman's person information to the entire world today.  An _accident_, of course.

http://www.examiner.com/article/cnn-...on-national-tv




> On Monday, CNN aired George Zimmerman's social security number and other personal information including his address and telephone number on national television, Politico reported. Zimmerman is currently on trial for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

----------


## green73

> CNN, that bastion of journalistic integrity.  Same one that broadcast Zimmerman's person information to the entire world today.  An _accident_, of course.
> 
> http://www.examiner.com/article/cnn-...on-national-tv


Nothing is a mistake by CiaNN.

Where is the Martin peanut gallery btw? lol

----------


## Ender

> I doubt that Zimmerman is a great guy.  It is easy for me to see Zimmerman being a wannabe cop who has a sense of empowerment because of his gun.
> 
> That said the bolded is clearly not true.  Is there any evidence that Zimmerman was robbing the guy or threatening the guy with a gun?Zimmerman called the police.  Given that Zimmerman had a broken nose and head injuries it is clear that Martin played a major role in bringing about his own death.


Is there any evidence that Zimmerman didn't attack first?  Or threaten first? Or scare the crap out of Martin first? 

Zimmerman may have had a few injuries, that he didn't follow up on with medical attention BTW, but Martin is dead. MY POV is that the altercation would NEVER have happened if Zimmerman had simply obeyed NW rules.

----------


## Ender

> *Prosecution Witness Admits Media's Young Trayvon Photos Deceived Her*
> 
> Breitbart.com
> 26 Jun 2013
> 
> 
> 
> In the George Zimmerman trial on Wednesday, witness Jeannee Manalo testified that she heard “howling” sounds in her living room. Later, she said, she heard cries for help and a struggle, presumably between Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. She saw two people on the ground, she explained, but didn’t know who was on top. She then testified that she thought based on body size that Zimmerman was on top.
> 
> On cross-examination, however, *she revealed that she based her estimate of body size on media photos which showed Martin as a 12-year-old*. In reality, Martin was 17 years old, and in the incident report was listed as 6 feet tall and 160 lbs., as opposed to Zimmerman, who was listed at 5’9”. Manalo admitted that *she didn’t know “who’s bigger now.”*


Zimmerman is 190 lbs.

----------


## kahless

> Is there any evidence that Zimmerman didn't attack first?  Or threaten first? Or scare the crap out of Martin first? 
> 
> Zimmerman may have had a few injuries, that he didn't follow up on with medical attention BTW, but Martin is dead. MY POV is that the altercation would NEVER have happened if Zimmerman had simply obeyed NW rules.


"Hi, can I help you, do you live here?"  No, no, we must never do that, gasp, oh the horror.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> And?  There was not burglary or robbery (I hope you realize there is a difference) reported that night.  Imagine if Zimmerman had been a cop?


How about the unarmed naked campus guy shot by police:

*Armed and Naked*





> Officer Trevis Austin has been cleared of any criminal wrong doing in the shooting of USA student Gil Collar. Austin shot and killed Collar on October 6, 2012 *when the boy attacked a police station on campus**. Collar was nude, and acting erratically at the time.
> 
> Like the Travyon Martin case, Collars shooting brought national attention, likely because of police involvement. *However, unlike the Trayvon Martin case, Trevis Austin appears to have cause for his actions.*
> 
> www.northmobilepost.com/officer-cleared-in-shooting-of-gil-collar/
> 
> [This hick rag is calling banging on some windows by a naked guy an "attack".]



What we know is that similar events with different parties lead to completely different _media and state_ reactions.  *We* don't need to imagine if Zimmerman was a cop.  AF et al post every variant on that story:

-dogs shot
-paid leave
-no prosecution
-overkill shooting (multiple, almost-random firings from a multitude of cops) [often]

----------


## kahless

> This hick rag is calling banging on some windows by a naked guy an "attack".


Officer safety is paramount. /s

----------


## Ender

> "Hi, can I help you, do you live here?"  No, no, we must never do that, gasp, oh the horror.


Not when you're on NW and you have been instructed to *only* Watch and Report. Zimmerman wanted the NW; he should have followed its rules.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> He shot him in the chest, not the head. 
> 
> You NEVER aim for the leg.  If shooting someone in the leg would be adequate in stopping the threat in a specific scenario, then the requirements for defense with a deadly weapon have not been met in said scenario.  You aim COM.
> 
> This is aside from the difficulty involved with hitting a quickly moving extremity. Whole other can of worms. 
> 
> Sorry. This is just a pet peeve of mine.


The Scenario
After a rough night of center-of-mass tactical training, you were playing grab-ass with a bunch of cop friends and twisted your ankle... BADLY!  The next day, as you feel sorry for yourself with your little footy cast, *the bad guy grabs your baby*!!!  Clutching the baby close to his center of mass, he turns to run away but your pursuit options are limited!!!!  Where do you shoot?

----------


## FrankRep

Fixed link:

*Does This Police Officer’s Testimony Seriously Damage Zimmerman Prosecution’s Case for Second Degree Murder?*

The Blaze
July 1, 2013

----------


## Flugel89

> The Scenario
> After a rough night of center-of-mass tactical training, you were playing grab-ass with a bunch of cop friends and twisted your ankle... BADLY!  The next day, as you feel sorry for yourself with your little footy cast, *the bad guy grabs your baby*!!!  Clutching the baby close to his center of mass, he turns to run away but your pursuit options are limited!!!!  Where do you shoot?


Hahaha.  Are you passively calling me a mall-ninja? I'm out of shape and half decent with a handgun. God forbid I use an acronym like COM.

The context didn't include special circumstances. I don't have a clue what I'd do in a hostage type situation, your ridiculousness aside.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> No. As Melissa pointed out, I had a gut reaction that something was wrong, and the PC sentiment that was force-fed in public school aided me in ignoring that and go for the PC sentiment and stay in harm's way instead.
> 
> It was an Italian neighborhood, full of white prep-school kids. Three black kids in hoodies is abnormal there whether you like it or not, just as I would be an anomaly on North Avenue in Baltimore.
> 
> Was it simply their color? No. Was that part of it? Yes.
> 
> If you don't want honesty, put me on ignore. Those kids WERE out to get me, and they did--you're insane if you think I'll put myself in that position again just to appease you or anyone else.


So how does that apply here?  Was Zimmerman right to follow Trayvon because he was black?  Were the police right to not arrest Zimmerman because Trayvon was black?  How far do you follow these stereotypes?




> It was an Italian neighborhood, full of white prep-school kids. Three black kids in hoodies is abnormal there whether you like it or not, just as I would be an anomaly on North Avenue in Baltimore.


Anomaly sure - but are you making the argument that we should be wary of white people in Baltimore?  Because I doubt you believe that.

----------


## BlackTerrel

Do we all agree that if Zimmerman was a cop no one here would be defending him?  Versus now it's about 70% or so on his side? ...

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Do we all agree that if Zimmerman was a cop no one here would be defending him?  Versus now it's about 70% or so on his side? ...


Can we all agree that if Zimmerman was black and Martin was white, you would be defending Zimmerman?

----------


## Ender

> Can we all agree that if Zimmerman was black and Martin was white, you would be defending Zimmerman?


I wouldn't.

I'd still say that Black Z had no business breaking the NW rules and profiling YT Martin.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I wouldn't.
> 
> I'd still say that Black Z had no business breaking the NW rules and profiling YT Martin.


So the basis for holding Zimmerman guilty is because he got out of his damned truck?  What if he didn't have anything to do with NW? Suppose he was just a guy walking around as was Martin.  Does that give Martin the right to hide behind bushes, jump Zimmerman's ass, and pound his head on the ground?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

Actually after learning that Martin went home and came back out, I'm more at the point of they both did stupid things that led to the confrontation. Definitely not 2nd Degree murder in my opinion. Negligible manslaughter at best. It very well may have been self-defense. It may have been Martin noticed the gun and was trying to knock Zimmerman out to prevent the risk of letting him up and getting shot. All in all a tragedy.

They are both to blame. Zimmerman shouldn't have followed him around in the first place but if Martin had not returned (probably for a confrontation) he'd still be alive.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Actually after learning that Martin went home and came back out, I'm more at the point of *they both did stupid things* that led to the confrontation. Definitely not 2nd Degree murder in my opinion. Negligible manslaughter at best. It very well may have been self-defense. It may have been Martin noticed the gun and was trying to knock Zimmerman out to prevent the risk of letting him up and getting shot. All in all a tragedy.
> 
> They are both to blame. Zimmerman shouldn't have followed him around in the first place, but if Martin had not returned (probably for a confrontation) he'd still be alive.


^^this^^  especially the emboldened part.

----------


## Ender

> So the basis for holding Zimmerman guilty is because he got out of his damned truck?  What if he didn't have anything to do with NW? Suppose he was just a guy walking around as was Martin.  Does that give Martin the right to hide behind bushes, jump Zimmerman's ass, and pound his head on the ground?


There is only Zimmerman's word on that- we do not know if Martin hid behind any bushes, attacked, etc. 

Also- the MD testifying today said that Zimmerman's wounds were not close to life threatening.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Can we all agree that if Zimmerman was black and Martin was white, you would be defending Zimmerman?


If that happened Zimmerman would have been arrested on the scene and this never would have been an issue.

But we all know that.

Cops generally beat the $#@! out of you, arrest you, and then ask questions later.  I guarantee you that if I shot an unarmed man the police wouldn't just let me go after some soft ball questioning.

Everyone here $#@!ing knows that.  Even the ones who want to pretend they don't.

----------


## BAllen

Black racism killed Trayvon:

http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/black-rac...-deens-career/

----------


## cajuncocoa

> If that happened Zimmerman would have been arrested on the scene and this never would have been an issue.
> 
> But we all know that.
> 
> Cops generally beat the $#@! out of you, arrest you, and then ask questions later.  I guarantee you that if I shot an unarmed man the police wouldn't just let me go after some soft ball questioning.
> 
> Everyone here $#@!ing knows that.  Even the ones who want to pretend they don't.


That isn't what I asked you, but OK...you have a different agenda.  Got it.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> That isn't what I asked you, but OK...you have a different agenda.  Got it.


You asked what my opinion would be if the races were reversed:

But it's moot - if the races were reversed the killer would have been arrested on the spot.  It would be a completely different outcome.

----------


## Noob

The judge tossed out a Florida police detective's statement that he found George Zimmerman credible in his description of fighting with Trayvon Martin

http://news.yahoo.com/prosecutors-at...225209162.html

----------


## liveandletlive

GZ will walk. But there's no doubt he's a liar. A dumb black kid with skittles suddenly becomes a killer who says "your gonna die tonight"?

If anyone here believes in that, you are delusional as $#@!. I've fought people bigger and stronger than Trayvon and nobody has ever ended up dead. George, the loser Hispanic who sucked at college and had zero value in society should be going away for manslaughter but he was overcharged.

----------


## matt0611

> GZ will walk. But there's no doubt he's a liar. *A dumb black kid with skittles suddenly becomes a killer who says "your gonna die tonight"?*
> 
> If anyone here believes in that, you are delusional as $#@!. I've fought people bigger and stronger than Trayvon and nobody has ever ended up dead. George, the loser Hispanic who sucked at college and had zero value in society should be going away for manslaughter but he was overcharged.



Huh? Wait...because he's dumb and he bought skittles he couldn't have possibly lost his temper and attacked someone? The "kid" was taller and much stronger than GZ was. 

The punk lost his temper and attacked someone that was armed because he was offended some white boy was following him, luckily that white man was armed and defended himself. 

You're right though, GZ will walk, because it was clearly self-defense.

----------


## Antischism

The "you're gonna die tonight" and "you got me" lines sound so uncharacteristic and like they're out of an old Western. I feel like Zimmerman is lying about those to bolster his case and justification for shooting. Doesn't mean he didn't feel threatened or like his life was in danger, but those lines just strike me as very odd.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> GZ will walk. But there's no doubt he's a liar. A *dumb black kid with skittles* suddenly becomes a killer who says "your gonna die tonight"?
> 
> If anyone here believes in that, you are delusional as $#@!. I've fought people bigger and stronger than Trayvon and nobody has ever ended up dead. George, the loser Hispanic who sucked at college and had zero value in society should be going away for manslaughter but he was overcharged.


Why in the world do you assume Trayvon Martin was dumb?

----------


## brandon

Based on the company he kept (Rachel) I assume his IQ was probably about 70 to 80.

----------


## Ender

> Actually after learning that Martin went home and came back out, I'm more at the point of they both did stupid things that led to the confrontation. Definitely not 2nd Degree murder in my opinion. Negligible manslaughter at best. It very well may have been self-defense. It may have been Martin noticed the gun and was trying to knock Zimmerman out to prevent the risk of letting him up and getting shot. All in all a tragedy.
> 
> They are both to blame. Zimmerman shouldn't have followed him around in the first place but if Martin had not returned (probably for a confrontation) he'd still be alive.


If Martin went home and then came back out why did his father not know about that and report him as a missing person?

----------


## Ender

> Based on the company he kept (Rachel) I assume his IQ was probably about 70 to 80.


Quit assuming.

I worked last year in one of the wealthiest cities in my state- taught well-off white kids. NO ONE could write or read cursive. Not one.

----------


## Lucille

Isn't she a little young for WWII? 
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/07/i...-for-wwii.html




> _
> Marine Watching Zimmerman Trial, Catches Officer Wearing Ribbon Reserved For WWII Vets
> 
> According to the article, Jeremiah Workman, a Marine who received the nations second highest honor, the Navy Cross was watching the Zimmerman trial when, Doris Singleton, a Sanford Police Officer took the stand. He noticed the ribbon rack she was wearing, and posted it to his facebook page. “Am I going blind or is this police officer in the Zimmerman -Martin trial wearing ribbons that she doesn’t rate?” he wrote alongside the photo he posted to Facebook.”
> 
> Two in particular stood out, he said: the World War II Army of Occupation and the Defense Distinguished Service Medal._
> 
> There is no two ways about it.  The Badge Gang are, for the most part, murderous, corrupt, and shameless scum who aren't above stealing the valor of others.  They fancy themselves "sojers" in a manner that is no more convincing than the posturings of rap stars and NFL players. Just listen to them talk about "civilians" as if they are not, by every possible definition, civilians themselves.
> 
> I'd like to say it is unbelievable, but it really isn't.  If you're willing to gun down dogs, children, and unarmed men, I suppose wearing fake military medals is all in a day's work for a law enforcement officer.

----------


## Dianne

The Snooze media is all about distraction.    They will do anything to divert our attention away from Fed. spying on every move me make; and now to learn the U.S. Postal Service is logging mail !!

I won't tune in to the Zimmerman trial under any circumstances.

----------


## green73

*
ZIMMERMAN TRIAL IN TECH MELTDOWN 
 *

----------


## brandon

> If Martin went home and then came back out why did his father not know about that and report him as a missing person?


His dad wasn't home, TM was home alone with his 12 year old (half?) brother



> Quit assuming.
> 
> I worked last year in one of the wealthiest cities in my state- taught well-off white kids. NO ONE could write or read cursive. Not one.


 Reading or writing cursive isn't even what I was thinking of. I was more thinking about her inability to form complete sentences or comprehend the simple questions the defense was asking her.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Isn't she a little young for WWII? 
> http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/07/i...-for-wwii.html


Maybe they belonged to a family member.  She's about the right age to be the daughter or granddaughter of a WWII vet.

----------


## Ender

> Maybe they belonged to a family member.  She's about the right age to be the daughter or granddaughter of a WWII vet.


That was my first thought, as well.

----------


## liveandletlive

> Huh? Wait...because he's dumb and he bought skittles he couldn't have possibly lost his temper and attacked someone? The "kid" was taller and much stronger than GZ was. 
> 
> The punk lost his temper and attacked someone that was armed because he was offended some white boy was following him, luckily that white man was armed and defended himself. 
> 
> You're right though, GZ will walk, because it was clearly self-defense.


And you need to kill someone to defend yourself? All he had to do was keep crying for help until neighbors break up the fight. 

Zimmerman is a liar. Lied about not taking self defense classes when he got an A in the class, apparently the only thing he ever did well in in college

----------


## matt0611

> And you need to kill someone to defend yourself? All he had to do was keep crying for help until neighbors break up the fight.


Yeah, you're allowed to if you fear for your life. Especially if TM was going for his gun. GZ was perfectly within his right to use his gun.

"Keep crying for help"... yeah easy for you to say. Puhleeez 

TM was a punk, and got what he deserved that night. He knew what he was doing. That's the risk you take when you attack someone.

----------


## Ender

> Yeah, you're allowed to if you fear for your life. Especially if TM was going for his gun. GZ was perfectly within his right to use his gun.
> 
> "Keep crying for help"... yeah easy for you to say. Puhleeez 
> 
> *TM was a punk, and got what he deserved that night. He knew what he was doing. That's the risk you take when you attack someone.*


Prove that.

----------


## matt0611

> Prove that.


Look at his history, he was a punk kid, he was no angel.

TM was on TOP of GZ, hitting him before GZ shot him. 

Prove GZ murdered TM...tell me what your story is, GZ ran up and tackled TM and then shot him after calling 911? What? What happened? I haven't heard one convincing story from the prosecution about why and how GZ murdered TM that night. 

Why is it SO HARD for you to believe that TM attacked GZ that night?

----------


## Ender

> Look at his history, he was a punk kid, he was no angel.
> 
> TM was on TOP of GZ, hitting him when he GZ shot him. 
> 
> Prove GZ murdered TM...tell me what your story is, GZ ran up and tackled TM and then shot him after calling 911? What? What happened? I haven't heard one convincing story from the prosecution about why and how GZ murdered TM that night. 
> 
> Why is it SO HARD for you to believe that TM attacked GZ that night?


Look at Zimmerman's history- he's no angel either- AND he has already lied once to the judge, that we know of. Why do you take every word he says as gospel truth?

From a friend-

*So far the prosecutor has shown 11 lies:*

(1) Says he got out of car to find an address, but to Serino “That’s following.”

(2) Says the dispatcher tells him go find where Martin went.

(3) Says Martin doubled back and circled around vehicle but witness Rachel says he was trying to lose the creepy guy.

4) Says he was returning to his car but his car is not near where altercation was.

5) Says Martin jumped out of the bushes, but there are no bushes for Martin to jump out from.

6) Says Martin punched nose 20 times, and pounded head on sidewalk, but witness Goode didn’t see this, only punches; no blood on sidewalk and ME and Serino say would have had more injuries and a concussion, if true.

7) Says he slid from sidewalk to grass to avoid head pounding, but no grass stains on pants or jacket.

8) Says Martin was holding his hand over his mouth and nose, but Serino asks why help is still heard very loud if he was doing the yelling and not Martin.

9) Neither witnesses, Manalo or Goode, heard Martin's threat to kill him, but all witnesses heard screams for help.

10) Says he spread out Martin’s hands, but hands together in Manalo picture and in police pics

11) *Osterman reports Martin grabbed the gun, but Zim got it back, yet no Martin prints or DNA on gun*

----------


## cajuncocoa

Neither one of those men were behaving as angels that night.  But a less-than-pristine past doesn't prove Zimmerman's guilt (or Martin's).  The evidence has to prove that.

----------


## Ender

> Neither one of those men were behaving as angels that night.  But a less-than-pristine past doesn't prove Zimmerman's guilt (or Martin's).  The evidence has to prove that.


I agree.

I post Zimmerman's past because his supporters are always drudging up Martin's supposed past (most of which is not proven) while extolling Zimmerman.

I did a lot of research into this tragedy last year, because I was first offended by many so-called Libertarians (on another forum) who were accusing Trayvon based solely on the fact that he wore a hoodie. The extreme prejudice against the kid, without an ounce of fact, was mind boggling.

Everything that I studied and listened to, pointed to a determination that Zimmerman is guilty of extreme stupidity and profiling, with a whole lot of ego thrown in. He broke every rule of the Neighborhood Watch instructions that he was given, and asked for, BTW.

All that has been said about Trayvon's involvement in the incident is from Zimmerman's mouth. I believe that everyone should take that with a decided grain of salt and actually research the event. And, by researching, I don't mean finding blogs with hysterical & very questionable "information" supporting either Zimmerman or Trayvon.

----------


## matt0611

> Look at Zimmerman's history- he's no angel either- AND he has already lied once to the judge, that we know of. Why do you take every word he says as gospel truth?
> 
> From a friend-
> 
> *So far the prosecutor has shown 11 lies:*
> 
> (1) Says he got out of car to find an address, but to Serino “That’s following.”
> 
> (2) Says the dispatcher tells him go find where Martin went.
> ...



I never said GZ was an angel, most of those points can be explained away.

3. Why are those two things mutually exclusive? he could have trying to lose him at one point and then doubled back to see who he was.

4. The altercation was near where he would have had to travel back to his car.

5. I see bushes in the back of the residences on the video, or at least some shrubs

6. Well there was some kind of injuries on the back of GZ wasn't there? Didn't the prosecution's witness even say that this could have been done from an impact against concrete. (at least one impact...)

8. Was he holding his hand over his mouth and nose the WHOLE time?

9. So what? Screams for help are a lot easier to hear than a simple threat

Don't know the defense's answer for all of em though, I haven't been paying enough attention.

I still don't see how you can prove GZ murdered TM beyond a reasonable doubt.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I agree.
> 
> I post Zimmerman's past because his supporters are always drudging up Martin's supposed past (most of which is not proven) while extolling Zimmerman.
> 
> I did a lot of research into this tragedy last year, because I was first offended by many so-called Libertarians (on another forum) who were accusing Trayvon based solely on the fact that he wore a hoodie. The extreme prejudice against the kid, without an ounce of fact, was mind boggling.
> 
> Everything that I studied and listened to, pointed to a determination that Zimmerman is guilty of extreme stupidity and profiling, with a whole lot of ego thrown in. He broke every rule of the Neighborhood Watch instructions that he was given, and asked for, BTW.
> 
> *All that has been said about Trayvon's involvement in the incident is from Zimmerman's mouth.* I believe that everyone should take that with a decided grain of salt and actually research the event. And, by researching, I don't mean finding blogs with hysterical & very questionable "information" supporting either Zimmerman or Trayvon.


Well, there were only two people who know for sure and one of them won't be talking.  


I don't subscribe to the "asking for it" theory....for one thing, who is asking for what?  Martin was "asking" to be killed?  Zimmerman was "asking" to be jumped?  You've said you don't even believe Zimmerman *was* jumped, so I just want to make sure we're clear on who was doing the asking and what were they asking for. 

But let's assume that Martin did jump and attack, as I can only assume that's what you're suggesting Zimmerman was "asking for".  Whether Zimmerman broke NW rules or not by exiting his vehicle, it wouldn't excuse someone to attack him in any way.  What if it had been someone else other than Zimmerman?  What if it was someone who lived in that part of the complex and they exited their vehicle to go home but decided to take a look around first?  To say that someone in that situation is "asking" to be attacked is the same as saying a woman wearing a miniskirt is "asking" to be raped.  The attacker is to blame in an attack; you don't get a pass because the attack victim was arousing you (in the case of rape) or pissing you off (in this case).  

As to whether or not Zimmerman's wounds were life-threatening, he said he was getting his head pounded on the ground!  Any subsequent hit could have been the one that cracked his skull and threatened his life. If someone were doing that to me, you'd better believe I'm going to use my gun and I'm going to do what I can to stop them.  If I'm fortunate enough to walk away with only scratches, don't blame me if the $#@! who was banging my head on concrete lost his life for his $#@!ry.

----------


## Zippyjuan

One point I am confused on. Zimmerman was unable to use his arms to somehow defend himself (which is why he feared for his life- he was getting punched and his head banged against the sidewalk- must not have been able to block the blows) yet he was able to reach into his waistband to pull out the gun and hold it in the space between himself and Martin (who was sitting on top of him) and fire it.

----------


## AFPVet

> Isn't she a little young for WWII? 
> http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/07/i...-for-wwii.html


Cops are issued different medals and citations. Any visible similarities between civilian cops and military awards are purely coincidental.

----------


## Contumacious

> One point I am confused on. *Zimmerman was unable to use his arms to somehow defend himself (which is why he feared for his life- he was getting punched and his head banged against the sidewalk- must not have been able to block the blows) yet he was able to reach into his waistband to pull out the gun* and hold it in the space between himself and Martin (who was sitting on top of him) and fire it.


Yo Zip

Have you ever heard of the verb "Prioritizing"?

.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Isn't she a little young for WWII? 
> http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/07/i...-for-wwii.html


Bit more info on the ribbons: http://blogs.militarytimes.com/battl...cipients-call/




> The change came as a result of a phone call made by Jeremiah Workman, a former Marine who earned the nations second highest valor award for heroics in Iraq. Workman was watching the trial of George Zimmerman, who has been accused of second-degree murder for the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, on TV on Monday.
> 
> Thats when the former staff sergeant said he noticed a police officer from the department who testified was wearing Defense Department-issued ribbons she likely would not have rated during her reported three years in the Army. So he called the department that afternoon to ask why she was wearing them.
> 
> *They told him they didnt have their own ribbons, Workman said, so they picked DoD ribbons from the local Army-Navy store and repurposed them for department use.*
> 
> It certainly wasnt meant to be offensive to anyone, McAuliffe told Marine Corps Times. It was a matter of convenience and obviously wasnt well thought out. But its been rectified.
> 
> *When the department changed their awards system about 10 years ago, McAuliffe said there wasnt a lot of access to police-specific awards. Since then, theyve found places where they can purchase awards designed for police officers, and theyll move in that direction.*
> ...

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Yo Zip
> 
> Have you ever heard of the verb "Prioritizing"?
> 
> .


If somebody is on top of me hitting me, I am going to be more focused on trying to stop him from hitting me than on trying to dig my guy out from my waist- especially when he is probably sitting on my waist.

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

just sayin...


> An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
>  Robert A. Heinlein

----------


## Contumacious

> If somebody is on top of me hitting me, I am going to be more focused on trying to stop him from hitting me than on trying to dig my guy out from my waist- especially when he is probably sitting on my waist.


If you sit on my stomach and punch my face then MY PRIORITY will be to reach for my .38 snub nose and send you to meet your maker.

Esther La Vista, dude.

.

----------


## Dr.3D

> If somebody is on top of me hitting me, *I am going to be more focused on trying to stop him from hitting me* than on trying to dig my guy out from my waist- especially when he is probably sitting on my waist.


Shooting him seemed to do that pretty well.

----------


## amy31416

> If somebody is on top of me hitting me, I am going to be more focused on trying to stop him from hitting me than on trying to dig my guy out from my waist- especially when he is probably sitting on my waist.


If I were being assaulted by someone larger than me, that would be the only thing I'd be trying to do. I suspect that if he had the gun in his waistband, the biggest fear is him getting hold of it and using it on him. Once the gun comes out, I'd think that Trayvon would try to get it--from there it's inevitable that one of these guys gets shot.

I haven't been following the trial, so that's strictly opinion.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> The Snooze media is all about distraction.    They will do anything to divert our attention away from Fed. spying on every move me make; and now to learn the U.S. Postal Service is logging mail !!
> 
> I won't tune in to the Zimmerman trial under any circumstances.


Why does someone always have to come and tell people how irrelevant it is what they care about.  Obviously this is important to many people who post here - that's why there are nearing 600 posts on the subject.

Whether or not someone can just gun you down coming back from the store IS relevant to me and a lot of people I know and grew up with.  How it impacts me and my personal life is likely far more reaching than anything the postal service does with my mail which by the way I'm pretty sure I haven't gotten anything from the post office in over a decade.

Also pretty sure me and the people in my life are 100 times likelier to get shot by a Zimmerman type than a drone.  Different people have different priorities.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Yeah, you're allowed to if you fear for your life. Especially if TM was going for his gun. GZ was perfectly within his right to use his gun.
> 
> "Keep crying for help"... yeah easy for you to say. Puhleeez


I have been in a lot of fistfights and none of them have ended with anything other than a few scrapes and everyone moved on with their life.  We're at this point now because Zimmerman brought a gun to a fistfight.

And if he can't handle a 17 year old unarmed kid without a gun then he should have stayed back and not confronted him.




> TM was a punk, and got what he deserved that night. He knew what he was doing. That's the risk you take when you attack someone.


The guys dead man.  You're a heartless SOB.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> If I were being assaulted by someone larger than me, that would be the only thing I'd be trying to do. I suspect that if he had the gun in his waistband, the biggest fear is him getting hold of it and using it on him. Once the gun comes out, I'd think that Trayvon would try to get it--from there it's inevitable that one of these guys gets shot.
> 
> I haven't been following the trial, so that's strictly opinion.


You're not a guy.

I am very respectful of firearm ownership.  But I would never be the first person to raise the stakes from fists to guns.

If I was losing a fight to an unarmed man I'd take my lumps and be done with it.  Happened before.

Zimmerman stalked a guy, provoked a fight with a 17 year old.  Then when he started losing he took out his gun and shot him.  That's murder - plain and simple.

----------


## kahless

> You're not a guy.
> 
> I am very respectful of firearm ownership.  But I would never be the first person to raise the stakes from fists to guns.
> 
> If I was losing a fight to an unarmed man I'd take my lumps and be done with it.  Happened before.
> 
> Zimmerman stalked a guy, provoked a fight with a 17 year old.  Then when he started losing he took out his gun and shot him.  That's murder - plain and simple.


Probably someone you know that you think is not going to kill you. 

If someone I do not know is beating me and I think the next blow could knock me on unconscious, I have no idea whether this person is going to kill me or let me live.  I am not going to take that gamble with my life and that gun is going to come out.

----------


## tmg19103

Zimmerman does not get much sympathy from me, but the way this trial has played out, there is no legal justification for him to be charged, let alone convicted, of anything. That's why the county DA did not originally press charges. He had no case. The State then came in with meritless charges due to public pressure and made this a political prosecution. The mob mentality of a democracy and not the rule of law of a republic.

Zimmerman's story just can't be disproved and it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt he did anything wrong.

To remind the above posters - Zimmerman's story is he followed Martin to tell the police where he was but stopped when the dispatcher told him to, Martin came back and attacked him, was on top of him and went for his gun, so Zimmerman shot in self defense.

If that story is true, Zimmerman was in the right.

Problem is, the prosecution has been a joke and has not proven any alternative beyond a reasonable doubt - though they have raised some doubt about Zimmerman's story. Problem is, the burden is on the prosecution not to just raise doubt (that's all the defense has to do) but prove Zimmerman killed Martin not in self-defense, but intentionally killed Martin with a depraved mind and ill will beyond a reasonable doubt - that is with almost a 100% certainty based on the evidence presented.   

No chance Zimmerman gets convicted no matter what people want to "believe". 

At the same time, Zimmerman lost some credibility in this trial. There are no winners here, but the evidence and the law as prescribed by the legal system is on Zimmerman's side.

----------


## matt0611

> I have been in a lot of fistfights and none of them have ended with anything other than a few scrapes and everyone moved on with their life.  *We're at this point now because Zimmerman brought a gun to a fistfight.*


Sounds smart to me.




> And if he can't handle a 17 year old unarmed kid without a gun then he should have stayed back and not confronted him.


The kid was as big as any grown man. Much bigger and stronger than GZ. 

GZ claims that he wasn't looking to confront him and TM attacked HIM first. 

If you're not ready to face consequences then you shouldn't attack someone because they might be armed and be ready to defend themselves as GZ rightfully did.

----------


## Dr.3D

Looks to me it was more like TM brought fists to a gunfight.  He instigated the fight and lost.

----------


## matt0611

> Looks to me it was more like TM brought fists to a gunfight.  He instigated the fight and lost.


Sounds about right.

----------


## Antischism

There have been cases of one punch killing a person, so would it then be okay to fear for your life and kill someone if they were trying to land a punch on you? Where would you draw the line, personally?

----------


## liveandletlive

> Looks to me it was more like TM brought fists to a gunfight.  He instigated the fight and lost.


 using deadly force should be the LAST RESORT

A weakling wannabe loser like George is the poster child for banning guns, like it or not.

----------


## Dr.3D

> using deadly force should be the LAST RESORT
> 
> A weakling wannabe loser like George is the poster child for banning guns, like it or not.


That was the last resort.    What was he supposed to do, wait till he was unconscious before shooting him?

----------


## liveandletlive

> That was the last resort.    What was he supposed to do, wait till he was unconscious before shooting him?


The lowlife never heard of a taser?

----------


## Dr.3D

> The lowlife never heard of a taser?


I doubt he had one of those on him.   I don't carry one, but I do carry a pistol.

----------


## MelissaWV

> The lowlife never heard of a taser?


Now you're kind of being silly.  This implies that, in order to ensure the safety of someone who he got in a fight with, Zimmerman should have carried all varieties of force.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Wait...*wut???*



Wut the $#@! is this $#@!????


*Isn't she a little young for WWII?*

Marine Watching Zimmerman Trial, Catches Officer Wearing Ribbon Reserved For WWII Vets

Wednesday, July 03, 2013

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/07/i...-for-wwii.html



According to the article, Jeremiah Workman, a Marine who received the nations second highest honor, the Navy Cross was watching the Zimmerman trial when, Doris Singleton, a Sanford Police Officer took the stand. He noticed the ribbon rack she was wearing, and posted it to his facebook page. Am I going blind or is this police officer in the Zimmerman -Martin trial wearing ribbons that she doesnt rate? he wrote alongside the photo he posted to Facebook.

Two in particular stood out, he said: the World War II Army of Occupation and the Defense Distinguished Service Medal.

*There is no two ways about it.  The Badge Gang are, for the most part, murderous, corrupt, and shameless scum who aren't above stealing the valor of others.  They fancy themselves "sojers" in a manner that is no more convincing than the posturings of rap stars and NFL players. Just listen to them talk about "civilians" as if they are not, by every possible definition, civilians themselves.*

*I'd like to say it is unbelievable, but it really isn't.  If you're willing to gun down dogs, children, and unarmed men, I suppose wearing fake military medals is all in a day's work for a law enforcement officer.*

----------


## MelissaWV

AF... see the other thread... you're going to want the rest of that story.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Sounds smart to me.
> 
> The kid was as big as any grown man. Much bigger and stronger than GZ. 
> 
> *GZ claims that he wasn't looking to confront him and TM attacked HIM first.* 
> 
> If you're not ready to face consequences then you shouldn't attack someone because they might be armed and be ready to defend themselves as GZ rightfully did.


If he wasn't looking to confront him then why did he exit his vehicle?




> There have been cases of one punch killing a person, so would it then be okay to fear for your life and kill someone if they were trying to land a punch on you? Where would you draw the line, personally?


There have been cases where sex kills someone... but it's not bloody likely.  I've known plenty of people in fistfights and it's never resulted in permanent injury.  I've known only a couple people to be shot and more often than not it leads to death or permanent injury.


...for the record if Zim was a cop would y'alls view on this be different?  I've seen multiple threads where someone is wielding a knife and 99% of the forum is opposed to the cop shooting them.  If a cop can't shoot an adult armed with a knife why can Zim shoot a 17 year old armed with his fists?

----------


## MelissaWV

If the cop were actually getting stabbed, I'm pretty sure a lot of the forum members would have to bow down and admit that the cop was likely justified in shooting.  If the cop just shot someone standing there with a knife --- which is often the type of story posted here --- then yeah there's a large question of whether or not that is excessive force, especially if the knife is only aimed at the person holding it.

Likewise, it does not appear that Martin was shot for threatening with his fists, or just being armed with them.  He was shot as he was beating on someone and as that someone felt Martin was reaching for the gun.  It's a distinctly different situation.

Should he have gotten out of his car?  Not in my opinion, but I also don't think GZ should lie there thinking "Well, I got out of my car, so I'm just going to weakly deflect his punches and not retaliate with this weapon I carry for self-defense.  I totally deserve getting my nose smashed and my head scraped for getting out of my car."

----------


## matt0611

> If he wasn't looking to confront him then why did he exit his vehicle?


I heard him say he got out to find out where exactly he was.

But even if he did leave to confront him. Its NOT against the law to approach someone and ask questions.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> If he wasn't looking to confront him then why did he exit his vehicle?


There's plenty of reasons for exiting a vehicle if you're neighborhood watch (especially when there has been problem of burlaries) and you don't recognize someone, such as if there's no road to drive on and to see where that person's going or to see if that person is trying to do anything.




> There have been cases where sex kills someone... but it's not bloody likely.  I've known plenty of people in fistfights and it's never resulted in permanent injury.


http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/20...fLI/story.html




> I've known only a couple people to be shot and more often than not it leads to death or permanent injury.


I knew someone in high school who shot himself in the neck and lived.




> ...for the record if Zim was a cop would y'alls view on this be different?  I've seen multiple threads where someone is wielding a knife and 99% of the forum is opposed to the cop shooting them.  If a cop can't shoot an adult armed with a knife why can Zim shoot a 17 year old armed with his fists?


There's like a small handful of like a half dozen people on this forum, very noisy people, who are like that, and my thinking is that a good portion of those individuals are just frustrated because they broke some law and got caught & thrown in jail (or maybe someone close to them was).

If Zimmerman wanted to shoot and kill Trayvon just for punching him I would think he would've done it after the first couple punches.  From the evidence it seems Trayvon was punching him for a long stretch of time for that to be the case.  Apparently Trayvon was about to go for Zimmerman's gun and it was at that point that Zimmerman went for it and shot him.

----------


## Antischism

> If he wasn't looking to confront him then why did he exit his vehicle?
> 
> 
> 
> There have been cases where sex kills someone... but it's not bloody likely.  I've known plenty of people in fistfights and it's never resulted in permanent injury.  I've known only a couple people to be shot and more often than not it leads to death or permanent injury.
> 
> 
> ...for the record if Zim was a cop would y'alls view on this be different?  I've seen multiple threads where someone is wielding a knife and 99% of the forum is opposed to the cop shooting them.  If a cop can't shoot an adult armed with a knife why can Zim shoot a 17 year old armed with his fists?


My point was that it's difficult to ever say when a person can justly fear for their life given that these freak occurrences do happen. It's possible for a person to fear their life is in danger from a single punch due to these cases, but does that then mean they're justified in shooting someone to death? Where is the line drawn, if at all? How does someone ever really know their life is in clear danger if they're being attacked? Anyone can try to justify killing another if they cite "fear of death," but how does one truly ever know outside of a situation where a weapon is being used against you such as a knife or a gun?

It's difficult to define such a law when anyone can pick a fight, then fall back on their gun when they're getting their ass handed to them. Perhaps Zimmerman wouldn't have made the approach of he didn't have that gun holstered by his side. I'm not sure. I do know that it's an interesting case, and both parties appear to have been at fault.

----------


## matt0611

> My point was that it's difficult to ever say when a person can justly fear for their life given that these freak occurrences do happen. It's possible for a person to fear their life is in danger from a single punch due to these cases, but does that then mean they're justified in shooting someone to death? Where is the line drawn, if at all? How does someone ever really know their life is in clear danger if they're being attacked? Anyone can try to justify killing another if they cite "fear of death," but how does one truly ever know outside of a situation where a weapon is being used against you such as a knife or a gun?
> 
> It's difficult to define such a law when anyone can pick a fight, then fall back on their gun when they're getting their ass handed to them. Perhaps Zimmerman wouldn't have made the approach of he didn't have that gun holstered by his side. I'm not sure. I do know that it's an interesting case, and both parties appear to have been at fault.


How is it Zimmerman's fault if he didn't start the fight? (assuming that is true). Its been 60 pages and this question STILL has not been answered.

Say I see you looking into people's houses as you walk down my street (just for the sake of argument assume this is true), I'm armed. 

I pull over on the side of the road and walk down the street to approach you and I ask you you some questions, if you live around here, who you are, where you're going etc

I'm not touching you or threatening you, I'm talking to you human to human, I wanna see if everything is OK and perhaps if you're up to no good since there has been some burglaries in the area.

You then attack me first because you're offended that I would approach you and ask you questions.

You end up on top of me and punch me at least few times.

I fear for my life at this point and pull out my gun to shoot you while you're on top of me.

How am I at fault?

----------


## Contumacious

> . Perhaps Zimmerman wouldn't have made the approach of he didn't have that gun holstered by his side. I'm not sure. I do know that it's an interesting case, and both parties appear to have been at fault.


This was a GATED COMMUNITY - under Florida access is controlled

People are attracted towards the security, privacy and comfort issues associated with a Florida gated community. Most of the gated communities in the United States are located in California and Florida with Palm Beach County housing most of them. There are highly luxurious ones to simple affordable communities. *But, security is still a main concern where the entry is restricted to the residents alone who can open the main gate using the access card, key or other secure methods. Visitors can gain entry only after being authorized with a passcode or by the security guard.* This is very essential especially in traveler dense areas where the risk of theft and crime is increasing in US.

----------


## kahless

> How is it Zimmerman's fault if he didn't start the fight? (assuming that is true). *Its been 60 pages and this question STILL has not been answered.*
> 
> Say I see you looking into people's houses as you walk down my street (just for the sake of argument assume this is true), I'm armed. 
> 
> I pull over on the side of the road and walk down the street to approach you and I ask you you some questions, if you live around here, who you are, where you're going etc
> 
> I'm not touching you or threatening you, I'm talking to you human to human, I wanna see if everything is OK and perhaps if you're up to no good since there has been some burglaries in the area.
> 
> You then attack me first because you're offended that I would approach you and ask you questions.
> ...


Interesting isn't it.  The same logical responses such as yours being repeated over and over again.  Responses move onto some other exaggeration of the facts or something completely anti-liberty in an RPF forum by long time members.

There is a clear pattern here with a narrative being presented that self defense, using a weapon in self defense and private security are abhorrent.  Even neighborhood watch offends them unless it part of an official national program.  

The point of this narrative sounds to me like it will eventually justify Obama's civilian defense force.  That was the whole point of picking this case.

Hmmm, COINTEL on RPF?  I wonder where they are getting their talking points from or who is paying them.

----------


## Weston White

Fact: Zimmerman (regardless as to his neighborhood watch status) had every right to follow and even profile Trayvon as a black person—Zimmerman was/is not an employee of the government.

Fact: The intentions of Zimmerman started off good and with no nefarious presence—having contacted the police to have the suspicious character checked out, while following at a bit of a distance, presumably.

Fact: Zimmerman screamed for help many times over.

Fact: Nobody came to the aid of Zimmerman after he began yelling for help.

Fact: Trayvon did not cease his battering of Zimmerman at any point after Zimmerman began screaming his head off.

Fact: Trayvon is not a little child, he was 5’11” and 165 pounds of young man—and moreover, who was an athletic football player that knew how to take somebody down with ease.

Fact: The only one of either Trayvon or Zimmerman that has expressed blatant signs of racism is Trayvon.

Fact: Zimmerman’s accounts largely match up with the accounts of several neighborhood witnesses—there exists only a few minor discrepancies between each of their own versions, which has mostly to do with them trying to make sense of the incident from the random point in time when it caught their attention enough to actually look or step outside.

Fact: A pry-bar/jimmy was located nearby in the bushes—although it is unknown if Trayvon had dumped the object there or not prior to him jumping Zimmerman.

Fact: Zimmerman was knocked down onto the grass along a cement walkway resulting in a broken nose, meanwhile having his head relentlessly bashed and battered by a self-acclaimed “gangster” Trayvon for approximately six or more times on all sides, and also who maintained the dominate position throughout.

Fact: The only injury Trayvon sustained, aside from the GSW, was a couple of chafed up knuckles.

Fact: Zimmerman, was alone in total darkness with a large black male, who was a complete stranger to him and that had been acting suspicious and oddly prior to commencing an all out assault on his person.

Fact: If Trayvon was truly scared of the rapist, creeping-cracker-stalker, or whatever, then Trayvon had ample opportunities himself to run off using the landscaping to his advantage and hide—or to even return home and call 911 as he was right next to his father’s townhouse anyway—from Zimmerman who was driving a vehicle and would not have been able to keep up with him.

Fact: Prior to Zimmerman having walked down the “T” dog-walk to supposedly locate the name of the street, he had observed Trayvon walk quickly or run off down it nearly one-minute before him—thusly, Zimmerman had a reasonable expectation that Trayvon had ran off to flee from the area and vision of Zimmerman and was no longer in his immediate area.

Fact:  Trayvon instead of running away to seek shelter and safety, to alert an adult of his recent experience, he opted to hide and confront Zimmerman at the top of the “T” dog-walk as Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle.

Fact: Given the totality of the situation and the callous disregard of Trayvon’s actions, Zimmerman had every right to setup his counter-offensive to the use of deadly force—without regard to Trayvon’s status as a juvenile.

Fact: Given all facts admitted into evidence the charge of second degree murder is wholly inappropriate, on its best day this case is manslaughter at the most—the case is purely political and nothing more.  So much so that the states own witnesses—including the detectives handling the case—have benefited the defense so much more than the prosecution.

Fact: The prosecution is so desperate over this case that they attempted to conceal evidence during discovery from the defense; it took a whistleblower to expose this, and he is consequently being punished for his honest actions.


*ETA:*


Fact: No evidence has been entered concerning the clothing Trayvon was wearing so far as it had been stretched, ripped, torn, pulled, or marked up in anyway, excluding the GSW holes and dirt and grass stains. Indicating that he could have ran away from Zimmerman at any point in time, such as when Zimmerman had began screaming, for example.

Fact: As to dirt or grass stains being entered into evidence, Zimmerans backside was largely covered in grass and all wet, while the knee area of Trayvon's pants were stained by dirt and grass.

----------


## tmg19103

ABC Chief Legal Affairs Anchor and Mediaite founder Dan Abrams told Good Morning America on Saturday that the prosecution in the Zimmerman trial had failed to make its case.

This before the defense has put its case on. The last prosecution's last witness - their county medical examiner, was a confused, disrespectful, contradicting and lying joke. Zimmerman's defense team has one of the most highly regarded expert witness medical examiners yet to come - along with a list of 134 potential defense witnesses, but the prosecution case was so weak with most of the prosecution witnesses helping Zimmerman that I expect his defense lawyer to keep things short and sweet while just tying up loose ends.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g96M4076_DU

----------


## devil21

> ABC Chief Legal Affairs Anchor and Mediaite founder Dan Abrams told Good Morning America on Saturday that the prosecution in the Zimmerman trial had failed to make its case.
> 
> This before the defense has put its case on. The last prosecution's last witness - their county medical examiner, was a confused, disrespectful, contradicting and lying joke. Zimmerman's defense team has one of the most highly regarded expert witness medical examiners yet to come - along with a list of 134 potential defense witnesses, but the prosecution case was so weak with most of the prosecution witnesses helping Zimmerman that I expect his defense lawyer to keep things short and sweet while just tying up loose ends.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g96M4076_DU


If it honestly appears that the state didn't prove it's case then defense should just motion for dismissal on lack of evidence and end the damn thing.  There's no requirement for the defense to even put up a defense if the state's case is that flimsy.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> If it honestly appears that the state didn't prove it's case then defense should just motion for dismissal on lack of evidence and end the damn thing.  There's no requirement for the defense to even put up a defense if the state's case is that flimsy.


Defense did motion for dismissal & judge has denied the request.

----------


## TheTexan

> My point was that it's difficult to ever say when a person can justly fear for their life given that these freak occurrences do happen. It's possible for a person to fear their life is in danger from a single punch due to these cases, but does that then mean they're justified in shooting someone to death? Where is the line drawn, if at all?


I would say getting your head smashed onto the pavement is a fairly good line to draw.  Punches don't really kill people very often, but blunt objects certainly do

----------


## devil21

> Defense did motion for dismissal & judge has denied the request.


Ah ok thanks.  Figures.

----------


## Ender

*CHANGES IN THE REPORT*
On March 13, Sanford police changed their final report on the Trayvon Martin shooting at least four times in five hours.
*9:40 a.m.:* A 10-page case summary. It recommends a second-degree-murder charge.
*1:31 p.m.:* No substantive changes.
*1:54 p.m.:* One page of proposed additions that downgrades the charge to manslaughter. It also adds criticism of Zimmerman for assuming Trayvon was about to commit a crime and for getting out of his truck and confronting the teenager.
*2:06 p.m.:* A 13-page rewrite adds that a doctor’s office the next day diagnosed Zimmerman with a fractured nose and scalp wound.
*2:23 p.m.:* The last version, 13 pages. It points out that Zimmerman had called Sanford police four other times since August, complaining about suspicious young black men in his neighborhood.

SOURCES: Sanford Police Department, Orlando Sentinel reporting

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2...#ixzz2YNlAK1Ir

The second was a strongly worded section condemning Zimmerman’s actions, pointing out that there was no need for a confrontation with Martin.

“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 in an effort to dispel each party’s concern. There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter.”

In that same new section, added in the third of the five drafts released Tuesday and left in each version thereafter, Serino and his bosses faulted Zimmerman for assuming that Martin was about to break into a home.

“Zimmerman ... made it clear that he had already reached a faulty conclusion as to Martin’s purpose for being in the neighborhood,” the revised report says.

----------


## Weston White

Save for the fact that Zimmerman was under no legal obligation to remain inside of his vehicle, or not to search around the area, or to even question Martin. Martin, as claimed by Zimmeran, was observed to have been walking along the private properties of the townhouses (as opposed to walking along the street or sidewalk areas), appearing to look into the windows as he walked by—known as ‘casing' the area.

It is unknown if it belonged to Martin, but a burglar tool was found in the bushes nearby the crime scene.

Additionally, Martin had publicly bragged about the many thefts he had committed against women (likely to sustain his marijuana habit).

Placing blame upon Zimmerman for Martin jumping him is akin to placing blame upon a rape victim for wearing a short skirt, low-cut blouse, and stilettos.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> Also pretty sure me and the people in my life are 100 times likelier to get shot by a Zimmerman type than a drone.  Different people have different priorities.


Short sighted.  Drone deaths have an upward trajectory and the cost curve of this technology will ensure its use increases dramatically:


Better images:  http://billmoyers.com/content/drones-by-the-numbers/

I'd rather have drone-proof armor than Zimmerman-proof armor.  Twenty years from now, when your neighborhood is under 24x7 curfew, who will you fear, the Zimmermans or the drones?

----------


## FrankRep



----------


## The Free Hornet

> 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 in an effort to dispel each partys concern. There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter.


Do you feel safer following police orders?  Anyway, note how this "encounter" with a black male is treated as avoidable.  Note how bashing in Zimmerman's face is not "criminal activity at the time of the encounter".  Note how there is zero explanation as to why Zimmerman ought to avoid encountering this dangerous creature.

Anyway, here are tips for avoiding bear attacks:




> *Bear attacks happen as fast as lightning!!!*
> 
> ...
> 
>  Always have Bear Deterrent *Pepper Spray in its holster ready for immediate use*. Dont bury it in your pack.
> 
>  Be alert where recent bear activity has been documented by park officials, Fish and Game, Forest Service, and other public service people.
> 
>  Use extreme caution when *traveling on trails at nigh*t or at either end of day.
> ...

----------


## jmdrake

> Sounds smart to me.


Smart would have been staying in the truck.




> The kid was as big as any grown man. Much bigger and stronger than GZ.


George Zimmerman outweighed Trayvon Martin by 20 to 30 pounds.  Trayvon Martin weight 168.  (I last weight that when I was 15 and I was considered skinny.)  Zimmerman weight either 185 or 200 depending on different police reports.  If this had been an MMA fight, Zimmerman would have been the clear favorite based on weight.  In fact Zimmerman wouldn't have even been in Martin's weight class.  He would be a middle weight and Martin a lightweight.  

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_m...weight_classes

The meme that Trayvon was "bigger and stronger" than Zimmerman is as dishonest as the claim that Martin was a 12 year old kid.




> GZ claims that he wasn't looking to confront him and TM attacked HIM first.


Yep.  That's the claim.  He also (apparently) claimed he was getting out of the truck to "find a house number."  (I don't know if he claimed that.  Somebody here claimed he claimed that.)  The "I was getting a house number" claim is obvious bollocks for various reasons.  Did TM attack first?  I dunno.  But if Zimmerman lied about one thing he might lie about something else.  Who knows?  Jury will decide.




> If you're not ready to face consequences then you shouldn't attack someone because they might be armed and be ready to defend themselves as GZ rightfully did.


Whether Zimmerman "rightfully" did is your opinion, not fact.  Anyway, whether Zimmerman was "right" or not, he was armed and Trayvon wasn't.  Lesson learned.  Be armed.  If Trayvon had been armed he'd be alive and on trial right now instead of Zimmerman.

----------


## Ender

> Save for the fact that Zimmerman was under no legal obligation to remain inside of his vehicle, or not to search around the area, or to even question Martin. Martin, as claimed by Zimmeran, was observed to have been walking along the private properties of the townhouses (as opposed to walking along the street or sidewalk areas), appearing to look into the windows as he walked by—known as ‘casing' the area.
> 
> It is unknown if it belonged to Martin, but a burglar tool was found in the bushes nearby the crime scene.
> 
> Additionally, Martin had publicly bragged about the many thefts he had committed against women (likely to sustain his marijuana habit).
> 
> Placing blame upon Zimmerman for Martin jumping him is akin to placing blame upon a rape victim for wearing a short skirt, low-cut blouse, and stilettos.


Your example is idiocy. if anything it applies to Trayvon much more than Zimmerman. Blaming Trayvon for being followed is like accusing your rape victim that is wearing a short skirt, low-cut blouse, and stilettos, of prostitution and therefore deserving of the consequences. 

And just accepting Zimmerman's word that Martin jumped him is amazing to me- BTW- Martin's gun has NO prints or DNA from Martin.

Just sayin'.

----------


## HigherVision

I think that Zimmerman should be convicted because even if Trayvon initiated the fight and was going to beat Zimmerman to death, he's black so he should be allowed to get away with it. Anything else is racism.

----------


## Weston White

> Your example is idiocy. if anything it applies to Trayvon much more than Zimmerman. Blaming Trayvon for being followed is like accusing your rape victim that is wearing a short skirt, low-cut blouse, and stilettos, of prostitution and therefore deserving of the consequences. 
> 
> And just accepting Zimmerman's word that Martin jumped him is amazing to me- BTW- Martin's gun has NO prints or DNA from Martin.
> 
> Just sayin'.


1. Nobody is blaming Martin for being followed or anything similar.  The blame is on Martin for beating the hell out of Zimmerman to the point of causing Zimmerman to feel the need to use his firearm in an effort to terminate the battery against him.

2. My example did not pertain to a "lady of the night", just a rape victim in general that was attacked because of her expressing her sexuality.

3.  We can do more than simply accept Zimmerman's word on being jumped; we can infer that from the evidence, i.e., the bodily damage he had sustained by the only known suspect, i.e., Trayvon Martin, who himself other than a GSW and knuckle abrasions, has zero bodily damage.

4.  Martin had no gun.  Zimmerman's firearm however, had no prints or DNA from either individual... Also noting that it was rainy that day.  Ultimately, that point is moot either way.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Short sighted.  Drone deaths have an upward trajectory and the cost curve of this technology will ensure its use increases dramatically:
> 
> 
> Better images:  http://billmoyers.com/content/drones-by-the-numbers/


By your curve seems like a downward trajectory.  Not to mention that in 2012 it was only militants killed.  Is that even true?  Seems off.

Regardless talking about me and the people in my life - I've known more than one person that's been shot.  I know zero people who even know anyone who has been targeted by a drone.




> I'd rather have drone-proof armor than Zimmerman-proof armor.  Twenty years from now, when your neighborhood is under 24x7 curfew, who will you fear, the Zimmermans or the drones?


I'm not going to live in fear of some hypothetical Alex Jones style future when there are real things killing people I know now.

Anyway - my point was not to downplay drones.  It was more of a response to a number of posts I've seen saying "you are all sheeple... this is only a media event.... who cares about this trial...etc..."

No it isn't.  Whether or not people can get away with shooting unarmed kids is something that impacts me and people I know now.  In 2013.  Also I hate when some smug ass calls everyone "sheeple" just because I happen to care about something that they don't.

----------


## Antischism

> I think that Zimmerman should be convicted because even if Trayvon initiated the fight and was going to beat Zimmerman to death, he's black so he should be allowed to get away with it. Anything else is racism.


Try harder.

----------


## Antischism

I see people here always trying to smear Trayvon with incidents or articles involving his past, but no one has ever brought this one up about Zimmerman. I mean, not that it's surprising since people who have a horse to root for will do anything to keep it from losing, but I thought it was interesting especially in the interest of fairness.

George Zimmerman Molested Cousin for More Than a Decade, Says Family is Blatantly Racist

Of course, I wouldn't put it past people here to dismiss it because it doesn't fit their view of the case or personal bias.

----------


## shane77m

Race wars are coming!!!!!

----------


## Antischism

> Race wars are coming!!!!!


Yep, the same race wars the Ron Paul Newsletters warned were imminent in the early 90's!

----------


## amy31416

> I see people here always trying to smear Trayvon with incidents or articles involving his past,* but no one has ever brought this one up about Zimmerman.* I mean, not that it's surprising since people who have a horse to root for will do anything to keep it from losing, but I thought it was interesting especially in the interest of fairness.
> 
> George Zimmerman Molested Cousin for More Than a Decade, Says Family is Blatantly Racist
> 
> Of course, I wouldn't put it past people here to dismiss it because it doesn't fit their view of the case or personal bias.


I've seen just as many articles smearing Zimmerman as I have smearing Trayvon. Both are $#@!ty ways to decide this case. And you say "no one" has brought it up about GZ, yet you post that article, disproving yourself.

----------


## CaptUSA

Reasonable doubt.

/thread.

----------


## brandon

There's not even a preponderance of the evidence IMO.

----------


## Ender

> I've seen just as many articles smearing Zimmerman as I have smearing Trayvon. Both are $#@!ty ways to decide this case. And you say "no one" has brought it up about GZ, yet you post that article, disproving yourself.


Come on, Amy- there are now 616 posts on this thread. How many are Zimmerman biased?

If Antischism finds a negative post on Zimmerman it at least balances out the POV.

----------


## Antischism

> I've seen just as many articles smearing Zimmerman as I have smearing Trayvon. Both are $#@!ty ways to decide this case. And you say "no one" has brought it up about GZ, yet you post that article, disproving yourself.


You're kidding yourself if you think there are an equal amount of articles smearing Zimmerman's past on these boards. Hell, there's a thread solely on the theory that Trayvon may have been thinking of using Skittles and AIT to concoct a drug! It's like Breitbart-Lite here when it comes to this case. Not only that, but I was specifically referring to the article I linked when I said I wasn't aware of anyone bringing that up specifically.

I agree that the past doesn't matter when determining the case. However, if people are going to dredge up Trayvon's past in an attempt to smear his image here, it's only fair that the same is done for the other side as well.

I don't even understand your logic about me bringing it up, therefore disproving myself. The reason I posted it was because I hadn't seen it being posted at all, which was the reason for posting it in the first place. It's freely available information that people are willingly ignoring while theorizing about PURPLE DRANK or whatever because it fits their narrative. Instead, if they're going to analyze one person's past, they should be doing it with both individuals.

----------


## amy31416

> Come on, Amy- there are now 616 posts on this thread. How many are Zimmerman biased?
> 
> If Antischism finds a negative post on Zimmerman it at least balances out the POV.


I'm not talking about this thread, I'm talking about **articles**. This thread is the product of this small group of people who are more likely to lean right, politically, so it's not shocking to me that you'd find more sympathy for GZ over TM.

I don't have solid opinions on this case, but I do know that both have been smeared, and it seems equal if you tend to read left and right sources--and Antischism just said that NOBODY smeared GZ, which is obviously not true.

The only things I'm reasonably sure of is that TM did try to beat the crap out of GZ and he did look pretty banged up, and that GZ should not have gotten out of his truck and followed him in the first place.

Neighborhood watches need to have some sort of alert system for the residents when the watcher sees anyone suspicious.

----------


## amy31416

> You're kidding yourself if you think there are an equal amount of articles smearing Zimmerman's past on these boards. Hell, there's a thread solely on the theory that Trayvon may have been thinking of using Skittles and AIT to concoct a drug! It's like Breitbart-Lite here when it comes to this case. Not only that, but I was specifically referring to the article I linked when I said I wasn't aware of anyone bringing that up specifically.
> 
> I agree that the past doesn't matter when determining the case. However, if people are going to dredge up Trayvon's past in an attempt to smear his image here, it's only fair that the same is done for the other side as well.
> 
> I don't even understand your logic about me bringing it up, therefore disproving myself. The reason I posted it was because I hadn't seen it being posted at all, which was the reason for posting it in the first place. It's freely available information that people are willingly ignoring while theorizing about PURPLE DRANK or whatever because it fits their narrative. Instead, if they're going to analyze one person's past, they should be doing it with both individuals.


Once again, where in the hell did I imply "on these boards?"

I said ARTICLES. I read them. I read lefty stuff just as much as I read righty stuff. Damn. And you're going to lecture me about logic when you say that "nobody" smears Zimmerman, then you post an article that does smear Zimmerman? Come on man! 

You really need me to do a search on articles critical of Zimmerman's character and post them here for you? You were able to find at least one--and I know there's plenty more out there. Don't make me waste my time.

----------


## Antischism

> I'm not talking about this thread, I'm talking about **articles**. This thread is the product of this small group of people who are more likely to lean right, politically, so it's not shocking to me that you'd find more sympathy for GZ over TM.
> 
> I don't have solid opinions on this case, but I do know that both have been smeared, and it seems equal if you tend to read left and right sources--and *Antischism just said that NOBODY smeared GZ*, which is obviously not true.
> 
> The only things I'm reasonably sure of is that TM did try to beat the crap out of GZ and he did look pretty banged up, and that GZ should not have gotten out of his truck and followed him in the first place.
> 
> Neighborhood watches need to have some sort of alert system for the residents when the watcher sees anyone suspicious.


You misread my post then, I said that the particular article I was linking to hadn't been posted before, at least to my knowledge. Obviously people have posted articles bringing Zimmerman's character into question, but it's like finding a needle in a haystack here.

----------


## amy31416

> You misread my post then, I said that the particular article I was linking to hadn't been posted before, at least to my knowledge. Obviously people have posted articles bringing Zimmerman's character into question, but it's like finding a needle in a haystack here.


You may well be right about this board and that article, but you aren't the only one on the TM "side" here. And you ain't gonna change those who are "knee-jerk" GZ defenders--why are you surprised that many people here are biased?

----------


## Antischism

> You may well be right about this board and that article, but you aren't the only one on the TM "side" here. And you ain't gonna change those who are "knee-jerk" GZ defenders--why are you surprised that many people here are biased?


I don't have a side, I think both were in the wrong in their own way. Maybe I'm foolish for trying to level the playing field and people will ignore it due to their own reasons, but I feel better knowing I at least did something to make sure all sides are represented. If no one posted anything that questioned Zimmerman's character, it'd just be a huge circle-jerk.

----------


## Ender

> You may well be right about this board and that article, but you aren't the only one on the TM "side" here.


I moved toward the TM 'side" because of the extreme prejudice I have seen on almost all "conservative/libertarian" forums.  As I have mentioned before, Trayvon was immediately guilty on these forums because he wore a hoodie. Some said that even if he wasn't the instigator, he was at fault because of his clothing. The prevalent racism and bias was amazing to me.

Because I have a weakness for the underdog, I did a lot of research into the case and found that Zimmerman's story was extremely questionable and that he was not the NW saint that most neocons were painting him to be, any more than TM was the hoodlum that everyone was trying to create. 

BTW- the article that Antichism posted states that the judge has accepted Witness 9's statements into the evidence; should be very interesting.

----------


## amy31416

> I moved toward the TM 'side" because of the extreme prejudice I have seen on almost all "conservative/libertarian" forums.  As I have mentioned before, Trayvon was immediately guilty on these forums because he wore a hoodie. Some said that even if he wasn't the instigator, he was at fault because of his clothing. The prevalent racism and bias was amazing to me.
> 
> Because I have a weakness for the underdog, I did a lot of research into the case and found that Zimmerman's story was extremely questionable and that he was not the NW saint that most neocons were painting him to be, any more than TM was the hoodlum that everyone was trying to create. 
> 
> BTW- the article that Antichism posted states that the judge has accepted Witness 9's statements into the evidence; should be very interesting.


It will be. I find it plausible and admissible if it's true that Zimmerman had violent tendencies or "wannabe cop" tendencies, that he may be charged with something. I also find it plausible and admissible if Trayvon tended to be a punk kid who sought "trouble."

From the evidence, it does seem to be the case that Trayvon was on top and was beating Zimmerman--that's kind of tough to deny. Did Zimmerman instigate it? That's more speculative, so I think it's going to be tough to make charges stick. If I were on the jury, I don't think I could say that Zimmerman's guilty of murder--but then again I'm not following it closely enough to know the subtleties.

----------


## kahless

> I moved toward the TM 'side" because of the extreme prejudice I have seen on almost all "conservative/libertarian" forums.  As I have mentioned before, Trayvon was immediately guilty on these forums because he wore a hoodie. Some said that even if he wasn't the instigator, he was at fault because of his clothing. The prevalent racism and bias was amazing to me.
> 
> Because I have a weakness for the underdog, I did a lot of research into the case and found that Zimmerman's story was extremely questionable and that he was not the NW saint that most neocons were painting him to be, any more than TM was the hoodlum that everyone was trying to create. 
> 
> BTW- the article that Antichism posted states that the judge has accepted Witness 9's statements into the evidence; should be very interesting.


The only extreme prejudice I see here is to the beliefs of individual liberty.  Your posts and a few others on this subject have been consistently pro-statist.

Examples:

- Disparaging the concept of a private individual observing his community for crime prevention purposes in favor of official law enforcement. 

- Complaining that Zimmerman was not a member of an official "national neighborhood watch".

- Promoting violation of the non-aggression principle. Posts believing that if the above occurs that the person being followed has a right to attack the follower or observer.

- Stating that there is no risk of death or injury if a stranger is on top of your beating you MMA style.  Promoting that individuals do not have right of self defense and must allow themselves to be beaten waiting for official law enforcement.

- Repeated posts complaining that Zimmerman did not follow the advice of a government dispatcher at a non-emergency number.  In addition repeating the false claim that it was a 911 emergency number.  This is blatant promotion of statist obedience propaganda.

Posts like yours above that play the race card.  Combined that with what I posted above it certainly sounds like you are pushing some sort of statist narrative for political purposes.

What is next, promotion of Obama's civilian defense force as a solution?

----------


## Pericles

> It will be. I find it plausible and admissible if it's true that Zimmerman had violent tendencies or "wannabe cop" tendencies, that he may be charged with something. I also find it plausible and admissible if Trayvon tended to be a punk kid who sought "trouble."
> 
> From the evidence, it does seem to be the case that Trayvon was on top and was beating Zimmerman--that's kind of tough to deny. Did Zimmerman instigate it? That's more speculative, so I think it's going to be tough to make charges stick. If I were on the jury, I don't think I could say that Zimmerman's guilty of murder--but then again I'm not following it closely enough to know the subtleties.


The evidence that we should have, and has not been presented is the GPS data from both phones, which would show the paths both took from observation to encounter. We know the prosecution has this data from Martin's phone and did not turn it over to the defense, claiming it was lost.

----------


## Ender

> The only extreme prejudice I see here is to the beliefs of individual liberty.  Your posts and a few others on this subject have been consistently pro-statist.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> - Disparaging the concept of a private individual observing his community for crime prevention purposes in favor of official law enforcement. 
> 
> - Complaining that Zimmerman was not a member of an official "national neighborhood watch".
> 
> - Promoting violation of the non-aggression principle. Posts believing that if the above occurs that the person being followed has a right to attack the follower or observer.
> ...


Well, that's a crock. There's not a pro-statist bone in my body. 

I find it ironic that you and yours will accept anything Zimmerman says as fact while ignoring all the possibilities what might have really happened. I also find it ironic that so-called Ron Paul supporters find it perfectly alright to stalk and scare someone they find "suspicious". Seems to me that the "guilty until found innocent" crowd is in full support behind Zimmerman. 

Zimmerman started the NW in that community; he wanted it even when the head of the HOA didn't feel they needed it. GZ took the training he begged for and then did not heed it. 

The whole fight scenario from GZ does not jell. They were several feet away from the sidewalk- TM was found face down- his hands underneath him. Zimmerman sought no medical attention plus the blood on the back of his head is pointed DOWN toward his face, signifying he was on top. GZ is not "little"- he outweighed TM by at least 30-40 lbs. AND there is no TM DNA or fingerprints on the gun he supposedly grabbed.

I have no race-card; I am as the most unprejudiced person I know- it is YOU that keeps puling the race issue into this. It is GZ supporters that keep pulling the "cracker" statement up- even though GZ called Trayvon an $#@! and his so-called "punk" statement sure sounded like "coon" to me.

So, keep supporting GZ, if that's your desire- I will continue to look at the screwed up "facts" and say what I feel in defense of TM. 

Someone's got to do it- ain't no justice on _this_ thread.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> As I have mentioned before, Trayvon was immediately guilty on these forums because he wore a hoodie.


Was this before or after he was Obama's long lost 12 year old son?


*********************************





> I find it ironic that you and yours will accept anything Zimmerman says as fact while ignoring all the possibilities what might have really happened.


It is possible Zimmerman concocted the perfect crime by calling the police ahead of time and relying on the blagosphere to defend him.

Possible.  Not likely.  Had Trayvon survived, he might have had testimony in which he pled for his life on his knees and defended against Zimmerman's brandished weapon which he was raising and swinging in "pistol whip" fashion for some odd reason.  But we ought to consider facts and testimony as it exists, not as it might be.


*********************************





> Zimmerman started the NW in that community; he wanted it even when the head of the HOA didn't feel they needed it. GZ took the training he begged for and then did not heed it.


In the absence of police, obey the HOA?

----------


## KingNothing

From a legal perspective, every single argument that people have made to implicate George Zimmerman on a murder two charge has been awful.  All of them.  

Zimmerman is a wanna-be cop, who was too-worried about crime, disregarded several guidelines for neighborhood watch, profiled Martin based on race and youth, and put himself in a situation that had no chance of ending well.  But with all of that said, the fact that he had a busted face, witnesses stating that Martin was on top of him, and bruising on Martin's fists, there is absolutely no way that the prosecution has disproven the self defense claim.  Anyone stating otherwise is delusional.

----------


## KingNothing

> Zimmerman started the NW in that community; he wanted it even when the head of the HOA didn't feel they needed it. GZ took the training he begged for and then did not heed it.


That isn't a crime.




> The whole fight scenario from GZ does not jell.


So?  GZ doesn't have to prove anything.  The state does.




> TM was found face down- his hands underneath him.


Which lends credence to the witness testimony that TM was on top of GZ when GZ shot TM.




> Zimmerman sought no medical attention


Totally irrelevant. No injuries are necessary for a self defense claim to be valid.




> plus the blood on the back of his head is pointed DOWN toward his face, signifying he was on top.


That means nothing.  Zimmerman may have only been on the ground for several seconds.  He could have been punched several times in the face while TM was on top of him, as witness Goode testified, had his head banged-around in the process, then shot Martin.




> GZ is not "little"- he outweighed TM by at least 30-40 lbs.


Irrelevant.




> AND there is no TM DNA or fingerprints on the gun he supposedly grabbed.


I believe that Martin's fingerprints WERE actually found on part of the gun, but not his DNA.




> So, keep supporting GZ, if that's your desire- I will continue to look at the screwed up "facts" and say what I feel in defense of TM. 
> 
> Someone's got to do it- ain't no justice on _this_ thread.


I think GZ is a piece of garbage, and I think that the state hasn't even come close to providing the evidence necessary to convict him of murder two.  The two opinions are not mutually exclusive.

----------


## jmdrake

> Your example is idiocy. if anything it applies to Trayvon much more than Zimmerman. Blaming Trayvon for being followed is like accusing your rape victim that is wearing a short skirt, low-cut blouse, and stilettos, of prostitution and therefore deserving of the consequences. 
> 
> And just accepting Zimmerman's word that Martin jumped him is amazing to me- BTW- Martin's gun has NO prints or DNA from Martin.
> 
> Just sayin'.


I'm assuming you meant to say "Zimmerman's gun".

----------


## Philhelm

> Zimmerman sought no medical attention plus the blood on the back of his head is pointed DOWN toward his face, signifying he was on top.


I saw the photos of Zimmerman's injuries on some news channel which had arrived to the same conclusion, which baffles me.  Even relatively minor head injuries can bleed profusely, and if he stood up, or doubled over, gravity would take effect.

The fact that he did not seek treatment is also irrelevant.  When I was in Basic Training, I took a metal hook to the head and didn't go to the hospital on post.

----------


## green73

I just killed somebody. I'm worried about my broken nose.

----------


## green73

Will I be deformed for life?

----------


## RickyJ

> I moved toward the TM 'side" because of the extreme prejudice I have seen on almost all "conservative/libertarian" forums.  *As I have mentioned before, Trayvon was immediately guilty on these forums because he wore a hoodie.* Some said that even if he wasn't the instigator, he was at fault because of his clothing. The prevalent racism and bias was amazing to me.
> 
> Because I have a weakness for the underdog, I did a lot of research into the case and found that Zimmerman's story was extremely questionable and that he was not the NW saint that most neocons were painting him to be, any more than TM was the hoodlum that everyone was trying to create. 
> 
> BTW- the article that Antichism posted states that the judge has accepted Witness 9's statements into the evidence; should be very interesting.


When this news first broke the majority here assumed Zimmerman was in the wrong to shoot Trayvon so you obviously don't know what you are talking about. A hoodie has nothing to do with anything at all. I hope and pray females like you aren't on the jury.

----------


## green73

Here's one that bodes well for Ender et al.: Marvin was high on the reefer.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/...a-usage-657901

Who gets violent on the reefer?

----------


## FrankRep

> Who gets violent on the reefer?



However, sometimes when marijuana is used it can cause *fear, anxiety, panic or paranoia*, which can result in an aggressive outburst.

Marijuana: Factsheets: Aggression
http://adai.uw.edu/marijuana/factsheets/aggression.htm

----------


## Ender

> When this news first broke the majority here assumed Zimmerman was in the wrong to shoot Trayvon so you obviously don't know what you are talking about. A hoodie has nothing to do with anything at all. I hope and pray females like you aren't on the jury.


I wasn't talking about this forum and I'm not female.

And, of course a hoodie has nothing to do with it- that's why it was so blinkin' irritating to have forums of people say he was guilty because of how he dressed.

----------


## Ender

> However, sometimes when marijuana is used it can cause *fear, anxiety, panic or paranoia*, which can result in an aggressive outburst.
> 
> Marijuana: Factsheets: Aggression
> http://adai.uw.edu/marijuana/factsheets/aggression.htm


Factsheet from someone who never smoked a joint.

----------


## FrankRep

> I wasn't talking about this forum and I'm not female.
> 
> And, of course a hoodie has nothing to do with it- that's why it was so blinkin' irritating to have forums of people say he was guilty because of how he dressed.


The leftist news sources you're reading likely said it. You believed the propaganda.

----------


## Ender

> The leftist news sources you're reading likely said it. You believed the propaganda.


No, it was the neocon news sources that you are reading that said it. You believe everything that Zimmerman says.

----------


## CaptUSA

Really, folks.  This discussion should demonstrate that there is reasonable doubt in this case.  It is not unreasonable to believe a multitude of scenarios that may have played out.  Therefore -> NOT guilty.

The rest of this is just sideshow.

----------


## krugminator

I like how the coverage of Zimmerman has been overwhelmingly negative and people say there is a need to balance the coverage for Trayvon Martin. Even on this site the opinions are slightly skewed against Zimmerman. The only reason I started paying attention was because I saw so many people dogging Zimmerman when I read this thread.

The correct result of this trial with 2nd degree murder charges isn't close.

----------


## dannno

> Here's one that bodes well for Ender et al.: Marvin was high on the reefer.
> 
> http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/...a-usage-657901
> 
> Who gets violent on the reefer?


It says there was some in his system, but it could have been from a week or two prior since it can stay in your system for weeks. What sucks is that they never mention whether they are testing for THC or THC metabolites.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Really, folks.  This discussion should demonstrate that there is reasonable doubt in this case.  It is not unreasonable to believe a multitude of scenarios that may have played out.  Therefore -> NOT guilty.
> 
> The rest of this is just sideshow.


That's how I see it too.

----------


## KingNothing

A witness says Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, and punching.  Martin's fist was bruised and had a slight cut.  Zimmerman had a broken nose.  Zimmerman claims self defense.

Given those FACTS a murder two charge is completely impossible.  Impossible.  Impossible.  Not going to happen.

If one argues that Zimmerman truly feared for his life, but shouldn't have, manslaughter is possible.  As the trial goes on, a conviction on that charge also seems to be less and less likely.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Race wars are coming!!!!!


Hide your kids hide your wife.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> I'm not talking about this thread, I'm talking about **articles**. This thread is the product of this small group of people who are more likely to lean right, politically, so it's not shocking to me that you'd find more sympathy for GZ over TM.


Why?  Why would people on this forum be more likely to favor GZ over TM.  GZ was a nosy neighbor wanna-be cop who liked to get involved in everyone's $#@!.  TM was a teen who was minding his own business (oh and he did drugs).

Usually the people on this forum would be more likely to stick up for a TM type than a GZ type.  Why is this case different?  Why would you expect people to support GZ?

----------


## TheTexan

> No, it was the neocon news sources that you are reading that said it. You believe everything that Zimmerman says.


Theres difference between believing everything he says, and having nothing to convict him with.  Or even charge him with, for that matter

----------


## TheTexan

> Really, folks.  This discussion should demonstrate that there is reasonable doubt in this case.  It is not unreasonable to believe a multitude of scenarios that may have played out.  Therefore -> NOT guilty.
> 
> The rest of this is just sideshow.


Nah, he was looking for trouble.  I just know it.  -> GUILTY

----------


## cajuncocoa

> TM was a teen who was minding his own business.


...until he didn't and decided to attack the guy who was following him.

----------


## green73

good thread.

----------


## Pisces

Are any of the people who still think Zimmerman stalked and then murdered Trayvon actually watching the trial? To be honest, the trial testimony doesn't show Zimmerman as a bully or an arrogant wannabe cop. The prosection's case is a joke.

----------


## green73

> Are any of the people who still think Zimmerman stalked and then murdered Trayvon actually watching the trial? To be honest, the trial testimony doesn't show Zimmerman as a bully or an arrogant wannabe cop. The prosection's case is a joke.


It's a ginormous joke.

----------


## amy31416

> Why?  Why would people on this forum be more likely to favor GZ over TM.  GZ was a nosy neighbor wanna-be cop who liked to get involved in everyone's $#@!.  TM was a teen who was minding his own business (oh and he did drugs).
> 
> Usually the people on this forum would be more likely to stick up for a TM type than a GZ type.  Why is this case different?  Why would you expect people to support GZ?


Because he was dressed like a punk and had some sketchy events in his past involving alleged thuggery, drug use, etc., and conservative people generally don't support those kinds of folks.

If it was some ordinary person, like the businessman who was stalked and attacked in the DC subway, sure. They'd be giving him the benefit of the doubt if he'd shot one of the teen girls who attacked him. Just like they gave that black kid who beat the living $#@! out of that girl who jumped the McDonald's counter. She was a punk, he was a kid who had a job. It's a difference of their "value" in society and people evaluate that.

Zimmerman was a non-cop, family man, pro-2nd person who allegedly stepped up to watch out for his neighbors. You really expect people here to back someone who's portrayed as a punk (in the conservative media, which most here read) over someone who's portrayed as a pro-2nd protector of his neighborhood? If all I watched/read was Fox News conservative news sites, I'd be 100% pro-Zimmerman too.

I know you think I'm racist because I will remove myself from a situation where I see someone who's "shady," but that has nothing to do with this. However, I do think you're incredibly shallow for considering me racist because of it.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I like how the coverage of Zimmerman has been overwhelmingly negative and people say there is a need to balance the coverage for Trayvon Martin. Even on this site the opinions are slightly skewed against Zimmerman. The only reason I started paying attention was because I saw so many people dogging Zimmerman when I read this thread.
> 
> The correct result of this trial with 2nd degree murder charges isn't close.


Media brainwashing.

CNN did a very clever bit of subliminal neuro-programming today. It was more obvious just watching the video, with no sound. They started with the airline crash in San Francisco. They were talking about victims and survivors, burning plane. So now that your brain is emotionally open, feeling empathy, up pops a picture of a black child and his Dad. Was one of them injured in the crash? Paralyzed? Very sad. Oh no, it's Trayvon Martin as a child! And not long after that, we have very strange pictures of Zimmerman. Zooming up till it's nothing but his eyes filling the screen.

Bernays would be proud. Redirect your empathy, and then give you a target for anger.




> Why?  Why would people on this forum be more likely to favor GZ over TM.  GZ was a nosy neighbor wanna-be cop who liked to get involved in everyone's $#@!.  TM was a teen who was minding his own business (oh and he did drugs).
> 
> Usually the people on this forum would be more likely to stick up for a TM type than a GZ type.  Why is this case different?  Why would you expect people to support GZ?


NAP.

And historical rule of law generally puts the initial aggressor in the wrong.

----------


## KingNothing

> Why?  Why would people on this forum be more likely to favor GZ over TM.  GZ was a nosy neighbor wanna-be cop who liked to get involved in everyone's $#@!.  TM was a teen who was minding his own business (oh and he did drugs).
> 
> Usually the people on this forum would be more likely to stick up for a TM type than a GZ type.  Why is this case different?  Why would you expect people to support GZ?



I imagine there is a large number of people who think GZ will be found not guilty because they are racist.

I'm not one of those people, and I think you know that.  The evidence to bring about a conviction just isn't there, and that is something I'd be saying if Zimmerman were black and on his way to the chair, like Cory Maye was.

----------


## RickyJ

This whole trial is a side show to distract from the NSA and IRS scandals. Just because the media talking heads push this trial on their government propaganda broadcasts doesn't mean we have to talk about it.

----------


## AFPVet

> Factsheet from someone who never smoked a joint.


Yep... all cannabis is the same... don't worry about THC/CBD ratios or the variations of effects

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> This whole trial is a side show to distract from the NSA and IRS scandals.


Ain't that the truth? We really should b...hold on... Squirrel!

----------


## Dr.3D

> Yep... all cannabis is the same... don't worry about THC/CBD ratios or the variations of effects


I've known people who have smoked it for over 50 years and the THC/CBD ratios or the variations of effects never made them crazy.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Because he was dressed like a punk and had some sketchy events in his past involving alleged thuggery, drug use, etc., and conservative people generally don't support those kinds of folks.


Sure I get why FreeRepublic, the Blaze, WND etc... support Zimmerman.  I meant this forum in particular.  Most posters here don't fall under that "conservative" umbrella.  And most of the time in this situation they'd back the guy who was minding his own business.

----------


## dillo

Manslaughter with a weapon on a minor is a 15 year minimum in Florida, I wonder why they went for 2nd degree?  Going for death penalty?

----------


## amy31416

> Sure I get why FreeRepublic, the Blaze, WND etc... support Zimmerman.  I meant this forum in particular.  Most posters here don't fall under that "conservative" umbrella.  And most of the time in this situation they'd back the guy who was minding his own business.


You go with the conservative status quo on most everything else, why not this? Suddenly you're a "radical," eh?

Nothing to do with his race, I'm sure.

You should question yourself just as much as you question anyone else.

----------


## AFPVet

> I've known people who have smoked it for over 50 years and the THC/CBD ratios or the variations of effects never made them crazy.


Yep... neither have I. The bad press is from people who don't understand it. For some years, they did try breeding the CBD out of some strains in favor for the THC which led to an imbalance, but didn't affect people in a violent manner... it might have caused some to have anxiety. The latest strains have brought the CBD back into it which pretty much negates any adverse effects.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Yep... all cannabis is the same... don't worry about THC/CBD ratios or the variations of effects


Are you aware of a strain of marijuana that increases one's proneness to violence?

----------


## HigherVision

> Yep, the same race wars the Ron Paul Newsletters warned were imminent in the early 90's!


You mean around the time when the black population looted and burned down Los Angeles? Yeah what was Ron thinking.




> This whole trial is a side show to distract from the NSA and IRS scandals. Just because the media talking heads push this trial on their government propaganda broadcasts doesn't mean we have to talk about it.


Nah I think it's more like mainstream media, who yes are leftist despite their support of war, drumming up racial animosity on the part of blacks against whites again. It's obvious with stuff like how they doctored Zimmerman's 911 phone call. Watch the news and if a white person commits a violent crime against a black person it's reported as such, but if a black person commits an act of violence against a white person which is statistically far more common it's simply reported as one person attacking another with no mention of race. A large group of black kids can beat up on a white person and it will be reported as a group of youth or a 'flash mob' beating a person. But if a white people assaults a black person which happens far more rarely race is not only mentioned but emphasized and it's presented as a new Civil Rights struggle. Black figures are interviewed on the news about how they now have to live in fear of attack from whites, which is statistically also a lot less likely than them being attacked by other blacks, and a new round of shaming is presented upon the white population.

----------


## devil21

> Sure I get why FreeRepublic, the Blaze, WND etc... support Zimmerman.  I meant this forum in particular.  Most posters here don't fall under that "conservative" umbrella.  And most of the time in this situation they'd back the guy who was minding his own business.


Im still not really sure who exactly was or wasn't minding their own business in this case or that maybe even both were or both were just willing combatants and one person lost.  I admit not following the whole thing closely (strikes me as a nonsense distraction) but seems the whole point of this trial is determine that very question.

----------


## FrankRep

> Sure I get why FreeRepublic, the Blaze, WND etc... support Zimmerman.  I meant this forum in particular.  Most posters here don't fall under that "conservative" umbrella.  And most of the time in this situation they'd back the guy who was minding his own business.


I support self-defense.

----------


## FrankRep

Barack Obama, Jr?

----------


## Sola_Fide



----------


## Antischism

> You mean around the time when the black population looted and burned down Los Angeles? Yeah what was Ron thinking.


Ron Paul didn't write that; he vehemently repudiated the statements, actually. But you're the biggest race baiter I've seen on these forums aside from Ballen or whatever his name is, and that Giuliani person (unless you're an alt?), so I won't further entertain you if you reply back on this issue. It's clear that you view black people as inferior to whites based on your post history, you don't have to constantly voice it on a board that's mainly anti-collectivist. Take that $#@! to Stormfront.

----------


## AFPVet

> Are you aware of a strain of marijuana that increases one's proneness to violence?


No; however, some people have been known to lace it with PCP... and I have seen some violent outbreaks with that!

----------


## QuickZ06

> No; however, some people have been known to lace it with PCP... and I have seen some violent outbreaks with that!


For real man? That is some urban legend BS, period. It makes no economic sense from the viewpoint of the dealer at all, would be an epic waste of both drugs. Dealers are in the money making business. Not the lets lace more expensive drugs with cheaper ones to lose customers.

----------


## AFPVet

> For real man? That is some urban legend BS, period. It makes no economic sense from the viewpoint of the dealer at all, would be an epic waste of both drugs. Dealers are in the money making business. Not the lets lace more expensive drugs with cheaper ones to lose customers.


It wasn't the dealers doing it lol. It was just some $#@!tards experimenting. I don't know why anyone would want to ruin a good experience by lacing it with $#@!, but that's why they're $#@!tards.

----------


## brushfire

Real BS today - that judge is a fool.

The state sat on evidence from January which contained text messages from Trayvon's phone.  The phone had encrypted and hidden photos of various things, including a gun.  Also text messages pertaining to organized fighting and the purchasing of said firearm.  The defense did not have the opportunity to examine the evidence or depose the recipients of the text messages, and the judge claims that anyone (a little child) could have sent the text messages.
Just ridiculous...  Hope those jurors know their role.

----------


## QuickZ06

> It wasn't the dealers doing it lol. It was just some $#@!tards experimenting. I don't know why anyone would want to ruin a good experience by lacing it with $#@!, but that's why they're $#@!tards.


Gotcha, but I just don't see very many people actually doing that at all. But I am sure someone has tried it. I did think you were talking about dealers though, so sorry.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> For real man? That is some urban legend BS, period. It makes no economic sense from the viewpoint of the dealer at all, would be an epic waste of both drugs. Dealers are in the money making business. Not the lets lace more expensive drugs with cheaper ones to lose customers.


It isn't actually PCP. (that I've ever seen. I'm sure some people have a connect for that, though) It's formaldahyde. People steal it from funeral homes. They take the end of a match and dip in the embalming fluid, then drag it down the length of a cigarette. (or blunt, or whatever) Some people are addicted to it and smoke it knowingly.

They call it water because you have the tendency to get butt naked. I've seen videos online of people smoking too much of it but never saw that personally. People act strange on it though, I wouldn't want to be around them.

In the city bud is more likely to come in contact with other drug residue due to the fact most people don't have more than one scale. If a dealer sells more than weed, chances are he's weighing everything on the same scale contaminating the marijuana. Even so, it wouldn't make you violent. Marijuana isn't a mood changer in that sense. People who don't smoke do not realize that. I, and everyone else I've known, acts exactly the same after smoking marijuana. If anything people become more laid back and tell jokes.

My whole point of asking AFP if he was aware of any strain of marijuana that would increase one's tendency to commit violence was because there is none. Whether it's sativa, indica, or ruderalis, does not matter. Thus the whole "issue" that's been brought up of TM smoking marijuana is ridiculous. People have seen Reefer Madness one to many times. To hell with Anslinger's outrageous testimony.

----------


## muh_roads

I'd hate to live in a major liberal city right now.  (So essentially all large cities practically)

The riots people are inciting sound more likely.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> *You go with the conservative status quo on most everything else, why not this?* Suddenly you're a "radical," eh?
> 
> Nothing to do with his race, I'm sure.
> 
> You should question yourself just as much as you question anyone else.


No I don't.  You don't know me at all.  I'd align far more with liberals than the conservative status quo on most issues to be honest.

Outside of abortion and gun rights I don't agree with "conservatives" on almost any issue.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> I'd hate to live in a major liberal city right now.  (So essentially all large cities practically)
> 
> The riots people are inciting sound more likely.


I live in probably the most liberal city in the US - no one's going to riot (not on any serious scale).  Stop living in fear.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I live in probably the most liberal city in the US - no one's going to riot (not on any serious scale).  Stop living in fear.


Well truth be told, there are reasons aside TM verdict riots occurring.

Born and raised in the city and I for one can't wait to move to the country.

A comparison Pete said that I liked was "too many rats in one cage."

The dollar is not sustainable in the long run. After our military adventurism and artificially propping up the dollar is exhausted times will be bad. Wait until people go hungry for a few days. At least in the country you could hunt and forage for food. It will get bad.

That being said there aren't going to be any big riots over this verdict. A couple of kids breaking windows or attacking random people. One off random crimes and that will be about all. Watch and wait though, the police will come out by the hundreds to control the demonstration. They very well may beat a few people causing a generally calm but angry demonstration to turn into looting and chaos. Mark my words. And then if they happen to beat a protester to death, or into a coma, or hit a woman or child people will really be pissed. (rightfully so) I could see a protest escalating depending on how the police treat the situation. Might give them a chance to try out the new APC.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Well truth be told, there are reasons aside TM verdict riots occurring.
> 
> Born and raised in the city and I for one can't wait to move to the country.
> 
> A comparison Pete said that I liked was "too many rats in one cage."
> 
> The dollar is not sustainable in the long run. After our military adventurism and artificially propping up the dollar is exhausted times will be bad. Wait until people go hungry for a few days. At least in the country you could hunt and forage for food. It will get bad.


I doubt it.

I have a buddy from Lebanon.  Lebanon is about 1,000 times poorer than the US and has had all kinds of civil war and occupation and foreign invasion.  My buddy is 30 years old and he never starved to death - he lived through it - and he was poorer than average in Lebanon.  Unlikely that San Francisco sees anything worse in the next 30 years than Lebanon has seen in the last 30.  

We're smart capable people and whatever happens we'll deal with it.  I'm not going to live in fear every day of some Alex Jones style apocalypse.

Could something happen?  Sure.  For all I know I get hit by a car tomorrow or a meteor hits the earth and we all die.  But I'm not going to sit here in fear or spread panic over the internet.  Life is short.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> I live in probably the most liberal city in the US - no one's going to riot (not on any serious scale).  Stop living in fear.


You live in Cambridge? Amherst? Burlington? Where in New England do you live? Let's hang out sometime!

----------


## muh_roads

> I doubt it.
> 
> I have a buddy from Lebanon.  Lebanon is about 1,000 times poorer than the US and has had all kinds of civil war and occupation and foreign invasion.  My buddy is 30 years old and he never starved to death - he lived through it - and he was poorer than average in Lebanon.  Unlikely that San Francisco sees anything worse in the next 30 years than Lebanon has seen in the last 30.  
> 
> We're smart capable people and whatever happens we'll deal with it.  I'm not going to live in fear every day of some Alex Jones style apocalypse.
> 
> Could something happen?  Sure.  For all I know I get hit by a car tomorrow or a meteor hits the earth and we all die.  But I'm not going to sit here in fear or spread panic over the internet.  Life is short.


When the petrodollar collapses it will get 1,000 times worse here too.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> You live in Cambridge? Amherst? Burlington? Where in New England do you live? Let's hang out sometime!


San Francisco.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I doubt it.
> 
> I have a buddy from Lebanon.  Lebanon is about 1,000 times poorer than the US and has had all kinds of civil war and occupation and foreign invasion.  My buddy is 30 years old and he never starved to death - he lived through it - and he was poorer than average in Lebanon.  Unlikely that San Francisco sees anything worse in the next 30 years than Lebanon has seen in the last 30.  
> 
> We're smart capable people and whatever happens we'll deal with it.  I'm not going to live in fear every day of some Alex Jones style apocalypse.
> 
> Could something happen?  Sure.  For all I know I get hit by a car tomorrow or a meteor hits the earth and we all die.  But I'm not going to sit here in fear or spread panic over the internet.  Life is short.


As an aside, I feel dismissed when you label it an "Alex Jones style apocalypse." Have you seen Dr. Paul's greatest speech in my opinion, "The End of Dollar Hegemony"?

I am not worried about anything. I have no fears, per se. That is not to say this system can continue forever. If it could, nobody would have to work another day. Let's all just stay home and have the government print money as needed. It is foolish to think that. People live beyond their means and eventually will have to live beneath their means. People in some parts of Africa for instance, are used to low caloric diets and going without. They go hungry and sometimes even starve to death. People here would not go hungry for two or three days without resorting to looting and robbing.

Simply stating that is not fearmongering or living in fear. If you haven't seen Ron Paul's speech check it out. I can link it if you can't find it. Using rationale and reason to diagnose the problem and offer solutions. Nothing to do with Alex Jones. I don't listen to the show much myself. Maybe once or twice a year if Ron Paul is being interviewed and that's about it. I heard him on Howard Stern's show (though I don't listen to that either) and was actually very impressed. I looked up all of what he was saying and corroborated it independently.

----------


## Ender

One of the best articles I have read on the case:

*The Zimmerman Trial, Day Ten: Stand Whose Ground?*
Posted by Jelani Cobb

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...l-day-ten.html - livefyre

By the time Tracy Martin, Trayvon Martin’s father, arrived on the stand on day ten of the George Zimmerman trial, he had already been cast in unanticipated roles—grieving father, reluctant agitator, courtroom stoic—though none of that dimmed the discomfort of his latest turn: witness for the defense. His appearance proved to be the sharpest twist on Monday, a day that had already seen a witness compare the screams from Zimmerman’s fight with Trayvon with those of American soldiers during the Tet Offensive, and a live-action mixed-martial-arts tutorial featuring the lead defense counsel. It takes a certain kind of nerve to summon the father of the deceased as part of an effort to exonerate the man who killed him; it requires something greater than poise to endure being summoned. Toward the end of the cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Martin why he’d repeatedly listened to a 911 call in which the gunshot that killed Trayvon could be heard. His reply was jarring: “I was trying to understand why he got out of his car and chased my son.”

It’s doubtful that he was completely without answers. The knowledge that you can inspire fear in the most inadvertent of ways, that there is a protean set of descriptions that you always fit, is axiomatic of the black male experience in this country. This is knowledge fathers pass to sons just as sure as explaining how to tie a Windsor knot. The more salient question, the one that forms part of the core of this case—though it is unlikely to be posed, and certain not to be resolved in the Seminole County courthouse—is this: Is it ever possible for a white person to be suspicious?

There’s already been any number of indelible moments in this central Florida courtroom. Last week featured a scene out of King Solomon’s court, in which both the mother of the deceased and the mother of the defendant claimed it was her son’s voice screaming for help just before the shot punctuates the 911 call. A procession of witnesses testified about seeing one man atop another and striking him, though they couldn’t agree on the attacker. Their visual vagueness was matched by another theme—the common, enduring horror at realizing there was a man lying dead in the grass. Yet more than the conflicting testimony over who screamed for help, more than the question of which man was on top, this case is about a defendant’s presumed innocence and a dead man’s presumed guilt.

While speculation about the trial has centered on whether or not Zimmerman will take the stand, Trayvon Martin, in a real sense, already has. In a creeping set of rulings, Judge Debra Nelson decided to allow discussion of the traces of marijuana that were found in Martin’s system during his autopsy. The contours of the defense, like a great deal of the discussion of this case, are shot through with an antiquated brand of rape-think. What was he wearing? Was he high or drunk? Why was he out at night? Beneath these questions is a calcified skepticism toward Martin’s innocence that all but blurts out “He was asking for it.”

Amid their frustratingly uneven presentation, Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda and the rest of the prosecution have pegged their second-degree murder charges largely on the idea that Martin was losing the fight on February 26th of last year, that he shouted for help, and that Zimmerman, a vigilante would-be cop, shot and killed him anyway. In plotting their route to conviction, they necessarily bypass another set of questions. What if he wasn’t losing the fight? What if Zimmerman is the one who called for help? What if Martin did swing first? And, most crucially, is an unarmed black teen-ager ever entitled to stand his ground?

The answers to these questions have bearing that is more social than legal, but they’re inescapable in understanding how we got here in the first place and what this trial ultimately means. George Zimmerman got out of his car that night as an amateur deputy and protector of the Retreat at Twin Lakes gated community. Trayvon Martin was a visitor to that community. Nowhere in Zimmerman’s initial emergency call does he broach the idea that Martin might belong there, that he might actually be someone who warranted protection, too. Instead, there is the snap judgment that the teen-ager is one of the “$#@!ing punks” who “always get away”—a judgment that Zimmerman’s supporters and the Sanford Police Department either co-signed or deemed reasonable enough to absolve him of responsibility for what ensued.

What remains frustratingly marginal in this discussion is the point Martin’s friend Rachel Jeantel raised in her testimony—that Martin himself was afraid, that a black person might assess a man following him in a car and on foot as a threat, never mind that he might have seen Zimmerman’s weapon and suspected his life was in danger. The defense paid a great deal of attention to the implications of Martin referring to Zimmerman as a “creepy-ass cracker,” but, to the extent that we think about the epithet, we’re concerned with the wrong C-word. Imagine George Zimmerman being followed at night, in the rain, by an armed, unknown black man and you have an encounter that far exceeds the minimal definition of “creepy.” Indeed, you have a circumstance in which anyone would reasonably fear for his life. Add a twist in which that black man fires a shot that ends a person’s life, and it’s hard to imagine him going home after a brief police interview, as Zimmerman did.

De la Rionda’s team is charged with prosecuting a crime, not a set of social attitudes that facilitate it. But whatever its legal merits, the prosecution’s approach has left intact the suspicion that Florida’s proactive self-defense laws are color-coded, intended for people in fearsome encounters with blacks, not blacks in fearsome encounters.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> As an aside, I feel dismissed when you label it an "Alex Jones style apocalypse." Have you seen Dr. Paul's greatest speech in my opinion, "The End of Dollar Hegemony"?
> 
> I am not worried about anything. I have no fears, per se. That is not to say this system can continue forever. If it could, nobody would have to work another day. Let's all just stay home and have the government print money as needed. It is foolish to think that. People live beyond their means and eventually will have to live beneath their means. People in some parts of Africa for instance, are used to low caloric diets and going without. They go hungry and sometimes even starve to death. People here would not go hungry for two or three days without resorting to looting and robbing.


We're not going to go hungry.  We have more food than we need.  Does Dr. Paul think the US in the future is likely to be worse than what Lebanon has been for the past 30 years?  A tiny isolated country that was savaged by civil war, occupation, terrorism, etc.... still most people didn't starve.  We're going to be worse off than them?

$#@! will get worse and $#@! will get better over the next 60 years I plan on living. Whatever happens we'll deal with it.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> We're not going to go hungry.  We have more food than we need.  Does Dr. Paul think the US in the future is likely to be worse than what Lebanon has been for the past 30 years?  A tiny isolated country that was savaged by civil war, occupation, terrorism, etc.... still most people didn't starve.  We're going to be worse off than them?
> 
> $#@! will get worse and $#@! will get better over the next 60 years I plan on living. Whatever happens we'll deal with it.


Confidence in the dollar will wean as people become more and more convinced that there is no meaning behind the currency. After our country's defenses offenses are so far and wide that the dollar cannot be propped up anymore, cannot be leveraged or artificially _sold_ to the people as money, it will end. Worse than Lebanon? We are a country of 300 million plus with 50 million plus receiving food aid. (SNAP) What do you think they will do when their couple hundred bucks doesn't buy but a week's worth of groceries? (if anything at all) What are those on SSI going to do when their benefits quit coming in?

Worse than Lebanon in what way? (not that I'm an expert of Lebanese lifestyles)

Did you watch the speech?

And for the record I am not saying this will be the end all of this country. It will lead to propagandized "news" supporting efforts for a one world currency. People will gladly accept it given the circumstances.

----------


## HigherVision

> Ron Paul didn't write that; he vehemently repudiated the statements, actually. But you're the biggest race baiter I've seen on these forums aside from Ballen or whatever his name is, and that Giuliani person (unless you're an alt?), so I won't further entertain you if you reply back on this issue. It's clear that you view black people as inferior to whites based on your post history, you don't have to constantly voice it on a board that's mainly anti-collectivist. Take that $#@! to Stormfront.


Yes me complaining about people who are black looting, burning and killing people en mass in Los Angeles is worse than them actually doing it. The dominant strain of logic in society is that a white life is worse less than black life because if you complain about a black person hurting or killing a white person too adamantly it's racist, so you just kind of have to take it. Well I am $#@!ing sick of that. It's you who are side of the oppressor. When someone initiates violence against another person it is that person who is the other person's oppressor. Statistically blacks do this more frequently than white people. Maybe if the laws and the popular beliefs in society were that it's actually *wrong* and not justified by old stuff like slavery this wouldn't be the case. Politically black people are a *privileged* class in this country today. And I'm going to speak out against it until we all have equal rights, until a black person assaulting a white person is considered just as much a 'hate crime' as vice versa in the eyes of the law. Because this is bull$#@! and it's gone on too long.

Example of what I'm talking about**:

----------


## Noob

West: "To not allow Mr. Zimmerman to present his defense violates the Florida and United States Constitutions."

Judge: "I'm not getting into this."

----------


## KEEF

> *DOJ sends secret “peacekeepers” where Trayvon Martin was killed*Last Updated: July 10, 2013
> *Synopsis*Judicial Watch, Inc.  on April 24, 2012 launched an investigation into the Trayvon Martin case based on reports that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) had sent a secret team of “peacekeepers” to Sanflord, Florida, where Martin was shot on February 26, 2012 after wandering in a gated community after dark.  George Zimmerman, a resident of the community and its neighborhood watch captain, is currently on trial for Martin’s death though he maintains he acted in self-defense.
> Records obtained by Judicial Watch in response to local, state and federal public records requests show that the so-called peacekeepers are part of a large and growing division within DOJ called the Community Relations Service (CRS).  Though CRS purports to spot and quell racial tensions nationwide before they arise, the documents obtained by Judicial Watch show the group actively worked to foment unrest, spending thousands of taxpayer dollars on travel and hotel rooms to train protestors throughout Florida.  The peacekeepers also met with officials of the Republican National Convention, scheduled for several months later in Tampa, to warn them to expect protests in connection with Martin’s death.
> 
> CRS employee spent $1,142.84 to travel to Sanford, Florida from March 25-28, 2012 “to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies”;CRS employee spent $751.60 to travel to Sanford, Florida from March 30-April 1, 2012 “to provide technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31”;CRS employee spent $1,307.40 to travel to Sanford, Florida from April 3-12, 2012 “to provide technical assistance, conciliation, and onsite mediation during demonstrations planned in Sanford”;CRS employee spent $672.24 to travel to Tampa, Florida from April 18-20, 2012 “to meet with RNC official related to possible protests and demonstrations during the RNC”
> In response to a Florida Sunshine Law request to the City of Sanford, Judicial Watch also obtained an audio recording of a “community meeting” held at Second Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church in Sanford on April 19, 2012.  The meeting, which opens with a gospel hymn and organ music, is reported to have led to the official ouster of Sanford’s Police Chief Bill Lee.  A week earlier, a group calling themselves the “Dream Defenders” had barricaded the entrance to the police department demanding he be fired for failing to file murder charges against Zimmerman.  The church meeting produced a nine-point plan, the main demand being the firing of Chief Lee.


http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulleti...in-was-killed/

----------


## ObiRandKenobi

The judge lady is obnoxious.

----------


## Dr.3D

> The judge lady is obnoxious.


It she that fat one that looks like a pig?

----------


## KEEF

> It she that fat one that looks like a pig?


she is the one on the left.

----------


## brandon

Defense has rested, will get a verdict probably by the end of the week or next Monday. 

I gotta say, I really like the two lead defense attorneys. They both have an extremely calming demeanor and soothing voices. lol

----------


## The Free Hornet

> One of the best articles I have read on the case:


If that's among the best, then you have 100% assured me that Zimmerman ought to be acquitted.

Added:  I should add that "stand your ground" isn't in play so an article titled "stand whose ground" on July 9th could only be aimed at ignorant mofos.  And I don't deny the core premise of the article that black men ought to be suspicious of white (or "half-hispanic" - thanks MSM! always adding to the language lol) men.  The prison stats justify that fear.  However, that justified fear doesn't prove Zimmerman guilty of anything.  _It would seem,_ TM was right to fear GZ and GZ was right to fear TM.

----------


## jllundqu

Wow.... almost 700 posts.

Who freakin cares?  Small issue.  Local trial.  The MSM is making this a big deal and we are all buying it.  There are bigger fish to fry around here.

----------


## Contumacious

> Wow.... almost 700 posts.
> 
> Who freakin cares?  Small issue.  Local trial.  The MSM is making this a big deal and we are all buying it.  There are bigger fish to fry around here.


Well the CCCP network took an anti Zimmerman , anti stand your ground laws posture .

.

----------


## Antischism

> The judge lady is obnoxious.


I won't pretend to know the temperament or attitudes of most judges, but from the start of the trial, I noticed that she seemed a little... well, like she just didn't want to be there I guess. I can't explain it. Maybe she's just bored of the defense dragging things on for obnoxious amounts of time, or a little annoyed. But she should be better prepared to handle these situations.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I won't pretend to know the temperament or attitudes of most judges, but from the start of the trial, I noticed that she seemed a little... well, like she just didn't want to be there I guess. I can't explain it. Maybe she's just bored of the defense dragging things on for obnoxious amounts of time, or a little annoyed. But she should be better prepared to handle these situations.


She should just take a nap anyway.  It's not like she is needed in this case.

----------


## ghengis86

Haven't been following at all; is there a manslaughter charge in play?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Haven't been following at all; is there a manslaughter charge in play?


I believe that is for the jury to decide.

They have the option of convicting him of Second Degree murder, which in my opinion is not going to happen, or convicting him of a lesser charge. (voluntary manslaughter and the like) At this point I'm not even sure if that will happen. I haven't been following the case much but I wouldn't be surprised if they acquit him.

Based simply on the fact that TM came back out of his house and a lack of witnesses.

----------


## green73

> Wow.... almost 700 posts.
> 
> Who freakin cares?  Small issue.  Local trial.  The MSM is making this a big deal and we are all buying it.  There are bigger fish to fry around here.


LOL. Go back to sleep.

----------


## Ender

> I believe that is for the jury to decide.
> 
> They have the option of convicting him of Second Degree murder, which in my opinion is not going to happen, or convicting him of a lesser charge. (voluntary manslaughter and the like) At this point I'm not even sure if that will happen. I haven't been following the case much but I wouldn't be surprised if they acquit him.
> 
> Based simply on the fact that TM came back out of his house and a lack of witnesses.



Is there evidence that Martin came back out of the house? I was looking for that but didn't find anything.

The only thing I know is that he was missing from the time he went out to the store and his dad finally called in a missing person report.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Is there evidence that Martin came back out of the house? I was looking for that but didn't find anything.





At 5:14 she says he said he was at the back of his fathers fiancés house.

----------


## Ender

> At 5:14 she says he said he was at the back of his fathers fiancés house.


Back of the house but not in and then back out.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Back of the house but not in and then back out.


From what I understand this is a map of his path.

----------


## WM_in_MO

72 pages guys. 72. Stop.

----------


## Dr.3D

> 72 pages guys. 72. Stop.


Piss off!

edit:
Set your pages longer like I have them and you will have only 36 pages.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Is there evidence that Martin came back out of the house? I was looking for that but didn't find anything.
> 
> The only thing I know is that he was missing from the time he went out to the store and his dad finally called in a missing person report.


Frankly I don't know. I was going by what Dr.3D posted. (Martin's path in red, Zimmerman's in yellow)




> Back of the house but not in and then back out.


Thanks for that clarification.

----------


## brandon

> From what I understand this is a map of his path.


That's pretty much what the defense is claiming and no one knows if it's true or not. Since it can't be disproved it's certainly enough "reasonable doubt" that he should be found not guilty, but we'll never know what actually happened.

----------


## Antischism

Hadn't seen this image before.

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18tn...g/k-bigpic.jpg


I'm only linking it because it's a dead body; don't want to post it since it might be inappropriate for some. Martin's body at the crime scene.

----------


## amy31416

Holy $#@!. Since when does the MSM publish pictures of dead victims?

----------


## Nobexliberty

> 72 pages guys. 72. Stop.


 We are going for 100!

----------


## Pericles

> That's pretty much what the defense is claiming and no one knows if it's true or not. Since it can't be disproved it's certainly enough "reasonable doubt" that he should be found not guilty, but we'll never know what actually happened.


The GPS data from the Martin phone and Zimmerman phone would give strong evidence. The prosecution says the GPS data in Martin's phone is only present for 29 of the last 30 days - guess which day's data is "lost"? If the data in Zimmerman's phone did not match his story, I'm guessing that fact would have come out by now.

----------


## Antischism

> Holy $#@!. Since when does the MSM publish pictures of dead victims?


It happens. I've even seen a major news station or newspaper publish the dead body of a baby before.

----------


## KEEF

> Hadn't seen this image before.
> 
> http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18tn...g/k-bigpic.jpg
> 
> 
> I'm only linking it because it's a dead body; don't want to post it since it might be inappropriate for some. Martin's body at the crime scene.


How and why did this get out on the net?

----------


## Antischism

> How and why did this get out on the net?


I'm not sure. I was kind of surprised to see this, to be honest. Especially since it's the very first thing you see on the front page of Gawker.

----------


## amy31416

> The GPS data from the Martin phone and Zimmerman phone would give strong evidence. The prosecution says the GPS data in Martin's phone is only present for 29 of the last 30 days - guess which day's data is "lost"? If the data in Zimmerman's phone did not match his story, I'm guessing that fact would have come out by now.


Well that's pretty damned suspicious.

----------


## KEEF

> I'm not sure. I was kind of surprised to see this, to be honest. Especially since it's the very first thing you see on the front page of Gawker.


Looks like a battle cry to rile up the troops... riots on the streets.

----------


## KEEF

> The GPS data from the Martin phone and Zimmerman phone would give strong evidence. The prosecution says the GPS data in Martin's phone is only present for 29 of the last 30 days - guess which day's data is "lost"? If the data in Zimmerman's phone did not match his story, I'm guessing that fact would have come out by now.


Someone should just make a call to the NSA, they could get that lost data for them

----------


## AuH20

Gawker is pretty hilarious to read. "_He was wearing khakis!! There was no way he could have attacked George Zimmerman wearing khakis!!! Blacks are dehumanized in this country by the right, but let's forget about the death centers built in their communities._" Loons. Absolute loons.

----------


## AuH20

> The GPS data from the Martin phone and Zimmerman phone would give strong evidence. The prosecution says the GPS data in Martin's phone is only present for 29 of the last 30 days - guess which day's data is "lost"? If the data in Zimmerman's phone did not match his story, I'm guessing that fact would have come out by now.


Is this true? What is Zimmerman pitted against if key data like this can magically disappear?

----------


## amy31416

> Looks like a battle cry to rile up the troops... riots on the streets.


For certain. The article is even more telling than the picture.




> *This, Courtesy of MSNBC, Is Trayvon Martin's Dead Body. Get Angry.*
> 
> 
> A reader of mine sent me this photo last night. As the murder trial of George Zimmerman wheezes to its conclusion, the TV networks dutifully pipe in live pool video from the courtroom, as if it is force-fed to them and they have no choice but to excrete it, soft and undigested, into our living rooms, bedrooms, offices. Sometimes, the pool recorder or the networks' producers don't switch to a mundane image of lawyers being lawyerly quite fast enough, and we get to see snippets of the human cruelty, stupidity, and frailty that occasion trials such as this.
> 
> This is Trayvon Martin's body. These are the last skinny jeans he wore, cuffed once at the bottoms. These are his stylish kicks, his sockless ankles. There are Trayvon's taut neck, his slack jaw, his open eyes.
> 
> This is what happens. Not just when we input "black" and "teen" and "hoodie" and "night" into our onboard computers and output "DANGER," but also when we find the aftermath Newsworthy, and must consume it voraciously from start to finish, but insist that we cannot stomach seeing the bones and gristle on our plates.
> 
> ...


http://gawker.com/this-courtesy-of-m...body-753370712

----------


## Pericles

> Is this true? What is Zimmerman pitted against if key data like this can magically disappear?


As we all know, the criminal "justice" system is heavily tilted in favor of the prosecution. The reason this is so, is because the courts suborned (see what I did there) themselves in the process bu no longer being impartial.

----------


## Antischism

Edit: Amy beat me to it.

The guy has a different view of the case than most people here, and he made a bold decision to post the picture because he felt it would resonate with people and make them angry enough to care and take the prosecution's angle. My more cynical side thinks he did it for the number of hits the site would get and the attention.

I don't think it has anything to do with wanting to incite a riot and hatred of whitey.

----------


## AuH20

> For certain. The article is even more telling than the picture.
> 
> 
> 
> http://gawker.com/this-courtesy-of-m...body-753370712


Adam Weinstein. Why oh why?

----------


## enhanced_deficit

Vast majority of people in both black and  hispanic communities very likely don't see it as a major ethnic/racial  issue but more like a tragic mishap. They both have pretty much same skin color, media may keep trying but  it is not going to sell well  as a  race riot.  It is fail.

6 people were shot in Chicago last week.  Why this one incidence deserves special national  coverage but not  others.

----------


## amy31416

> Adam Weinstein. Why oh why?


(I know your question is rhetorical, but I like to explore it more.)

His claimed motive:




> But those are rationalizations. They don't explain my motive: Good old-fashioned rage that this kid is dead because my home state empowered a dullard aficionado of Van Damme and Seagal movie cliches to choose his own adventure. Florida literally gave George Zimmerman license to make up neighborhood threats and invite violent confrontations, confident in the knowledge that he carried more firepower jammed down his sweaty fat waistband than every army on earth beheld before 1415.


I suspect his actual motivation is so his stupid punk ass has something to write about that fits his narrative to demonize "white" people, give more ammo for anti-gun laws and make moves to take away a neighborhood's ability to organize and protect themselves.

----------


## Antischism

> Vast majority of people in both black and  hispanic communities very likely don't see it as a major ethnic/racial  issue but more like a tragic mishap. They both have pretty much same skin color, media may keep trying but  it is not going to sell well  as a  race riot.  It is fail.
> 
> 6 people were shot in Chicago last week.  Why this one incidence deserves special national  coverage but not  others.


The thing about this case is that it got absolutely no attention from the media at first until people started making noise about it and felt something was amiss. The media eventually picked it up, and it became a huge deal.

I guess people view this similarly to how almost all missing persons cases that become major media stories involve "pretty" white women and children, but the hundreds of other cases go unmentioned. Some things just seem to capture people, and with the Zimmerman case, it was a particularly interesting situation that transpired.

----------


## brushfire

> 6 people were shot in Chicago last week.  Why this one incidence deserves special national  coverage but not  others.


Because those 6 people dont readily serve a political agenda...  The shootings happen all the time, and there were 20 homicides just in the first week of this month.
http://homicides.redeyechicago.com/

This is why the GZ is of any interest to me.  Because it demonstrates how our legal system is easily corrupted.  Zimmerman should have never been prosecuted.  The race cards, and "police wannabe" rhetoric, all come from the narrative that was built to serve a political agenda.  This agenda has permeated every aspect of this case.

All that said... Lets see what happens to Chicago going forward.  We have a carry law on the books now, a law suit pending over the delay in providing permits, and the recent removal of the CFP (Chicago Firearm Permit).  I'm betting it looks a little something like Gary IN, after IN passed its law.

----------


## Antischism

It seems like the prosecution saved the best for last. They're going all in right now on their closing argument. O'Mara did a pretty decent job on the defense's closer though, despite a few slip-ups.

----------


## Ender

> (I know your question is rhetorical, but I like to explore it more.)
> 
> His claimed motive:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect his actual motivation is so his stupid punk ass has something to write about that fits his narrative to demonize "white" people, give more ammo for anti-gun laws and make moves to take away a neighborhood's ability to organize and protect themselves.


The "neighborhood" did not organize itself, Amy- it was Zimmerman. The head of the HOA did not think they needed a Neighborhood Watch. Zimmerman got the NW going and then _failed to do what he had been specifically taught_. The lady from the police department who instructed them, testified to this.




> In testimony Tuesday, Wendy Dorival, who worked as the volunteer program coordinator for the Sanford Police Department, said she made a presentation to facilitate a neighborhood watch program in 2011 for residents of Retreat at Twin Lakes, where Zimmeran lived and Trayvon was visiting a friend of his father's on the night he was killed.
> 
> Assistant State Attorney John Guy showed the jury a slide show that Dorival used at neighborhood meetings. The presentation warned citizens against being vigiliantes and urged them to work with police — be the eyes and ears of the community and report suspicious activity. "They're not supposed to take matters into their own hands," Dorival said.


I am certainly NOT against communities protecting themselves but if Zimmerman was hot for a NW, then he should have followed the rules he was taught. I believe that THIS is the major issue.

Do communities have a right to protect themselves? Absolutely.

Do I have the right to walk down the street without being profiled or stalked? Where does my freedom end and yours begin?

My POV is that this entire situation was caused by Zimmerman:
a) Not obeying the rules that HE specifically asked for-
b) Stalking a kid that was doing nothing but walking
c) Inciting an tragedy that would never have happened if he had simply stuck to the rules _that he had asked for_.

Was Martin perfect? Of course not, but his "past" has been colored to make him look evil, when he seems just a teenage kid doing the "cool" stuff teenage boys do. Most conservative/libertarians sites now ignore Zimmerman's past while making as much out of Trayvon's every move as possible.

I do not believe that Zimmerman set out to kill Martin, but I do believe that his arrogance caused Martin's death. He is guilty of stupidity in the first degree, which could translate to manslaughter.

----------


## klamath

> (I know your question is rhetorical, but I like to explore it more.)
> 
> His claimed motive:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect his actual motivation is so his stupid punk ass has something to write about that fits his narrative to demonize "white" people, give more ammo for anti-gun laws and make moves to take away a neighborhood's ability to organize and protect themselves.


true

----------


## amy31416

> The "neighborhood" did not organize itself, Amy- it was Zimmerman. The head of the HOA did not think they needed a Neighborhood Watch. Zimmerman got the NW going and then _failed to do what he had been specifically taught_. The lady from the police department who instructed them, testified to this.
> 
> 
> 
> I am certainly NOT against communities protecting themselves but if Zimmerman was hot for a NW, then he should have followed the rules he was taught. I believe that THIS is the major issue.
> 
> Do communities have a right to protect themselves? Absolutely.
> 
> Do I have the right to walk down the street without being profiled or stalked? Where does my freedom end and yours begin?
> ...


That post isn't about Trayvon or Zimmerman, it's simply about Adam Weinstein trying to incite people to violence and use the opportunity to push for his progressive agenda where he probably has fantasies of disarming Americans who had nothing to do with it. He has that "never let a crisis go to waste" mentality that I abhor.

There's already been gov't funding for some of the protests, and I consider anyone who's trying to encourage violent protest repulsive and possibly being paid a few tax dollars along the way.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> . My more cynical side thinks he did it for the number of hits the site would get and the attention.
> 
> I don't think it has anything to do with wanting to incite a riot and hatred of whitey.


And what do you think race riots would mean for his page views and attention, not to mention the political agenda his tabloid pushes for?  The establishment left wants riots.  It is good for their politics.  It is good for their page views.  And it is good for their bottom line.  It's not like Adam Weinstein and his ilk live anywhere near the communities that are going to go up in flames.  They live in the little walled communities or heavily policed urban havens of gentrified bliss they built to ensure neither they nor their families ever have to rub elbows with the Trayvon Martin's of the world, not to mention the angry mobs they are gleefully cheering on.

----------


## Antischism

> And what do you think race riots would mean for his page views and attention, not to mention the political agenda his tabloid pushes for?  The establishment left wants riots.  It is good for their politics.  It is good for their page views.  And it is good for their bottom line.  It's not like Adam Weinstein and his ilk live anywhere near the communities that are going to go up in flames.  They live in the little walled communities or heavily policed urban havens of gentrified bliss they built to ensure neither they nor their families ever have to rub elbows with the Trayvon Martin's of the world, not to mention the angry mobs they are gleefully cheering on.


The only people I've seen pushing for race riots are the ones fear-mongering that it's inevitable and bound to happen. People talking about how they're preparing their guns to shoot would-be rioters. These people are the ones who may truly want to see a race riot, as far as I'm concerned. Sure, Weinstein may benefit or may even want to see it happen, but his post in no way suggested to me that he was hoping for a riot. I don't know the guy, nor have I ever looked into him. I have, however, seen a lot of "conservative" websites pushing the race riot meme. I don't even have to look past our very own RPF to see people pushing that story with sensationalist articles.

That's not to say there won't be "outrage" and isolated incidents. People are emotionally vested in this trial on all sides, so anger is expected. People are allowed to peacefully protest, right? Those who don't will get what they deserve. I see no problem with people protesting the verdict.

It's not just a LOL LIBRUL thing. Both sides have said things to promote the idea of a race riot, but I've really only seen the fear-mongering coming from right-leaning sites.

----------


## mac_hine

Not sure if this has been posted already. I haven't read through all the comments. I don't particularly have any interest in this case, but I came across this video last light and it drove me crazy. To me it's obvious somebody got to this Judge. Watch the video to witness her staggering lack of professionalism.



Such a brazen attempt at poisoning the well...

----------


## Antischism

> Not sure if this has been posted already. I haven't read through all the comments. I don't particularly have any interest in this case, but I came across this video last light and it drove me crazy. To me it's obvious somebody got to this Judge. Watch the video to witness her staggering lack of professionalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Such a brazen attempt at poisoning the well...


Don West got on her nerves quite often, so she's probably had enough of it. I don't think anyone got to her. Occam's Razor.

----------


## RickyJ

> Not sure if this has been posted already. I haven't read through all the comments. I don't particularly have any interest in this case, but I came across this video last light and it drove me crazy. To me it's obvious somebody got to this Judge. Watch the video to witness her staggering lack of professionalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Such a brazen attempt at poisoning the well...


What matters more is if someone gets to the jury. I am not saying Zimmerman is nice guy or a bad guy, but there isn't enough evidence presented for me to say he is guilty of murder or manslaughter. The jury has no choice but to say not guilty with the evidence presented  no matter how they personally feel about it unless they ignore the law.

----------


## Working Poor

Something that has just occured to me is if the police had arrived before Trayvon got shot is that he would have pronably have ran and the cops would have probably shot him as he ran and there probably would have not been any investigation at all.

----------


## devil21

> Not sure if this has been posted already. I haven't read through all the comments. I don't particularly have any interest in this case, but I came across this video last light and it drove me crazy. To me it's obvious somebody got to this Judge. Watch the video to witness her staggering lack of professionalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Such a brazen attempt at poisoning the well...


Never seen anything like that before.  The judge is basically forcing GZ to swear under oath what he will do for the rest of the trial!  Uh yeah, Im sure the prosecution would love to know what their plan is.  Jeez.  This judge has come off as an ass during this trial.  I'm sure she's been leaned on by DC but I think she's also just ready for it to be over.

----------


## RickyJ

> Something that has just occured to me is if the police had arrived before Trayvon got shot is that he would have pronably have ran and the cops would have probably shot him as he ran and there probably would have not been any investigation at all.


Yep, shot in the back and it would be swept under the rug. Here there is no doubt he was shot in the chest from an angle that suggests Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman just like he said he was.

----------


## brushfire

Whistle-blower fired

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2...y-director-who

"Truth is treason"

----------


## Madison320

I have a question for those that think Zimmerman is guilty. Do you believe in concealed carry laws? If the answer is yes what would you consider a justifiable shooting?

----------


## brushfire

> I have a question for those that think Zimmerman is guilty. Do you believe in concealed carry laws? If the answer is yes what would you consider a justifiable shooting?


Well... I guess it really depends.  It depends on what the media tells me to think, and how I'm feeling that day.  Its hard to justify the killing of a 12 year old back boy, who was just buying some candy, and walking home.  Especially when the killer spitefully called him a FKING PUNK!  If only guns were never invented, this tragedy would have never happened.


^^^  see that?  That there is sarcasm.  Just a little warning...  My previous posts, which are not sarcastic, may give a better idea as to my thoughts on this case.

----------


## brandon

What does a juror do on the weekend? Do they just stay locked in their hotel room watching old movies or something?

----------


## klamath

> What does a juror do on the weekend? Do they just stay locked in their hotel room watching old movies or something?


I believe they are deliberating today.

----------


## matt0611

> I believe they are deliberating today.


How does deliberating even work? Is someone even there to explain laws and for them to ask questions?

I've never been on a jury.

----------


## Dr.3D

> How does deliberating even work? Is someone even there to explain laws and for them to ask questions?
> 
> I've never been on a jury.


In this case, the judge gave them a 27 page list of instructions.

----------


## MelissaWV

> How does deliberating even work? Is someone even there to explain laws and for them to ask questions?
> 
> I've never been on a jury.


There is a huge list of instructions (including the criteria for the various possible charges), and there are people there who will provide appropriate material for review if jurors ask for it.  For instance, they may want a transcript, or a video, or one of the diagrams... these will be provided, along with food and drinks and other basics that the jurors cannot get for themselves since they are sequestered.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

How long have they been deliberating?

----------


## brushfire

> How long have they been deliberating?


I guess its been 6-7 hours or so - since yesterday after noon.  They started again today at 9AM.

----------


## Madison320

> Well... I guess it really depends.  It depends on what the media tells me to think, and how I'm feeling that day.  Its hard to justify the killing of a 12 year old back boy, who was just buying some candy, and walking home.  Especially when the killer spitefully called him a FKING PUNK!  If only guns were never invented, this tragedy would have never happened.


I know you're being sarcastic, my point is what good is a concealed carry law if you aren't allowed to shoot someone who's bashing your head against the sidewalk? Isn't that the point of carrying a concealed weapon?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Well... I guess it really depends.  It depends on what the media tells me to think, and how I'm feeling that day.  Its hard to justify the killing of a 12 year old back boy, who was just buying some candy, and walking home.  Especially when the killer spitefully called him a FKING PUNK!  *If only guns were never invented, this tragedy would have never happened.*


And there would be the possibility that Zimmerman would have had his head split open and died that night.

----------


## presence

> Well... I guess it really depends.  It depends on what the media tells me to think, and how I'm feeling that day.  Its hard to justify the killing of a 12 year old back boy, who was just buying some candy, and walking home.  Especially when the killer spitefully called him a FKING PUNK!  If only guns were never invented, this tragedy would have never happened.


A knife would be no less effective at that close a range.

Perhaps we should devolve to the stone age and give Zimmerman a rock.

----------


## specsaregood

> A knife would be no less effective at that close a range.
> 
> Perhaps we should devolve to the stone age and give Zimmerman a rock.


skip to 23:45min into:


you're welcome.

----------


## Weston White

A reporter at the courthouse had Tweeted that the judge allowed the sequestered jury leave home for their lunch today... Meanwhile, mass demonstrations are taking place against Zimmerman, including outside of the very courthouse the trial is taking place at. Did the judge permit this as an attempt to sway the decision of the now tanted jury? That action by the judge should be appealable. Hell, might as well just let them all watch whichever cable news channel that is covering the trial while at it judge; for what does it even matter after that inept move?

----------


## Dr.3D

> A reporter at the courthouse had Tweeted that the judge allowed the sequestered jury leave home for their lunch today... Meanwhile, mass demonstrations are taking place against Zimmerman, including outside of the very courthouse the trial is taking place at. Did the judge permit this as an attempt to sway the decision of the now tanted jury? That action by the judge should be appealable. Hell, might as well just let them all watch whichever cable news channel that is covering the trial while at it judge; for what does it even matter after that inept move?


It was reported the jury ate lunch at the courthouse.

----------


## Antischism

> A reporter at the courthouse had Tweeted that the judge allowed the sequestered jury leave home for their lunch today... Meanwhile, mass demonstrations are taking place against Zimmerman, including outside of the very courthouse the trial is taking place at. Did the judge permit this as an attempt to sway the decision of the now tanted jury? That action by the judge should be appealable. Hell, might as well just let them all watch whichever cable news channel that is covering the trial while at it judge; for what does it even matter after that inept move?


Where are you getting this from? I haven't read anything to suggest the judge allowed the jury to go home for lunch. I also haven't seen "mass demonstrations" outside the courthouse. Here's an image from like half an hour ago outside, not to mention there's rain coming into the area.

----------


## KramerDSP

The jury room has its' own bathroom and is windowless with sound proof walls. There are also large fans placed outside the doors to block out noises any further.

----------


## Weston White

> Whistle-blower fired
> 
> http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2...y-director-who
> 
> "Truth is treason"


I think they should have commenced a sting-op on the prosecutor's office prior to the defense filing their motions in court on this matter, while quietly working with the defense privately. After consulting with the defense, White, should of first had Kruidbos goto the office manager or whoever and address this concern very specifically to them, and then again follow up with that individual say that next week to ensure that they had just not forgotten about the matter entirely. Afterward, the defense could wait and see if they receive that related discovery over the course of one week, for example. And if not then they should have filed their motions. I think that would have made the case on this point so much stronger and would have padded any determinable wrong by Kruidbos, while redirecting any wrong back to the prosecution, now with the added issues of conspiracy and corruption.

----------


## Weston White

> It was reported the jury ate lunch at the courthouse.



I see, she (the reporter @KBelichWFTV) was responding to a Tweet made by an idiot.  I read the Tweet thinking she had posted it as a statement.

----------


## QuickZ06

How long you think they will be deliberating for?

----------


## presence

Posted a poll... please visit:

*                       					                                           					 						 							 							Poll:  							 							 						 					                 	Zimmerman Poll*

----------


## Weston White

> Well... I guess it really depends.  It depends on what the media tells me to think, and how I'm feeling that day.  Its hard to justify the killing of a 12 year old back boy, who was just buying some candy, and walking home.  Especially when the killer spitefully called him a FKING PUNK!  If only guns were never invented, this tragedy would have never happened.



Do you know how many 12-15 year olds have been found guilty of murder and were tried as adults, including in Florida?

What if that twelve year old was a 5-11 and 160 pound football player with an attitude?

If only Travyon had ran or quickly walked directly home to his father's residence instead of trying to beat down Zimmerman in total darkness by smashing his face in; if only Travyon would have gotten off the phone with his friend to call 911 and report that some creepy guy is stalking him down the street in a car; if only Travyon would have yelled out to Zimmerman that his father lives here and he is over visiting with him for the next few weeks; then perhaps this tragedy would have never happened.

----------


## alucard13mm

*Zimmerman jury asks for 'clarificaton' on manslaughter charge*.....

I don't want to seem sexists... but it seems the 6 women on the jury is influenced by emotions and threats/riots. Fail.

----------


## MelissaWV

> *Zimmerman jury asks for 'clarificaton' on manslaughter charge*.....
> 
> I don't want to seem sexists... but it seems the 6 women on the jury is influenced by emotions and threats/riots. Fail.


Or they need clarification on the manslaughter charge.  

Incidentally, this almost 100% guarantees that he won't be convicted of 2nd-degree murder (which there isn't evidence for).  If they found him not guilty on that charge, then it's likely that once they clarify the question (and I would bet good money the question revolves around whether claiming self defense can get you out of a manslaughter conviction... which it can) he will be found not guilty there as well.

----------


## RickyJ

> Or they need clarification on the manslaughter charge.  
> 
> Incidentally, this almost 100% guarantees that he won't be convicted of 2nd-degree murder (which there isn't evidence for).  If they found him not guilty on that charge, then it's likely that once they clarify the question (and I would bet good money the question revolves around whether claiming self defense can get you out of a manslaughter conviction... which it can) he will be found not guilty there as well.


I think they would have decided this by now if that were the case. I think this will be a hung jury. Which in a way is good because then the defense will have all the evidence the prosecution had and will be able to prepare a much better defense the second time.

----------


## MelissaWV

> I think they would have decided this by now if that were the case. I think this will be a hung jury. Which in a way is good because then the defense will have all the evidence the prosecution had and will be able to prepare a much better defense the second time.


?  Not really.  If they are considering manslaughter, then 2nd degree is totally off the table, imo.  

Frankly there is no real way this ends poorly for Zimmerman from a legal standpoint.

Not guilty: self-explanatory.
Hung jury: the prosecution would probably not want to go through this again.
Guilty: there are at least a dozen reasons to appeal --- and win --- and that's just from what the media's let filter through.  

From a social standpoint, though, he's going to be tailed by this his whole life no matter the outcome, and so is his family.

----------


## green73

> *Zimmerman jury asks for 'clarificaton' on manslaughter charge*.....


Not good for the Zimster. That this hasn't been decided yet doesn’t bode well for him. But it could simply be protracted because it's six ladies--jibberjabbering.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Not good for the Zimster. That this hasn't been decided yet doesn’t bode well for him. But it could simply be protracted because it's six ladies--jibberjabbering.


Yeah... men wouldn't read the 27-page instruction manual

----------


## Dr.3D

> Yeah... men wouldn't read the 27-page instruction manual


Yeah, who needs an instruction manual?

----------


## krugminator

> Not good for the Zimster. That this hasn't been decided yet doesn’t bode well for him. But it could simply be protracted because it's six ladies--jibberjabbering.


Having 6 women seems like it was really bad idea by the defense.   Just on optics, I could see them making a more emotional decision- siding with a kid vs an adult. I would much rather males be on the jury in a self defense case.

----------


## MelissaWV

I'm sure if he's found not guilty, all the sexist nonsense will be taken back

----------


## JK/SEA

I'd like to hear OJ's opinion.

----------


## TheTexan

> I'm sure if he's found not guilty, all the sexist nonsense will be taken back


It's not nonsense if it's true.

----------


## MelissaWV

> It's not nonsense if it's true.


Hence why I said if he's found not guilty, though.  If it's a guilty verdict of any sort, or a hung jury, I fully expect the weak-hearted-women-siding-with-an-angelic-victim characterization to stick around perpetually.

----------


## green73

> I'd like to hear OJ's opinion.



I'm sure he gets Court TV in prison. No, really, I'm sure he does.

That and hundreds of other channels.

----------


## HigherVision

n/m

----------


## green73

> Having 6 women seems like it was really bad idea by the defense.   Just on optics, I could see them making a more emotional decision- siding with a kid vs an adult. I would much rather males be on the jury in a self defense case.


It was absolutely hilarious listening to the state characterize Martin as a child.

----------


## MelissaWV

> It was absolutely hilarious listening to the state characterize Martin as a child.


Particularly in Florida, a state where "children" are up for the death penalty from time to time.

----------


## green73

> Particularly in Florida, a state where "children" are up for the death penalty from time to time.


Ha! yes!

----------


## alucard13mm

So Zimmerman has a high probability of not recieving 2nd degree murder.

I assume manslaughter will result in prison time. Which means Zimmerman is going to be in solitary confinement for the duration of his term... Blacks in prison will kill Zimmerman. Zimmerman is high profile and whoever kills him gets "rep". Itll probably take some time to get an appeal as well.

----------


## green73

> So Zimmerman has a high probability of not recieving 2nd degree murder.
> 
> I assume manslaughter will result in prison time. Which means Zimmerman is going to be in solitary confinement for the duration of his term... Blacks in prison will kill Zimmerman. Zimmerman is high profile and whoever kills him gets "rep". Itll probably take some time to get an appeal as well.


If I'm not mistaken it's no better for him to get manslaughter, maybe even worse.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> If I'm not mistaken it's no better for him to get manslaughter, maybe even worse.


He will face some time, I doubt he'd do long.

Probably serve a few years at most.

I'm not sure about Florida's laws in particular but there are other manslaughter options besides voluntary. Negligible for example. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a hung jury. Some people don't want to be responsible for the decision of him walking and I really don't think there is enough evidence to convict. Never know though.

----------


## green73

> He will face some time, I doubt he'd do long.
> 
> Probably serve a few years at most.
> 
> I'm not sure about Florida's laws in particular but there are other manslaughter options besides voluntary. Negligible for example. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a hung jury. Some people don't want to be responsible for the decision of him walking and I really don't think there is enough evidence to convict. Never know though.


CNN was saying 25 years for 2nd degree, 30 for manslaughter with a gun.

----------


## James Madison

> Yeah... men wouldn't read the 27-page instruction manual

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> CNN was saying 25 years for 2nd degree, 30 for manslaughter with a gun.


Wow. I knew Florida was a pretty backwards state but damn.

----------


## Ranger29860

> Wow. I knew Florida was a pretty backwards state but damn.


Remember murder and manslaughter convictions in Florida are based on the idea that a conscious decision to kill was made and was not in self defense. So I think straight up shooting someone because you wanted to makes 30 years look like nothing.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

Here's a great video that sums up the facts regarding the case very well from Stefan Molyneux:

----------


## Antischism

I was going to post earlier that if he isn't found not guilty, I could already hear various people coming in to claim that the verdict was a result of the jury being full of emotional, non-rational, non-penis having humanoids of the lesser sex. Looks like it was already done preemptively.

----------


## green73

> Here's a great video that sums up the facts regarding the case very well from Stefan Molyneux:


This is excellent. I really hope the people who are so dedicated to this case give it a listen.

----------


## alucard13mm

If I got punched first, getting my ass kicked and then verbally told that I am going to die.. I would definitely do the same thing. Watching someone on the public street is not illegal. Being a neighborhood watchman and following/watching someone is not illegal. It is not stalking, since stalking is repetitive behavior on an individual.

Good thing Zimmerman killed him.. Otherwise Zimmerman would face a civil lawsuit for the possible thief/drug addict's medical bill and "loss of income". Although, if he never killed him, but wounded him.. this case would probably never made it to national spotlight.

Ah well.

At least it is not about gun grabbing anymore.... right?..

----------


## Antischism

> If I got punched first, getting my ass kicked and then verbally told that I am going to die.. I would definitely do the same thing. Watching someone on the public street is not illegal. Being a neighborhood watchman and following/watching someone is not illegal. It is not stalking, since stalking is repetitive behavior on an individual.
> 
> Good thing Zimmerman killed him.. Otherwise Zimmerman would face a civil lawsuit for the possible thief/drug addict's medical bill and "loss of income". Although, if he never killed him, but wounded him.. this case would probably never made it to national spotlight.
> 
> Ah well.
> 
> At least it is not about gun grabbing anymore.... right?..


Zimmerman has been caught fibbing about certain parts of the account due to inconsistencies in his story, so I would take the part about being told he was "going to die" with a grain of salt.

My theory is he probably did fear for his life when he was getting hit, but the minor injuries sustained lead me to believe he overestimated his injuries at the time and later realized he probably made a mistake in shooting Trayvon. Since he made this realization after the fact, he started to bolster his story in order to make a self-defense claim more credible.

----------


## brushfire

verdict is in!

----------


## TheTexan

> I was going to post earlier that if he isn't found not guilty, I could already hear various people coming in to claim that the verdict was a result of the jury being full of emotional, non-rational, non-penis having humanoids of the lesser sex. Looks like it was already done preemptively.


Lesser sex?  Is it not possible for females to be different, without being lesser?

----------


## Antischism

> Lesser sex?  Is it not possible for females to be different, without being lesser?


I was was being hyperbolic.

----------


## brushfire

verdict will be live here: http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07...argument-live/

----------


## Antischism

Livestream here: http://www.wftv.com/s/zimmerman-livestream/

----------


## green73

> Zimmerman has been caught fibbing about certain parts of the account due to inconsistencies in his story, so I would take the part about being told he was "going to die" with a grain of salt.
> 
> lead me to believe he overestimated his injuries at the time


Oh yes! he overestimated his injuries! Forget his fractured nose, the accelerations to the back of his head. It doesn't matter. What matters is if he thought a felonious act was being committed against him, which, let's get serious, was.

----------


## COpatriot

So much for a William hung jury.

----------


## Philhelm

Jury has reaced a verdict, which is pending...

----------


## Ranger29860

Not guilty

----------


## Philhelm

George Zimmerman is found Not Guilty.

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

Wow

----------


## brushfire

Not guilty

----------


## COpatriot

Not guilty!!!!!

Boom!!!

----------


## Weston White

ZIMMERMAN FOUND NOT GUILTY!

----------


## green73

Commence riots.

----------


## brushfire

Despite the media and all the political attempts... Justice prevails.

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

So far no riots on my end. Hopefully everyone is asleep, or they're screwing up downtown.

----------


## Antischism

> Commence riots.


You wish.

----------


## BuddyRey

I think this was the right verdict, but I'm really worried about the fallout.

----------


## Weston White

...And in other news www.ronpaulforums.com sets a new record for the number of simultaneous posts made on an Internet forum.

----------


## green73

> You wish.


What a stupid $#@!ing thing to say.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I'm sure if he's found not guilty, all the sexist nonsense will be taken back


waiting......

----------


## Antischism

Like I said in the other thread, didn't think he'd be found guilty. I'm not really surprised since it could have gone either way at that point. I think not guilty was the proper choice in this trial since there wasn't enough evidence to convict him.

----------


## Neil Desmond

Now for the wrongful death civil lawsuit.

----------


## Antischism

> What a stupid $#@!ing thing to say.


As stupid as saying "commence riots." I thought it deserved an equally stupid reply.

----------


## green73

> As stupid as saying "commence riots." I thought it deserved an equally stupid reply.


Well after all the race baiting from the media, I think it was appropriate.

----------


## Antischism

> Well after all race baiting from the media, I think it was appropriate.


The meme that we're going to get race riots and some big race war keeps getting pushed on this board and conservative blogs/sites, and I'm kind of sick of it. Both sides playing up the race bull$#@! can go to hell.

----------


## green73

> The meme that we're going to get race riots and some big race war keeps getting pushed on this board and conservative blogs/sites, and I'm kind of sick of it. Both sides playing up the race bull$#@! can go to hell.


Whatever, dude.

----------


## MelissaWV

Waiting...

----------


## amy31416

> waiting......


Me too!

----------


## green73

CNN coverage so far heavy on the "state couldn't meet its burden; that doesn't mean he's not guilty."

----------


## Philhelm

> Waiting...


I don't believe that I had said anything in this thread on the matter, but I had assumed that an all female jury would have most likely been curtains for Zimmerman.  I was wrong.  Sorry.

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

No sexist comments from me. I understood how jury selection worked....

----------


## supermario21

I know she's a favorite of some of the folks here...lol





> Abby Martin ‏@AbbyMartin 3m
> You shouldn't be able to go up to someone on the street, start a fight w them & when/if they fight back, shoot them #Zimmerman #Manslaughter

----------


## matt0611

> Waiting...


I forget what I said about the jury. I know I said that I didn't think it was right that a man would be tried by 6 females (as I would that 1 woman would be tried by 6 men). 

I also thought women would be more sympathetic to someone killed in self-defense. 

I'm glad they did the right thing, I'm pleasantly surprised.

----------


## MelissaWV

> I know she's a favorite of some of the folks here...lol


She's right.  You shouldn't be able to do that.  It doesn't seem like that's what happened here, though.

----------


## COpatriot

> I know she's a favorite of some of the folks here...lol


What a numbnuts.

----------


## AuH20

> I know she's a favorite of some of the folks here...lol


Guess she didn't watch Stefan Molyneaux's breakdown? Abby always struck me as one of those social justice types who had her mind made up before even examining the case.

----------


## presence

Trayvon Martin shooting 	 
*People outside of Zimmerman trial courthouse protest not guilty verdict - @JeffWeinerOS* 18 mins ago 				 				 					 				  				 by editor





 	 	Trayvon Martin shooting 	 
*Jury finds George Zimmerman not guilty in shooting death of Trayvon Martin - @orlandosentinel broadcast* 28 mins ago 				 				 					from www.orlandosentinel.com 				  				 by editor

----------


## presence

http://www.breakingnews.com/  Live Video
*Live video: Prosecutors speak about verdict in George Zimmerman case*

*Prosecutor on Zimmerman trial:*



> *Really what it boiled down to was a kid minding his own business and getting shot*


*
- @orlandosentinel broadcast*

 37 secs ago                                                                                           by editor

----------


## green73

> She's right.  You shouldn't be able to do that.  It doesn't seem like that's what happened here, though.


Seems like she made some non-journalistic conclusions.

----------


## presence

*Reports: About 200 gather outside Zimmerman trial verdict to protest not-guilty verdict - @Juliea712*

----------


## COpatriot

Someone on twitter just posted zimmermans address. Idiots.

----------


## presence

Zimmerman's attorney now speaking to the press
Video: Jury finds Zimmerman not guilty

http://www.breakingnews.com/





> we were outfunded, enormously difficult; David and Goliath. 
> 
> Prosecution was used to "getting away with things".





> "If Zimmerman were black he would never have been made a scapegoat"

----------


## green73

> I know she's a favorite of some of the folks here...lol


She deleted the tweet. And then said "huh?" when called on it.

----------


## matt0611

> Now for the wrongful death civil lawsuit.


I don't think they can. If a court rules its self-defense in Florida then they can't sue in civil court. This is just what I heard, so don't trust it 100%.

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

And the Farcebook fun begins:




> if yal see a Hispanic or a cracker slap tf outta them fa me........i just feel horrible fa his parents damn man..


My best attempt at an English translation: If anyone sees a White or Hispanic person, slap the $#@! out of them for me. I just feel horrible for his parents. Damn man.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I don't think they can. If a court rules its self-defense in Florida then they can't sue in civil court. This is just what I heard, so don't trust it 100%.


Yeah, Isn't that part of the Castle Doctrine?

----------


## Mr.NoSmile

And then people went back to their daily lives instead of going on about the Casey Anthony redux case- wait for the Lifetime made for TV movie- as they become legal experts and friends of both the Zimmerman and Martin clan.

But not really.

----------


## MelissaWV

> And the Farcebook fun begins:
> 
> 
> 
> My best attempt at an English translation: If anyone sees a White or Hispanic person, slap the $#@! out of them for me. I just feel horrible for his parents. Damn man.


That actually kind of gives me hope.  Obviously the OP is too lazy or busy to go slap the person themselves.  Maybe most people will be in the same boat.  No riots, just a few hundred folks and some photo ops.

----------


## AFPVet

> I don't think they can. If a court rules its self-defense in Florida then they can't sue in civil court. This is just what I heard, so don't trust it 100%.


If it's like Indiana, yes... once you have been justified in the use of deadly force, you are released from all legal jeopardy.

----------


## Dr.3D

> If it's like Indiana, yes... once you have been justified in the use of deadly force, you are released from all legal jeopardy.


Just saw Sharpton saying a civil suit was the next thing to come up.

Edit:
Just heard Zimmerman's attorney say they would file for immunity if necessary.

----------


## amy31416

If I were Zimmerman, I'd apply for asylum in Venezuela, STAT.

----------


## AuH20

This guy just doesn't know when to quit when he's behind.

----------


## Dr.3D

> This guy just doesn't know when to quit when he's behind.


That guy seems dumb as a box of melted crayons.

----------


## Weston White

So what is the approximate cost of this trial?

Zimmerman, although innocent, will be labeled all sorts of negative things for years to come and will very likely never be able to work in government from this point on—bad news concerning his goal at achieving a CJ degree, although he might strike it lucky working for a private security firm that believes in standing up for individual rights and self-preservation.  Also he still faces a civil case, although it does not appear that he has much to offer financially anyways, and Treyvon’s family will have to get in the back of the line due to his outstanding college debts and his wife’s nurse training costs.

An IT manager lost his job for trying to do the right thing in exposing an asshat of a prosecutor.

The chief of police was removed from his position because he firmly stood by his officer’s determination that this was in-fact a justified homicide case.

Racial equality has sustained yet another blow.

...That is all I could think of for now.

* Although this case has all the makings of a Hollywood suspense movie, so there remains future profit for all parties involved.

----------


## presence

*Fox News*     ‏@*FoxNews*  32s                         WATCH: George *Zimmerman*'s reaction to the 'Not Guilty' verdict http://bit.ly/139V4uA 

 *            View media    *

----------


## Neil Desmond

> I don't think they can. If a court rules its self-defense in Florida then they can't sue in civil court. This is just what I heard, so don't trust it 100%.


I think all they did was rule not guilty for either charge, but maybe you're right.  What I'm thinking of is that OJ Simpson was found liable for wrongful death even though he was also found not guilty in his trial.

----------


## presence

> This verdict has nothing to do with civil rights it is a self defense case.


..

----------


## presence

"...A slap in the face to those that believe in justice in this country." -Al Sharpton http://huff.to/18gW4Sw

----------


## amy31416

One of the Trayvon lawyers just compared Trayvon to Medgar Evars and some other civil rights hero............

----------


## presence

> A Zion, Illinois, teenager has been arrested following a Twitter comment about committing mass homicide in his town. 
> 
> The  teenager, known on Twitter as @Mark12394995, tweeted "If Zimmmerman  free imma shoot everybody in Zion causing a mass homicide, and ill get  away wit it just like Zimmerman."
> From the Sun Times:Zion  Police Department Deputy Chief Steve Dumyahn said the 15-year-old  Zion-Benton Township High School sophomore was brought to the police  station and his parents were furious.
> 
> The teen has been charged with disorderly conduct, a Class 4 *felony.*


- See more at:  http://www.news965.com/news/news/loc....KCNGovMZ.dpuf

----------


## AuH20

> One of the Trayvon lawyers just compared Trayvon to Medgar Evars and some other civil rights hero............


Just crazy to hear. Trayvon Martin isn't even James Byrd, the unfortunate black man who was dragged to death in Texas by a KKK group.

----------


## presence

*911 Operator*     ‏@*911BUFF*  21m                         DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT CONFIRMS THEY HAVE *RIOT* POLICE ON ALERT AFTER GEORGE *ZIMMERMAN*'S VERDICT. #*911BUFF*

----------


## green73

> One of the Trayvon lawyers just compared Trayvon to Medgar Evars and some other civil rights hero............


They is a plague of neighborhood watchers shooting black children.

----------


## 69360

> Just saw Sharpton saying a civil suit was the next thing to come up.
> 
> Edit:
> Just heard Zimmerman's attorney say they would file for immunity if necessary.


I think he is protected by FL law from a civil suit by the not guilty verdict.

----------


## liveandletlive

> I think he is protected by FL law from a civil suit by the not guilty verdict.


yea...thats what i thought

----------


## green73

CNN:



> DOJ reacts.
> 
> "The Department of Justices continues to evaluate the evidence generated during the federal investigation, as well as the evidence and testimony of the state trial."

----------


## Antischism

I wish the same justice was afforded to this woman in Florida.

----------


## liveandletlive

> I wish the same justice was afforded to this woman in Florida.


outrageous...she got a raw deal.

----------


## green73

Oh no. Zimmerman's bro is about to talk to slimeball piers.

----------


## green73

> I wish the same justice was afforded to this woman in Florida.


An absolute disgrace.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Zimmerman's brother is being interviewed by Piers Morgan.  Of course, Piers is being a jackass.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> One of the Trayvon lawyers just compared Trayvon to Medgar Evars and some other civil rights hero............


I heard that too.  But, I thought they said it was MLK's daughter who said it.

----------


## green73

> Zimmerman's brother is being interviewed by Piers Morgan.  Of course, Piers is being a jackass.


He is doing brilliant against the slime.

----------


## RickyJ

> Zimmerman's brother is being interviewed by Piers Morgan.  Of course, Piers is being a jackass.


If people stopped watching these clowns then their ratings would drop and the networks would be forced to take them off the air. If no one watches them then their influence is zero and advertisers will stop buying air time for the programs.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> He is doing brilliant against the slime.


Yeah, he's being mature - unlike Alex Jones.

----------


## green73

> Yeah, he's being mature - unlike Alex Jones.


???

----------


## amy31416

> Zimmerman's brother is being interviewed by Piers Morgan.  Of course, Piers is being a jackass.


The brother is very well-spoken and doing well, I think.




> I heard that too.  But, I thought they said it was MLK's daughter who said it.


Could be--I've been flipping around the channels.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> If people stopped watching these clowns then their ratings would drop and the networks would be forced to take them off the air. If no one watches them then their influence is zero and advertisers will stop buying air time for the programs.


I've been trying that with Alex Jones, but to date he is still on the air.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> ???


Piers Morgan had Alex Jones on his show a few months ago.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> I've been trying that with Alex Jones, but to date he is still on the air.


Me too.

----------


## Weston White

> I've been trying that with Alex Jones, but to date he is still on the air.


Yuppers, the less you watch him the more popular his shows become; and the more his staff multiplies.  Funny how that works, eh?

----------


## Kregisen

> I wish the same justice was afforded to this woman in Florida.


It's funny how everyone in this thread is so pissed off at the media and the everyday americans who automatically assume Zimmerman just straight up shot an "innocent black kid" walking for no reason at all, and then comment on this story saying she deserves the same result as Zimmerman without knowing the story.

Just reading the comments on the article, everyone is saying she did not "stand her ground", she walked out to the garage, picked up a gun, and then walked back in the house to shoot the warning shots. I'm not saying she shouldn't be innocent, but why does everyone always assume things.....how about we look into an issue before pointing fingers.....I'm talking to everybody in America, including everyone on this forum who said how "outrageous" this story is without looking into it.

----------


## green73

> Piers Morgan had Alex Jones on his show a few months ago.



ahh

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Yuppers, the less you watch him the more popular his shows become; and the more his staff multiplies.  Funny how that works, eh?


Same is true for Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly.  Go figure.

----------


## Origanalist

> It's funny how everyone in this thread is so pissed off at the media and the everyday americans who automatically assume Zimmerman just straight up shot an "innocent black kid" walking for no reason at all, and then comment on this story saying she deserves the same result as Zimmerman without knowing the story.
> 
> Just reading the comments on the article, everyone is saying she did not "stand her ground", she walked out to the garage, picked up a gun, and then walked back in the house to shoot the warning shots. I'm not saying she shouldn't be innocent, but why does everyone always assume things.....how about we look into an issue before pointing fingers.....I'm talking to everybody in America, including everyone on this forum who said how "outrageous" this story is without looking into it.


The media misrepresenting the story on that case is just disgusting. Unfortunately, I'm hardly shocked.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I live in probably the most liberal city in the US - no one's going to riot (not on any serious scale).  Stop living in fear.


Day 3 of riots in many major cities...

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...nd-4667042.php

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Los Angeles...




> People protesting George Zimmerman's acquittal marched along Crenshaw Boulevard on Monday night,  stomping on cars, chasing bystanders and storming a Wal-Mart.
> 
> Several protesters made their way into the Wal-Mart as guards scrambled to close security gates. A short while later, Los Angeles Police Department officers wearing helmets and carrying batons swarmed the store as others marched through the parking lot.
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...,2522648.story

----------


## phill4paul

> Los Angeles...


  The race riots are a no show. More damage has been done over a lost sports game. SMFH. Let this crap go.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> The race riots are a no show. More damage has been done over a lost sports game. SMFH. Let this crap go.


I never claimed there would be race riots. The protests in Oakland are largely white leftists.

----------


## phill4paul

> I never claimed there would be race riots. The protests in Oakland are largely white leftists.


  Well good. Because AuH20, ObiRandKenobi and others want to push this riot bull$#@!. With much ado about nothing no one, in any significant way, rose to the bait. To the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the MSM.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Well good. Because AuH20, ObiRandKenobi and others want to push this riot bull$#@!. With much ado about nothing no one, in any significant way, rose to the bait. To the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the MSM.


It's pretty much extensions or offshoots of OWS that are organizing the protests. Black residents of Oakland are generally against the vandalism. 

Some organizers included the (Marxist) Party for Socialism and Liberation: hxxp://www.pslweb.org/

----------


## AuH20

I wonder if this will come up in the civil trial. The jewelry is still in possession of the police. 

http://thejacksonpress.org/?p=5088

----------


## juleswin

I am having a bitter argument with a friend (this moment) and we are arguing whether or not Travvon went home before coming back out to confront George Z. He asked me to show proof of this and I just realized I haven't seen one yet. Anyone have a link that I can use to convince my friend. 

Post here or PM with one so I will know when it arrives without having to pull up this thread. Thanks in advance

----------


## brandon

You're not going to find any proof because there isn't any. There is evidence that suggests he walked to his house and then walked back up the path to confront Zimmerman. Jeantel's testimony sort of suggested this.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I am having a bitter argument with a friend (this moment) and we are arguing whether or not Travvon went home before coming back out to confront George Z. He asked me to show proof of this and I just realized I haven't seen one yet. Anyone have a link that I can use to convince my friend. 
> 
> Post here or PM with one so I will know when it arrives without having to pull up this thread. Thanks in advance



@5:14 in this video Rachel Jeantel says he was behind the home where he was living at the time.

----------


## AuH20

Too much time separated (anywhere from 6-10 mins) Zimmerman's initial SUV encounter with Martin (in which Martin bolted) and their later death struggle. He went somewhere, but for some reason the GPS data from his phone never was released.




> When I first started following the Trayvon Martin killing, I thought it would be interesting to use Google maps to see why Trayvon Martin was in the neighborhood where Zimmerman killed him. But I ran into two problems: no close 7-11s, and I could not find out where Brandy Green’s house was. (Green is Martin’s father’s girlfriend; Trayvon Martin was staying at her townhouse while suspended from school.) So I gave up on that. But I did think that such information should be pretty easy for a journalist to figure out with a little bit of work. 
> 
> Well, finally I see someone has done it—in this post by one Dan Linehan at a site called the Wagist. (I am unfamiliar with both the author and the site.) The article shows a Google map annotated with various locations of interest in this incident: where the killing happened, where Zimmerman’s SUV was, and where Brandy Green’s townhouse is. This is obvious work that the mainstream media has not done.
> 
> Now, assuming the info there is correct (again, I cannot verify it beyond that the streets match what anyone can see on Google maps), we see several very interesting facts about the killing: 
> 
> (a) There are paved walkways in the townhouse development that would make it very easy to escape anyone in a vehicle. The path where Martin ran from Zimmerman (still in his SUV) was one of them. And it explains why Zimmerman got out of his SUV: he could not follow Martin to see where he was going, except on foot. 
> 
> (b) The path where Martin ran was the first part of one of the shortest routes from the road he was on to Brandy Green’s townhouse. It is definitely the shortest non-vehicle-capable paved route; any other similarly short route would have been down Twin Trees, where Zimmerman was. 
> ...

----------


## bolil

90 pages of conjecture... NICE!

Since when is it aggressive to ask ANYONE a question?  The proper salutory conclusion to be drawn: The State cannot protect you, even if it could it wouldn't.

If I ask you what you are doing and you attack me...

----------

