**Official** Trayvon Martin thread

[dannno]

Regardless of whatever you believe the facts are of the case, we have every right to police our own neighborhood. People like you want to change this country so we cannot approach our neighbors for a discussion or people passing through the neighborhood.

What, only your beloved government can do that? What if I just wanted to talk to a neighbor to say hello, but they get spooked because this new America you want to create we cannot do that and deserve to be attacked.

I have been living in my neighborhood for much longer than a new neighbor that decided he was neighborhood watch, followed me and questioned me. I was not happy about it but that does not give me the right to beat him and if I did he would have every right to defend himself.

This is really depressing seeing more posts in this liberty forum that we can no longer speak to people in our neighborhood and if we do we have committed a crime and they allowed to attack us. People in a Ron Paul forum basically cheer leading complete submission to government.

+rep

 

[Ender]

Regardless of whatever you believe the facts are of the case, we have every right to police our own neighborhood. People like you want to change this country so we cannot approach our neighbors for a discussion or people passing through the neighborhood.

What, only your beloved government can do that? What if I just wanted to talk to a neighbor to say hello, but they get spooked because this new America you want to create we cannot do that and deserve to be attacked.

I have been living in my neighborhood for much longer than a new neighbor that decided he was neighborhood watch, followed me and questioned me. I was not happy about it but that does not give me the right to beat him and if I did he would have every right to defend himself.

This is really depressing seeing more posts in this liberty forum that we can no longer speak to people in our neighborhood and if we do we have committed a crime and they allowed to attack us. People in a Ron Paul forum basically cheer leading complete submission to government.

This is hyperbole- no one is questioning "talking to people in one's neighborhood".

The QUESTION is about when a NW seemingly goes beyond his jurisdiction and follows someone who seems, in his mind, suspicious. Especially in the capacity as a NW, which is to "observe and report".

No one knows the real truth- no one saw Martin attack Zimmerman or vs/vs. No one agrees on the voice crying out and no one agrees on who was on top beating who.

What we CAN agree on, at this moment in time, is that if George had followed the dispatch's (and NW procedure) request, none of us would have the slightest idea who Trayvon Martin was and would be busy solving other problems of the Universe.

 

[Sam I am]

This is hyperbole- no one is questioning "talking to people in one's neighborhood".

The QUESTION is about when a NW seemingly goes beyond his jurisdiction and follows someone who seems, in his mind, suspicious. Especially in the capacity as a NW, which is to "observe and report".

No one knows the real truth- no one saw Martin attack Zimmerman or vs/vs. No one agrees on the voice crying out and no one agrees on who was on top beating who.

What we CAN agree on, at this moment in time, is that if George had followed the dispatch's (and NW procedure) request, none of us would have the slightest idea who Trayvon Martin was and would be busy solving other problems of the Universe.

not even

the QUESTION is about whether or not you have the right to SHOOT SOMEONE ELSE WITH A GUN when you knowingly put yourself in a potentially perilous situation.


Did Zimmerman have a right approach Trayvon even though the dispatcher asked him not to? Yes he did.

Did Zimmerman have the right to shoot Trayvon dead after he approached him? No, he did not.

 

[jmdrake]

I wasn't there. I can't make out what it says. There are probably a dozen words that could be extracted from that garbled tape. It was raining and barely 60 degrees, hence the hoody. Cold isn't that far of a stretch, especially for someone living near the tropics.

Sounds more like "coons" or "goons" than "cold" to me. Every report I've seen has Zimmerman in the car at this point in which case I don't expect temperature to be a factor. As I pointed out earlier in the thread "coon" is still a term in use. I saw it used against Snoop Dogg when he said something positive about Ron Paul. Anyway, if Ron Paul had a quarter for every post in this thread......

Edit: Could be cold. Really hard to make out. I think the whole "hate crime" angle is irrelevant anyway.

 

[jmdrake]

But no charges for first degree murder anticipated. They have no case for that type of leap. He's going to probably get manslaughter and I suspect he may deserve it based on the evidence and witness testimony.

http://www.examiner.com/newport-news-conservative-in-norfolk/source-zimmerman-will-not-be-charged

I agree. Even worst case scenario there's no evidence for 1st degree murder. That would require Zimmerman having regained 100% control of the situation prior to shooting Trayvon and having time, even an extremely short period of time, to deliberate before shooting. I don't believe at all that that is what happened.

 

[jmdrake]

This is hyperbole- no one is questioning "talking to people in one's neighborhood".

The QUESTION is about when a NW seemingly goes beyond his jurisdiction and follows someone who seems, in his mind, suspicious. Especially in the capacity as a NW, which is to "observe and report".

No one knows the real truth- no one saw Martin attack Zimmerman or vs/vs. No one agrees on the voice crying out and no one agrees on who was on top beating who.

What we CAN agree on, at this moment in time, is that if George had followed the dispatch's (and NW procedure) request, none of us would have the slightest idea who Trayvon Martin was and would be busy solving other problems of the Universe.

Here is a hypothetical about the SYG law that I've raised and no one is willing to address. Say if everything happened as Zimmerman said with two differences, 1) Trayvon had a knife, and 2) Zimmerman's bullet passed through Trayvon and killed an innocent bystander. What would the SYG law as written mean with regards to the innocent victim's right to sue? In this scenario there's no question that Zimmerman would have a right to use deadly force against Trayvon and be except from civil and criminal penalty from Trayvon. Without the SYG law the same might be true. But would the SYG law as written extinguish the right of the innocent 3rd party even thought Zimmerman caused the danger by going outside of police advice and neighborhood watch procedures? Thoughts?

 

[kahless]

This is hyperbole- no one is questioning "talking to people in one's neighborhood".

You obviously did not read his post.

Zimmerman had no right to confront him in any way. Him being some random stranger, if he was following me I would most certainly view it as an act of aggression and be prepared to defend myself, with violence if necessary.

What we CAN agree on, at this moment in time, is that if George had followed the dispatch's (and NW procedure) request, none of us would have the slightest idea who Trayvon Martin was and would be busy solving other problems of the Universe.

You do not know that. I have read interpretations of the audio that demonstrate he in fact did follow instructions. Regardless, even if he did not, he had every right to walk up to a person in the neighborhood and talk to him. If he was attacked for doing so he had a right to defend himself.

 

[dannno]

This is hyperbole- no one is questioning "talking to people in one's neighborhood".

What must you do BEFORE you talk to someone? You must approach them. What must you do before you approach somebody? You must observe them. What if they are walking away from you? Then you must follow them! Again, nothing inherently wrong with any of these activities.

This is really the main point of their post:

I have been living in my neighborhood for much longer than a new neighbor that decided he was neighborhood watch, followed me and questioned me. I was not happy about it but that does not give me the right to beat him and if I did he would have every right to defend himself.

Just because Zimmerman was suspicious of Trayvon and followed him, doesn't mean Trayvon has the right to start an altercation and attack him, which is apparently what happened.

The QUESTION is about when a NW seemingly goes beyond his jurisdiction and follows someone who seems, in his mind, suspicious. Especially in the capacity as a NW, which is to "observe and report".

Apparently he wasn't acting as NW, Zimmerman was on his way to the store. So he was suspicious of Trayvon and followed him - nothing wrong with that - just because NW doesn't say people should follow suspicious individuals doesn't mean it isn't ok to follow suspicious individuals.

No one knows the real truth- no one saw Martin attack Zimmerman or vs/vs. No one agrees on the voice crying out and no one agrees on who was on top beating who.

What we CAN agree on, at this moment in time, is that if George had followed the dispatch's (and NW procedure) request, none of us would have the slightest idea who Trayvon Martin was and would be busy solving other problems of the Universe.

That's true, but that doesn't mean Zimmerman did anything illegal or wrong by following him. If Zimmerman started an altercation then he would be in the wrong, but following somebody to ask them where they live isn't starting an altercation. Starting an altercation is raising your voice and acting in a threatening manner.

 

[RonPaulMall]

This is hyperbole- no one is questioning "talking to people in one's neighborhood".

The QUESTION is about when a NW seemingly goes beyond his jurisdiction and follows someone who seems, in his mind, suspicious. Especially in the capacity as a NW, which is to "observe and report".

No one knows the real truth- no one saw Martin attack Zimmerman or vs/vs. No one agrees on the voice crying out and no one agrees on who was on top beating who.

What we CAN agree on, at this moment in time, is that if George had followed the dispatch's (and NW procedure) request, none of us would have the slightest idea who Trayvon Martin was and would be busy solving other problems of the Universe.

According to whom? Even if the state has the authority to forbid him from doing a perfectly legal activity in his own neighborhood, the dispatcher's comment didn't even rise to the level of a request. Are you talking about the self appointed neighborhood watch guru's? What authority do they have to tell anyone how to behave? You sound like a Statist loving soccer mom with this comment. As for your last comment, the same can be said if Trayvon never went to get Skittles. The question is not the million things that could have gone differently that led us to the killing, but whether the killing itself constituted a crime. That is what needs to be investigated. The rest is just media manipulated nonsense.

 

[dannno]

not even

the QUESTION is about whether or not you have the right to SHOOT SOMEONE ELSE WITH A GUN when you knowingly put yourself in a potentially perilous situation.


Did Zimmerman have a right approach Trayvon even though the dispatcher asked him not to? Yes he did.

Did Zimmerman have the right to shoot Trayvon dead after he approached him? No, he did not.

See, that's total bullshit. There is nothing illegal about approaching somebody or asking them where they live. If that person attacks you after you PEACEFULLY ask them where they live, you have every right to defend yourself. IF Zimmerman approached him in a threatening manner and was all like, "Hey, wtf are you doing here, I called the cops, I'm going to beat your ass if you don't get the fuck out my neighborhood" and then proceeded to walk towards him, then Zimmerman would be wrong for starting the altercation...

But no, apparently TRAYVON approached ZIMMERMAN from behind, TRAYVON started the altercation, attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman merely defended himself. I don't know if that is exactly how it happened or not, but that is the story we have to go off of at the moment, evidence pointing to anything contrary will need to be considered in court.

 

[phill4paul]

Breaking: NBC News. George Zimmerman has been taken into custody.

 

[dannno]

Breaking: NBC News. George Zimmerman has been taken into custody.

Was there still blood spatter on his shirt, or did he change it yet?

 

[phill4paul]

Was there still blood spatter on his shirt, or did he change it yet?

No idea.

 

[phill4paul]

To be tried for murder in the second.

 

[jmdrake]

Zimmerman's lawyers withdraw from shooting case

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...21BG0A?docId=787a077e14304b86a063cf7b5f69f505

By KYLE HIGHTOWER, Associated Press – 13 minutes ago

SANFORD, Fla. (AP) — The Trayvon Martin case took a bizarre turn Tuesday when George Zimmerman's attorneys quit, complaining that they have lost all contact with him and that he called the prosecutor and talked to a TV host after they told him not to speak to anyone.

The lawyers portrayed the former neighborhood watch captain as erratic and his mental state as shaky, and they expressed fear for his health under the pressure that has been building in the month since he shot and killed Martin, an unarmed black teenager.

"As of the last couple days he has not returned phone calls, text messages or emails," attorney Craig Sonner said at a news conference outside the courthouse. "He's gone on his own. I'm not sure what he's doing or who he's talking to. I cannot go forward speaking to the public about George Zimmerman and this case as representing him because I've lost contact with him."

The split came as a special prosecutor neared a decision on whether to charge Zimmerman with a crime in the Feb. 26 shooting.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...21BG0A?docId=787a077e14304b86a063cf7b5f69f505

Not talking to your lawyers + talking to prosecutors and media = not very bright client.

Breaking: NBC News. George Zimmerman has been taken into custody.

I think at this point Zimmerman probably wishes he had been charged initially. And that's what should have happened. He should have been charged, gotten out on bail, received a probable cause hearing, and if probable cause was lacking the charges should have been dropped. Short circuiting the process caused the circus.

 

[phill4paul]

Not talking to your lawyers + talking to prosecutors and media = not very bright client.

I think at this point Zimmerman probably wishes he had been charged initially. And that's what should have happened. He should have been charged, gotten out on bail, received a probable cause hearing, and if probable cause was lacking the charges should have been dropped. Short circuiting the process caused the circus.

Can't disagree.

 

[Southron]

Imo, no way he gets a fair trial.

 

[hardrightedge]

As soon as I heard the prosecutor say she wasn't surrendering to the court of public opinion...well, figure it out yourself...

 

[jmdrake]

As soon as I heard the prosecutor say she wasn't surrendering to the court of public opinion...well, figure it out yourself...

Doesn't matter. Prosecutor's job is to prosecute. Defense attorney's job is to defend. I've seen people prosecuted under less favorable facts for prosecution than this. The only recourse against a prosecutor's decision not to prosecute is public opinion shown through the political process. That's why DA's are elected. If a prosecutor abuses power and prosecutions without justification the remedy is a malicious prosecution lawsuit.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Imo, no way he gets a fair trial.

I agree. He's already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. The "real" court had better bring in a guilty verdict, or there will be hell to pay.