With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered, law-enforcement authorities told the Orlando Sentinel.
That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say. There have been no reports that a witness saw the initial punch Zimmerman told police about.
Zimmerman has not spoken publicly about what happened Feb. 26. But that night, and in later meetings, he described and re-enacted for police what he says took place.
In his version of events, Zimmerman had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind, the two exchanged words and then Trayvon punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground, and began beating him.Zimmerman told police he shot the teenager in self-defense.
Civil-rights leaders and more than a million other people have demanded Zimmerman's arrest, calling Trayvon a victim of racial profiling and suggesting Zimmerman is a vigilante.
Trayvon was an unarmed black teenager who had committed no crime, they say, who was gunned down while walking back from a 7-Eleven with nothing more sinister than a package of Skittles and can of Arizona iced tea.
Zimmerman's account
This is what the Sentinel has learned about Zimmerman's account to investigators:
He said he was on his way to the grocery store when he spotted Trayvon walking through his gated community.Trayvon was visiting his father's fiancée, who lived there. He had been suspended from school in Miami after being found with an empty marijuana baggie. Miami schools have a zero-tolerance policy for drug possession.
Police have been reluctant to provide details about their evidence.
But after the Sentinel story appeared online Monday morning, City Manager Norton Bonaparte Jr. issued a news release, saying there would be an internal-affairs investigation into the source of the leak and, if identified, the person or people involved would be disciplined.
He did not challenge the accuracy of the information.
At a Monday news conference, Trayvon's mother, father and their lawyers called the report that their son was suspended from school because of a marijuana baggie irrelevant and needlessly hurtful.
Trayvon's father, Tracy Martin, said "even in death, they are still disrespecting my son, and I feel that that's a sin."
His mother, Sybrina Fulton, said, "They killed my son, and now they're trying to kill his reputation."
Supporters have held rallies in Sanford, Miami, New York and Tallahassee, calling the case a tragic miscarriage of justice.
Civil-rights activist the Rev. Al Sharpton headlined a rally in Sanford on Thursday that drew an estimated 8,000 people. The Rev. Jesse Jackson on Sunday spoke at an Eatonville church, where he called Trayvon a martyr.
Zimmerman has gone into hiding. A fringe group, the New Black Panther Party, has offered a $10,000 reward for his "capture."
One-minute gap
On Feb. 26, when Zimmerman first spotted Trayvon, he called police and reported a suspicious person, describing Trayvon as black, acting strangely and perhaps on drugs.
Zimmerman got out of his SUV to follow Trayvon on foot. When a dispatch employee asked Zimmerman if he was following the 17-year-old, Zimmerman said yes. The dispatcher told Zimmerman he did not need to do that.
There is about a one-minute gap during which police say they're not sure what happened.
Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words.
Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose, according to the account he gave police.
Zimmerman fell to the ground and Trayvon got on top of him and began slamming his head into the sidewalk, he told police.
Zimmerman began yelling for help.
Several witnesses heard those cries, and there has been a dispute about whether they came from Zimmerman or Trayvon.
Lawyers for Trayvon's family say it was Trayvon, but police say their evidence indicates it was Zimmerman.
One witness, who has since talked to local television news reporters, told police he saw Zimmerman on the ground with Trayvon on top, pounding him — and was unequivocal that it was Zimmerman who was crying for help.
Zimmerman then shot Trayvon once in the chest at very close range, according to authorities.
When police arrived less than two minutes later, Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose, had a swollen lip and had bloody lacerations to the back of his head.
Paramedics gave him first aid but he said he did not need to go to the hospital. He got medical care the next day.
It's pretty simple in my eyes, deadly force = deadly force. The kid didn't have a gun, didn't brandish such, and therefore could not have posed a deadly threat to Zimmerman. Zimmerman followed him because he thought the kid was suspicious. That is the job of the police. The police dispatcher told him not to follow the kid. Deadly force =/= deadly force in this case. Zimmerman was wrong.
It's pretty simple in my eyes, deadly force = deadly force. The kid didn't have a gun, didn't brandish such, and therefore could not have posed a deadly threat to Zimmerman. Zimmerman followed him because he thought the kid was suspicious. That is the job of the police. The police dispatcher told him not to follow the kid. Deadly force =/= deadly force in this case. Zimmerman was wrong.
BIRMINGHAM, Alabama -- The Birmingham City Council late this morning voted to declare the late Trayvon Martin of Sanford, Florida, an honorary citizen of Birmingham.
The last honorary citizen the city named was President Barack Obama after his election.
Council President Roderick Royal said the council would draft a larger resolution with the declaration and a written objection to way the Florida case has been handled.
Martin was a 17-year-old youth slain Feb. 26 in a confrontation with 28-year-old George Zimmerman, who told a police dispatcher he thought Martin looked suspicious. Zimmerman, a member of a neighborhood watch group shot Martin following a chase and fight.
At the time of his death, Martin was wearing a hoodie style jacket. The four male members of the nine-member council wore hoodie jackets for the first hour of this morning's council meeting.
Council members said their demonstration was prompted by the Florida case but more broadly is also a call to action against overall violence that plagues cities, specifically involving black men.
"The primary purpose is to show that minority males, black males in particular, are often invisible to others who are in positions of influence, whether that's a job interview or with a police officer," Royal said. "In this case it led to the tragic death of this young man."
The request to the council for the honorary citizenship was made by Frank Matthews, a community activist and an organizer of a Sunday rally in downtown Birmingham which protested the death of Martin.
Matthews said his group plans a trip to Sanford, Florida, to deliver the city's resolution.
You're a lawyer. To rephrase dallaswareagle's question - Could deadly force be defined as slamming someone's head into the ground?
Another issue - Is it unlawful to follow someone on a neighborhood street? Can the police legally instruct you not to do that? And if you do decide to follow a suspicious person and that person violently attacks you, would a court of law consider you to blame?
I'm not siding with Zimmerman. It sounds like manslaughter in self-defense. By no means do I think he should have shot the kid. He had already called the police and could have just fought the kid off until the police arrived.
But this has turned into a national story with many people already convicting Zimmerman of a hate crime and capital murder.
Is it unlawful to follow someone on a neighborhood street? It depends. Can the police legally instruct you not to do that? Yes, unless it is your property. And if you do decide to follow a suspicious person and that person violently attacks you, would a court of law consider you to blame? Depends, but generally the person who started the fight would be to blame. Again, regardless of all that. A fight =/= a gun fight. Very few people can and will kill you with their bare hands. And I'm pretty sure no Jury would believe that a 17 year old kid was a threat to kill a 28 year old man with his bare hands.
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/03/birmingham_council_names_slain.html (http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/03/birmingham_council_names_slain.html)
I was almost going to post those - including his Tweets - but I refrained. His character doesn't matter ESPECIALLY since he's a 17 year old.
And he wasn't looking for trouble. He had candy and an iced tea and was heading home.
I really don't care too much about this case which is why even though I've known about it since the day it happened (thanks, Reddit), I haven't posted anything about it. It seems fairly cut and dry. Zimmerman didn't need to kill the kid, and the police are reluctant to arrest him.
What's upsetting me is the backlash. I've seen and heard numerous sources refer to Zimmerman as a white Hispanic male. Some have referred to him as simply white. I watched some white guy on CNN representing Russell Simmons talk about how the case didn't matter. That we need to change white people's mindsets because the majority of white people hate black people and hate hoodies.
Cities across the nation are holding vigils for the kid. Birmingham made him an honorary citizen. New Orleans had graffiti that said "RIP Trayvon Fuck Police." The Black Panthers are asking for Zimmerman and offering a $10k reward. Spike Lee attempted to tweet Zimmerman's address but actually tweeted the wrong address.
Then there's this:
(http://images.radcity.net/5162/4991119.jpg)
And this:
(http://www.thegrio.com/assets_c/2012/03/Miami-Heat-Hoodies4X3-thumb-400xauto-32740.jpg)
And now this:
(http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/obama-hoodie.jpg)
This is fucking ridiculous. But typical of the media.
And he wasn't looking for trouble. He had candy and an iced tea and was heading home when he attacked Zimmerman, the Neighborhood Watch volunteer.
Y'all bein' racist. Trayvon was a good kid. He neva do nuthin' wrong...If you honestly believe anything in your post you are ignorant and a racist.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120504/Trayvon-Martin-case-He-suspended-times-caught-burglary-tool.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120504/Trayvon-Martin-case-He-suspended-times-caught-burglary-tool.html)
Look at dems grillz!
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/03/27/article-2120504-125AFDAD000005DC-895_634x474.jpg)
It seems like he was out looking for trouble, and he found it...
FTFY...Nevermind, you confirmed you idiocy.
Both of their lives have been destroyed over some stupid shit. From my perspective, Zimmerman was in the right. Sure he used deadly force. You would too if you were being beaten and having your head smashed into the sidewalk. And, Trayvon's character, pics and tweats do matter. It confirms that he was a hood-in-training.
If you honestly believe anything in your post you are ignorant and a racist.You're unbelievable. I never claimed that he deserved to be shot. And, his behavior leading up to this was enough of an indication that he was headed for trouble. I realize that's more of that old-fashioned, common sense backwards thinking from your perspective, but it's usually right more often than wrong.
He was looking for trouble by talking to his girlfriend and buying skittles and a tea? ...
and because he had gold teeth he deserved to be shot?
and because he has trouble in his past he deserved to be shot?
Nevermind, you confirmed you idiocy.Golly... I wish that I lived in a world blissful ignorance like you. That sort of mindset could lead to trouble for you one day, but I sincerely hope that it does not.
Especially in a situation like this where the police apparently have very little evidence which corroborates Zimmerman's story, other than injuries which did not require hospitalization, and "witnesses" who didn't actually see the attack.
There is a witness who claims to have observed Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, beating him and smashing his head into the sidewalk. As long as that witness is telling the truth, this shouldn't be a problem for Zimmerman. The lacerations on the back of his head, bloody nose and fat lip are evidence of Trayvon's attack.
You're unbelievable. I never claimed that he deserved to be shot. And, his behavior leading up to this was enough of an indication that he was headed for trouble. I realize that's more of that old-fashioned, common sense backwards thinking from your perspective, but it's usually right more often than wrong.
On that actual evening, even if Zimmerman followed him and taunted him, that does not excuse his physical attack of Zimmerman. And, while we're at it, the police dispatcher is not a police officer. The police dispatcher did not order or request that Zimmerman stop pursuing Trayvon. She only suggested it. That's different than your misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the facts.
Oh and, race has nothing to do with this.
Golly... I wish that I lived in a world blissful ignorance like you. That sort of mindset could lead to trouble for you one day, but I sincerely hope that it does not.
Y'all bein' racist. Trayvon was a good kid. He neva do nuthin' wrong...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120504/Trayvon-Martin-case-He-suspended-times-caught-burglary-tool.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120504/Trayvon-Martin-case-He-suspended-times-caught-burglary-tool.html)
Look at dems grillz!
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/03/27/article-2120504-125AFDAD000005DC-895_634x474.jpg)
It seems like he was out looking for trouble, and he found it...
FTFY...Yep, you never insinuated that he should have been shot or that it was about race. Nothing at all about race in that first post with the picture. My bad, I'm dumb.
Both of their lives have been destroyed over some stupid shit. From my perspective, Zimmerman was in the right. Sure he used deadly force. You would too if you were being beaten and having your head smashed into the sidewalk. And, Trayvon's character, pics and tweats do matter. It confirms that he was a hood-in-training.
Yep, you never insinuated that he should have been shot or that it was about race. Nothing at all about race in that first post with the picture. My bad, I'm dumb.
Pay attention Strawberry Shortcake. Your perceptions of what I meant with those comments have nothing to do with reality. Playing ghetto, gangsta, hood or whatever you want to call it has nothing to do with race. So, get over yourself already. Are you implying that only people of a certain race talk ghetto and sport grillz? It seems to me that you have a bigger problem with your own racial stereotyping, Buttercup. This has nothing to do with race.Putting your underhanded racism aside, none of that above matters to the case at hand at all. And actually, In court, none of that would be admissible. So, I guess, the entire legal system in the United States, Great Britain, and Common law disagree with you. They are probably wrong too though, and dumb.
Let's review some of the facts regarding his recent past...
- The teen was suspended from school three times. (I'm sure that they were just picking on him.)
- He was on suspension when he was shot in February, after officials caught him with a 'marijuana pipe' and a baggie with drug residue (He was shot? And oh, that's right... Marijuana is virtually harmless. We should feed it to our kids.)
- Trayvon was kicked out of school in October for graffiti after he was allegedly caught with a 'burglary tool' and a bag full of women's jewelry (I'm sure that was one big misunderstanding...)
- Officials also suspended him once for skipping school and tardiness (Why are they picking on this poor innocent yute?)
If his behavior isn't overwhelmingly obvious that he was headed for trouble, I don't know what planet you're from.
Yes... You are dumb... Beyond dumb, in fact...
FTFY...
Both of their lives have been destroyed over some stupid shit. From my perspective, Zimmerman was in the right. Sure he used deadly force. You would too if you were being beaten and having your head smashed into the sidewalk. And, Trayvon's character, pics and tweats do matter. It confirms that he was a hood-in-training.
It's pretty simple in my eyes, deadly force = deadly force. The kid didn't have a gun, didn't brandish such, and therefore could not have posed a deadly threat to Zimmerman. Zimmerman followed him because he thought the kid was suspicious. That is the job of the police. The police dispatcher told him not to follow the kid. Deadly force =/= deadly force in this case. Zimmerman was wrong.
Sorry, missed that part; the witness acknowledged seeing Trayvon on top and beating Zimmerman, but the article doesn't say whether the witness saw the shooting or not. I would assume he did, unless he turned away, which isn't likely, but that part of the witness's story is noticeably absent from the article.
The witness's testimony will be what will help Zimmerman, but ideally it should still go to a court of law, as it is there that the credibility of the witnesses can be determined, as well as the existence of any other evidence.
I had no idea a gun was the only way to use deadly force. I would say beating someone's head against the ground is pretty deadly.Eliminate race entirely. Make it two black guys...well, then GarMan would wish they both got shot and say "good riddance".
And you have no idea if he was wrong. We haven't heard any of this in front of a grand jury yet. No official evidence, just a bunch of sketchy details from the "Trayvon" side. All of this vigilante justice and racial crap is unreal. We do not even know what really happened yet.
How does anyone KNOW that this guy was profiling? We don't. Sharpton and Jackson and the Black Panthers know that this pot has to be stirred whether it's justified or not in order to keep themselves in business. They exist to exist. Pathetic.
You as a lawyer should know more than anyone that in this country people are innocent until proven guilty and burden of proof is on the accuser, fair and speedy trial, etc etc. Let's let this play out and see what happens. Let the dust settle before we make any assumptions of guilt. Although, no matter what is found, I fear that the rebel rousers like Sharpton will attempt to spin this to something racial regardless because it's his job.
Putting your underhanded racism aside, none of that above matters to the case at hand at all. And actually, In court, none of that would be admissible. So, I guess, the entire legal system in the United States, Great Britain, and Common law disagree with you. They are probably wrong too though, and dumb.
Eliminate race entirely. Make it two black guys...well, then GarMan would wish they both got shot and say "good riddance".
Make it two white guys. If any person follows any other person with a gun through a neighborhood (which is the part we do know for sure), that person is the one in the wrong.
Let's just say Trayvon's family's accounts are completely false.
Still, you have a guy following a teenage kid through a neighborhood with a gun. Can you really say you might not do the same if you were in that kid's shoes? Ask the guy what his fucking problem is? Maybe even try to kick his ass to disarm him (if you were badass enough)?
Its unfortunate that this is/will be a race driven case, almost to the point of forcing the hand of the officials. I have watched as much video, call recordings, so called eye-witness accounts and TV lawyer deliberations that I can stomach. The first thing that stands out to me is why in the hell is a neighborhood watch dog going around with a gun following people. Not a police man, not even a security guard but a neighborhood watch dog. Sure the kid may have been acting shady and hell, more than likely Zimmerman knew Trayvon. He probably knew the kid smoked some weed, tag some buildings and had some trouble at school. He probably even thought in the back of his mind that "this kid may whip my ass", hence toting his gun with him as he followed the kid. Still, Z calls the police in some sort of fear but doesn't pause to what the dispatcher says to him. Then why call the fucking police in the first place? Why in the hell does he get out of his vehicle? Why not wait till the police gets there? Sorry, but something tells me either Zimmerman wanted to be a hero or just plain didn't like the kid.
Also, no 16 year old kid is gonna be slamming my head against the concrete for crying out loud. I need no gun
to do what I would do to the kid that tried such.
Again...WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT HAPPENED! Much of this fact that you reiterated is coming from the girl on the other end of the cell phone (that she said was cutting out) and the story has changed twice already. I want to hear this entire thing from every witness account, UNDER OATH - before I draw any conclusion. People are rushing to judgement in one particular direction without any hard facts. Doing this is not good for the country as a whole as it is getting a shit ton of people riled up to dangerous levels (black panthers). Let's hear this thing out completely. If Zimmerman was a scumbag in how he dealt with this, then we can all be outraged. Until then......people need to cool their jets.
Can I google the definition of racism for you? GarMan (nor anyone else in this thread) dislikes the kid because he is black. I'm thinking GarMan is trying to emphasize the fact the kid had a history of trouble making. And he was probably doing the same thing in this case. When you go looking for trouble, you will usually find it. I (and I suspect GarMan too) would be saying the same thing if this kid were white, chinese or hispanic. If that last statement is being said in total truth, then I am not sure how someone can be branded a racist. I hate the white trouble makers as well. Sometimes even moreso (ie - Updyke).Bull fucking shit. You are going to tell me that the post below, made by Garman, had nothing to do with the kids race? You honestly think the same post would have been made and he would have said the same thing if the kid were white? Or Chinese? Bull shit, I'm sorry, that shit is underhanded and apparent.
Y'all bein' racist. Trayvon was a good kid. He neva do nuthin' wrong...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120504/Trayvon-Martin-case-He-suspended-times-caught-burglary-tool.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120504/Trayvon-Martin-case-He-suspended-times-caught-burglary-tool.html)
Look at dems grillz!
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/03/27/article-2120504-125AFDAD000005DC-895_634x474.jpg)
It seems like he was out looking for trouble, and he found it...
In the dispatch call, if I'm not mistaken, Zimmerman said he was following the kid. Other witness accounts said Zimmerman had a gun. Its obvious that Zimmerman got out of his vehicle unless a new twist is that Trayvon drug Z out his vehicle to slam his head against the ground. Those are my points and by those points Zimmerman, in my opinion, is not a very smart cat.The have recorded conversations that say just that...but facts be damned.
The have recorded conversations that say just that...but facts be damned.
Bull fucking shit. You are going to tell me that the post below, made by Garman, had nothing to do with the kids race? You honestly think the same post would have been made and he would have said the same thing if the kid were white? Or Chinese? Bull shit, I'm sorry, that shit is underhanded and apparent.
Regardless, my main point in my previous post is that his character doesn't matter. The prosecution in a criminal case could not testify about his character unless the defense attacked zimmerman's character....along with other stipulations. Same thing in a civil court, with less scrutiny.
Putting your underhanded racism aside, none of that above matters to the case at hand at all. And actually, In court, none of that would be admissible. So, I guess, the entire legal system in the United States, Great Britain, and Common law disagree with you. They are probably wrong too though, and dumb.
For fuck's same man, just come out and say that black teenagers are subhuman and should be hunted like wild game.Really?
I'm not saying this kid was a saint. You've professed a million times that there are no grays, only blacks and whites (no pun intended). There are only extremes with you. Everyone's either Dudley Do Right or Dick Dastardly. You can't process anything beyond the Cro Magnon "this good, this bad".Huh? And, this means what?
In this situation, if anyone was "looking for trouble", it was clearly the guy that stalked this kid for several blocks. I could give a fuck if this kid had skipped school in the past.The guy that stalked this kid was a Neighborhood Watch volunteer. There's probably some question as to what is reasonable. I'll give you that, but it doesn't make his actions wrong or justify Trayvon's physical attack.
You say it's not about race. You can tell me otherwise all you want, but I'm 1000% sure that had this been a white kid walking home from the store and a black dude was following him for blocks and blocks and ultimately shot and killed him, you wouldn't think that kid was "looking for trouble".All other things being the same with only their races reversed? You'd be 1000% wrong. It would be exactly the same thing.
Bull fucking shit. You are going to tell me that the post below, made by Garman, had nothing to do with the kids race? You honestly think the same post would have been made and he would have said the same thing if the kid were white? Or Chinese? Bull shit, I'm sorry, that shit is underhanded and apparent.The post below has absolutely nothing to do with the kid's race. If you reviewed the articles, read ANY of his tweets and still believe otherwise, you're ignoring reality. This kid was aspiring to be a thug. If the kid was Asian, Indian, White, Hispanic or whatever and everything else was the same including the grill and the ghetto-slang twitter posts, I would have made EXACTLY the same comments.
JR is the better one to ask, but...
Generally, unless you are in your home, if you have a gun and they don't, and they don't make you believe they have a gun, then you are in the wrong. You can't use deadly force unless in a neutral area (at all in some States) unless the same is being used against you. Fist a cuff's wouldn't be an exception...Unless they were Mike Tyson or some shit.
Regardless of all of that, he was following the kid. Vigilante-esque, even after the cops told him not too. He instigated the majority of it.
Also, I agree it should be manslaughter. I don't know why it is a national story either. Well, I mean it is retarded that the DA hasn't yet charged him. Even if the charges aren't successful, they can say they tried. The guy is a dumbass who had an itchy trigger finger and should not have shot the kid.
Let's review some of the facts regarding his recent past...
- The teen was suspended from school three times. (I'm sure that they were just picking on him.)
- He was on suspension when he was shot in February, after officials caught him with a 'marijuana pipe' and a baggie with drug residue (He was shot? And oh, that's right... Marijuana is virtually harmless. We should feed it to our kids.)
- Trayvon was kicked out of school in October for graffiti after he was allegedly caught with a 'burglary tool' and a bag full of women's jewelry (I'm sure that was one big misunderstanding...)
- Officials also suspended him once for skipping school and tardiness (Why are they picking on this poor innocent yute?)
The post below has absolutely nothing to do with the kid's race. If you reviewed the articles, read ANY of his tweets and still believe otherwise, you're ignoring reality. This kid was aspiring to be a thug. If the kid was Asian, Indian, White, Hispanic or whatever and everything else was the same including the grill and the ghetto-slang twitter posts, I would have made EXACTLY the same comments.
Besides, if you haven't figured it out yet, I pretty much hate everybody equally, especially queer-bait, politically correct twirps who continually believe that they know more than everybody else.
Larry Elder: Trayvon Martin Case Is A ‘Civil Matter,’ Not A Criminal One
Radio host Larry Elder stopped by Good Day LA on Tuesday, where he offered his perspective on the case surrounding Trayvon Martin and his alleged shooter, George Zimmerman.
Much opinion media coverage of Martin’s death has expressed a sense of frustration over the injustice of the situation, with MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell and his panel last night, for instance, emphasizing the fact that Martin had been unarmed while Zimmerman had been in possession of a gun. Speculation as to whether racism may have played a role has also shaped coverage of Martin’s death, as has confusion and frustration over Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law.
Elder, however, offered perspective that shifted from the common narrative surrounding the teen’s death. “There’s a big outcry,” Elder observed, “and I think, for PR purposes, we have to look as if we’re concerned about whether or not this 17-year-old was killed.”
Host Jillian Reynolds took exception at his phrasing. “I hate the way you say ‘for PR purposes,’” she told him. “Come on, a child — maybe not a child, but a teenager was killed.”
“Well, why are we sure that the authorities in Florida are not investigating?” he asked. “Why are we sure that they’re not on top of it? They are black law enforcement authorities and officials", he added, "that are very concerned about this case. The idea that Al Sharpton or the Congressional Black Caucus needs to yell and scream for the law enforcement authorities to do their job, I find offensive.”
Elder described Zimmerman as a “neighborhood watch captain concerned about crime” , characterizing his much-analyzed comment to a 911 dispatcher that “they always get away” as testament to his frustration concerning crime.
“Let’s make the case the other way, Larry,” host Steve Edwards interjected, “First of all, you often talk about the ‘race card’ being played too often. Sometimes it’s not a card, sometimes it’s a racial situation — even you would acknowledge that. Here in this situation you have a guy — Zimmerman — 28 years old, he’s a member of the volunteer watch, it’s a neighborhood watch that’s not official with the other neighborhood watches. He’s obviously, it seems to me, to be a guy who loves to be on the prowl, looking for trouble…”
“-Or,” said Elder, “he’s a guy who’s trying to make sure that crime goes down in his neighborhood.”
The takeaway for Elder, as he shared, was that — while it was unequivocally a “bad shooting” – this is ultimately a civil matter, not a criminal one.
Probably a good indicator of the character of the young man, but legally speaking it's completely irrelevant to what happened the night he was killed. Not one shred of that could be considered by a grand jury or jury, and in fact would never be heard by either in making a determination on this case.
I'll say this... The fact that we have such polar opposite positions having read the same facts and reviewed the same information really concerns me. I've been in situations relatively close to Zimmerman's situation more than a few times. Over the years, I've had to threaten and literally chase a number of intruders and trespassers from my property, and I usually do so with a firearm in one hand and my cell phone in the other. I usually need to call the police 3-4 times a year to assist with some of these encounters. I've also followed fucktards after I've seen them trespass on somebody else's boat or appear take something from somebody else's property. If they had attacked me, I would have shot them without hesitation. I wouldn't have thought twice about it. Would I really be in the wrong?Agree - same here.
Somewhat related, about 5 years ago someone tried to steal one of my PWCs. Luckily, my neighbor was home, and he had the balls and enough patience to hold this person at gunpoint until the police arrived. If I had encountered this guy stealing my PWC, I probably would have shot him.
Oh, and he was white, BTW, in case that matters, for the beta boyz...
You're all racist.....the whole lot of you.
Sporadic facts, context - you have no idea of the big picture and what happened from start to finish. Do you know why he was following him? No. Do you know why he had a gun? No.
All you are saying is: there was some poor sweet little black kid just walking along drinking sweet tea and that mean white guy went and got a gun and followed him so he could kill him because he didn't like black people. Got it. Context - it's everything.
I'm glad you guys know exactly what happened and why already, even though this thing isn't even at a grand jury level yet. I don't even know why we need a court or the police here since you seem to have this all figured out. But yeah, you guys know. I'm not taking one side or another - I'm simply trying to sit in the middle and let ALL of the facts play out. I just wish someone who is defending the kid would criticize the black panthers in the same way they are Zimmerman. After all, they ARE inciting and calling for racism and violence. See THS' pics. I guess there is nothing wrong with the word "Cracker".
You're all racist.....the whole lot of you.
Might as well be. It's become society's lamest cop out.
Always wanted to be part of a large group. Who we hatin first?
I'll say this... The fact that we have such polar opposite positions having read the same facts and reviewed the same information really concerns me. I've been in situations relatively close to Zimmerman's situation more than a few times. Over the years, I've had to threaten and literally chase a number of intruders and trespassers from my property, and I usually do so with a firearm in one hand and my cell phone in the other. I usually need to call the police 3-4 times a year to assist with some of these encounters. I've also followed fucktards after I've seen them trespass on somebody else's boat or appear take something from somebody else's property. If they had attacked me, I would have shot them without hesitation. I wouldn't have thought twice about it. Would I really be in the wrong?Who woulda thunk that you chase people around with a gun and a cell phone...
Somewhat related, about 5 years ago someone tried to steal one of my PWCs. Luckily, my neighbor was home, and he had the balls and enough patience to hold this person at gunpoint until the police arrived. If I had encountered this guy stealing my PWC, I probably would have shot him.
Oh, and he was white, BTW, in case that matters, for the beta boyz...
Who woulda thunk that you chase people around with a gun and a cell phone...Yeah... I'm thuch a brute. How dare I attempt to protect private property. What a thilly Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon conthept!!!
Yeah... I'm thuch a brute. How dare I attempt to protect private property. What a thilly Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon conthept!!!
Wait... What's that enlightened, politically correct opinion regarding private property? It's only stuff. Well, something like that, anyway...
Gotta agree here. Taking responsibility for one's own safety, as well as the safety and well being of their community is something more folks ought to do, rather than depending on the police.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't AL have a similar law only it pertains to ones yard or land?
If you mean can you stand your ground if attacked, yes, in Alabama you can now.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't AL have a similar law only it pertains to ones yard or land?
Yes. It seems just a few years ago, the law stated that one had to give 2 or 3 warnings before shooting. Now, no warning.
I don't believe any state allows deadly force for the protection of personal or real property.
The caveat to this is that many states allow you to use deadly force if you're in your home or place of business, some states allow you to use deadly force in your home or place of business only if you reasonably believe that the person is committing or intends to commit a felony, some states allow you to use deadly force in public ("stand your ground") if you believe the person is committing or intends to commit a forcible felony, etc.
So, if someone is stealing property from your house or land, and the commission of that crime constitutes a felony, you can often (depending upon the state and its specific laws) use deadly force and claim self defense...but it's not directly related to defense of your property. It's related to the likelihood of harm to the person during the course of a felony being committed, or during the course of breaking and entering, etc.
If you could use deadly force merely for the protection of property and nothing else, then spring-guns in uninhabited houses would be considered appropriate self defense; they're not. Even though self defense laws are often based upon whether a person is in your home, the law is still intended to protect people, not property, hence the term self defense.
That's why you chase them with a gun and a cell phone. If they run, they have a chance. If they turn to fight, then it is self defense. The cell phone is to call for either the police or the coroner, depending on the assailant.
I don't believe any state allows deadly force for the protection of personal or real property.
That's why you chase them with a gun and a cell phone. If they run, they have a chance. If they turn to fight, then it is self defense. The cell phone is to call for either the police or the coroner, depending on the assailant.
That's why you chase them with a gun and a cell phone. If they run, they have a chance. If they turn to fight, then it is self defense. The cell phone is to call for either the police or the coroner, depending on the assailant.
In Tx they do. May not be "on the books" but there was an old fart that shot 2 guys coming out of his neighbors house. Shot them in the back as they ran from him. Whole thing caught on his 911 call. He even told the 911 operator he was going to get his gun, leave the safety of his house and stop them. He yelled "stop, you're dead" and pulled the trigger as he was saying it, killing both with 2 shots.. DA, I think, presented to GJ, and no indictment.
True, but Texas is an entirely different animal when it comes to gun laws and their enforcement. One of the problems with Texas (and Florida) is that, unlike other states, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the act wasn't committed in self defense.
Now, while this burden of proof is normal for your average criminal charge, most states have determined that due to the absence of their best witness (the victim), the prosecution shouldn't have that burden.
Also, you have to consider that Texas blatantly ignores their own laws, or at least their judicial results are often in blatant violation of their own laws. Look at Ray Lemes, for instance. He claims some guy entered his home; the evidence showed nothing was disturbed in his home and that there were no signs of forced entry. Lemes claimed the guy charged him, and that he shot the guy from his own yard while the assailant was eight feet away and still charging; the "assailant's" body was found more than 40 feet away from the house, and the ejected bullet cases were in the street no where near the house or where Lemes claimed he was standing.
The kicker? Of his five wounds, forensics showed that only one bullet entered the assailant while he was standing. And that wound entered his back.
So what happened to Mr. Lemes? He was acquitted.
You don't chase them where anyone can see you. And you take your dog with you so that you can claim you were walking the dog and out of nowhere........
Damn. I just gave my plan away.....
Because they found 12 people who believed the suspect was a piece of shit who was there to do wrong. In reality, that's all it takes.
It's going to be hard to find 12 people who wouldn't shoot someone who was bashing their head on the ground.
One of the problems with Texas (and Florida) is that, unlike other states, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the act wasn't committed in self defense.
Because they found 12 people who believed the suspect was a piece of shit who was there to do wrong. In reality, that's all it takes.
Why is that a problem? Shouldn't we be considered innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Why is that a problem? Shouldn't we be considered innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Me thinks the government has forgotten the basis of our legal system in this country.
Yeah... I'm thuch a brute. How dare I attempt to protect private property. What a thilly Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon conthept!!!Pretty much everything VV said. Regardless, I don't need a gun to protect my shit. Not that I'm against guns or anything, because I'm not.
Wait... What's that enlightened, politically correct opinion regarding private property? It's only stuff. Well, something like that, anyway...
Pretty much everything VV said. Regardless, I don't need a gun to protect my shit. Not that I'm against guns or anything, because I'm not.
Many people say that until their shit gets taken. It's a very disturbing and personal violation.
And jsut what will you protect your shit with, a cell phone?
Use of Force/Deadly Force in defense of self, or others is an "affirmative defense". Meaning you, as the suspect/defendant, admit the use of force, and claim legal justification for doing so. The state must them prove you either were not reasonable in your belief, or that you were not acting in self defense, or defense of others as is allowed by law.
Pretty much everything VV said. Regardless, I don't need a gun to protect my shit. Not that I'm against guns or anything, because I'm not.I don't think he said anything where I could disagree. You never need a gun until you actually need one, and by the time you realize it, it's usually too late. You just become a statistic then.
In this state, the way the law is written, I'm not defending my shit with deadly force. Could you get away with it? Maybe, but you're asking for serious trouble, and at the very least some sleepless nights worrying about being prosecuted, as well as legal fees.I don't disagree. I wouldn't say that you're defending your property with a gun. You're defending your property by taking action, announcing your presence, calling the police, asking the violators to leave or requesting that they wait for the police. More recently, I've even tried getting pictures of the violators with my cell phone camera. If you are threatened or attacked, you would only use the gun to protect yourself. A bit like Zimmerman...
But, then that's not at issue with Zimmerman and Trayvon.
I don't disagree. I wouldn't say that you're defending your property with a gun. You're defending your property by taking action, announcing your presence, calling the police, asking the violators to leave or requesting that they wait for the police. More recently, I've even tried getting pictures of the violators with my cell phone camera. If you are threatened or attacked, you would only use the gun to protect yourself. A bit like Zimmerman...
This whole case really bothers me, about society in general.
This has become a divisive hot-button issue, and I just can't understand it.
Fuck Al Sharpton and his ilk for turning this into a race-baiting frenzy. And fuck the people on the opposite side who now will defend Zimmerman to their dying breath, evidence be damned, because it's become about team white people versus team black people.
The thing that ought to fuck the minds of both Lawrence O'Donnell AND Sean Hannity is that Zimmerman is a Latino who is a registered democrat (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/320318/20120327/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-democrat-hispanic-shooting.htm).
That dude in the picture on the first page of this thread? Get your racism right, dipshit. It should read "Pussy Assed Spic".
And the Black Panther party? Yeah, we'll bring this vigilante killer to justice...by offering a bounty to a mob of vigilante killers.
AND fuck the notion that, "Well, Trayvon was walking through a neighborhood with a hoodie! He should have expected to have been stalked and shot to death!"
(http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/hoodies1-e1332768945639.jpg)
Just a couple of thugs looking for trouble who have it coming.
Or "He had gold fronts and participated in Senior Skip Day." Who gives a fuck? I guarantee you, if the whole world was digging through your background, they could find some shit that would disqualify you from Sainthood as well. Sad that we've resorted to that for a kid that was shot to death.
With all of the above said, absolutely none of that shit should matter. Our polarized society has turned this into a circus. What is known about the case as 100% fact is that George Zimmerman saw Trayvon Martin, who was unarmed, walking home from the store and called the cops. They told him to stop following him. He did anyway. With a gun. There was the actual altercation, which we don't know much about, but we know how it ended. Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. Seems pretty open and shut to me. Man stalks unarmed kid through a neighborhood and shoots him to death. It's not an "innocent until proven guilty" thing. We know for sure, he shot and killed the kid. The only question the jury is still technically out on, is if he did it in self-defense or not. And how the "Stand your ground" law should be applied to this case.
I'm assuming the worst for that middle sketchy part. Martin probably did ask him what the fuck his problem was for following him around. And he probably did attack him with physical violence first. Still, I don't see how this can be considered self defense, when he followed him through a neighborhood with a gun. It's not like Martin was breaking into his car or something. If anything, Martin was acting in self defense, if the alleged account of him attacking Zimmerman first are even true.
Surveilance video shows Zimmerman immediately after the altercation. No blood. Nothing that supports the repeated punches to the face resulting in a broken nose, bashing his head repeatedly into the concrete within an inch of his life, story we heard from Zimmerman.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505266_162-57406327/martin-family-lawyer-video-icing-on-the-cake/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505266_162-57406327/martin-family-lawyer-video-icing-on-the-cake/)
Zimmerman shot and killed a kid for no goddamn reason. He should be locked up.
Zimmerman is also not the white devil, he's a minority himself. And a Democrat, no less. Quit turning this into another goddamn race-baiting and politically divisive issue.
This whole case really bothers me, about society in general.
This has become a divisive hot-button issue, and I just can't understand it.
Fuck...
This whole case really bothers me, about society in general.
This has become a divisive hot-button issue, and I just can't understand it.
Fuck Al Sharpton and his ilk for turning this into a race-baiting frenzy. And fuck the people on the opposite side who now will defend Zimmerman to their dying breath, evidence be damned, because it's become about team white people versus team black people.
The thing that ought to fuck the minds of both Lawrence O'Donnell AND Sean Hannity is that Zimmerman is a Latino who is a registered democrat (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/320318/20120327/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-democrat-hispanic-shooting.htm).
That dude in the picture on the first page of this thread? Get your racism right, dipshit. It should read "Pussy Assed Spic".
And the Black Panther party? Yeah, we'll bring this vigilante killer to justice...by offering a bounty to a mob of vigilante killers.
AND fuck the notion that, "Well, Trayvon was walking through a neighborhood with a hoodie! He should have expected to have been stalked and shot to death!"
(http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/hoodies1-e1332768945639.jpg)
Just a couple of thugs looking for trouble who have it coming.
Or "He had gold fronts and participated in Senior Skip Day." Who gives a fuck? I guarantee you, if the whole world was digging through your background, they could find some shit that would disqualify you from Sainthood as well. Sad that we've resorted to that for a kid that was shot to death.
With all of the above said, absolutely none of that shit should matter. Our polarized society has turned this into a circus. What is known about the case as 100% fact is that George Zimmerman saw Trayvon Martin, who was unarmed, walking home from the store and called the cops. They told him to stop following him. He did anyway. With a gun. There was the actual altercation, which we don't know much about, but we know how it ended. Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. Seems pretty open and shut to me. Man stalks unarmed kid through a neighborhood and shoots him to death. It's not an "innocent until proven guilty" thing. We know for sure, he shot and killed the kid. The only question the jury is still technically out on, is if he did it in self-defense or not. And how the "Stand your ground" law should be applied to this case.
I'm assuming the worst for that middle sketchy part. Martin probably did ask him what the fuck his problem was for following him around. And he probably did attack him with physical violence first. Still, I don't see how this can be considered self defense, when he followed him through a neighborhood with a gun. It's not like Martin was breaking into his car or something. If anything, Martin was acting in self defense, if the alleged account of him attacking Zimmerman first are even true.
Surveilance video shows Zimmerman immediately after the altercation. No blood. Nothing that supports the repeated punches to the face resulting in a broken nose, bashing his head repeatedly into the concrete within an inch of his life, story we heard from Zimmerman.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505266_162-57406327/martin-family-lawyer-video-icing-on-the-cake/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505266_162-57406327/martin-family-lawyer-video-icing-on-the-cake/)
Zimmerman shot and killed a kid for no goddamn reason. He should be locked up.
Zimmerman is also not the white devil, he's a minority himself. And a Democrat, no less. Quit turning this into another goddamn race-baiting and politically divisive issue.
Can't disagree with your take on race baiting.
First bolded sentence: I've not heard anybody claim Trayvon should have expected to be stalked and shot for wearing a hoodie.
Next 2: shit you've completely decided is "100% fact" when much of it is in dispute, or only known from one side.
You have got to be FUCKING KIDDING ME!!! YOU and people like YOU are part of the damn problem screaming RACISM at every fucking twist and turn. You've got absolutely NO ROOM to talk! The way you mouth-off around here? You bring adding fuel to the fire to a whole new motherfucking level. Who the FUCK do you think you're fooling? You can't understand it... But, you're always one of the first ones to take the adversarial devil's advocate role and castigate others for their differing opinions and backwards ways."People like me"? Way to generalize and create a position for me...again.
Y'all bein' racist. Trayvon was a good kid. He neva do nuthin' wrong...
Zimmerman was part of the Neighborhood Watch program.Stop right there. How did he know he didn't belong in his neighborhood? The kid was walking home from the store. I don't know if that was his neighborhood or not, but it obviously was within the walking distance between the store and his house.
Zimmerman noticed someone who didn't belong in his neighborhood.
Zimmerman called the police to report his concerns.And this is a problem. He got out of the car to follow this kid. He was the one looking for trouble and found it. Not Trayvon. He was walking home from the store, minding his own business.
Zimmerman told the dispatcher that he's going to follow him.
The police dispatcher suggested that he shouldn't do that. You can hear Zimmerman getting out of his vehicle on the recording.
Zimmerman claims to have lost sight of Trayvon a few moments later.Like I said, these are all alleged events, but even if they're all true. He still was chasing this kid around the neighborhood with a gun. I'd probably blindside the motherfucker too if I got the chance, in that situation. The "at least one witness account" is matched by several more that said it was Martin's voice they heard calling for help.
Zimmerman claims to be heading back to his vehicle when Trayvon approaches him.
Zimmerman claims that Trayvon attacked him.
At least one witness calls the police to report that Trayvon is beating on Zimmerman. You can hear Zimmerman's cries and pleas in the background of that recording.
Zimmerman claims that during the attack, Trayvon went for his firearm.
Some other points to consider...Totally agree with your first bullet point. Which is why it's a shoddy defense for someone who chased an unarmed kid through a neighborhood with a firearm. The second and third bullet points, though, seems silly to me. Because the armed gunman who's been chasing you finally turns the other way, this erases the threat he posed to you 30 seconds ago? It's all still one incident, in my opinion. And Zimmerman initiated it.
- When Zimmerman chose to pursue Trayvon, Zimmerman could no longer claim the "stand your ground" defense. If Trayvon turned on him during the pursuit, Trayvon would be standing his ground, and Zimmerman would be in the wrong.
- If Zimmerman was heading back to his truck when Trayvon approached him, Zimmerman could use the stand your ground defense, and Trayvon would be in the wrong. It is my understanding that this was the belief by the police at the scene.
- From what I understand, the concept of standing your ground only permits you to defend yourself from eminent attack. It does not permit you to be the aggressor or continue your attack after the threat has been subdued. The witness saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman beating him, while Zimmerman cried and screamed for help. You can believe whatever you want from there...
As for the rest of your rant, much of what you said is true, and I agree that his actions and character leading up to the event don't really matter from a legal perspective. As you know, a lot of the ranting about this case has portrayed Trayvon as some innocent kid who was a moral cornerstone of his community. The fact is, he was at that age where he really could have used some guidance and direction. He had a string of behavioral issues leading up to this point. If that doesn't matter to you, so be it... Many of us think otherwise.There are some cases where circumstantial evidence being dismissed irritates me. This isn't one of them. This kid's history at school or any other piddly transgression people want to drag out now, is a thousand yards away from relevance as to why Zimmerman decided to follow him through a neighborhood with a gun. Zimmerman didn't know any of that shit.
Just another thought... How many 17 year old kids walk the streets after 10pm? I realize that I'm being old-fashioned again, but does that seem like appropriate behavior to you? I'm relatively certain that Zimmerman overreacted here, but doesn't he have a right to be concerned, especially with him being a Neighborhood Watch volunteer?Unless there's a citywide curfew, this is not a defense either, grandpa. My Senior year of high school, I was out on the streets until the curfew my parents gave me, which was way way way past 10pm. No one ever pulled a gun on me.
Agree 100% with last statement. That's one of the 2 points Chad made that I disagree with. The other being your middle statement.
I agree with a lot of what has been said already. It shouldn't be a race issue, but it is, because the same people always steer it in that direction.
As for the video, I don't think it helps Trayvon's case. A mug shot would be much better. You can't tell if there is swelling on Zimmerman's face in the video. The only thing you can't see is blood that would obviously be there if he was physically assaulted to the point that he feared for his life. BUT, if the officers who responded did their job (and I'm assuming they did), Zimmerman would have been treated on scene by medics and most of the visible blood would have been cleaned while checking for cuts. Now, find a mug shot of Zimmerman where there doesn't appear to be a scratch on his face or head, then I'll buy the idea that Zimmerman wasn't assaulted.
Until then, if you're dealing with only facts, there is a neighbor who witnessed Zimmerman being assaulted by Trayvon. There isn't a witness saying that Zimmerman shot Trayvon without being attacked. I know my magistrate wouldn't issue a murder warrant under those circumstances. It would most definitely be presented to the Grand Jury, but how do we know the agency wasn't going to do so? Grand Jury isn't every week, or every month.
Of the facts that have been released, it just doesn't look like Zimmerman should be arrested.
And again, the "character" argument was fine when it was being told how honest and upright of a citizen Trayvon had been. But bring up a character flaw, and it's a bunch of racial bullshit? I don't get that.
I agree with a lot of what has been said already. It shouldn't be a race issue, but it is, because the same people always steer it in that direction.
As for the video, I don't think it helps Trayvon's case. A mug shot would be much better. You can't tell if there is swelling on Zimmerman's face in the video. You can tell there isn't blood on Zimmerman in the video, BUT, if the officers who responded did their job (and I'm assuming they did), Zimmerman would have been treated on scene by medics and most of the visible blood would have been cleaned while checking for cuts. Now, find a mug shot of Zimmerman where there doesn't appear to be a scratch on his face or head, then I'll buy the idea that Zimmerman wasn't assaulted.
Until then, if you're dealing with only facts, there is a neighbor who witnessed Zimmerman being assaulted by Trayvon. There isn't a witness saying that Zimmerman shot Trayvon without being attacked. I know my magistrate wouldn't issue a murder warrant under those circumstances. It would most definitely be presented to the Grand Jury, but how do we know the agency wasn't going to do so? Grand Jury isn't every week, or every month.
Of the facts that have been released, it just doesn't look like Zimmerman should be arrested.
And again, the "character" argument was fine when it was being told how honest and upright of a citizen Trayvon had been. But bring up a character flaw, and it's a bunch of racial bullshit? I don't get that.
First bolded sentence: I've not heard anybody claim Trayvon should have expected to be stalked and shot for wearing a hoodie.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTMyb15bfAE#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTMyb15bfAE#ws)
Next 2: shit you've completely decided is "100% fact" when much of it is in dispute, or only known from one side.He didn't have a gun? He wasn't following him through a neighborhood with the gun?
[
This is universal fact. Zimmerman's account even includes this. What am I making up here? I said that the middle part of the actual altercation is still unknown at this time. I also said that the worst-case for Trayvon's case is probably true. He probably did physically attack Zimmerman first. Can't say for sure.
Until then, if you're dealing with only facts, there is a neighbor who witnessed Zimmerman being assaulted by Trayvon. There isn't a witness saying that Zimmerman shot Trayvon without being attacked.Not a fact.
Witnesses in Trayvon Martin death heard cries before shot
Witnesses say they believe Trayvon Martin cried for help just before he was shot by a watch captain
Tragic teen shooting raises old fears, questions
Shooter of Trayvon Martin a habitual caller to cops
911 tape shows George Zimmerman lamenting that the “a--holes always get away.”
By Frances Robles
SANFORD -- They heard the desperate wail of a child, a gunshot, and then silence.
Trayvon Martin, 17, died Feb. 26 in a dark pathway some 20 minutes after a neighborhood watch volunteer called police saying he thought a young stranger looked suspicious. It was raining, and the volunteer thought the kid in the hoodie walked too slow and peeked in windows.
Three witnesses contacted by The Miami Herald say they saw or heard the moments before and after the Miami Gardens teenager’s killing. All three said they heard the last howl for help from a despondent boy, and believe the sequence of sounds shatters the notion that Trayvon was killed in self-defense.
Police have not moved from their official statement of the shooting. But as the controversy grows, so does the number of voices disputing the official version that watch captain George Zimmerman gave to police: that the six-foot, three-inch, 140-pound teen assaulted him when Zimmerman, 28, tried to question him. In fear for his life, he pulled Kel Tek 9mm handgun from his waistband and shot.
From Facebook to Twitter and online petitions, local police and prosecutors are getting tens of thousands of demands for criminal charges as the national media shines a spotlight on a small, racially diverse central Florida town with a history of police tension. There are now more and more calls for the U.S. Department of Justice to intervene and try to answer: What really happened to Trayvon Martin?
“I heard someone crying — not boo-hoo crying, but scared or terrified or hurt maybe,” said Mary Cutcher, 31, who lives in the Retreat at Twin Lakes townhome community where the shooting occurred. “To me, it was a child.”
Zimmerman said he tailed Trayvon in a mission to find out if the teen was up to no good. Zimmerman was out to put a stop to recent burglaries. He dialed police — his 46th call since 2001 to report shady people, reckless drivers and other disturbances around his neighborhood.
He offered to follow his suspect, but the dispatcher told him: “We don’t need you to do that.”
Some minutes later, Trayvon was killed with a gun the watch volunteer was licensed to carry.
“This was not self-defense,” Cutcher said. “We heard no fighting, no wrestling, no punching. We heard a boy crying. As soon as the shot went off, it stopped, which tells me it was the child crying. If it had been Zimmerman crying, it wouldn’t have stopped. If you’re hurting, you’re hurting.”
She and her friend say they heard the sounds from a few steps away, where they were inside beside an open window. Seconds later, they dashed out to find a boy face down on the ground and a man standing over him, a foot on each side of the body on the ground, with his hands pinning the shooting victim down.
“I asked him, ‘What’s happening here? What’s going on?’ ” said Cutcher’s friend, Selma Mora Lamilla. “The third time, I was indignant, and he said, ‘just call the police.’ Then I saw him with his hands over his head in the universal sign of: ‘Oh man, I messed up.’ ”
The women, who were the first on the scene, said they saw Zimmerman pacing back and forth.
“I know what I heard. I heard a cry and a shot,” Mora said. “If there was a fight, it did not happen here where the boy was shot. I would have heard it, as this all happened right outside my open window.”
The women think there may well have been a physical altercation between the two, but it must have taken place in a different spot, where Zimmerman perhaps had a chance to compose himself and draw his weapon.
Cutcher was one of eight or nine 911 callers that night but she said investigators dismissed her, and a detective failed to follow up with her. Both women said police seemed very blasé.
“Mr. Zimmerman’s claim is that the confrontation was initiated by Trayvon,” Police Chief Bill Lee said in an interview. “I am not going into specifics of what led to the violent physical encounter witnessed by residents. All the physical evidence and testimony we have independent of what Mr. Zimmerman provides corroborates this claim to self-defense.”
To claim self-defense, someone has to show there was danger of great bodily harm or death, Lee said. “Zimmerman had injuries consistent with his story,” Lee said.
Zimmerman had a damp shirt, grass stains, a bloody nose and was bleeding from a wound in back of his head, according to police reports.
“If someone asks you, ‘Hey do you live here?’ is it OK for you to jump on them and beat the crap out of somebody?” Lee said. “It’s not.”
A neighborhood eighth-grader out walking his dog said his family also called 911.
“I saw someone lying on the ground, and I heard screaming,” said Austin, 13, whose mother asked that his last name not be published. “I don’t know that it was the person on the [ground] who was screaming, but to me it sounded like a kid who was crying. It was a yell for help, and I think it was Trayvon.”
Austin wasn’t sure if the person was in a fight or had slipped and gotten hurt. Austin’s boxer puppy got off the leash so the boy went chasing after the dog and lost sight of the scene for a moment. Then, he heard a gun go off.
He ran home and told his sister to call the police.
The boy, who is black, has been rattled ever since. He feels angry and disconcerted, and wonders whether he’s at risk too.
“That people can stereotype like that makes you scared,” he said.
Austin’s mom said he’s been acting out in school and seems mad all the time.
“My son has a terrible feeling of guilt, because he did not do anything to help. He’s angry,” said Austin’s mother, Cheryl Brown. “They are saying that Trayvon looked suspicious, because he was walking slow. So I guess I have to tell my son: make sure you always run fast.”
Lee released a statement Thursday disputing Cutcher’s account, saying it differed from what she originally told police, which she angrily denies.
Cutcher originally gave police a statement that matched Zimmerman’s account, said police spokesman Sgt. David Morgenstern.
Sanford’s Police Chief Lee is “asking the public and the media to give the system the opportunity to work, in the interest of safety of the community,” Morgenstern said.
Zimmerman, whose whereabouts are unknown, was not charged, and the case is now under review by the Brevard Seminole state attorney’s office. Local and national black leaders have rallied around the incident as the latest example of a double standard of justice in what they consider a case of racial profiling.
On Thursday, Zimmerman’s father hand-delivered a letter to the Orlando Sentinel, disputing widely repeated version of events, saying his Spanish-speaking son is not a racist.
“The media reports of the events are imaginary at best. At no time did George follow or confront Mr. Martin,” Robert Zimmerman wrote. “When the true details of the event become public, and I hope that will be soon, everyone should be outraged by the treatment of George Zimmerman in the media.”
A rally is planned for the Sanford City Council meeting March 26. Leaders are asking people to show up carrying Skittles, the candy Trayvon carried in his pocket when he died.
The witnesses say they are coming forward now because they were shocked when no arrest was made.
“They are protecting Zimmerman for some reason,” Trayvon’s mother Sybrina Fulton said in Miami. “They are protecting him and we feel that Trayvon is the victim.”
Lee said the matter needs to be taken to a grand jury as soon as possible.
“If the roles were reversed, our investigation would be exactly the same,” he said.
“Our investigation is color blind and based on the facts and circumstances, not color. I know I can say that until I am blue in the face, but as a white man in a uniform, I know it doesn’t mean anything to anybody.”
Not a fact.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/15/v-fullstory/2696446/trayvon-martin-case.html (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/15/v-fullstory/2696446/trayvon-martin-case.html)
“I heard someone crying — not boo-hoo crying, but scared or terrified or hurt maybe,” said Mary Cutcher, 31, who lives in the Retreat at Twin Lakes townhome community where the shooting occurred. “To me, it was a child.”
“We heard no fighting, no wrestling, no punching. We heard a boy crying. As soon as the shot went off, it stopped, which tells me it was the child crying. If it had been Zimmerman crying, it wouldn’t have stopped. If you’re hurting, you’re hurting.”
“I know what I heard. I heard a cry and a shot,” Mora said. “If there was a fight, it did not happen here where the boy was shot. I would have heard it, as this all happened right outside my open window.”
“I don’t know that it was the person on the [ground] who was screaming, but to me it sounded like a kid who was crying. It was a yell for help, and I think it was Trayvon.”
Dude. You realize things such as murder warrants can't be obtained on "I heard" "I think". That's the part that maybe some of you aren't grasping. I'll try to find it, but a release from the agency says they have a statement from an eye witness. Which means they saw. They didn't hear, they saw.I posted it in response to "There's only a witness that said Zimmerman was being attacked" "There are no witnesses that say it was the other way around."
Unless she had previously heard Zimmerman or Trayvon crying previously, she can't say which one it was. And her opinion won't stand in court.
Opinion, they didn't see anything.
Opinion. You know what type of opinion stand in court? Expert. I'm guessing Mora isn't one.
Opinion.
Really, I can't believe you posted that article as a way to combat an argument. None of that would stand in court. They would get their asses handed to them by the DA on the stand, almost to the point that the defense would likely not use them to keep themselves from looking like dumbasses.
Because the armed gunman who's been chasing you finally turns the other way, this erases the threat he posed to you 30 seconds ago? It's all still one incident, in my opinion.
I posted it in response to "There's only a witness that said Zimmerman was being attacked" "There are no witnesses that say it was the other way around."
That's just not a true statement. There are more witnesses claiming Trayvon was the one being attacked.
I haven't seen anyone saying they saw Martin beating the shit out of Zimmerman.
A new witness to the shooting has come forward and claims the 17-year-old did in fact attack George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer who shot and killed Martin.
(Are you a fan of EURweb? Like us on Facebook or Follow us on Twitter.)
Zimmerman, who was not arrested or charged by authorities, claims he shot the teenager in self-defense. Martin was unarmed.
According to Tampa Bay Fox affiliate WTVT-TV, what the witness says he saw could bolster Zimmerman’s claim that he shot Martin in self-defense:
“The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: ‘help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911,” he said.
Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.
The witness only wanted to be identified as “John,” and didn’t not want to be shown on camera.
His statements to police were instrumental, because police backed up Zimmerman’s claims, saying those screams on the 911 call are those of Zimmerman.
“When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point,” John said.
"People like me"? Way to generalize and create a position for me...again.You've been overly uptight about perceived racism as far back as I can remember, long before this shit ever happened.
If you recall, I'm the one that hasn't mentioned race at all, except to say to stop factoring race into the equation.
You're the one typing in ebonics and saying shit like he deserved it just for being in this neighborhood (walking home from the store).Oh... So, that's ebonics? Are you fucking kidding me??? Traveling back-and-forth between Atlanta and Detroit, I can honestly say that I've encountered more white people who talk like that than any other race. Just watch MTV one afternoon... You're ridiculous.
You're the one saying racist shit like:
You're that other side of the argument that disgusts me equally to the Jesse Jackson half. You're justifying their otherwise pointless rants. You're proving them right.It's called sarcasm. I'm mocking their (and your) ignorance. Proving them fools...
Stop right there. How did he know he didn't belong in his neighborhood? The kid was walking home from the store. I don't know if that was his neighborhood or not, but it obviously was within the walking distance between the store and his house.How did he know??? Zimmerman was part of the Neighborhood Watch program. It's that fucking simple!
And this is a problem. He got out of the car to follow this kid. He was the one looking for trouble and found it. Not Trayvon. He was walking home from the store, minding his own business.And, if you read on, you'll find that I do agree with you to an extent. There's no law that prevents Zimmerman from observing Trayvon, but I do think his pursuit will present a problem for him if he is charged. Again, don't forget that Zimmerman was part of the Neighborhood Watch program. It's his responsibility to be alert and keep an eye out for potential issues.
Like I said, these are all alleged events, but even if they're all true. He still was chasing this kid around the neighborhood with a gun. I'd probably blindside the motherfucker too if I got the chance, in that situation. The "at least one witness account" is matched by several more that said it was Martin's voice they heard calling for help.Here's the difference. That one witness was right there, telling Trayvon to stop his attack. It's in the recording along with Zimmerman's cries and pleas for help. Zimmerman may have followed Trayvon to observe him, but his pursuit doesn't necessarily mean that he chased this kid around with a gun. And, if Trayvon was concerned by Zimmerman, he should have called the police. We know he had a cell phone.
Totally agree with your first bullet point. Which is why it's a shoddy defense for someone who chased an unarmed kid through a neighborhood with a firearm. The second and third bullet points, though, seems silly to me. Because the armed gunman who's been chasing you finally turns the other way, this erases the threat he posed to you 30 seconds ago? It's all still one incident, in my opinion. And Zimmerman initiated it.And, that's where you'd likely be wrong. When Zimmerman headed back to his vehicle, he posed no immediate threat to Trayvon anymore. It's the way the law was written. I don't have anything to do with it.
There are some cases where circumstantial evidence being dismissed irritates me. This isn't one of them. This kid's history at school or any other piddly transgression people want to drag out now, is a thousand yards away from relevance as to why Zimmerman decided to follow him through a neighborhood with a gun. Zimmerman didn't know any of that shit.You're centering this around Zimmerman. Let's center this around Trayvon for a moment without excusing his inappropriate behavior. Why was he walking the streets after hours? Why was he in that neighborhood? If he was concerned about Zimmerman, why didn't he just call the police on his cell phone? Why did he think it was appropriate to attack an adult? I know that you don't see it, but Trayvon's behavior is more of the issue from my perspective. And, what if Zimmerman was a security guard, off-duty police officer or undercover police officer? The same thing would have likely occurred because Trayvon's behavior was inappropriate.
Unless there's a citywide curfew, this is not a defense either, grandpa. My Senior year of high school, I was out on the streets until the curfew my parents gave me, which was way way way past 10pm. No one ever pulled a gun on me.I'm willing to bet the difference is that you never found yourself in a high-crime neighborhood where you didn't belong.
Why was he walking the streets after hours?Because he wanted some skittles.
Why was he in that neighborhood?Because it was on the way back to his house from the store where said Skittles were purchased.
If he was concerned about Zimmerman, why didn't he just call the police on his cell phone?Easy for you to say after the fact. I'm pretty sure if you're being followed by a guy with a gun, primitive instincts are gonna take over. What's he going to do, call the cops right in front of the gunman? "Hey man, can you wait right there a second? I'm gonna call the cops on you. Just hang tight with that gun, and please refuse from using it. Thanks, bro."
Why did he think it was appropriate to attack an adult?Because the adult had a gun and was stalking him on his way home?
Easy for you to say after the fact. I'm pretty sure if you're being followed by a guy with a gun, primitive instincts are gonna take over. What's he going to do, call the cops right in front of the gunman? "Hey man, can you wait right there a second? I'm gonna call the cops on you. Just hang tight with that gun, and please refuse from using it. Thanks, bro."The assumption that you and others are making is that Trayvon knew that Zimmerman had a gun. I'm sorry... If you were unarmed, would you ever attack somebody who had a firearm? I mean, this just marches lockstep with more inappropriate behavior. How stupid do you have to be? And, I know that some people are incapable of chewing gum and walking at the same time, but this kid was able to talk to his girlfriend, eat Skittles, drink tea and walk home all at about the same time. Would calling the police have been that much more difficult for him?
Because the adult had a gun and was stalking him on his way home?Again, would a reasonable person who is unarmed attack somebody who has a firearm? No fucking way... But, you're right. Primitive instincts do take over. They tell you to run like hell... in the opposite direction.
Because he wanted some skittles.Because it was on the way back to his house from the store where said Skittles were purchased.Easy for you to say after the fact. I'm pretty sure if you're being followed by a guy with a gun, primitive instincts are gonna take over. What's he going to do, call the cops right in front of the gunman? "Hey man, can you wait right there a second? I'm gonna call the cops on you. Just hang tight with that gun, and please refuse from using it. Thanks, bro."Because the adult had a gun and was stalking him on his way home?
Because he wanted some skittles.Because it was on the way back to his house from the store where said Skittles were purchased.Easy for you to say after the fact. I'm pretty sure if you're being followed by a guy with a gun, primitive instincts are gonna take over. What's he going to do, call the cops right in front of the gunman? "Hey man, can you wait right there a second? I'm gonna call the cops on you. Just hang tight with that gun, and please refuse from using it. Thanks, bro."Because the adult had a gun and was stalking him on his way home?
You are dumbYou are a fucktard.
I think the police report states that Zimmerman had the gun in the holster when Trayvon attacked him.So you guys all think that a reasonable person would think this guy was following him through the neighborhood, looking frazzled and alarmed, to what? High five him?
So you guys all think that a reasonable person would think this guy was following him through the neighborhood, looking frazzled and alarmed, to what? High five him?I think it's pretty simple. I wouldn't expect a reasonable person to attack someone who had been chasing or following him, looking frazzled and alarmed with a firearm. If you have a legitimate concern about a given situation, you get the fuck out of there and call the police.
You are dumbHow is he dumb for stating facts? He went to a store to get a sweet tea and skittles, and was heading home. All of these facts have been listed and corroborated by multiple sources, including his girlfriend (who he was on the phone with).
How is he dumb for stating facts? He went to a store to get a sweet tea and skittles, and was heading home. All of these facts have been listed and corroborated by multiple sources, including his girlfriend (who he was on the phone with).
Please tell me what relevance there is to Trayvon's purpose in going to the store, or in what he purchased as to whether or not he may or may not have attacked Zimmerman?
His argument is emotional, and based around base facts, from which he's extrapolates to his own "facts" to support such things as characterizing Zimmerman as "stalking him with a gun". It's why when you question him about "facts" he defaults to "Zimmerman shot an unarmed 17 year old, is that disputed?" No, it's not, and it's not near enough facts for intelligent people to make a decision one way or the other. We don't know if Zimmerman did anything other than follow him at a distance. We don't know when he drew his gun. Rational people who wait on facts don't know much of what would be needed to make a decision, but chizads dumb fuck ass made a decision long ago, and nothing will dissuade him and he'll frame his arguments around his "facts" to persuade anybody that will listen. Please tell me what relevance there is to Trayvon's purpose in going to the store, or in what he purchased as to whether or not he may or may not have attacked Zimmerman?
I posted it in response to "There's only a witness that said Zimmerman was being attacked" "There are no witnesses that say it was the other way around."
That's just not a true statement. There are more witnesses claiming Trayvon was the one being attacked.
I haven't seen anyone saying they saw Martin beating the shit out of Zimmerman.
There are still things we don't know, namely forensics. If the forensic evidence supports Zimmerman's account, then he's legally in the clear. If it's contradictory, then he's got a problem.
His argument is emotional, and based around base facts, from which he's extrapolates to his own "facts" to support such things as characterizing Zimmerman as "stalking him with a gun". It's why when you question him about "facts" he defaults to "Zimmerman shot an unarmed 17 year old, is that disputed?" No, it's not, and it's not near enough facts for intelligent people to make a decision one way or the other. We don't know if Zimmerman did anything other than follow him at a distance. We don't know when he drew his gun. Rational people who wait on facts don't know much of what would be needed to make a decision, but chizads dumb fuck ass made a decision long ago, and nothing will dissuade him and he'll frame his arguments around his "facts" to persuade anybody that will listen. Please tell me what relevance there is to Trayvon's purpose in going to the store, or in what he purchased as to whether or not he may or may not have attacked Zimmerman?Your belligerence astounds me. No matter how many leather bound books you have, or what they smell like.
Why was he walking the streets after hours?
Because he wanted some skittles.
Why was he in that neighborhood?
Because it was on the way back to his house from the store where said Skittles were purchased.
If he was concerned about Zimmerman, why didn't he just call the police on his cell phone?
Easy for you to say after the fact. I'm pretty sure if you're being followed by a guy with a gun, primitive instincts are gonna take over. What's he going to do, call the cops right in front of the gunman? "Hey man, can you wait right there a second? I'm gonna call the cops on you. Just hang tight with that gun, and please refuse from using it. Thanks, bro."
Quote
Why did he think it was appropriate to attack an adult?
Because the adult had a gun and was stalking him on his way home?
Why was he walking the streets after hours?
Because he wanted some skittles. completely irrelevant as to whether he later attacked Zimmerman or not
Why was he in that neighborhood?
Because it was on the way back to his house from the store where said Skittles were purchased. Once again, completely irrelevant
If he was concerned about Zimmerman, why didn't he just call the police on his cell phone?
Easy for you to say after the fact. I'm pretty sure if you're being followed by a guy with a gun, primitive instincts are gonna take over. What's he going to do, call the cops right in front of the gunman? "Hey man, can you wait right there a second? I'm gonna call the cops on you. Just hang tight with that gun, and please refuse from using it. Thanks, bro." You keep trying to advance the idea that Zimmerman not only had a gun, which we all know, but that he had it where Trayvon could see it, and/or was threatening him with it while "stalking him". FAIL! Nothing to support that, but thanks for playing "see it my way because I'm emotional and irrational" bro!
Why did he think it was appropriate to attack an adult?
Because the adult had a gun and was stalking him on his way home? Once again, you use your own characterizations to attempt to influence anybody that will listen. You characterize Zimmerman as, a neighborhood watch member who owned a firearm, as "stalking him with a gun." Once again, it's your slant, and a biased one at that. It's the same thing as when you keep mentioning skittles with every breath to attempt to paint Trayvon as non threatening.
Moreover, if I were he were following Trayvon at a safe distance, and Trayvon felt threatened, Trayvon had the right to STAND HIS GROUND, NOT GO ON THE ATTACK! If Zimmerman had brandished a gun, even from a distance, that would certainly change things, and Trayvon, unarmed, would have a choice to run, or neutralize the perceived threat. What would an intelligent person do? In the absence of Zimmerman advancing on him as he stood his ground (as opposed to following him to keep him in sight), or brandishing a weapon, Trayvon had no legal right to close the gap, and go on the attack. And the fact is, there's nothing to suggest Trayvon knew he had a gun until he was shot. There is circumstantial evidence to suggest the contrary, namely that he attacked Zimmerman, which a rational person wouldn't normally do if they had an escape, and Zimmerman, had he had his gun drawn, would never have let Trayvon get within striking distance to knock him to the ground. of which there is physical and eye witness evidence to support.
So, I don't want to hear any of you fuckers gawddamn shit about "just going to the store for skittles and sweet tea". That means exactly jack shit as to what happened in that minute or so of time where the incident happened, and the reason folks keep parroting it, is that if you keep on saying he was a "just kid that went to the store for candy", the mental picture you (those of you that are prone to buy in to such suggestions) get of Trayvon is more childlike. The skittles in his pocket are as irrelevant as the fact that he'd been suspended from school sometime in the past.(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ln2ogzIAAX1qafrh6.png)
I mean he shot that poor innocent little black boy cause he was cold from dranking his sweet tea and had to put his hoodie on at night......Damn WHITE RACIST shot him in cold blood!I bet these pictures terrify you. Good luck trying to ever sleep again.
Zimmerman shot and killed a kid for no goddamn reason. He should be locked up.
completely irrelevant as to whether he later attacked Zimmerman or notWho's saying it is? It's the answer to the fucking question that was asked. YOU'RE the one making up that anyone is using Skittles as a fucking defense. It is the answer to the question that was asked.
Once again, completely irrelevantOnce again, the answer to the goddamn question.
You keep trying to advance the idea that Zimmerman not only had a gun, which we all know, but that he had it where Trayvon could see it, and/or was threatening him with it while "stalking him". FAIL! Nothing to support that, but thanks for playing "see it my way because I'm emotional and irrational" bro!Play the semantics game if you wish. But the fact that we all know as truth is that Zimmerman was following Trayvon for quite a while through the neighborhood. He admitted on the 911 tape that he was pursuing the kid. He was most likely following him in his car, going slower than Trayvon was walking in order to follow him, since we know the car was near the scene. Would that not concern a rational person? If it's your kid, and some car is clearly following them walk through a neighborhood, and then gets out of the car, whether or not they see the gun that he factually had on him, what do you want him to do? Stand his ground.
You also once again have tried to paint someone with an opposing point of view as being in a rage, and this time, in your weakest attempt ever, in a rage over your fucking avatar.Once again you miss the point.
:facepalm:
Chizad, my problem with your argument basically stems from this statement.Fair enough.
You said yourself, you want to get the facts in, but that statement doesn't go hand in hand with wanting the facts. It appears as if you've already made up your mind.
We don't know where the weapon was on Zimmerman when he confronted Martin. Was it in his hand? Was it aimed at Martin? I have no idea, neither do you. I'm sure that the forensic people are looking at this right now. How close was Martin to Zimmerman when the fatal shot occurred?
If the DA presses charges, and Zimemerman is found guilty of manslaughter or murder, then he should go to jail. I'm content to let the law enforcement officials do their jobs.
Maybe the law will find that Zimmerman "stood his ground", and acted in self defense. If that's the way the law is written, then no gripes from me if he walks. I'm just saying, looking at the facts of the case, to say that it was Trayvon who was "looking for trouble" and "had it coming" is ludicrous on its face. Even if Zimmerman walks, in my eyes, he was the aggressor for following an unarmed kid through a neighborhood with a gun, even after police told him to stop doing that***. And we all know how it ended. He shot an unarmed kid, and killed him. This is a fact.
So without wading through all these pages, have we found out why the Hispanic was following the African American instead of installing drywall?
As far as Zimmerman being an upstanding citizen that was 100% justified in following this unarmed kid and ultimately shooting him, to me, it doesn't matter a whole lot. Even if Trayvon Stood His Ground and attacked Zimmerman physically first, which I personally believe he did, in my opinion, he was justified in doing so because a stranger was following him for several blocks, looking for trouble.
Because he had to leave the State of Alabama, since you fuckers there hate Mexicans.
As far as the order of the law, that fuzzy window of what transpired mattered. As far as Zimmerman being an upstanding citizen that was 100% justified in following this unarmed kid and ultimately shooting him, to me, it doesn't matter a whole lot. Even if Trayvon Stood His Ground and attacked Zimmerman physically first, which I personally believe he did, in my opinion, he was justified in doing so because a stranger was following him for several blocks, looking for trouble.
His argument is emotional, and based around base facts, from which he's extrapolates to his own "facts" to support such things as characterizing Zimmerman as "stalking him with a gun". It's why when you question him about "facts" he defaults to "Zimmerman shot an unarmed 17 year old, is that disputed?" No, it's not, and it's not near enough facts for intelligent people to make a decision one way or the other. We don't know if Zimmerman did anything other than follow him at a distance. We don't know when he drew his gun. Rational people who wait on facts don't know much of what would be needed to make a decision, but chizads dumb fuck ass made a decision long ago, and nothing will dissuade him and he'll frame his arguments around his "facts" to persuade anybody that will listen. Please tell me what relevance there is to Trayvon's purpose in going to the store, or in what he purchased as to whether or not he may or may not have attacked Zimmerman?
You were almost coming around, then you wrote that. It's a good thing too, because you make the case against yourself. If Trayvon felt threatened, which may or may not have been reasonable, he had a right to "stand his ground" not advance on and attack Zimmerman. You can't stand your ground and, at the same time attack. Zimmerman wasn't "looking for trouble" and his 911 call pretty well confirms what he was doing. Your understanding of what is justified under the law is wrong.I think we can discuss this like adults again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9A-gp8mrdw# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9A-gp8mrdw#)
On the phone with 911, calm, or apparently so. Don't know if he's in or out of the vehicle.
At the one minute mark Zimmerman says: "Now he's coming towards me". "He's got his hand in his wasteband."
A few seconds later: "He's coming to check me out, he's got something in his hand"
A bit later: "These assholes, they always get away" (At this point, it would seem clear that the distance between them is still such that Zimmerman doesn't feel an imminent threat as he calmly gives more directions to dispatch, and he's certainly not panicking, nor out of breath from "chasing" and has made no overt threat to Trayvon)
At 2:10: "Shit, he's running" (Wind noise would seem to indicate he's following on foot) This is when dispatch says: "Are you following him?" "We don't need you to do that". To which Zimmer replied "Ok".
At the 2:40 mark Zimmerman: "He ran"
It's clear that he's not giving foot pursuit, or at least not running. He's calmly giving his name and phone number. You can no longer hear wind noise, which seem to indicate he was back at his truck, and he's telling them where he's parked. It's clear at the end of the call(or at least TO ME, the tone of voice and words indicate to me that Zimmerman was no longer in following, or in pursuit, and had lost sight of Trayvon, and was now going to wait for police)
I think we can discuss this like adults again.
What I hear from those tapes only strengthens my position on who was looking for trouble, and whether or not Trayvon acted appropriately.
He did exactly what I would hope my kid would do if some guy is following him around a neighborhood driving slowly behind him in a car. Fucking run. Get out of there. That's what he tried to do, but Zimmerman kept up the chase. Ran after him on foot.
Him saying he's "coming towards him with something in his hand" and then a few seconds later complaining that "these assholes always get away" contradict each other. Seems like at the "He's coming toward me" portion of the call was when Trayvon became alerted that he had been following him and was surveilling him. So what did he do? He ran away. Tried to escape from the guy who had been following him for apparently no reason.
What happened when running didn't work? When the guy got out of his car and started chasing him on foot? He asked him what the fuck his problem was and attacked him (allegedly).
Given what we know transpired for a fact, and what can be gathered from the 911 call, in my opinion, Travon Martin did everything exactly as you would expect anyone to under the same situation to do. He did what I would hope my kid would do. He did what I certainly would have done. But Zimmerman, because he was so paranoid about this kid walking through his neighborhood wouldn't give it up and ended up shooting the kid.
All I'm saying.
Martin's girlfriend had said in a recording obtained exclusively by ABC News that she heard Martin ask Zimmerman "why are your following me, and then the man asked, what are you doing around here." She then heard a scuffle break out and the line went dead.
Chad, I know you poked fun at JR with the leather bound books comment, but he IS a Prosecutor in an Alabama County. I know of some of the cases he has dealt with in the news. He has dealt with several similar cases and knows his shit accordingly. It doesn't mean he is the be all of everything but it does mean this is his area and he does it everyday. Is anyone else in this thread a Prosecutor of this types of cases? I think you just don't like his contribution to this because it conflicts with your opinion.Couldn't be further from the truth.
Couldn't be further from the truth.
I 100% defer to him as to how this will be interpreted by the law. At no point did I claim expertise in that area of it. I said multiple times, that if that's the way the law is written and should legally be interpreted, then I'm cool with that. GarMan scoffed at the notion, that I still think, from what I have gathered, that I don't think Zimmerman was justified in killing this kid, no matter what. He brought him on himself. Legally? That's still yet to be seen. Practically? Exactly what was previously stated about Trayvon, instead applies to Zimmerman. He was looking for trouble, and he found it.
What I "don't like" is when he barks about intelligence and dismisses a string of facts with "You are dumb."
I think we can discuss this like adults again.
What I hear from those tapes only strengthens my position on who was looking for trouble, and whether or not Trayvon acted appropriately.
All I'm saying.
Zimmerman has a high voice on that 911 call. I bet he sounds like a child when he cries.
That's what Sandusky said.
I think we can discuss this like adults again.
What I hear from those tapes only strengthens my position on who was looking for trouble, and whether or not Trayvon acted appropriately.
He did exactly what I would hope my kid would do if some guy is following him around a neighborhood driving slowly behind him in a car. Fucking run. Get out of there. That's what he tried to do, but Zimmerman kept up the chase. Ran after him on foot.
Him saying he's "coming towards him with something in his hand" and then a few seconds later complaining that "these assholes always get away" contradict each other. Seems like at the "He's coming toward me" portion of the call was when Trayvon became alerted that he had been following him and was surveilling him. So what did he do? He ran away. Tried to escape from the guy who had been following him for apparently no reason.
What happened when running didn't work? When the guy got out of his car and started chasing him on foot? He asked him what the fuck his problem was and attacked him (allegedly).
Given what we know transpired for a fact, and what can be gathered from the 911 call, in my opinion, Travon Martin did everything exactly as you would expect anyone to under the same situation to do. He did what I would hope my kid would do. He did what I certainly would have done. But Zimmerman, because he was so paranoid about this kid walking through his neighborhood wouldn't give it up and ended up shooting the kid.
All I'm saying.
Too soon?
Further, police reports cite that Zimmerman's back was wet and had grass on it . . .
Did you guys also realize that this was a gated community? I'm sorry... I just heard that and confirmed it online. Trayvon had absolutely no motherfucking business being there. END OF STORY!
Couldn't be further from the truth.
I 100% defer to him as to how this will be interpreted by the law. At no point did I claim expertise in that area of it. I said multiple times, that if that's the way the law is written and should legally be interpreted, then I'm cool with that. GarMan scoffed at the notion, that I still think, from what I have gathered, that I don't think Zimmerman was justified in killing this kid, no matter what. He brought him on himself. Legally? That's still yet to be seen. Practically? Exactly what was previously stated about Trayvon, instead applies to Zimmerman. He was looking for trouble, and he found it.
What I "don't like" is when he barks about intelligence and dismisses a string of facts with "You are dumb."
I thought he was in the community visiting is father's fiancee. I assumed that she lived in that community. Does she not?
This is pointless... Even though the evidence overwhelmingly supports what most of us have been saying, AUJizzad will never accept that he is wrong. Just look at his response...I love how you say all evidence and facts point one way, towards your view, yet JR and others argue that we don't know all the facts yet and should wait for their release. Which is it? Are all of the facts released? Or do you just rabble rabble rabble along and don't even realize what has been said?
The relevant facts don't matter a whole lot to him. It's his emotional based opinion of the situation that trumps all legal relevance.
You just can't counter that sort of infantile reasoning.
His argument is emotional, and based around base facts, from which he's extrapolates to his own "facts" to support such things as characterizing Zimmerman as "stalking him with a gun". It's why when you question him about "facts" he defaults to "Zimmerman shot an unarmed 17 year old, is that disputed?" No, it's not, and it's not near enough facts for intelligent people to make a decision one way or the other. We don't know if Zimmerman did anything other than follow him at a distance. We don't know when he drew his gun. Rational people who wait on facts don't know much of what would be needed to make a decision, but chizads dumb fuck ass made a decision long ago, and nothing will dissuade him and he'll frame his arguments around his "facts" to persuade anybody that will listen. Please tell me what relevance there is to Trayvon's purpose in going to the store, or in what he purchased as to whether or not he may or may not have attacked Zimmerman?
Putting your underhanded racism aside, none of that above matters to the case at hand at all. And actually, In court, none of that would be admissible. So, I guess, the entire legal system in the United States, Great Britain, and Common law disagree with you. They are probably wrong too though, and dumb.
What I hear from those tapes only strengthens my position on who was looking for trouble,
This is where I lose it with our judicial system. This concept of "admissible" is asinine. Prior bad acts DO relate to how people behave. In every world other than the legal system people study trends and patterns to predict future behaviors.
The technicalities for excluding evidence are ridiculous.
Fuck court. It's a messed up system.
fixt
No shit Sherlock. That is what neighborhood watches do. THEY LOOK FOR TROUBLE MAKERS.
Man, if only I could just put the person and all their past bad acts on trial, rather than the evidence itself, then I could convict almost anybody of anything.
The purpose of a trial is to put forth evidence of the criminal act that is the subject matter at hand, not try to make the defendant look like a bad person in order to sustain a conviction based on that.
How would a 10 year old conviction for possession of marijuana for persona use, be relevant to a current charge of assault? The answer is, in the mind of a juror, they'd tune out the evidence once they decided the defendant was "a criminal that must have done it this time too" based on something completely unrelated from his past.
There is a way to get certain past bad act in though, they just have to be relevant. Like, if you're charge with assault, and have a previous assault conviction. That could come in.
Leopards are leopards.
fixt
Work with me here!
Which is why if they have past leopardly acts in their history, and you charge them with a current leopardly act, you can get that past leopardly act in. But if you charge the leopard with a baboon like act, the past leopardly behavior isnt' relevant.
I love how you say all evidence and facts point one way, towards your view, yet JR and others argue that we don't know all the facts yet and should wait for their release. Which is it? Are all of the facts released? Or do you just rabble rabble rabble along and don't even realize what has been said?The known evidence, the accounts that we can assume to be correct and the legal situation support what many of us have been saying. I don't doubt that there are still more facts to be ascertained and evidence to be discovered. Are we really at the point where I need to start quoting my previous comments to verify what I posted? Aside from that, I really love how you guys assemble your own set of speculative occurrences to support your silly-assed positions.
I really don't understand your incapability of seeing another persons point. Everything isn't always black or white, and I hate to break it to you buddy, but you aren't always right.I think that's exactly the point. I'm really just trying to understand your gurlz's position. Accusing a Neighborhood Watch volunteer of looking for trouble seems to be a completely absurd position. But, you seem to find absolutely nothing wrong with a kid who wandered into a gated community, after hours, behaving suspiciously and attacking an adult. It's not so much that you're both wrong here. You gurlz are not even being reasonably objective in your analysis or understanding of the situation.
But if you charge the leopard with a baboon like act, the past leopardly behavior isnt' relevant.Baboon one day (Isn't that racist?)... Leopard the next... He's still behaving like an animal, but I understand your point.
Character matters.
RULES OF EVIDENCE
Article IV. RELEVANCY AND ITS LIMITS
As amended through January 1, 2012
Rule 404. Character evidence not admissible to prove conduct; exceptions; other crimes, wrongs, or acts
(a) Character evidence generally. Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except:
(1) CHARACTER OF ACCUSED. Evidence of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same;
(2) CHARACTER OF VICTIM.
(A) In criminal cases. (i) Evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or (ii) evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor;
(B) In civil cases. Evidence of character for violence of the victim of assaultive conduct offered on the issue of self-defense by a party accused of assaultive conduct, or evidence of character for peacefulness to rebut the same;
(3) CHARACTER OF WITNESS. Evidence of the character of a witness, as provided in Rules 607, 608, 609, and 616.
(b) Other crimes, wrongs, or acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial.
Character matters.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Martin Luther King, Jr. 28 August 1963
Because we all know it’s ok to show your displeasure when you disagree with something toThat'll just give people like me and other angry white men more target practice. Wait... What?ranch sackransack your city, stores and your neighborhood.
That'll just give people like me and other angry white men more target practice. Wait... What?
If you would just quit being a "typical white person" clinging to your guns and religion. You racist evil devil nazi.The unfortunate thing here is that while we joke about these absurd racially charged positions, people like AUJizzad and Tail actually believe this sort of race-baiting propaganda. Never mind the fact that if you completely take race out of this, I still end up with my same conclusions. A Neighborhood Watch volunteer was observing a suspicious person in a gated community...
The unfortunate thing here is that while we joke about these absurd racially charged positions, people like AUJizzad and Tail actually believe this sort of race-baiting propaganda. Never mind the fact that if you completely take race out of this, I still end up with my same conclusions. A Neighborhood Watch volunteer was observing a suspicious person in a gated community...
But here's the thing, neither side, at least not the extremes, which are the ones most vocal, give one shit about the truth. Trayvon's people, Jesse, and Al, don't give a single shit about what happened out there that night, they only care about shouting "he shot an unarmed 17 year old boy with a pocket full of skittles". And yes there's an equal and opposite extreme too.
What I find amusing are the protests, and how the police should arrest Zimmerman. What I want to ask is, "and charge him with what?" If the DA thought he had a good case for murder or manslaughter, wouldn't he have already arrested him?
They are currently trying DESPERATELY to find a case.Finding probable cause is a damn sight from finding beyond a reasonable doubt. If the DA is struggling with PC....
They are currently trying DESPERATELY to find a case.
This is what I find the most unfortunate thing about this. Folks are trying to force that law into action based on a racial premise. Take race out of the picture, then you remove the pressure, then you have a clear headed conclusion.Exactly.
Exactly.Also at the end of the day, Zimmerman "started it" by following this kid to a point where he felt threatened enough to try to run away from Zimmerman, who chased him on foot and lamented that "the assholes always get away", and then when that didn't work resulted to attacking him. And then Zimmerman shot and killed someone who was unarmed, which is not equal force.
I just don't see how this is so fucking hard for some people to wrap their heads around. When you remove all of the bullshit surrounding this, you're left with at least one witness who says they SAW the kid attacking this guy. They didn't hear and formed their own opinion based on what they heard. They saw what they saw. That is going to be admissable in court all day long. The "I heard, and my opinion is...." bullshit would get ripped to shreds in a nanosecond. I don't give two fucks if this kid was 10, 17, or 50. If he physically attacked somebody, unarmed or not, it's on like Donkey Kong. Especially if we're talking about this kid hitting the guy's head into the ground. But I don't really think that's a deal breaker either. Make whatever assumptions you want to make about the past of both parties, but at the end of the day, it appears that at this time you're left with a guy who was attacked and shot his attacker.
Also at the end of the day, Zimmerman "started it" by following this kid to a point where he felt threatened enough to try to run away from Zimmerman, who chased him on foot and lamented that "the assholes always get away", and then when that didn't work resulted to attacking him. And then Zimmerman shot and killed someone who was unarmed, which is not equal force.
To be honest, this is exactly the way my thinking was swayed because its exactly the way the media was painting the picture. After stepping back and removing the so called race card element, things are not as murky. The point this whole case has gotten to now, I have stopped paying attention to it. Of course I would want the justice to be served and all but at this point I am more concerned if this thing turns into a full blown catastrophe.How did the media "paint it" that way?
Also at the end of the day, Zimmerman "started it" by following this kid to a point where he felt threatened enough to try to run away from Zimmerman, who chased him on foot and lamented that "the assholes always get away", and then when that didn't work resulted to attacking him. And then Zimmerman shot and killed someone who was unarmed, which is not equal force.
Also at the end of the day, Zimmerman "started it" by following this kid to a point where he felt threatened enough to try to run away from Zimmerman, who chased him on foot and lamented that "the assholes always get away", and then when that didn't work resulted to attacking him. And then Zimmerman shot and killed someone who was unarmed, which is not equal force.
How did the media "paint it" that way?
• Zimmerman followed the kid through the neighborhood - Confirmed by the 911 call, and Zimmerman's accounts
• Martin felt threatened enough to try to run away from Zimmerman, who chased him on foot and lamented that "the assholes always get away" - Confirmed by the 911 call.
• And then Zimmerman shot and killed someone who was unarmed, which is not equal force - Is this not completely fact? Maybe there's room for debate as to whether or not Martin's attack should be considered "deadly force", but typically fisticuffs are not.
How did the media "paint it" that way?
By the initial info and opinions being one sided thats how. I am of belief that the initial info released by the national media was not fully objective and skewed.
Also at the end of the day, Zimmerman "started it" by following this kid to a point where he felt threatened enough to try to run away from Zimmerman, who chased him on foot and lamented that "the assholes always get away", and then when that didn't work resulted to attacking him. And then Zimmerman shot and killed someone who was unarmed, which is not equal force.
Because you haven't been asked, and you obviously feel as though "equal force" is relevant in this case. Why do you think the DA and police agency in this case didn't charge Zimmerman?
Awe come on, it's racial and you know it. Zimmerman chased down a young black kid in a hoodie with a pocket full of skittles, and gunned him down just for shits and giggles.
I listened to the 911 tape. What I heard was not Zimmerman ever running.
At 2:10: "Shit, he's running" (Wind noise would seem to indicate he's following on foot) This is when dispatch says: "Are you following him?" "We don't need you to do that". To which Zimmer replied "Ok".
At the 2:40 mark Zimmerman: "He ran"
One doesn't have to be armed to present a threat of serious bodily injury, or death. And that really is the only issue here, is whether Zimmerman reasonably feared serious bodily injury or death. And one of the considerations is, that if you're armed with a gun, and lose the physical fight, it's reasonable to assume you'll lose your weapon and be in serious danger. Zimmerman is claiming Trayvon tried to take the gun, and that is enough to use deadly force to stop it.Fair enough. I'll give you that. Although, that is more of a hypothetical than anything I've stated to get a collective :facepalm: from everyone in this thread.
By the initial info and opinions being one sided thats how. I am of belief that the initial info released by the national media was not fully objective and skewed.I completely agree with this statement. Again, how do they affect any of the facts that I just listed? That's the disconnect here. I tend to agree that the media overblew and skewed this to manufacture as much public outcry as possible, but you people are facepalming at facts like "Zimmerman followed him through the neighborhood" or "Martin tried to run away" or "Zimmerman killed an unarmed kid".
Awe come on, it's racial and you know it. Zimmerman chased down a young black kid in a hoodie with a pocket full of skittles, and gunned him down just for shits and giggles.Like clockwork, yet another exaggerated straw man you all can rail against instead of my actual posts.
ORLY?
Zimmerman shot and killed a kid for no goddamn reason.
Like clockwork, yet another exaggerated straw man you all can rail against instead of my actual posts.
RLY. I said I didn't hear him running, as in out of breath. He clearly was out of the car, he followed for some unknown distance, and that's not in dispute. He said "he ran". That to me, in the past tense, indicates he lost sight of Trayvon, and I never heard anything on the tape to indicate he chased him down. When the dispatcher told him not to follow him, he said "ok".The point is, Trayvon ran, and he was following him. He sounded slightly out of breath to me, but I know there's no room for my opinions in this discussion. Also, it's possible that it was a windy day, but it's also highly possible that the wind noises were from him running while on the cell phone.
You can ignore facts, or lack of facts, and you clearly started out with a preconceived notion of what happened, and had chosen a side, when you stated this:Keep ignoring context. Yes, that is an oversimplication of the events that took place. Zimmerman started it by following the kid around reporting him to the police "for no goddamn reason". This resulted in him shooting and killing a kid. Do you believe that Trayon just attacked him 100% unprovoked? They were both just strolling along minding their own business and then Trayvon came up and attacked him?
Zimmerman gives a reason, self defense. It's a viable defense. I pretty well expect the forensics to back it up, but they may not.
The point is, Trayvon ran, and he was following him. He sounded slightly out of breath to me, but I know there's no room for my opinions in this discussion. Also, it's possible that it was a windy day, but it's also highly possible that the wind noises were from him running while on the cell phone.
Keep ignoring context. Yes, that is an oversimplication of the events that took place. Zimmerman started it by following the kid around reporting him to the police "for no goddamn reason". This resulted in him shooting and killing a kid. Do you believe that Trayon just attacked him 100% unprovoked? They were both just strolling along minding their own business and then Trayvon came up and attacked him?
All this discussion kind of hits home for me. I live on one road in our neighborhood where mine and one house across the street are the only 2 homes on that street. The road winds by a pond and up nto a cul-de-sac. For years, it's been a popular place for people to park and knock off a little, party and so forth and so on. However, over the last year, a lot of stuff has been going on that doesn't need to be happening, like these guys making moltov cocktails and blowing them up in the street.
It's kind of a joke around the neighborhood that I'm the "Keeper of the Cul-de-sac" because if I see a vehicle go by after dark...they have no business being down there. So, I hop in the truck, keep the lights off and pop them on when I get close to whoever is down there. I've easily chased 20-25 vehicles out of there in the last 6 months alone. I've confronted several who refused to drive off and got the cops on the firestarters. And yes, I carry my gun, even though I've never pulled it or flashed it. Just there for protection. Even though I've had a lot of fun "Busting" these people, I've started getting worried about potential problems and running into someone who might not find my little neighborhood watch activities so humorous.
The last time kind of made me stop and think. A few weeks ago, saw a truck go by on a Friday night. Raining like a broke-dick dog. I pulled down there and it turns out there were a bunch of people who had gone down to the pond. They were partying in a dang thunderstorm. When they saw my lights, they panicked and one truck slipped down the embankment. Now, this cracked me up...until I saw someone running up the road to my house. I stopped him in the driveway and it turned out he was just there to beg me not to call the cops and they'd clear out as soon as they could get the truck unstuck....ya' think there might have been some drugs down there? Hmmmm...
Anywho...after my tl;dr story...when a dude is coming out of the woods at night in a driving rainstorm to your house...I may just let the police handle that stuff from now on.
Just one thing, how does it rain like a broke-dick dog?
That shit just pours
All this discussion kind of hits home for me. I live on one road in our neighborhood where mine and one house across the street are the only 2 homes on that street. The road winds by a pond and up nto a cul-de-sac. For years, it's been a popular place for people to park and knock off a little, party and so forth and so on. However, over the last year, a lot of stuff has been going on that doesn't need to be happening, like these guys making moltov cocktails and blowing them up in the street.
It's kind of a joke around the neighborhood that I'm the "Keeper of the Cul-de-sac" because if I see a vehicle go by after dark...they have no business being down there. So, I hop in the truck, keep the lights off and pop them on when I get close to whoever is down there. I've easily chased 20-25 vehicles out of there in the last 6 months alone. I've confronted several who refused to drive off and got the cops on the firestarters. And yes, I carry my gun, even though I've never pulled it or flashed it. Just there for protection. Even though I've had a lot of fun "Busting" these people, I've started getting worried about potential problems and running into someone who might not find my little neighborhood watch activities so humorous.
The last time kind of made me stop and think. A few weeks ago, saw a truck go by on a Friday night. Raining like a broke-dick dog. I pulled down there and it turns out there were a bunch of people who had gone down to the pond. They were partying in a dang thunderstorm. When they saw my lights, they panicked and one truck slipped down the embankment. Now, this cracked me up...until I saw someone running up the road to my house. I stopped him in the driveway and it turned out he was just there to beg me not to call the cops and they'd clear out as soon as they could get the truck unstuck....ya' think there might have been some drugs down there? Hmmmm...
Anywho...after my tl;dr story...when a dude is coming out of the woods at night in a driving rainstorm to your house...I may just let the police handle that stuff from now on.
Like clockwork, yet another exaggerated straw man you all can rail against instead of my actual posts.
The point is, Trayvon ran, and he was following him. He sounded slightly out of breath to me, but I know there's no room for my opinions in this discussion. Also, it's possible that it was a windy day, but it's also highly possible that the wind noises were from him running while on the cell phone.
Keep ignoring context. Yes, that is an oversimplication of the events that took place. Zimmerman started it by following the kid around reporting him to the police "for no goddamn reason". This resulted in him shooting and killing a kid. Do you believe that Trayon just attacked him 100% unprovoked? They were both just strolling along minding their own business and then Trayvon came up and attacked him?
Well, you could choose to be a pussy if you wanted to.
Pussy is the better part of valor.
Objection.
Calls for speculation.
Objection.
You are not in a position to comment on the mental state of Zimmerman.
Objection.
The term "kid" is an oversimplification of the status of Trayvon. It indicates bias.
FWIW? I don't know where you live, but where I live the wind blows pretty much constantly. Sanford Florida is less than 20 miles from the Atlantic and surrounded by two lakes. The chances of it being a windy day, particularly at that time of year are hardly remote. In fact, it's likely. Were the guy struggling for breath or his words clipped due to body movement you'd have a point. Here? You don't. Fail.
"For no reason?" Really? A guy I don't recognize in a hooded sweatshirt is skulking around my neighborhood at night and guess what I'm going to do? I'm going to call the cops. And I'm going to keep his ass in sight if I can until they arrive. I've done it before and helped smash a burglary spree. I've done it before and prevented vandalism of our neighborhood park and pool. If this punk weren't up to something he would have had no need to circle around and confront the guy.
A kid. PFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTT. Bleeding heart bullshit. 17 year olds are hardly kids any more. And just what the fuck was this "kid" doing wandering the streets in a gated community all the way across town from where he lived? Nobody's paying any attention to that aspect at all. What. the. fuck. was. he. doing. there. in. the. first. place? The "kid" had no business there.
Objection.
Calls for speculation.
Objection.
You are not in a position to comment on the mental state of Zimmerman.
Objection.
The term "kid" is an oversimplification of the status of Trayvon. It indicates bias.
FWIW? I don't know where you live, but where I live the wind blows pretty much constantly. Sanford Florida is less than 20 miles from the Atlantic and surrounded by two lakes. The chances of it being a windy day, particularly at that time of year are hardly remote. In fact, it's likely. Were the guy struggling for breath or his words clipped due to body movement you'd have a point. Here? You don't. Fail.
"For no reason?" Really? A guy I don't recognize in a hooded sweatshirt is skulking around my neighborhood at night and guess what I'm going to do? I'm going to call the cops. And I'm going to keep his ass in sight if I can until they arrive. I've done it before and helped smash a burglary spree. I've done it before and prevented vandalism of our neighborhood park and pool. If this punk weren't up to something he would have had no need to circle around and confront the guy.
A kid. PFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTT. Bleeding heart bullshit. 17 year olds are hardly kids any more. And just what the fuck was this "kid" doing wandering the streets in a gated community all the way across town from where he lived? Nobody's paying any attention to that aspect at all. What. the. fuck. was. he. doing. there. in. the. first. place? The "kid" had no business there.
Stop pissing on Chad's conjecture parade. It is conflicting with what he wants to believe.
I'm with Token - why in the world do you think they are NOT charging him Chad?
I can tell you for sure why they haven't charged him. They know they're sketchy on probable cause, and PC is a damn sight from beyond a reasonable doubt. They'll present it to the grand jury, and let the GJ shoulder the blame for whatever happens.
Hogwash. We all know its racial.
Pussy is the better part of valor.
Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-Fla., said on the House floor. Martin lived in Wilson's district.
Capitol Hill lawmakers are doing more than donning hoodies on the House floor to respond to the death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin. Members of Congress are pushing new legislation calling for everything from gun control to restrictions on neighborhood watch groups.
The legislative steps in the wake of the fatal shooting face an uncertain fate. So far, they come exclusively from Democrats in the Congressional Black Caucus -- not power-wielding Republicans who would no doubt be leery of a hasty legislative response, particularly with an investigation still underway.
Related Stories Trayvon Martin's father says they are looking for a peaceful resolution in the case of his son's death NBC launches internal probe over edited 911 call in Trayvon Martin shooting Voice heard screaming on 911 tape is not Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman, expert says Trayvon Martin's parents to join Miami rally
But the sponsors are working on the measures over spring break and plan to push them when lawmakers return later this month. They claim they're trying to prevent another killing like the one that has touched off a raging national debate about race and the justice system.
"I am tired of burying young black boys," Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-Fla., said on the House floor. Martin lived in Wilson's district.
Wilson, who organized a rally in Miami Sunday calling for an arrest in the case, is taking a well-traveled path in response to a high-profile case -- she's forming a commission.
A spokesman confirmed that Wilson plans to call for the creation of a commission to study racial disparities among black men and boys in America.
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, is meanwhile working on a bill that would require neighborhood watch groups -- like the one for which shooter George Zimmerman was a volunteer -- to register.
"No one's registered," Jackson Lee spokesman Michael McQuerry told FoxNews.com.
He said staff members were meeting Monday to try to work out some of the details, such as what entities neighborhood watch groups should register with, and whether that should happen at the federal, state or local level.
Asked whether the proposal would call for neighborhood watch outfits to meet specific standards, McQuerry said it's still "being worked out."
CBC members last week introduced a separate resolution calling on states to repeal so-called "Stand Your Ground" laws. The law, a version of which was enacted in Florida in 2005, allows for individuals to use deadly force -- even outside their home -- if they feel threatened.
The proposed resolution on Capitol Hill, in addition to calling for repeal, "condemns" anybody who played a role in proposing the Stand Your Ground laws. The language in the measure makes blunt assertions about shooter Zimmerman, including a statement that says his "unfounded assumptions and racial bias led to the use of deadly force."
The case, though, is still being investigated at the local level and by federal Justice officials.
Tim Lynch, director of the Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice, questioned whether it was prudent to push for any concrete legislative changes without knowing all the facts.
"Holding a hearing would be fine," he noted. But he called the proposals on the Hill "premature."
"My impression is that they're rushing into something," Lynch said.
The media frenzy surrounding the shooting has turned up several conflicting accounts. Zimmerman, who has gone into hiding and has not been charged, reportedly has claimed he shot in self-defense. Others claim Zimmerman followed the unarmed teen and should be charged.
As for the renewed debate over Stand Your Ground legislation, backers of the laws have said the legislation doesn't apply in the case of Zimmerman and Martin.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said last month that "stand your ground means stand your ground -- it doesn't mean chase after somebody who's turned their back."
Even Zimmerman's attorney has said the issue at play is self-defense, not Stand Your Ground.
Vice President Biden, in an interview on CBS' "Face the Nation," backed efforts to reconsider the laws.
"But that's a decision for the state to make," he added.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/02/lawmakers-target-gun-laws-neighborhood-watch-in-wake-florida-teen-shooting/#ixzz1qulkon5O (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/02/lawmakers-target-gun-laws-neighborhood-watch-in-wake-florida-teen-shooting/#ixzz1qulkon5O)
Is this Go gata?
Capitol Hill lawmakers are doing more than donning hoodies on the House floor to respond to the death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin. Members of Congress are pushing new legislation calling for everything from gun control to restrictions on neighborhood watch groups.
The legislative steps in the wake of the fatal shooting face an uncertain fate. So far, they come exclusively from Democrats in the Congressional Black Caucus -- not power-wielding Republicans who would no doubt be leery of a hasty legislative response, particularly with an investigation still underway.
Related Stories Trayvon Martin's father says they are looking for a peaceful resolution in the case of his son's death NBC launches internal probe over edited 911 call in Trayvon Martin shooting Voice heard screaming on 911 tape is not Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman, expert says Trayvon Martin's parents to join Miami rally
But the sponsors are working on the measures over spring break and plan to push them when lawmakers return later this month. They claim they're trying to prevent another killing like the one that has touched off a raging national debate about race and the justice system.
"I am tired of burying young black boys," Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-Fla., said on the House floor. Martin lived in Wilson's district.
Wilson, who organized a rally in Miami Sunday calling for an arrest in the case, is taking a well-traveled path in response to a high-profile case -- she's forming a commission.
A spokesman confirmed that Wilson plans to call for the creation of a commission to study racial disparities among black men and boys in America.
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, is meanwhile working on a bill that would require neighborhood watch groups -- like the one for which shooter George Zimmerman was a volunteer -- to register.
"No one's registered," Jackson Lee spokesman Michael McQuerry told FoxNews.com.
He said staff members were meeting Monday to try to work out some of the details, such as what entities neighborhood watch groups should register with, and whether that should happen at the federal, state or local level.
Asked whether the proposal would call for neighborhood watch outfits to meet specific standards, McQuerry said it's still "being worked out."
CBC members last week introduced a separate resolution calling on states to repeal so-called "Stand Your Ground" laws. The law, a version of which was enacted in Florida in 2005, allows for individuals to use deadly force -- even outside their home -- if they feel threatened.
The proposed resolution on Capitol Hill, in addition to calling for repeal, "condemns" anybody who played a role in proposing the Stand Your Ground laws. The language in the measure makes blunt assertions about shooter Zimmerman, including a statement that says his "unfounded assumptions and racial bias led to the use of deadly force."
The case, though, is still being investigated at the local level and by federal Justice officials.
Tim Lynch, director of the Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice, questioned whether it was prudent to push for any concrete legislative changes without knowing all the facts.
"Holding a hearing would be fine," he noted. But he called the proposals on the Hill "premature."
"My impression is that they're rushing into something," Lynch said.
The media frenzy surrounding the shooting has turned up several conflicting accounts. Zimmerman, who has gone into hiding and has not been charged, reportedly has claimed he shot in self-defense. Others claim Zimmerman followed the unarmed teen and should be charged.
As for the renewed debate over Stand Your Ground legislation, backers of the laws have said the legislation doesn't apply in the case of Zimmerman and Martin.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said last month that "stand your ground means stand your ground -- it doesn't mean chase after somebody who's turned their back."
Even Zimmerman's attorney has said the issue at play is self-defense, not Stand Your Ground.
Vice President Biden, in an interview on CBS' "Face the Nation," backed efforts to reconsider the laws.
"But that's a decision for the state to make," he added.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/02/lawmakers-target-gun-laws-neighborhood-watch-in-wake-florida-teen-shooting/#ixzz1qulkon5O (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/02/lawmakers-target-gun-laws-neighborhood-watch-in-wake-florida-teen-shooting/#ixzz1qulkon5O)
If I've said it once, I've said it 482 times, these neighborhood watch groups are killing black men and boys at alarming rates, and nobody has so much as raised a finger to put a stop to it.
This is a situation where Zimmerman saw someone who clearly didn't belong there
Oh God, here we go with Gun Control now. Should have known it was coming. Let's put a band aid on the symptom instead of addressing the root cause.
Has it been established that Martin's father's fiancee, who Martin was visiting, does not live in the gated community? If she lives there, and Martin was staying there, then I think he had every right to be inside the gated community.
This is a good link.. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/02/us/the-events-leading-to-the-shooting-of-trayvon-martin.html (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/02/us/the-events-leading-to-the-shooting-of-trayvon-martin.html)
This is a good link.. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/02/us/the-events-leading-to-the-shooting-of-trayvon-martin.html (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/02/us/the-events-leading-to-the-shooting-of-trayvon-martin.html)
NBC launches internal probe over edited 911 call in Trayvon Martin shooting
Published April 02, 2012
NBC has launched an internal probe after running an edited version of the 911 call from George Zimmerman -- the man who shot and killed Trayvon Martin -- that made Zimmerman sound racist.
"We have launched an internal investigation into the editorial process surrounding this particular story," the network said in a statement to the Washington Post on Monday.
NBC's "Today" show ran the edited audio of George Zimmerman's phone call to a police dispatcher in which Zimmerman says: "'This guy looks like he's up to no good … he looks black."
But the audio recording in its entirety reveals that Zimmerman did not volunteer the information that Martin was black. Instead, Zimmerman was answering a question from a police dispatcher about the race of the "suspicious person" whom Zimmerman was speaking about.
A transcript of the complete 911 call shows that Zimmerman said, "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."
The 911 officer responded saying, "OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?"
"He looks black," Zimmerman said.
The abridged conversation between Zimmerman and the dispatcher that NBC ran on March 27 has been blasted by media watchdog groups as misleading. Critics have said the edited version was made to suggest that Zimmerman targeted Martin because he was black -- an accusation by many that is still under investigation.
Martin, 17, was shot to death Feb. 26 by Zimmerman, 28, a neighborhood watch volunteer, as Martin walked from a convenience store back to his father's fiancee's home in a gated community outside Orlando. The case has stirred a national conversation about race and the laws of self-defense.
Martin, a black teenager from Miami, was unarmed when he was shot by Zimmerman, whose father is white and mother is Hispanic. Zimmerman told police the teen attacked him before he shot in self-defense. He has not been charged in the case, despite repeated calls by political leaders and protesters for his arrest.
NBC has also come under fire by some critics for allowing MSNBC personality, the Rev. Al Sharpton, to lead protests in Florida calling for Zimmerman's arrest. Sharpton is scheduled to speak Monday in Sanford, Fla., at a march of about a thousand people carrying signs and wearing T-shirts with the teen's image.
Wow... This is a shocker...And this aspect, I completely agree with. I definitely think the media is milking this thing to sensationalize the story.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/02/nbc-launches-internal-probe-over-edited-11-call-in-trayvon-martin-shooting/ (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/02/nbc-launches-internal-probe-over-edited-11-call-in-trayvon-martin-shooting/)
And this aspect, I completely agree with. I definitely think the media is milking this thing to sensationalize the story.
And this aspect, I completely agree with. I definitely think the media is milking this thing to sensationalize the story.Well, there's milking it, and there's misrepresenting reality.
Pay attention Strawberry Shortcake. Your perceptions of what I meant with those comments have nothing to do with reality. Playing ghetto, gangsta, hood or whatever you want to call it has nothing to do with race. So, get over yourself already. Are you implying that only people of a certain race talk ghetto and sport grillz? It seems to me that you have a bigger problem with your own racial stereotyping, Buttercup. This has nothing to do with race.
Let's review some of the facts regarding his recent past...
- The teen was suspended from school three times. (I'm sure that they were just picking on him.)
- He was on suspension when he was shot in February, after officials caught him with a 'marijuana pipe' and a baggie with drug residue (He was shot? And oh, that's right... Marijuana is virtually harmless. We should feed it to our kids.)
- Trayvon was kicked out of school in October for graffiti after he was allegedly caught with a 'burglary tool' and a bag full of women's jewelry (I'm sure that was one big misunderstanding...)
- Officials also suspended him once for skipping school and tardiness (Why are they picking on this poor innocent yute?)
If his behavior isn't overwhelmingly obvious that he was headed for trouble, I don't know what planet you're from.
Yes... You are dumb... Beyond dumb, in fact...
They have an agenda. And it's not a good one.
And it is dangerous. The country is closer than people think to a race riot over this. They are fucking with people's emotions in a very bad way here.
This past Saturday down here in Columbus, there was a march. A fucking march. Full of diatribe and racial rants. People are getting agitated pn both side and all because of the media sensationalizing it. This is very disturbing to me.
http://gma.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-video-shows-injury-back-head-161816389--abc-news-topstories.html (http://gma.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-video-shows-injury-back-head-161816389--abc-news-topstories.html)
Wasn't there a doctored 911 tape as well. This shit stinks to high heaven.
Just laugh it off guys... We need to be glad that people like AUJizzad are not in the majority yet.I've come to the conclusion that you are a troll.
Oh... I got a new toy this weekend.
(http://www.kygunco.com/prodimages/23154-DEFAULT-L.jpg)
I was thinking of nicknaming it Zimmerman, but Trayvon may be more appropriate for obvious reasons. :poke:
http://gma.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-video-shows-injury-back-head-161816389--abc-news-topstories.html (http://gma.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-video-shows-injury-back-head-161816389--abc-news-topstories.html)
Wasn't there a doctored 911 tape as well. This shit stinks to high heaven.
This is why I have kept the constant drum beating of "we don't even know the half of what has happened" and "let the dust settle and the truth come out before jumping to firm conclusions".
But fuck that, let's use conjecture and empathy - and start a fucking race war in the process.
But fuck that, let's use conjecture and empathy - and start a fucking race war in the process.
I've come to the conclusion that you are a troll.Wow, Speedy... You just figured out that I like to stir the pot and rattle cages?
Wow, Speedy... You just figured out that I like to stir the pot and rattle cages?
Your ride's here...
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-B9gQGytTxBw/TaXQcBNaUHI/AAAAAAAAAIA/ajHUxpEe8xo/s1600/mr.crev.jpg)
Habitual line-stepper is what you are.Habitually, of course...
Wow, Speedy... You just figured out that I like to stir the pot and rattle cages?
Your ride's here...
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-B9gQGytTxBw/TaXQcBNaUHI/AAAAAAAAAIA/ajHUxpEe8xo/s1600/mr.crev.jpg)
This is why I have kept the constant drum beating of "we don't even know the half of what has happened" and "let the dust settle and the truth come out before jumping to firm conclusions".
But fuck that, let's use conjecture and empathy - and start a fucking race war in the process.
Wow, Speedy... You just figured out that I like to stir the pot and rattle cages?I never said you were good at it.
Your ride's here...
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-B9gQGytTxBw/TaXQcBNaUHI/AAAAAAAAAIA/ajHUxpEe8xo/s1600/mr.crev.jpg)
I never said you were good at it.Always seems to be enough to make you whine, squeal and harumph, harumph, harumph...
Always seems to be enough to make you whine, squeal and harumph, harumph, harumph...Something you can't say about any woman you have been with. :)
Two arrested in brutal hammer beating in Seminole
5:43 p.m. EST, April 2, 2012|
By Gary Taylor, Orlando Sentinel
A tip to Crimeline has led to the arrests of two men in a brutal beating that occurred a week ago in the Midway community east of Sanford.
Julius Ricardo Bender, 18, and Yahaziel Isaac Israel, 19, face charges of attempted first-degree murder, burglary with assault or battery and armed burglary.
The victim, a 50-year-old Winter Springs man whose name has not been released, is on life-support at Orlando Regional Medical Center.
Deputies were called to the area of Lincoln Street and Beardall Avenue about 6:30 p.m. March 26 to investigate a report of a man being beaten, Seminole County Sheriff's spokeswoman Heather Smith said.
They found the victim in the woods on the north side of Lincoln Street.
According to arrest affidavits:
A witness told deputies he heard someone screaming for help and saw two men pull the victim from his vehicle. He said he watched as one man held the victim and the other beat him in the head with a hammer.
After they dragged the victim into the woods, the men drove away in his sport utility vehicle, which was later found abandoned about a half-mile away on Garbo Jack Lane.
Investigators got a break in the case Thursday, when a tip to Crimeline named Bender and gave the street name of the second suspect.
On Friday, investigators learned Israel's fingerprints had been found both inside and outside of the victim's vehicle.
The witness was shown photo lineups and picked out Bender and Israel as the men he saw beating the victim. He said Bender was the man wielding the hammer.
Both men were arrested late Friday.
Where's all the fuckin' outrage???
I wonder if these twirps were friends with Trayvon. Too bad Zimmerman wasn't in the driver's seat...
There's no money to be made reporting on beating the shit out of a white guy.
He had it coming.
He had it coming.He had no business in that neighborhood.
There's no money to be made reporting on beating the shit out of a white guy.
He had no business in that neighborhood.
In all seriousness, this is equally appalling, and even less justified than Zimmerman. This is just as much a hate crime as Zimmerman. Agree that it's bullshit that the media is still trying to cash in on this (hence the Tulsa shooting Townhall linked to. I saw it on the Today Show this morning as well), and failing to include this case in the narrative.
He had no business in that neighborhood.
In all seriousness, this is equally appalling, and even less justified than Zimmerman. This is just as much a hate crime as Zimmerman. Agree that it's bullshit that the media is still trying to cash in on this (hence the Tulsa shooting Townhall linked to. I saw it on the Today Show this morning as well), and failing to include this case in the narrative.
It's only equally appalling? Wow... :sad:
Violent crime is violent crime, and Zimmerman shot the young lad with a pocket full of skittles for no reason, after stalking him with a gun and racially profiling him.
Violent crime is violent crime, and Zimmerman shot the young lad with a pocket full of skittles for no reason, after stalking him with a gun and racially profiling him.
It seems like he was out looking for trouble, and he found it...
Oh and, race has nothing to do with this.Does race still have nothing to do with it? Or it does, but only when it's black guys attacking white guys?
Shouldn't we be considered innocent until PROVEN guilty., right?
"We had hoped she had enough evidence without the need to convene a grand jury," said Benjamin Crump, attorney for Martin's family. "The family is trying to have patience and faith through all of this."
"We want a very public trial so the evidence can come out and show people that the justice system works for everybody," he said.
Prosecutor in Trayvon Martin case says she will not bring the case before the Grand Jury. Looks like a big "fuck you" to everyone trying to force the desired outcome.
Goddammit, you assholes are forcing me to take a position on this I wouldn't normally with your ridiculous double standards.What double standards? Are you kidding me???
GarMan, do you think these statements apply to this case? Why or why not? (Hint: I probably will agree). Then remind me again, why it does apply to Martin/Zimmerman.These statements apply no more and no less to this case. In this case, we have two thugs looking for trouble, eventually attacking and car-jacking a victim. Trayvon was walking in the rain acting suspicious, according to Zimmerman, within a gated community, and if you take Zimmerman at his word during the 911 call, Trayvon approached him in his vehicle with his hand in his waistband, which usually suggests that he's packing a firearm or other weapon. Just stating the obvious for you... And, race has nothing to do with this case either.
Does race still have nothing to do with it? Or it does, but only when it's black guys attacking white guys?Or, only when it's white guys attacking black guys, of course?
And you guys will be waiting for all of the evidence to come out before passing judgement on these kids, right?Right...
I mean, , right?
Have we been able to confirm what the victim was wearing? Let's dig up whatever we can find about this guy to see if he deserved what he got. I heard he skipped class once in 1978. If true, he obviously deserved what was coming to him, right?Nobody said that Trayvon deserved it because he'd been fucking off over the past year. Trayvon didn't deserve anything, but when he chose to act like a thug with a Neighborhood Watch volunteer, he found the trouble that his apparent behavior instigated.
These statements apply no more and no less to this case. In this case, we have two thugs looking for trouble, eventually attacking and car-jacking a victim. Trayvon was walking in the rain acting suspicious, according to Zimmerman, within a gated community, and if you take Zimmerman at his word during the 911 call, Trayvon approached him in his vehicle with his hand in his waistband, which usually suggests that he's packing a firearm or other weapon. Just stating the obvious for you... And, race has nothing to do with this case either.LMFAO.
Just finished reading that. The article did paint it more in the light that she's still investigating and just didn't see the need for a GJ. If an arrest is warranted, she'll still call for it. But don't let that stop them from claiming this just shows more bias and racism.
LMFAO.
So you're saying these two situations are exactly the same...in that the black guys were looking for trouble and found it.
LMFAO.Not quite... But, you do have two incidents where people behaved poorly. In the heat of the situation, better sense would be to assume that Trayvon was armed and up to no good. Rain... Acting like he's on drugs or sumpin'... Hand in his waistband... Laugh all you want. Put yourself in that same exact situation, and I'll bet you'd behave more like Zimmerman and less like Trayvon. That's why I find your reaction to this incident so ridiculous.
So you're saying these two situations are exactly the same...in that the black guys were looking for trouble and found it.
In the case of the white dude getting jumped....when one guy has a hammer and the other is holding the victim....you knew exactly what you intended to do before it happened.
I'd like to know more about this special prosecutor. This could work either way. They may feel a Seminole County GJ wouldn't indict, and are looking for PC to issue a warrant.
I don't know FL law. Here, even if I approved a warrant, the case would still have to be presented to a GJ. Apparently that's not the case in FL from what I'm reading.
The more I read this, the more this looks like the case. It was originally set for GJ, which it should be. But like you said, it's starting to seem like they believe the GJ won't indict and want to press the issue anyway. Likely because of the media pressure.
Still, if she charges Zimmerman, it will be her ass if she doesn't get a conviction. It would be interesting to follow if she charges. It might be the only case that I'm familiar with where law enforcement will be a better witness for the defendant than the state. Especially since that agency has been roasted for their decision to rule it self defense.
And she won't get a conviction. This prosecution would not be motivated by truth and justice, but by political maneuvering. The only people that would be happy by this prosecution are the race-baiters who have no interest in the truth or justice.
There's really only one prong left to this investigation as I see it, and that is Forensics. If they back up, or don't contradict Zimmerman's story, then I don't see ever charging him. Other than that, I can't see what else they're "investigating".
Depends on her intentions. Does she believe the police agency did their job, or is she looking for "new" witnesses.
I have wondered if she might be trying to "uncover" witnesses that had yet to come forward. Would certainly be very suspect IMO, is someone with a meaningful, eye witness account came forward at this time. I wouldn't put it past some folks to try manufacturing one though.
That could never happen cough cough ~Tawana Brawley~ cough cough.
Read up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley_rape_allegations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley_rape_allegations)
Those first couple of paragraphs sound eerily familiar don't they? Sharpton, GJ, Perception in Media vs Reality, Fake Allegations, etc etc etc.
Put yourself in that same exact situation, and I'll bet you'd behave more like Zimmerman and less like Trayvon.
I wouldn't. If a guy approaches my vehicle with his hand in his waist band and I honestly believe (or reasonably assume) that he has a weapon of some sort? I'm not going to follow him on foot. I'd call the police and watch from my vehicle, maybe even follow the guy in my vehicle giving me a speedy exit if he brandishes a weapon, but I wouldn't follow him on foot.
Doesn't make what Zimmerman did wrong, but I still wouldn't follow a guy on foot if I thought he might be armed.
I wouldn't. If a guy approaches my vehicle with his hand in his waist band and I honestly believe (or reasonably assume) that he has a weapon of some sort? I'm not going to follow him on foot. I'd call the police and watch from my vehicle, maybe even follow the guy in my vehicle giving me a speedy exit if he brandishes a weapon, but I wouldn't follow him on foot.
Doesn't make what Zimmerman did wrong, but I still wouldn't follow a guy on foot if I thought he might be armed.
Fair enough, but not everybody would agree with that. At one point, Zimmerman could no longer follow him or watch from his vehicle, which is why I speculate that he left his vehicle in the first place. With this being a crowded complex, having noticed someone who may be armed and behaving strangely, wouldn't a reasonable person be more proactive in a situation such as this? I would, and I have in my own neighborhood on several occasions. As a side... Thankfully, one of my neighbors took appropriate action when someone tried to steal one of my PWCs. If he only did as you are suggesting, it would have likely been further vandalized or stolen altogether. We can't rely on law enforcement all of the time, and that pathetic mindset that suggests it's not your responsibility is completely false if not outright wrong.
Well, my view is that it's really not my responsibility. While it's nice for neighbors to look out for my property, I don't expect them to do so. It's not their property, and not their responsibility.
Aside from that, I'm not putting my life on the line for my own property much less someone else's. If a person looks suspicious, sure, I'll call the cops and watch the person. If the person is walking away, sure, I might try to keep an eye on them and even follow them, so long as I am armed or otherwise do not feel in danger. If I see that person try to steal something, or look as if they are about to steal or commit a B&E, sure, I would likely address them, especially if I am armed.
But once I see that the person notices me, starts approaching me, and reaches for his waist band? I'm not going to continue playing Joe Friday just to protect someone else's property. No one's property is worth putting my life in danger.
I'd prefer to not end up like these people:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/06/us-florida-deputy-idUSTRE8251TL20120306 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/06/us-florida-deputy-idUSTRE8251TL20120306)
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/01/police-search-for-robbers-who-killed-man.html (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/01/police-search-for-robbers-who-killed-man.html)
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-02-10/news/chi-at-least-2-shot-in-noble-square-neighborhood-20120209_1_foil-car-theft-restaurant-shot (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-02-10/news/chi-at-least-2-shot-in-noble-square-neighborhood-20120209_1_foil-car-theft-restaurant-shot)
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/10/07/man-who-tried-to-prevent-pumpkin-theft-dies (http://www.torontosun.com/2011/10/07/man-who-tried-to-prevent-pumpkin-theft-dies)
That type thinking is what has made Americans and America weak.
It's also the type of thinking that has resulted in people's deaths because they wanted to be a superhero and stop a pumpkin theft.
Say what you will, but times have changed; people don't just roll over and give up when Barney Fife tells them to stop what they're doing. If I'm in a position to do something with little chance of danger to myself, then I will. But if I'm in a situation where I know or have reason to believe my safety is in danger, then I'm not going to gamble my own life just to save someone's property that they likely have insured against theft anyhow.
I don't disagree with that. It's the "it's not my responsibility" type thinking with regard to community safety and security. I wouldn't trade my life, or put it in danger, not knowingly anyway, over property, mine or anybody's. However, I think people, like Zimmerman, who do take an interest, and responsibility for their community are to be commended. Are they all the type we'd want doing it? Maybe not. But overall, the world would be a better place if we all chipped in to "watch over" our communities.
I don't disagree with that. It's the "it's not my responsibility" type thinking with regard to community safety and security. I wouldn't trade my life, or put it in danger, not knowingly anyway, over property, mine or anybody's. However, I think people, like Zimmerman, who do take an interest, and responsibility for their community are to be commended. Are they all the type we'd want doing it? Maybe not. But overall, the world would be a better place if we all chipped in to "watch over" our communities.
I personally agree with that, but with that being said, I still don't expect anyone to watch over my property. While it's the nice thing to do, and such actions would make our communities better places, it's not anyone else's responsibility to safeguard my property or my life. I think there's a difference between what one thinks they should do out of kindness/morality/community betterment, and what one thinks they must do out of self-preservation.
In theory, if we all took responsibility for our own stuff, then the community would be "watched over." It's when one person fails to take responsibility for their own stuff that we then require someone to watch over them. In reality, we can't be with our property at all times, and so this is why neighbors should watch out for each other to a reasonable degree.
Agree. You have no responsibility to keep my stuff safe, and vice versa. The "it's not my responsibility" sounds more like "I don't want to get involved" but there is no actual responsibility. Just that in the good ol' days people were a bit more neighborly. And yes, first and foremost, watching over your own shit rather than expecting the government to, that's the best route.
It's also the type of thinking that has resulted in people's deaths because they wanted to be a superhero and stop a pumpkin theft.
Say what you will, but times have changed; people don't just roll over and give up when Barney Fife tells them to stop what they're doing. If I'm in a position to do something with little chance of danger to myself, then I will. But if I'm in a situation where I know or have reason to believe my safety is in danger, then I'm not going to gamble my own life just to save someone's property that they likely have insured against theft anyhow.
Pumpkins are one thing, but you do have an obligation to yourself and your community. That's what really infuriates me about this whole thing. No... It's not your responsibility, but I do expect my fellow neighbors to look out for me, my family and my stuff to a reasonable extent if not as much as I would and do for them. Nobody is expecting anyone to be a hero. As far as this little chance of danger position, you never know if the other person is armed, which is why you always enter these situations assuming they have a weapon. No, I wouldn't expect anyone to gamble on their life to protect some property, but appropriate action is expected. Calling the police isn't always enough.
Could have saved a lot of typing and just posted - "It's because you're a pussy VV"
What do you expect? The guy sucks dick and brags that he is good at it.
Yeah, but it's not just VV. A lot of the yutes from these newer generations tend to be more apathetic to this, among other traditional behaviors and values. You know what I mean... The downbreeding of society stuff.
I can't wait for these type of people to go out of town and a moving truck backs p to their house. I mean why do I give a shit. It's all insured!
VV = Shitty neighbor!
A law enforcement official says that charges are being filed in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.
The official with knowledge of the investigation says a prosecutor will announce charges against George Zimmerman on Wednesday at 6 p.m. Zimmerman's arrest is also expected soon.
The official didn't know the charge and spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to release the information. The official said that authorities know where Zimmerman is.
Zimmerman has asserted since the Feb. 26 killing that he shot the 17-year-old in self-defense after the two fought. The case has sparked protests and calls for Zimmerman's arrest.
A factor in the pace of the probe has been Florida's so-called stand your ground law, which gives people wide latitude to claim self-defense in a killing and other altercations.
The man who shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin is said to be losing weight and suffering from high levels of stress from the intense public scrutiny he is under, his former lawyers said. Meanwhile, a special prosecutor said she will soon make an announcement in the case and the nation's attorney general vowed separately to take action if evidence warrants it.
"He is largely alone. You might even say he is emotionally crippled by virtue of the pressure of this case," said Hal Uhrig, a former lawyer for George Zimmerman. The protests and the profound isolation of going into hiding may have pushed him "a little bit over the edge," said Uhrig and his colleague, Craig Sonner.
The two attorneys announced Tuesday they no longer were representing the neighborhood watch volunteer because they haven't heard from him since Sunday.
"As of the last couple days, he has not returned phone calls, text messages or emails," Sonner said. "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 attorneys said that, against their advice, Zimmerman contacted special prosecutor Angela Corey, who will decide if he should face charges, but prosecutors in her office refused to talk to him without his lawyers present.
"To handle it this way, suggests that he may not be in complete control of what's going on. We're concerned for his emotional and physical safety," Uhrig said.
Isn't this expected?
I don't know that it was or wasn't. I'd be curious to know if there's more evidence that's come to light, ie forensics that dispute Zimmerman's account.
I don't know that it was or wasn't. I'd be curious to know if there's more evidence that's come to light, ie forensics that dispute Zimmerman's account.
Although I know the "system" isn't 100%, I just can't bring myself to believe they would charge him without enough evidence to convict. I think it has to be forensics. If they are going to charge based off the same evidence, when the regular DA wouldn't, it's going to turn into a shit storm if they lose. And, as I said, Zimmerman will sue the fuck out of the state of Florida.
The truly disturbing thing to me is the U.S. Attorney General vowing to get involved...."If the evidence warranted it". Now, we already know the evidence warrants it. The Right Reverend Jessie and Mr. Shahptun said so.
What the AG should have said is calm the fuck down and let the local authorities do their jobs. If it's really murder or manslaughter, they'll arrest and prosecute "if the evidence warrants it". If one damn thing is done simply because of pressure being applied from racist protesters...that would be the real tragedy.
The truly disturbing thing to me is the U.S. Attorney General vowing to get involved...."If the evidence warranted it". Now, we already know the evidence warrants it. The Right Reverend Jessie and Mr. Shahptun said so.
What the AG should have said is calm the fuck down and let the local authorities do their jobs. If it's really murder or manslaughter, they'll arrest and prosecute "if the evidence warrants it". If one damn thing is done simply because of pressure being applied from racist protesters...that would be the real tragedy.
So there is a poll on the front page of Yahoo. It is the perfect example of how polls are set up to skew the results.So you think it's all just made up? No murder occurred? Trayvon's just sitting at his house laughing at this whole thing?
The poll asks:
Is the George Zimmerman charge just?
A. Yes, 2nd-degree murder is right.
B. No, It's too harsh.
C. No, It's too lenient.
Seems fine on the surface. But where is "D. No. This is all bullshit" option?
So it really doesn't matter how you answer this poll. IF you answer at all, you have already agreed that he should be charged.
So you think it's all just made up? No murder occurred? Trayvon's just sitting at his house laughing at this whole thing?
Most sane people can at least recognize that shit went down and it's not "all bullshit." The debate is whether Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon to death via legitimate self-defense, or if he was the provoker that brought the conflict on himself. If you believe the former, then you believe the punishment "is too harsh". If you believe the latter, then you believe "Yes, 2nd degree murder is right." If you buy into Al Sharpton's bullshit, you believe "it's too lenient".
There is no debate over it being "all bullshit". Someone was killed.
It's funny how some of you have shifted your key positions, and yet maintain this facade of objectivity. So before, the law of the land was infallible. If he hadn't been charged, then obviously he was innocent. If they had evidence proving his guilt, then charges would have already been filed.
Now that they have? Oh, the corruption! This whole thing's a sham, and they're just playing to special interests.
So you think it's all just made up? No murder occurred? Trayvon's just sitting at his house laughing at this whole thing?
Most sane people can at least recognize that shit went down and it's not "all bullshit." The debate is whether Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon to death via legitimate self-defense, or if he was the provoker that brought the conflict on himself. If you believe the former, then you believe the punishment "is too harsh". If you believe the latter, then you believe "Yes, 2nd degree murder is right." If you buy into Al Sharpton's bullshit, you believe "it's too lenient".
There is no debate over it being "all bullshit". Someone was killed.
It's funny how some of you have shifted your key positions, and yet maintain this facade of objectivity. So before, the law of the land was infallible. If he hadn't been charged, then obviously he was innocent. If they had evidence proving his guilt, then charges would have already been filed.
Now that they have? Oh, the corruption! This whole thing's a sham, and they're just playing to special interests.
I think the argument is that there are people who truly believe Zimmerman was justified and no charges should have been filed at all based on "Stand Your Ground". The pole doesn't address that option. It's merely, he's guilty..to what degree.
There was no murder.
Someone died, yes. But there was no murder.
There is, however, a witch hunt. Which is worse than a murder because it is an intentional injustice perpetrated by self-serving fuckernotches.
But murder? Wasn't one. Didn't happen.
I agree with you 100% on this.
Just for the record, murder doesn't have to have intent to kill. Thats only first degree which is premeditated/lying in wait. JR can correct me if I am wrong but 2nd degree just requires it be a murder (not planned), such as reactionary or spontaneous (in Zimmerman's case), no intent to actually kill even though that may have been the end result.
I agree with you 100% on this.Exactly.
Just for the record, murder doesn't have to have intent to kill. Thats only first degree which is premeditated/lying in wait. JR can correct me if I am wrong but 2nd degree just requires it be a murder (not planned), such as reactionary or spontaneous (in Zimmerman's case), no intent to actually kill even though that may have been the end result.
Exactly.
Given the facts of the case, it takes more blind assumption, or you "feeling it", as CCTAU says to believe this is anything but murder in the 2nd degree. The civil rights activists and most of the media, clamoring for 1st degree murder, are doing so based on assumptions. People that want to believe Zimmerman is a civic hero 100% in the right are doing exactly the same thing.
Once again, I'm painted as the extreme for taking the middle ground, without a hint of irony.
I'm organizing a rally.
We are going to march around the neighborhood wearing cheap bowling shirts, wearing sunglasses and brandishing handguns while we chant "Free Zimmerman, esse"
Who's in?
Bullshit. You have been clamoring for justice for poor little Trayvon since this started.What are you talking about?
All the rest of us have been saying is that Trayvon ONLY had the fatal bullet wound (according to reports released) and that Zimmerman had evidence of being attacked. Yet poor little innocent 13 year old Trayvon was shot by the big bad white (hispanic) man just cause he had a sweet tea and some skittles.
If the evidence is so damn flimsy you have to skip a GJ just to get it to court, why go to court?
Because it FEELS like the right thing to do for Trayvon's sweet parents!
What are you talking about?
Since the first page of this thread, I've maintained that:
-Zimmerman was following Trayvon suspeciously
-Trayvon took notice, and after unsuccessfully attempting to flee, he attacked Zimmerman
-Caught up in the scuffle, Zimmerman shot Trayvon, killing him.
That's 2nd degree murder.
I'm not saying he went out looking for a black kid to shoot that day. But I'm not saying he is a hero to all either.
Again, it's that middle ground grey area that some here are incapable of seeing.
So you think it's all just made up? No murder occurred? Trayvon's just sitting at his house laughing at this whole thing?
Most sane people can at least recognize that shit went down and it's not "all bullshit." The debate is whether Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon to death via legitimate self-defense, or if he was the provoker that brought the conflict on himself. If you believe the former, then you believe the punishment "is too harsh". If you believe the latter, then you believe "Yes, 2nd degree murder is right." If you buy into Al Sharpton's bullshit, you believe "it's too lenient".
There is no debate over it being "all bullshit". Someone was killed.
It's funny how some of you have shifted your key positions, and yet maintain this facade of objectivity. So before, the law of the land was infallible. If he hadn't been charged, then obviously he was innocent. If they had evidence proving his guilt, then charges would have already been filed.
Now that they have? Oh, the corruption! This whole thing's a sham, and they're just playing to special interests.
I agree with you 100% on this.
Just for the record, murder doesn't have to have intent to kill. Thats only first degree which is premeditated/lying in wait. JR can correct me if I am wrong but 2nd degree just requires it be a murder (not planned), such as reactionary or spontaneous (in Zimmerman's case), no intent to actually kill even though that may have been the end result.
782.04 Murder.—
(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:
(2)The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
782.04 Murder.—
(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:
1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being;
2. When committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
a. Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
b. Arson,
c. Sexual battery,
d. Robbery,
e. Burglary,
f. Kidnapping,
g. Escape,
h. Aggravated child abuse,
i. Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
j. Aircraft piracy,
k. Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
l. Carjacking,
m. Home-invasion robbery,
n. Aggravated stalking,
o. Murder of another human being,
p. Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person,
q. Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism; or
3. Which resulted from the unlawful distribution of any substance controlled under s. 893.03(1), cocaine as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4., opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium, or methadone by a person 18 years of age or older, when such drug is proven to be the proximate cause of the death of the user,
is murder in the first degree and constitutes a capital felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082.
(b) In all cases under this section, the procedure set forth in s. 921.141 shall be followed in order to determine sentence of death or life imprisonment.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:Paren 2, deals with defense in the home.
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
782.03 Excusable homicide.—Homicide is excusable when committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent, or by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden combat, without any dangerous weapon being used and not done in a cruel or unusual manner.
What are you talking about?
Since the first page of this thread, I've maintained that:
-Zimmerman was following Trayvon suspeciously
-Trayvon took notice, and after unsuccessfully attempting to flee, he attacked Zimmerman
-Caught up in the scuffle, Zimmerman shot Trayvon, killing him.
That's 2nd degree murder.
I'm not saying he went out looking for a black kid to shoot that day. But I'm not saying he is a hero to all either.
Again, it's that middle ground grey area that some here are incapable of seeing.
I'm with JR in that it is going to be very hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury and get everyone of them to believe and agree, that Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd degree murder.Proving that Zimmerman had a "depraved mind regardless of human life" seems like an impossibility to me. I'm actually relieved that he's been charged. It should shutdown a lot of these race-baiting whores. But, I really don't think there could ever be a fair trial for this case. At least, we'll eventually get to hear the facts.
What are you talking about?
Since the first page of this thread, I've maintained that:
-Zimmerman was following Trayvon suspeciously
-Trayvon took notice, and after unsuccessfully attempting to flee, he attacked Zimmerman
-Caught up in the scuffle, Zimmerman shot Trayvon, killing him.
That's 2nd degree murder.
I'm not saying he went out looking for a black kid to shoot that day. But I'm not saying he is a hero to all either.
Again, it's that middle ground grey area that some here are incapable of seeing.
Unless you can prove that Zimmerman had reckless intent to injure or cause bodily harm from the outset, its not 2nd degree murder. Its Vol. Manslaughter at best.
How many of you would willingly sit on the jury, listen to the facts and make a decision of not guilty knowing you'd be labled as a racist? Or have the black panthers put bounties on you? Or have your life and the lives of your family members threatened? And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the facts will lead to "not guilty", but if they do, will the jurors make that decision knowing the pressure they are going to have?
Recklessness is distinguishable from intent. In fact, under the statutes in Alabama you can commit reckless murder and reckless manslaughter, but there difference is that for murder, the recklessness must be such that it's virtually indistinguishable from intent to kill. The best difference I can think of to illustrate is if I fire a gun in the air, and nobody is around, but the bullet comes down and strikes someone, killing them, that's reckless manslaughter. If I'm standing on the 50 yard line of Bryant Denny with an AK 47 firing mindlessly in to the crowd, that's reckless murder. I have no particular target in mind, and don't even have a specific intent to kill, but it's still reckless murder if someone dies. There is no requirement to have any intent to injure at all, it's rather an intent to engage in conduct where it was foreseeable that a death was likely to occur. In FL, they call it reckless murder, and culpable negligence manslaughter.
The appropriate charge, in my opinion, is manslaughter. And honestly, it's going to be hard to get Murder 2 past a judge for a jury to hear the case.
So again, I'm hoping for everyone's sake, that the new special prosecutor's murder 2 charge is based off evidence that we don't have. If the charge was obtained because of political pressure, they have made a terrible situation worse.
How many of you would willingly sit on the jury, listen to the facts and make a decision of not guilty knowing you'd be labled as a racist? Or have the black panthers put bounties on you? Or have your life and the lives of your family members threatened? And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the facts will lead to "not guilty", but if they do, will the jurors make that decision knowing the pressure they are going to have?
I think we agree here.
I guess my point was, Zimmerman had no intent nor had any reason to harm the kid in anyway. I just dont see how 2nd Degree Murder can remotely stick. Like Token said, Manslaughter AT BEST. That's if Stand Your Ground isn't invoked.
No, it's you that A: Can't see the grey area, and B: Have zero understanding of the law regarding self defense. If the prosecution lays out their case as you described (which they won't) it will result in an acquittal. Could result in the Judge not even letting the jury have the case, though I don't see that happening at all.
If Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, Zimmerman wins, period, then end.
If I'm standing on the 50 yard line of Bryant Denny with an AK 47 firing mindlessly in to the crowd, that's reckless murder. I have no particular target in mind, and don't even have a specific intent to kill, but it's still reckless murder if someone dies.
What's funny to me is that now CZ and others have painted Zimmerman as the one behaving "suspiciously."
Good Lord, the guy was in his own neighborhood where he took on a thankless role in the Neighborhood Watch Program (something that most good neighborhoods use as a selling point with realtors, 'we take care of each other), he clearly took his role in protecting the neighborhood seriously and did all the right things (according to the transcripts of the calls).
So the guy who's where he's supposed to be and doing what he's supposed to be doing is the "suspicious" one?
Fuck me running. I honestly believe it's going to take some catastrophic event, something that pushes this country to the brink of extermination, to yank the fucking blinders off so many people.
I have no ground to stand on here because I was never in a position to do so, but we've got an entire generation that has no idea what it takes to defend and protect this country -- and do that before anything else. It's a generation now that's raised on the idea that "emotion" trumps reason. We don't have ANYBODY, it seems, who understands the rules of engagement when it comes to war. Nobody will make the hard calls, we think we can talk and protest march our way out of anything.
We've lost the concept of patriotism and substituted individual agenda. We aren't "one nation under God."
I'm pretty worried actually because it's coming. Destruction is coming. Our own people will lead us to it and will eventually have to be crushed.
What's funny to me is that now CZ and others have painted Zimmerman as the one behaving "suspiciously."
Good Lord, the guy was in his own neighborhood where he took on a thankless role in the Neighborhood Watch Program (something that most good neighborhoods use as a selling point with realtors, 'we take care of each other), he clearly took his role in protecting the neighborhood seriously and did all the right things (according to the transcripts of the calls).
So the guy who's where he's supposed to be and doing what he's supposed to be doing is the "suspicious" one?
Fuck me running. I honestly believe it's going to take some catastrophic event, something that pushes this country to the brink of extermination, to yank the fucking blinders off so many people.
I have no ground to stand on here because I was never in a position to do so, but we've got an entire generation that has no idea what it takes to defend and protect this country -- and do that before anything else. It's a generation now that's raised on the idea that "emotion" trumps reason. We don't have ANYBODY, it seems, who understands the rules of engagement when it comes to war. Nobody will make the hard calls, we think we can talk and protest march our way out of anything.
We've lost the concept of patriotism and substituted individual agenda. We aren't "one nation under God."
I'm pretty worried actually because it's coming. Destruction is coming. Our own people will lead us to it and will eventually have to be crushed.
Yes, not killing a man because you find them suspicious despite them being unarmed, is for faggots.
I know what target you wouldn't have in mind.
RWS.
Because he's not there.
Ever.
Yes, not killing a man because you find them suspicious despite them being unarmed, is for faggots.
Next thing we'll see is a picture of you wading through the flood carrying a case of cheap beer.
killing a man because you find them suspiciousAgain, you insert your own fucking ridiculous, emotional, liberal, race baiting spin. He didn't kill him because he found him suspicious. He claims to have shot him in self defense.
despite them being unarmed,
Again, you insert your own fucking ridiculous, emotional, liberal, race baiting spin. He didn't kill him because he found him suspicious. He claims to have shot him in self defense.
At the time, Zimmerman had no knowledge that he was unarmed. And one doesn't have to be armed to pose a threat of death or serious bodily injury.
You need to move out of NO. It done corrupted your brain.
Next thing we'll see is a picture of you wading through the flood carrying a case of cheap beer.
JR4AU, question. What's the next step? He's been charged, does this go before a judge who will determine if there's enough evidence? Will they start trying to plea bargain this down?
Since it seems in FL you can bypass grand jury all together, I guess it goes to their Trial division (Circuit Court is what we call it in AL) for Arraignment, then it will be set for trial. I guess they allow the DA to determine probable cause, but there may be a PC hearing of some kind, I don't know how it works in FL. Between arraignment and trial, there will be the discovery process, and whatever pre-trial hearings are called for. Wes I think is a FL attorney and may be able to shed more light on the exact process.
ETA: In reading their rules of criminal procedure, it appears that they charged him by "information" and a warrant was issued, at which time a probable cause determination was made. So, it appears to me, though I may be wrong, that there won't be a PC hearing.
And yes, I'm certain there, at some point, will be talk of pleas. I don't see any way this doesn't go to trial.
If this doesn't go to trial and Zimmerman pleads to a lesser charge, shit will get ugly.Let it... Perhaps, it's time for a culling.
Cosby's usually spot on. This time, not so much. The problem isn't guns. The problems are statistics and human nature.Agree...
Agree...
And the fact that culture is being De-sensitized to glorified violence through entertainment. Taking guns out of the hands of good guys does NOT prevent the bad guys from using them. Every time some cuckoo idiot goes on a shooting spree, the gun control people shout from the rooftops to implement gun control (on the good guys).
On a side note, every prosecutor Ive seen interviewed worth their weight in anything is saying the same thing JR has said. They don't know what this special Prosecutor was thinking and don't see anyway a Jury can convict on 2nd degree murder. Even Dershowitz has said it boggles his mind why she did it.
Is the special prosecuter planning on running for political office in a predominantly black district? Just a hunch.
To use my baseball analogy, I think she's an up and coming rookie slugger looking to make a name in the major leagues. And she is attempting to do it against a Verlander Fastball in her first game. Go big or go home. Those are her end result options.
She's been prosecuting for 26 years. Not exactly a rookie in that realm. Not sure how long she's been a State's Attorney, which is what I think they call their DA's. Her 3 county circuit is predominantly white, and Republican. To say "I don't get what she did" would be an understatement.
As for Cosby, agree with THS, usually like the guy, but he's way off base here.
Didn't say she was a rookie DA. I used it in the sense of the analogy of being in the Major Leagues. This is her first HIGH profile national level case of this magnitude. I think she wants to make a statement and be Matthew McConahey in "A Time to Kill". It just ain't gonna happen.
In Cosby's Defense, he didn't say get rid of guns. He said it would be good to find a way to get them "off the streets". Which in theory is ok. But Gun Control has nothing to do with that premise. He may have good intentions, but I think he only has it about half right.
In a dramatic moment during the hearing, a detective, under questioning from O'Mara, admitted that it has no clear evidence that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon Martin first.
The only outcome that will satisfy the race baiters and blacks in this case is if Zimmerman is guilty as charged of murder. Any other outcome and they will riot and call for violence and "movements". Primarily Sharpton and the NBPP. Watch and see.
Don't forget the folks that believe Trayvon was justified in attacking Zimmerman because Zimmerman was "stalking him with a gun".Not true, douche.
Not true, douche.
I hope they can prove he's innocent and truly did everything in self defense.
I just thought there should at least have been a trial, which there is now.
Although clearly, no one here notices the glaring hypocrisy in the fact that they won't be satisfied by anything other than Zimmerman getting off 100% scot-free, as has been demonstrated in the last few posts of this thread.
Because that is how the justice system works. Burden of proof is on the accuser, NOT the other way around. I have seen no evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was the aggressor and that this was not in self defense. He is being charged with Murder and it is up to the prosecution to prove him guilty of such, it is there burden of proof. If you see that proof, please tell me. From what I see (and JR who is a prosecutor, and other known prosecutors that have been interviewed), this should be a somewhat easy acquittal unless there is something the Prosecution has up it's sleeve that no one knows about.If so, great.
If so, great.
Justice has been served.
Someone died. The trail had to happen.
Your ignoranceof the justice systemboggles the mind.
Not true, douche.
I hope they can prove he's innocent and truly did everything in self defense.
I just thought there should at least have been a trial, which there is now.
Although clearly, no one here notices the glaring hypocrisy in the fact that they won't be satisfied by anything other than Zimmerman getting off 100% scot-free, as has been demonstrated in the last few posts of this thread.
Your ignorance of the justice system boggles the mind.Gingers with foot fetishes boggle my mind.
Gingers with foot fetishes boggle my mind.
AWK is a ginger?
I have no foot fetish but it's kind of the opposite for me. A woman needs to have a nice, manicured pair of hoofs. If she's got ole gnarled up doofers....I can't get past that.
I don't think JR likes ugly ones. But when he does find a pair of purdee ones, he likes to do his business on em if you get my drift.
Gingers with foot fetishes boggle my mind.
I don't think JR likes ugly ones. But when he does find a pair of purdee ones, he likes to do his business on em if you get my drift.
The feets don't turn me on but I have no problem letting her get em' all lubed up and try to work a little magic on Mr. Hoo-Ha.
‘Justice for Trayvon’: Alabama Man in Critical Condition After Mob Beating
Mobile police need your help to catch a mob that beat Matthew Owens so badly that he’s in critical condition.
According to police, Owens fussed at some kids playing basketball in the middle of Delmar Drive about 8:30 Saturday night. They say the kids left and a group of adults returned, armed with everything but the kitchen sink.
Police tell News 5 the suspects used chairs, pipes and paint cans to beat Owens.
Owens’ sister, Ashley Parker, saw the attack. “It was the scariest thing I have ever witnessed.” Parker says 20 people, all African American, attacked her brother on the front porch of his home, using “brass buckles, paint cans and anything they could get their hands on.”
What Parker says happened next could make the fallout from the brutal beating even worse. As the attackers walked away, leaving Owen bleeding on the ground, Parker says one of them said “Now thats justice for Trayvon.”
A witness who wants to remain anonymous describes what he says he heard at his front door Saturday night, on Delmar Drive. ”I just kept hearing him screaming, ‘Man, I’m sorry, I’m sorry, man don’t do this,’ ” he recalls.
On the other side of that door was Matthew Owen, who, police and neighbors say, was being beaten by a group of people. The weapons? Bricks, bats, even a paint can.
At first, when he heard his friend at the door, the man thought it was a joke. ”Then I saw about 10 to 15 people from little kids and women with dresses to adult men, just flooding onto the property, surrounding the car, hollering and screaming,” he says. “And then I heard Matthew saying, ‘ I’m sorry, man, I’m sorry. I’m sorry.’ And then, the next thing, before I could get to the door, because we have it all deadbolted and everything, and before I could get it open, I heard all the beating and banging.”
Even family and friends of Matthew Owens admit there was some tension on this street before Saturday night’s event. And they say a lot of this has to do with basketball. Relatives of the victim, who live on the street, say local kids often block Delmar Drive when they play basketball. They say it’s lead to some confrontations. Racial comments from both sides may have made the confrontations more toxic.
First I've heard of this. Why do I think it's going to get a lot worse?
http://news.yahoo.com/justice-trayvon-alabama-man-critical-condition-mob-beating-053222142.html (http://news.yahoo.com/justice-trayvon-alabama-man-critical-condition-mob-beating-053222142.html)
First I've heard of this. Why do I think it's going to get a lot worse?
http://news.yahoo.com/justice-trayvon-alabama-man-critical-condition-mob-beating-053222142.html (http://news.yahoo.com/justice-trayvon-alabama-man-critical-condition-mob-beating-053222142.html)
Some of us said this a couple of weeks ago and I said it again yesterday. The way they were covering this story was dangerous. It would lead to things like this and yes, it will get worse. Just wait until he is acquitted.This is something we all agree on.
I'm just glad he didn't defend himself with a gun. I don't think this country could take another hate crime.
Supposedly the Owens guy called the kids "stupid n---ers" and has harassed them for a while now. That's what some woman named Lakeisha said. I'm curious to see how this oneplaysfizzles out.
Fo shizzle.
Supposedly the Owens guy called the kids "stupid n---ers" and has harassed them for a while now. That's what some woman named Lakeisha said. I'm curious to see how this oneplaysfizzles out.
Oh, I'm sure he did :rolleyes: I wonder how many times they actually did call him cracker. I know how many times I have been called one in person just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Never have I called a black the N the word that way.
That's become a quick cop out for blacks on bad behavior (well, he called me the N word, so I can do whatever). They are taught to use this card from birth.
I wonder what sweet little Trayvon called Zimmerman right before he bashed his head in?
Oh, I'm sure he did :rolleyes: I wonder how many times they actually did call him cracker. I know how many times I have been called one in person just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Never have I called a black the N word that way.
That's become a quick cop out for blacks on bad behavior (well, he called me the N word, so I can do whatever). They are taught to use this card from birth.
Sharpton Assures Radio Caller That Cheney's Heart Did Not Come From Trayvon Martin
By Jack Coleman | May 02, 2012 | 20:38
Al Sharpton benefits more than most radio hosts by having listeners call his show. It lets Sharpton come across as sane by comparison.
...
SHERRY IN SOUTH CAROLINA: I never got a clear understanding of Trayvon's heart. Was it actually given to Dick Cheney or was it not?
SHARPTON: No, I don't know anything, I don't think they gave Trayvon's heart to Dick Cheney, no.
SHERRY IN SOUTH CAROLINA: Did they give it to anyone?
SHARPTON: As far as I know his heart was not donated to anyone, I have not heard that from the family at all. But I know Dick Cheney didn't get it.
SHERRY IN SOUTH CAROLINA: OK, all right. Well, thank you. I'm finally cleared up on that.
SHARPTON: And that's, thank you for your call. You see, that's another thing. They put out outrageous rumors that people don't know right from wrong. That's why we need to stay right on these stations and give information, 'cause people innocently can be misinformed not trying to do anything but get the right information 'cause you get inundated by these people that just sit around just fantasizing all day long.
...
What happened, in my estimation, knowing what we know now, is pretty much what I assumed from the start. But confirmed.
George Zimmerman is/was a bitch. He calls the cops every time someone farts near him. He called the cops 50 times in an eight year period. He reported such things as slow vehicles, loitering strangers in the neighborhood and open garages. Every single time he was asked the race of the "suspicious people" he was reporting, they were black.
It sounds like this behavior caught up to him when he finally fucked with the wrong guy. Trayvon confronted him and started beating his ass. I don't think that's 100% justified, but I don't think it's unreasonable either when Barney Fife is calling the cops on you and pursuing you (counter to the police's instructions). Zimmerman acted in self defense, which may or may not have been overzealous (which I suppose is the piece that's left for the courts to decide) and shot Trayvon, killing him.
In a way, I feel like Zimmerman got what he deserved by getting caught up in this nightmare.
I do not believe that Zimmerman killed Martin in cold blood solely because of his race. I do believe that he was "suspicious" of him due to his race, as apparently he frequently is of every dark skinned person he sees walking through his neighborhood. I do believe this led to the altercation, and that he acted in what he believed to be reasonable self defense. However, considering how overzealous he is with calling the cops, it's reasonable to assume that he was overzealous in his assessment of what was reasonable self defense, and ultimately, he brought the altercation on himself by sticking his nose in business where it didn't belong. That being said, I'm sure Trayvon went on the offensive first.
All that is to say that for a case that so many people, on both sides, consider to be clearly open & shut, there is a lot of gray area, in my opinion.
Hereportednotices such things as slow vehicles, speeding vehicles, loitering strangers in the neighborhood and open garages. Every single time he was asked the race of the "suspicious people" he was reporting to his friend and neighbor the policeman, they were black, white trash, punk ass kids..etc...etc...etc.
What happened, in my estimation, knowing what we know now, is pretty much what I assumed from the start. But confirmed.I didn't know about all of the calls to the cops. My guess is Zimmerman had some kind of mental issue. It's one of those cases that we'll never know the whole story. I haven't followed it closely but I've figured since the beginning, like Dallas said--the jury will find Zimmerman guilty in order to quell the riots--even if it's a light sentence.
George Zimmerman is/was a bitch. He calls the cops every time someone farts near him. He called the cops 50 times in an eight year period. He reported such things as slow vehicles, loitering strangers in the neighborhood and open garages. Every single time he was asked the race of the "suspicious people" he was reporting, they were black.
It sounds like this behavior caught up to him when he finally fudgeed with the wrong guy. Trayvon confronted him and started beating his ass. I don't think that's 100% justified, but I don't think it's unreasonable either when Barney Fife is calling the cops on you and pursuing you (counter to the police's instructions). Zimmerman acted in self defense, which may or may not have been overzealous (which I suppose is the piece that's left for the courts to decide) and shot Trayvon, killing him.
In a way, I feel like Zimmerman got what he deserved by getting caught up in this nightmare.
I do not believe that Zimmerman killed Martin in cold blood solely because of his race. I do believe that he was "suspicious" of him due to his race, as apparently he frequently is of every dark skinned person he sees walking through his neighborhood. I do believe this led to the altercation, and that he acted in what he believed to be reasonable self defense. However, considering how overzealous he is with calling the cops, it's reasonable to assume that he was overzealous in his assessment of what was reasonable self defense, and ultimately, he brought the altercation on himself by sticking his nose in business where it didn't belong. That being said, I'm sure Trayvon went on the offensive first.
All that is to say that for a case that so many people, on both sides, consider to be clearly open & shut, there is a lot of gray area, in my opinion.
I didn't know about all of the calls to the cops. My guess is Zimmerman had some kind of mental issue. It's one of those cases that we'll never know the whole story. I haven't followed it closely but I've figured since the beginning, like Dallas said--the jury will find Zimmerman guilty in order to quell the riots--even if it's a light sentence.
I think the problem will be that the DA overcharged him. I read a few legal discussions about this, and the general thought was that the prosecutor made it very hard on himself by charging Zimmerman with second degree, in whihc he has to PROVE that Zimmerman acted with malice and "evil intent" to cause death. Since Zimmerman openly admits shooting Martin, had he been charged with manslaughter, which is action without intent to cause death, he would be walking towards prison right now.Once again, we are simpatico.
But it is very difficult to PROVE he had the intent to kill Martin. Even if he was a Barney Fife wannabe, there's a big step between calling the cops 50 times and shooting a mofo. With solid evidence that Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked, it makes it harder to prove the shooting was anything but self defense. The defense, if it doesn't try any more stupid jokes, has a much easier time of it by onlyhaving to cast reasonable doubt.
I predict that Zimmerman gets off on second degree - the DA is in over his head - he can try and inflate all the inflamatory statements Zimmerman made, and try and spin them towards enough intent to justify second degree, but I don't think, based on what I have seen, heard and read so far, that I would vote for second degree. I would have voted for manslaughter, no question.
I don't know if that is the only count the jury is being asked to consider, or if he could get charged with other things, but I think he may walk - then Florida burns.
Also, in the WTF department:
Martin's friend, whom he was on the phone with during the incident, testified that she knew it was racial because Trayvon told her that a "creepy ass cracker" was following him. But that creepy ass cracker wasn't a racial term, it was just slang. Obviously, this means Zimmerman, a hispanic by the way, was racist.
:blink:
Also, in the WTF department:
Martin's friend, whom he was on the phone with during the incident, testified that she knew it was racial because Trayvon told her that a "creepy ass cracker" was following him. But that creepy ass cracker wasn't a racial term, it was just slang. Obviously, this means Zimmerman, a hispanic by the way, was racist.
:blink:
Zimmerman is only half crazy ass cracker. One of his parents is white. That makes it ok.
That star witness also is selectively illerate. Asked today to read to the court a letter she supposedly "wrote", she declined, saying she can't read cursive...
:blink:
The other star witness, the hysterical neighbor, claimed to have heard multiple gunshots. There was one shot fired.
The DA is in a world of shit.
Hence, why they didn't want to bring the case in the first place. This is a prime example of letting others push you into a situation you don't want to be in.
rayvon confronted him and started beating his ass. I don't think that's 100% justified, but I don't think it's unreasonable either when Barney Fife is calling the cops on you and pursuing you (counter to the police's instructions). Zimmerman acted in self defense, which may or may not have been overzealous (which I suppose is the piece that's left for the courts to decide) and shot Trayvon, killing him.
Hence, why they didn't want to bring the case in the first place. This is a prime example of letting others push you into a situation you don't want to be in.
http://twitchy.com/2013/06/27/ima-kill-me-a-cracka-death-threats-against-george-zimmerman-random-white-people-explode-during-trial/?utm_source=autotweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitterApparently cracker is ok to say. And kill.
Apparently cracker is ok to say. And kill.
N word once? Fired. Life ruined.
While watching the Martin-Zimmerman trial this week, combat veteran and Navy Cross recipient, Jeremiah Workman noticed a particularly disturbing decoration on Doris Singleton’s Sanford Police Department uniform when she took the stand. Singleton’s uniform had two ribbons — the World War II Army of Occupation Medal and the Defense Distinguished Service Medal – which Workman knew could not belong to someone who had only served in the Army for three years.
. . .
Workman, a former Marine who fought in the second battle of Fallujah, posted a picture of the woman on Facebook with the caption, “Am I going blind or is this police officer in the Zimmerman-Martin trial wearing ribbons that she doesn’t rate? I see a WW II army occupation medal and a Defense Distinguished service medal. Wow! On the stand she was asked about her military career. She said army for 3 years. So she received in three years what a 4 star general receives after forty years of service. Wow. What a superb 3 year army career!â€
Gina Harkins, who writes for The Military Times, saw the post and contacted Workman, who had already talked with the Sanford Police Department by telephone. He told Harkins that according to the conversation he had with a Sanford PD official, since the department doesn’t have their own awards system, they simply went to the Army-Navy store and picked out Defense Department military ribbons. The official also stated that they intentionally chose World War II ribbons because there are not many veterans still alive from that era and they did not think anyone would notice.
Toxicology report allowed. Trayvon had traces of marijuana in his system. Police officers did not take a tox report on Zimmerman on the night of the shooting. I really thought coming in, the jury would convict. But damn does the State have a shitty case for murder.
Now we know Zimmerman is guilty. Nobody who's high and in possession of some tea and Skittles is going to be aggressive toward anyone else.I was thinking the same thing.
Unless Zimmerman had Reese's Pieces. Then it was probably self defense.
I was thinking the same thing.
The uninformed (I'm picturing my mom) will take that as "He was on drugs! Those make you all kooky like that guy that ate that homeless man's face off!!!".
The reality is that if anything at all can be deduced from him having marijuana in his system, it is that he is actually less likely to be an aggressor or confrontational. Completely the opposite effect that alcohol, for example, would have.
To be fair, marijuana can also make a person paranoid, and people respond to paranoia in different ways.
Yep. And hasn't it been speculated that he bought skittles and watermelon flavored tea to make purple drank?
Yes, it's been speculated, but those speculations are racist.
Stop me if I'm wrong but the report did not say he was high. It said he had mary jane in his system. There is a pretty big difference.
Stop me if I'm wrong but the report did not say he was high. It said he had mary jane in his system. There is a pretty big difference.Are you high?
Are you high?
Depends on the test they did. Because they did the toxicology report after he was dead, my guess is they tested his blood. If you've got a drug in your bloodstream, then you're still feeling the effects of it.
But of course, I also don't know what concentration level they found in his bloodstream. Marijuana is detectable in your bloodstream for up to a few hours after use, so he may have been off the high for the most part.
After doing some Googling, it looks like he had 1.5 nanograms per milliliter of THC in his blood. In all likelihood, he wasn't high at the time of his death. These levels are around 100-200ng/ml after use, typically fall to around 5ng/ml three hours after use, and apparently these levels can spike after death.
Don't go all NCIS Ducky on us.
I wish somebody would go all NCIS Kate/Ziva on me.
Or Tony. I'll take that too.
You've seen the trial from start, everyone has. Put yourself in the jury box. You're a juror, that has heard every shred of evidence.
What is your verdict? Not what you want to happen, or what you feel should happen. Based on what you've seen, what is your verdict?
Now keep in mind, the trial has been extremely public. People are going to know you, find out who you are, and possibly who your kids are. Does that factor in your decision?
Today, the defense wound it up by doing two things.....painting George Zimmerman as a "pudgy wimp"....and using the prosecutions own prop in a demonstration that in my mind, should have been pretty convincing.I agree with you ultimately on the verdict, but doesn't it seem kind of manipulative that this was the case they're making and he gained over 100 lbs since the incident?
The defense brought a gym owner in to testify that Zimmerman joined to try and lose weight and that he was one of the least athletic people he had seen. Rated his level of athleticism as a .5 on a scale of 1-10. One of the lawyers also used a mannequin the prosecutors had presented earlier in their case, to demonstrate how Martin was on top of Zimmerman pound his head in the ground. Great way to end it and leave that as one of the last things the jury sees.
I agree with you ultimately on the verdict, but doesn't it seem kind of manipulative that this was the case they're making and he gained over 100 lbs since the incident?
Clearly, his lawyer instructed him to get on the Joey Chestnut diet.
(http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/51dd7132eab8ea1e2d000011-505-498/2fat-skinny-zimmerman.jpg)
So, I find myself really pulling for an acquittal.So, here is one yes vote for the riots. Anyone else?
So, here is one yes vote for the riots. Anyone else?
3rdGoing once twice motion carried..... Bring it on. Anyone comes in my neighborhood. Shoot first ask questions later.
SANFORD, Fla. - State prosecutors are asking the judge in the Trayvon Martin murder case to instruct the jury to consider lesser charges - manslaughter and aggravated assault - when they begin deliberations Friday.
Zimmerman's attorneys have objected, and Judge Debra Nelson will hold a hearing Thursday morning to decide whether jurors should consider the new charges. The jury would still have the option of convicting Zimmerman, 29, of the second-degree murder charge that prosecutors sought when the trial began.
The last-minute maneuvering has been seen by some legal experts as an indication that prosecutors are not as confident about their chances for a second-degree murder conviction.
This may be a little too simplistic, but I believe the potential jurors who were really concerned about that, probably found a way to get out of it. The questioning by the lawyers during voir dire is extremely thorough and intense and they want to know if there is anything whatsoever that would influence you from making a decision based solely on the evidence. If you truly believed that you or your family might be in danger, you'd never make it in the box.
Despite what I want to see happen, I think I can be fairly objective based on what I've seen and heard about the evidence and the way it was presented. In my opinion, Zimmerman has a very good shot at winning. I thought, and many of the "experts" thought as well, that several of the prosecutions key witnesses did more harm than good. Some thought the trial was over before the defense put on their case. I wouldn't go nearly that far. Today, the defense wound it up by doing two things.....painting George Zimmerman as a "pudgy wimp"....and using the prosecutions own prop in a demonstration that in my mind, should have been pretty convincing.
The defense brought a gym owner in to testify that Zimmerman joined to try and lose weight and that he was one of the least athletic people he had seen. Rated his level of athleticism as a .5 on a scale of 1-10. One of the lawyers also used a mannequin the prosecutors had presented earlier in their case, to demonstrate how Martin was on top of Zimmerman pound his head in the ground. Great way to end it and leave that as one of the last things the jury sees.
Would love to get JR's take from a prosecution perspective if he followed any of it.
I hope he gets manslaughter.Youve just got it all figured out.
He clearly took the life of a 17 year old. That's a horrible thing. It was unnecessary. Everyone in this thread saying "shoot first, ask questions later" for seeing a kid walk through your neighborhood have your own issues, frankly.
I get that he thought he was doing his civic duty. And one day Barney Fife stalked the wrong kid. He was looking for trouble for years and finally found it. He got assaulted. I believe Trayvon was the aggressor. Therefore, I believe it was in "self defense". I think the self defense was excessive, and there was probably a billion chances for him to have avoided murdering a kid. Everything from not following him through the neighborhood to begin with, not following him after the dispatcher told him not to, and not getting out of the car and following him on foot, to the point of the confrontation where he could have not brandished his weapon, or not pulled the trigger, or fire it in the air, or shoot him in the foot instead of the chest.
Once again, I don't think Trayvon was a saint himself. He could have avoided the situation as well by continuing his walk instead of going on the aggressive. If Zimmerman had stopped him, he could have rolled his eyes and said "I'm on my way back from buying fucking skittles, asshole."
Zimmerman doesn't deserve murder two. But he absolutely should serve some time for taking this boy's life.
The thing that sickens me is that this correct judgement will piss off 99% of America. To 49.5%, Zimmerman is a cold blooded racist child-killer seeking to purify the White (/Hispanic) race and nothing but life in prison or execution is enough for this scum, and to the other 49.5% think that the uppity negro had no business walking through a white neighborhood with a hoodie and was asking to be killed, making Zimmerman an American hero of civic duty.
Youve just got it all figured out.You're the one getting emotional, Jesus.
That last paragraph...wow. Sandboxed that one didn't you? You can be on either side of this and not be a racist.
Did you miss the part where JR (who does this for a living) said that manslaughter also requires certain things to be proved?
Negligent homicide is what happened here. And thinking that has nothing to do with thinking "that black boy had no business walking in a white neighborhood!". But thanks for the lovely emotional rhetoric and accusations. You think with more emotion than most women which is dangerous when it comes to something like this case that is supposed to be a fact based outcome.
Negligent homicide is what happened here.is all I'm saying.
You're the one getting emotional, Jesus.
Especially when it sounds like you agree with me.
Bottom line:is all I'm saying.
I'm hoping that the courts recognize this and justice is served. I was just at my redneck family's for the 4th of July weekend, and they expressed that they will be sickened if he gets any time at all, and it sounds like that is the opinion of more than a few people on this board as well.
As far as manslaughter having to prove an "intent to kill or do injury", first of all, I think it's pretty clear when he fired his weapon that he at least intended to "do injury". And I defer to those that do this for a living, but isn't manslaughter and negligent homicide essentially the same thing? I'm sure there are subtle technical differences that I'm not aware of off the top of my head, but if someone runs over a kid because they were drunk driving, is that not manslaughter? Doesn't mean they went out looking to run over kids with an intent to kill them.
Negligent Homicide is not Murder or Manslaughter. So, if you believe that is what happened legally, I might be persuaded to agree, though we don't really know what happened when the confrontation took place. It is, at best, negligent homicide, and could be self defense on Zimmerman's part.You guys are really reaching to disagree with me.
Call hm Barney Fife all you want, describe him as "stalking Trayvon with a gun" and all it does is evidence you're already emotionally charged preconceived point of view.
If you believe it was negligent homicide, you really don't have to inject all the other bullshit characterizations to support that opinion. That's a pretty easy case to make on the facts, though not fool proof either.
Criminally negligent manslaughter
Criminally negligent manslaughter is variously referred to as criminally negligent homicide in the United States
Imperfect self-defense: Allowed only in a limited number of jurisdictions in the United States, self-defense is a complete defense to murder.[clarification needed (see talk page)] However, a person who acted in self-defense with an honest but unreasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to do so could still be convicted of voluntary manslaughter or deliberate homicide committed without criminal malice. Malice is found if a person killed intentionally and without legal excuse or mitigation
You're the one getting emotional, Jesus.
Especially when it sounds like you agree with me.
Bottom line:is all I'm saying.
I'm hoping that the courts recognize this and justice is served. I was just at my redneck family's for the 4th of July weekend, and they expressed that they will be sickened if he gets any time at all, and it sounds like that is the opinion of more than a few people on this board as well.
As far as manslaughter having to prove an "intent to kill or do injury", first of all, I think it's pretty clear when he fired his weapon that he at least intended to "do injury". And I defer to those that do this for a living, but isn't manslaughter and negligent homicide essentially the same thing? I'm sure there are subtle technical differences that I'm not aware of off the top of my head, but if someone runs over a kid because they were drunk driving, is that not manslaughter? Doesn't mean they went out looking to run over kids with an intent to kill them.
Had this been two white guys or two black guys...or two Hispanic guys, this would have made the local papers at best and no one on this board or anywhere else outside those families or that neighborhood would give two shoots about it. I followed it because as I've said, I've pulled a George Zimmerman numerous times. Have no idea how I would have reacted had anyone jumped my ass. I've had my gun with me in the vehicle. Never pulled it, threatened to pull it or gotten very confrontational with anyone. Just let them know they had no business where they were. I call the po-po every time now. And since a home has now been built further back down the road, the traffic has been curtailed by at least 5/9ths or 71%. My point being, I followed this trial and I do want to see an acquittal because I've been in his shoes many times, right up to the confrontation and assault. I can't speak for George Zimmerman but I've never once gone down there looking for any trouble. And I firmly believe he wanted nothing more than to play Barney Fife himself and run Martin off.Look, I'm sorry about shitting in your yard that time. Can't we just let it rest.
You guys are really reaching to disagree with me.
Sorry if calling him Barney Fife offends your delicate sensibilities, but anyone that calls the cops 50 times in a couple of years, and follows every "suspicious" person through his neighborhood with a gun, fits that comparison, in my opinion. And it is a fact of the case that he stalked him through the neighborhood. Between Zimmerman's calls to the police and Trayvon's call to his friend, it has been determined beyond any doubt that Trayvon knew he was being followed for quite some time before shit went down. I fail to see how that description is "emotionally charged". If I were so "emotionally charged", I would probably have one of those extreme absolute black-and-white all-or-nothing positions I was just bitching about.
And again, I'm not a lawyer, but your assertion that "negligent homicide is not manslaughter" doesn't appear to be true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter_%28United_States_law%29#Criminally_negligent_manslaughter
Furthermore, Voluntary manslaughter includes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter_%28United_States_law%29#Voluntary_manslaughter
This sounds pretty spot on like what happened in this case to me.
Again, I don't understand the bending over backwards to try to disagree with me, after it has been agreed that negligent homicide is what took place here.And maybe just maybe people should think twice before they decide to jump a guy with a gun. In his neighborhood.
A kid lost his life unnecessarily, and there should be consequences for that.
I'm not saying he should go to prison for life. As we've established, I don't think he is guilty of second degree murder, as the defense built their case around.
I'm just saying, basically he brought a gun to a fist fight and took a human life. If a black guy had been the one to pull the trigger you'd probably be quicker to recognize that that is unacceptable.
Again, I don't understand the bending over backwards to try to disagree with me, after it has been agreed that negligent homicide is what took place here.
A kid lost his life unnecessarily, and there should be consequences for that.
I'm not saying he should go to prison for life. As we've established, I don't think he is guilty of second degree murder, as the defense built their case around.
I'm just saying, basically he brought a gun to a fist fight and took a human life. If a black guy had been the one to pull the trigger you'd probably be quicker to recognize that that is unacceptable.
I don't know Florida Law. They may not have a Negligent Homicide statute like we do. Could be negligence IS manslaughter there. Don't know. Doubt you do either.It is lost on me. I'm not bending over backwards to disagree with anyone. You guys all flipped your shit when I said he deserves manslaughter, but not 2nd Degree murder to the point where we muddied what manslaughter actually means so that I could somehow still be wrong. What exactly do we disagree with here? My tone? Because I'm not ready to declare Zimmerman or Trayvon a saint?
The irony of your first sentence is lost on you I'm certain.
It is lost on me. I'm not bending over backwards to disagree with anyone. You guys all flipped your shit when I said he deserves manslaughter, but not 2nd Degree murder to the point where we muddied what manslaughter actually means so that I could somehow still be wrong. What exactly do we disagree with here? My tone? Because I'm not ready to declare Zimmerman or Trayvon a saint?
I'm the one saying we agree, despite you guys trying really hard to say I'm a blathering idiot for having the same opinions that you do.
Again, I don't understand the bending over backwards to try to disagree with me, after it has been agreed that negligent homicide is what took place here.
Really? We've agreed that there was negligent homicide?
I certainly haven't agreed. I don't even know that there was homicide. Self defense? Was his death "unnecessary?" If he acted as if he meant to kill me, my family, my friends or somebody I don't even know very well then stopping him by any means necessary seems fair. To paraphrase Dolph. "If he dies, he dies."
Sometimes people die in horrible ways. Doesn't mean somebody has to pay.
You jump somebody you accept the risks for doing it. If I start beating the crap out of somebody at the Braves game because I was in their seat and they asked me to move, I deserve whatever they bring to the table -- knife, gun, mace, axe, hammer, bazooka, spear. If I die, well then I'm the idiot. Bad on me.
That's the way the world should operate if it doesn't already.
EDIT:
The judge allowing the jury to tack on lesser charges is, to me, grounds for an appeal if they come back with those. But I'm not the Florida SC. Should be, the place would be a lot nicer, but I'm not.
Again, I don't understand the bending over backwards to try to disagree with me, after it has been agreed that negligent homicide is what took place here.Equal force. It is paramount to the self-defense law.
Really? We've agreed that there was negligent homicide?
I certainly haven't agreed. I don't even know that there was homicide. Self defense? Was his death "unnecessary?" If he acted as if he meant to kill me, my family, my friends or somebody I don't even know very well then stopping him by any means necessary seems fair. To paraphrase Dolph. "If he dies, he dies."
Sometimes people die in horrible ways. Doesn't mean somebody has to pay.
You jump somebody you accept the risks for doing it. If I start beating the crap out of somebody at the Braves game because I was in their seat and they asked me to move, I deserve whatever they bring to the table -- knife, gun, mace, axe, hammer, bazooka, spear. If I die, well then I'm the idiot. Bad on me.
That's the way the world should operate if it doesn't already.
EDIT:
The judge allowing the jury to tack on lesser charges is, to me, grounds for an appeal if they come back with those. But I'm not the Florida SC. Should be, the place would be a lot nicer, but I'm not.
Equal force. It is paramount to the self-defense law.
If your house is getting broken into and you see a gun? Absolutely, you have the right to blow his brains out. If you've been following a guy for miles on foot, he finally turns around and asks you what the fudge your problem is and attacks you with his hands? You don't have the right to take his life by shooting him in the chest. That's not how the law works, nor should it be.
Equal force. It is paramount to the self-defense law.
If your house is getting broken into and you see a gun? Absolutely, you have the right to blow his brains out. If you've been following a guy for miles on foot, he finally turns around and asks you what the fuck your problem is and attacks you with his hands? You don't have the right to take his life by shooting him in the chest. That's not how the law works, nor should it be.
A skull fracture is a break in one or more of the eight bones that form the cranial portion of the skull, usually occurring as a result of blunt force trauma. If the force of the impact is excessive, the bone may fracture at or near the site of the impact and cause damage to the underlying physical structures contained within the skull such as the membranes, blood vessels, and brain, even in the absence of a fracture.
Any significant blow to the head results in a concussion, with or without loss of consciousness.
A depressed skull fracture is a type of fracture usually resulting from blunt force trauma, such as getting struck with a hammer, rock or getting kicked in the head. These types of fractures, which occur in 11% of severe head injuries, are comminuted fractures in which broken bones are displaced inward. Depressed skull fractures carry a high risk of increased pressure on the brain, or a hemorrhage to the brain, crushing the delicate tissue.
Compound depressed skull fractures occur when there is a laceration over the fracture, resulting in the internal cranial cavity being in contact with the outside environment increasing the risk of contamination and infection.
If you've been following a guy for miles on foot, he finally turns around and asks you what the fuck your problem is and attacks you with his hands? You don't have the right to take his life by shooting him in the chest. That's not how the law works, nor should it be.
Equal force. It is paramount to the self-defense law.
If your house is getting broken into and you see a gun? Absolutely, you have the right to blow his brains out. If you've been following a guy for miles on foot, he finally turns around and asks you what the fuck your problem is and attacks you with his hands? You don't have the right to take his life by shooting him in the chest. That's not how the law works, nor should it be.
I'm the one saying we agree, despite you guys trying really hard to say I'm a blathering idiot for having the same opinions that you do.I would just like to point out that I've never thought of you as a blathering idiot for having the same opinions that I do. It is for completely different reasons. Carry on. :rofl: :clap: :taunt:
This assumes that his intentions are more than to run the guy off from the neighborhood and that he had intentions of doing harm, which the state would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
What if I am just walking around my neighborhood for some exercise and someone who is not from there is doing the same and feels like I am following him? What if he turns and ask me "what the fuck is your problem?" and starts attacking me with his fist? I have no right to defend myself even to the point of taking his life if I feared for mine?
Since Zimmerman openly admits shooting Martin, had he been charged with manslaughter, which is action without intent to cause death, he would be walking towards prison right now.
I predict that Zimmerman gets off on second degree - the DA is in over his head - he can try and inflate all the inflamatory statements Zimmerman made, and try and spin them towards enough intent to justify second degree, but I don't think, based on what I have seen, heard and read so far, that I would vote for second degree. I would have voted for manslaughter, no question.
Like I said before, I'd convict the guy on manslaughter, and give him probation or time served or something. Doubt he constitutes a continuing threat to society. But he walks on Murder Two.
Negligent homicide or inv manslaughter is what we have here.
This is getting ridiculous. Bleeding hearts are all for the criminal until they are the one's that get attacked.
A man with an itchy trigger finger and hell bent on shooting someone DOES NOT WAIT TILL HIS ATTACKER IS UPON HIM. ANY injuries inflicted upon Zimmerman (and there were) says that he waited to be attacked BEFORE responding. THAT IS SELF DEFENSE...unless you ae black. Then its half whitey killing another innocent black boy.
This is a kangaroo case in a kangaroo court. This should never have gone to trial. It only went this far because of an ignorant (leftist) media inciting racial tensions.
THERE WAS NO HOMICIDE. WE WILL NEVER AGREE ON THAT!
And there is NO evidence stating otherwise.
There was a Homicide, as one person killed another. There was no murder here. IMHO.
Shall I go on the assumption that YOU believe that Trayvon was justified in going on the attack because he thought he was being followed and got tired of it, and thus Zimmerman has no claim to self defense because of that?I believe that it is reasonably understandable for a kid to attack someone for fear of their own safety after they've obviously been followed on foot for several blocks through a neighborhood.
What am I missing here?
It sounds to me like most everyone here thought he was guilty of manslaughter...until they found out that he could actually be charged for it.
Furthermore, I think based on the evidence of the case, that he probably could have avoided taking Trayvon's life at several points during the incident.
This is getting ridiculous. Bleeding hearts are all for the criminal until they are the one's that get attacked.So I'm a "bleeding heart" now? You do realize that there are a lot of people out there who are 100% convinced that Zimmerman committed 2nd degree murder out there and that Trayvon is saint, incapable of any wrongdoing himself.
A man with an itchy trigger finger and hell bent on shooting someone DOES NOT WAIT TILL HIS ATTACKER IS UPON HIM. ANY injuries inflicted upon Zimmerman (and there were) says that he waited to be attacked BEFORE responding. THAT IS SELF DEFENSE...unless you ae black. Then its half whitey killing another innocent black boy.
This is a kangaroo case in a kangaroo court. This should never have gone to trial. It only went this far because of an ignorant (leftist) media inciting racial tensions.I'm 100% in agreeance on this. I don't think the right-wing media has done any favors by propping up Zimmerman as a hero either, but that's neither here nor there. By and large, we're talking about this because it's a ratings bonanza because it plays off of racial hatred on both sides. No good comes from this. It's sensationalism at its worst.
THERE WAS NO HOMICIDE. WE WILL NEVER AGREE ON THAT!Derp. No one shot and killed another person, ending their life? You've got some scoop that the rest of the country would love to get in on.
And there is NO evidence stating otherwise.
To answer your question, I don't necessarily think it was "right" for Trayvon to confront Zimmerman, and I certainly don't think it, in and of itself, is grounds to eliminate Zimmerman's right to self defense that Trayvon had a motive for attacking him.To expand on this, a lot depends on your definition of "starting it" is. The person that threw the first punch? I believe that to be Trayvon, as do most people. The person that initiated the behavior that caused the scuffle? I don't think there's any doubt that that was Zimmerman.
What am I missing here?
It sounds to me like most everyone here thought he was guilty of manslaughter...until they found out that he could actually be charged for it.
What am I missing here?
It sounds to me like most everyone here thought he was guilty of manslaughter...until they found out that he could actually be charged for it.
I believe that it is reasonably understandable for a kid to attack someone for fear of their own safety after they've obviously been followed on foot for several blocks through a neighborhood.
If Trayvon had been suspended from school, for having wimenz jewlery and a burglary tool, whatever that is(which is what I've read)--was this admissible?
THERE WAS NO HOMICIDE. WE WILL NEVER AGREE ON THAT!
So you think tray on had a right to defend himself because he was being hounded but at the same time you don't think Zimmerman had any right to defend himself from having his head bashed on the concrete?? Good grief man.Again, I explicitly said I don't think it was necessarily right, but certainly understandable given the circumstances. And where did I say Zimmerman had no right to defend himself? I said that he probably, based on what we know, went above and beyond reasonable due force considering he killed an unarmed kid.
And the judge allowing for manslaughter AFTER closing arguments is utter bullshit. With that, this has indeed become a kangaroo court. He was brought in on a murder charge. He is either guilty of the charge or not. They knew their murder case was crap and are pulling this 11th hour bullshit.This is not too far off from what CCTAU was saying. If the Boston bomber was cleared on using a WMD but then later was charged for attempted murder of a police officer, assuming he wasn't initially charged of this in this hypothetical example, would you declare it to be "11th hour bullshit"?
If you believe that, then all other discussion is futile. You've formed an opinion that runs contrary to law, then based your entire position and supporting arguments around it.Ok...
I think you mean that there was no murder. Any death at the hands of another person is homicide, regardless of intent or means or method. It's either natural causes, suicide, death by misfortune/accidental or homicide.Again, I agree with all of this. Any implication that any of that which you are rallying against is my position is a straw man.
And Chizad, I still have no problem with Zimmerman being convicted of manslaughter, which, again per Wiki, is determined based on state of mind and mitigating circumstances. I have not seen all the evidence, but if the jury believes there is enough proof to say he had some culpability in Martin's death, I can accept that, as long as he is found innocent of second degree murder. But even if that is the verdict, I don't think he should do serious time.
My biggest complaint comes when people assume that because a person carries a gun, they are automatically looking to shoot someone. That's just not true. Regardless of one's level of Barney Fife'dom, the fact that Zimmerman was legally carrying a weapon should not automatically translate into intent to commit murder in the second degree.
The only reason I am saying manslaughter occurred is because Zimmerman could have backed off before the situation escalated.Again, this is all that I'm really saying, especially from a legal standpoint.
Again, this is all that I'm really saying, especially from a legal standpoint.I don't see how circumcision has any relevance in this debate.
Everything else, I'm just saying, while not "right" by any means, is understandable behavior for a human being to react, and doesn't necessarily make him a thug looking for trouble either. All of that is completely circumstantial.
Again, this is all that I'm really saying, especially from a legal standpoint.
Everything else, I'm just saying, while not "right" by any means, is understandable behavior for a human being to react, and doesn't necessarily make him a thug looking for trouble either. All of that is completely circumstantial.
Again, I explicitly said I don't think it was necessarily right, but certainly understandable given the circumstances. And where did I say Zimmerman had no right to defend himself? I said that he probably, based on what we know, went above and beyond reasonable due force considering he killed an unarmed kid.
This is not too far off from what CCTAU was saying. If the Boston bomber was cleared on using a WMD but then later was charged for attempted murder of a police officer, assuming he wasn't initially charged of this in this hypothetical example, would you declare it to be "11th hour bullshit"?
You're essentially saying "Well yeah he's guilty of manslaughter, but I want him to get away with that."
Ok...
I don't know how else to spell this out. I said several times that I don't think whether or not Trayvon had a clear motivation to attack Zimmerman has any bearing on his right to self defense. I think using excessive force on an unarmed person is the problem here.
The opinion part is that I understand the psychology that would lead a person who has been followed through a neighborhood to finally turn around and ask him what the fuck his problem is and strike first before he was attacked. For the 12,000th time, I don't think it's necessarily right, and I certainly don't think it has any legal bearing whatsoever, but it is reasonable, understandable behavior is all I'm saying.
So answer me. Do you think that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman for absolutely no reason? You think he didn't know he was following him? You think he just assaulted him for sport?
Zimmerman had no idea trayvon w as a teenager, had no idea why he was in the neighborhood, how was he supposed to know he had no ill intentions?Are you serious? Don't you get CNN? Because Trayvon was black, you racist.
I just want to know when all of this white-tan on black violence will end.
I just want to know when all of this tan on black violence will end.
When our White/Black president tells everyone to stand down
And when Zimmerman is freed...
He already done said this cracker is guilty.
This guy is the worst president ever, ever, ever, ever. His alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood has turned Egypt from a strong ally in the middle east to a cauldron of unrest and our enemy.
He's screwing Israel over.
He's using federal agencies to punish his detractors and manipulate the media and national perception (yes, he directed the DOJ to support Trayvon rallies).
And when Zimmerman is freed, he will probably deputize the National Guard to go arrest him for something or other.
Obama is bad news for this country. He's a socialist and an elitist for no other reason than he declared himself to be. His credentials don't support his buffoonish snobbery. And his wife looks like RGIII.
I see what you're doin' there.
Why even bring this case?
Because our president, attorney general, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson wanted an arrest. Any guess as to what they all have in common?
And we're the racist ones??????
It's really sad that police and figureheads have to instruct people not to riot based on the verdict. And for some reason we live like that's okay.
It's just part of their culture. Just like "crazy ass cracker" is "part of their culture. Because "it's just part of their culture" it is somehow OKyou are one crazy ass cracker.
FTFY
Ain't nobody deserve to be called "white" unless they pure!
Roll Tide.
I think he gets manslaughter, and goes for 20 years.
And I think the state charged him with Murder 2, knowing they couldn't get it. Spring manslaughter on the jury, jury goes in and says "well, he killed the kid, he didn't do enough for murder2, but he needs to get punished for what he did, guilty of manslaughter."
I think he gets manslaughter, and goes for 20 years.Yep. They know the implications of an acquittal and most couldn't do the right thing in good conscience. Now that's an interesting concept.
And I think the state charged him with Murder 2, knowing they couldn't get it. Spring manslaughter on the jury, jury goes in and says "well, he killed the kid, he didn't do enough for murder2, but he needs to get punished for what he did, guilty of manslaughter."
Yep. They know the implications of an acquittal and most couldn't do the right thing in good conscience. Now that's an interesting concept.
Where do I sign up to riot?
Where do I sign up to riot?
I imagine it's the same place you sign up for food stamps.
Ok, that was absolutely the most racist thing I've ever posted. It was ignorantly inaccurate, and had a major overtone of racism.....and not a single comment laced with malice?
This case really is a black eye if you think about it. The majority of our mainstream media said Zimmerman was guilty prior to the courtroom. Even our president made asinine comments that said Trayvon was innocent and Zimmerman was guilty well prior to the courtroom. The birmingham city council wore fucking hoodies to work one day to promote "justice for Trayvon."racist
What an immature moment in American history.
Ok, that was absolutely the most racist thing I've ever posted. It was ignorantly inaccurate, and had a major overtone of racism.....and not a single comment laced with malice?Don't sell yourself so short. I think that you've been much more racist than this.
South Florida gon blow up!I would not want to be white and take a wrong turn there tonight. I find it hard to believe that they actually did what most of us perceive as the right thing.
Yes, they could have convicted on manslaughter. Not guilty on both charges.
South Florida gon blow up!
I find myself playing Dumbfixt :thumsup:evil'sAssdvocatemore than anything on here.
But I do agree that the way CNN, MSNBC, and Headline News have treated this verdict is pretty appalling.
Basically, they refuse to accept the court's ruling. They boil it down to "apparently, it's legal to shoot teenagers for no reason now" type hyperbole. They completely refuse to acknowledge that Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman.
I do still think Zimmerman could have avoided this, and initiated the chain of events that led to this kid's death. But ultimately, Trayvon would be alive if he had not assaulted Zimmerman, and beat him within an inch of his life.
I also saw Zimmerman's brother eviscerate Piers Morgan.
Just watched George Zimmerman's brother hand some smug CNN anchor his ass in a one on one.
Fuck CNN.
I laughed heartily when I saw that Fox News had Mark Fuhrman (yes, that Mark Fuhrman) on as an "expert".
I do still think Zimmerman could have avoided this, and initiated the chain of events that led to this kid's death.
I'm gonna say Self Defense.Nailed it.
I hate Jesse Jackson.
An expert on good race relations? No.
An expert on detective work? Yes.
An expert on good race relations? No.
An expert on detective work? Yes.
Right...and since the police work was never in question during this trial...
I may have missed it, but were did the police have screw ups? Serious question? The only knock against the agency from either side that I saw, was not charging Zimmerman. And it appears they got that one right.
I will say though, Im fairly certain he was charged with a felony for saying "black" on a recording more than a few times and lying about it under oath. So I agree, he should have never seen facetime in this story.
I may have missed it, but were did the police have screw ups? Serious question?
Most of the time I see Furman on tv commentating, he's usually giving a Csi type of opinion about a case. The forensics and or situation of a crime scene, etc. Maybe in poor taste but I don't think one personal screwup makes him any less credible as far as knowing his shit in the field. Sure he's an ass, I agree. But he knows crime scene logistics. Was very good at it before the screwup in the OJ trial.
Caught the last part of something Obama said. He was referring to the best way that we can honor Trayvon Martin.
Why ? Martin attacked someone, got killed for it. End of story. As a parent, I feel a slight empathy for his parents. But basically, I don't give a fuck about this kid. Apparently he wanted to be a gangster and he got what most gangsters do. Fuck him and the professionally offended who won't drop it.
Caught the last part of something Obama said. He was referring to the best way that we can honor Trayvon Martin.
Why ? Martin attacked someone, got killed for it. End of story. As a parent, I feel a slight empathy for his parents. But basically, I don't give a fuck about this kid. Apparently he wanted to be a gangster and he got what most gangsters do. Fuck him and the professionally offended who won't drop it.
Caught the last part of something Obama said. He was referring to the best way that we can honor Trayvon Martin.Exactly.
Why ? Martin attacked someone, got killed for it. End of story. As a parent, I feel a slight empathy for his parents. But basically, I don't give a fuck about this kid. Apparently he wanted to be a gangster and he got what most gangsters do. Fuck him and the professionally offended who won't drop it.
Caught the last part of something Obama said. He was referring to the best way that we can honor Trayvon Martin.why? To overcome ones obvious racism. If you think that this verdict was just, then you are a racist. This was determined before the trial started.
Why ? Martin attacked someone, got killed for it. End of story. As a parent, I feel a slight empathy for his parents. But basically, I don't give a fudge about this kid. Apparently he wanted to be a gangster and he got what most gangsters do. fudge him and the professionally offended who won't drop it.
why? To overcome ones obvious racism. If you think that this verdict was just, then you are a racist. This was determined before the trial started.The verdict was just...also, there shouldn't have even been a trial.
This case is fucking insane. The guy was found not guilty, which means what he did was reasonable under the law. Which means he did not have some premeditated plan to kill this kid. The FBI has narratives in some of their investigation stating that they interviewed over 20 people who said Zimmerman had never shown any racist tendencies prior to the shooting. But, the DOJ feels the need to investigate to see if this was based on race. Over 300,000 people have signed a petition at moveon.org urging the DOJ to file a civil rights case against Zimmerman.Not to mention the fact that George Zimmerman and his wife mentored two black kids for a few years.
There was no crime committed, but that's where this country is now. If you don't like that the police aren't charging somebody with a crime that you want them to be charged with, go nuts, raise hell, make petitions until they cave and do what you want. If you don't like the findings of a jury, go nuts, raise hell, and make petitions until they cave and do what you want.
If you don't like that the police aren't charging somebody with a crime that you want them to be charged with, go nuts, raise hell, make petitions until they cave and do what you want. If you don't like the findings of a jury, go nuts, raise hell, and make petitions until they cave and do what you want.
(http://mockbarack.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/uhh-meme-generator-do-not-blame-me-or-you-are-a-racist-b9ed48.jpg)
They didn't...thus, my bemusement at Fuhrman's involvement in the discussion.
See above.
Not to mention the fact that George Zimmerman and his wife mentored two black kids for a few years.His great grandfather is black. His mother is Afro-Peruvian. He is equally as white as Barrack Obama. The product of an interracial marriage himself. He is (was) registered to vote as a Hispanic Democrat. He voted for Obama. In high school, he dated a black girl. Took her to prom.
The reaction to all of this is really disturbing. Any evidence that Trayvon had a history of physical violence (see the transcripts of his texts (http://www.buzzfeed.com/ellievhall/trayvon-martin-cell-phone-photos-show-weed-guns-and-horsebac) that the judge for some reason didn't allow as admissible) are completely ignored. Any facts of the case, like the fact that Trayvon clearly physically confronted Zimmerman, are ignored.
I say candy is the real culprit in this case. If he hadn't had been off to the store for skittles, it would have been Reese's.Yeah, some of the pictures they posted in that article distract from the disturbing ones. Don't know why they showed all the random ones like this ominous horseback riding pic.
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d58/saniflush/reeses_zps39f7e56b.jpg)
"Weed don't make him go crazy," she said. "It just makes him go hungry."
I like the moral outrage from Rachel Jeantel.
I don't read the cusrsives...
http://now.msn.com/rachel-jeantel-slams-zimmerman-verdict-in-piers-morgan-interview?ocid=ansnow11
I'm sorry, but if you do enough of it your perception of reality can be somewhat skewed.My dog barks brown in fluent Latin. It has nothing to do with this weed.
When sounds have colors and people begin to speak in tongues, well... that's probably a sign to let it rest for a while.
His great grandfather is black. His mother is Afro-Peruvian. He is equally as white as Barrack Obama. The product of an interracial marriage himself. He is (was) registered to vote as a Hispanic Democrat. He voted for Obama. In high school, he dated a black girl. Took her to prom.
Saw them play a clip of the 911 call last night, that a pundit claimed proved beyond any doubt that he was racist. Specifically the first 35 seconds.
http://youtu.be/zj7qEcD8R-8
When asked "Is he white, black, or Hispanic?", he answered "He looks black", with an uncertainty in his voice. To anyone not looking desperately for racism, it is clear that he doesn't even know for sure that he's black at this point. He just knows that he's walking around suspiciously.
After seeing the mountain of evidence over the last few days, as well as the jury's verdict, I'm with you guys now. He didn't do a damn thing wrong. It was obviously a bad situation that I'm sure he wishes never got in, but when it comes down to it, he was reporting suspicious activity in his neighborhood. He was assaulted. He defended himself. Period.
The reaction to all of this is really disturbing. Any evidence that Trayvon had a history of physical violence (see the transcripts of his texts (http://www.buzzfeed.com/ellievhall/trayvon-martin-cell-phone-photos-show-weed-guns-and-horsebac) that the judge for some reason didn't allow as admissible) are completely ignored. Any facts of the case, like the fact that Trayvon clearly physically confronted Zimmerman, are ignored.
But it feels racist, so we must convict him for murder. No facts of the case, or of Zimmerman's background are admissible in the steel trap minds of so many across the country.
I say candy is the real culprit in this case. If he hadn't had been off to the store for skittles, it would have been Reese's.
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d58/saniflush/reeses_zps39f7e56b.jpg)
His great grandfather is black. His mother is Afro-Peruvian. He is equally as white as Barrack Obama. The product of an interracial marriage himself. He is (was) registered to vote as a Hispanic Democrat. He voted for Obama. In high school, he dated a black girl. Took her to prom.
Saw them play a clip of the 911 call last night, that a pundit claimed proved beyond any doubt that he was racist. Specifically the first 35 seconds.
When asked "Is he white, black, or Hispanic?", he answered "He looks black", with an uncertainty in his voice. To anyone not looking desperately for racism, it is clear that he doesn't even know for sure that he's black at this point. He just knows that he's walking around suspiciously.
After seeing the mountain of evidence over the last few days, as well as the jury's verdict, I'm with you guys now. He didn't do a damn thing wrong. It was obviously a bad situation that I'm sure he wishes never got in, but when it comes down to it, he was reporting suspicious activity in his neighborhood. He was assaulted. He defended himself. Period.
The reaction to all of this is really disturbing. Any evidence that Trayvon had a history of physical violence (see the transcripts of his texts (http://www.buzzfeed.com/ellievhall/trayvon-martin-cell-phone-photos-show-weed-guns-and-horsebac) that the judge for some reason didn't allow as admissible) are completely ignored. Any facts of the case, like the fact that Trayvon clearly physically confronted Zimmerman, are ignored.
But it feels racist, so we must convict him for murder. No facts of the case, or of Zimmerman's background are admissible in the steel trap minds of so many across the country.
See. Herein lies the cruz of the issue. YOU went with the popular vote because you were raised in that first generation of beta males. Not meant to be a slap, it is what I said the other day about liberals and the education system creating the touchy feely male. There are many like you.Not a whole lot of my opinion has changed throughout the course of this thread. I was never convinced he should be convicted of murder.
HOWEVER. You continued to seek more truth. Most of your liberal government educated generation will not seek any further.
There is hope for you yet!
Kudos.
A small part of me still feels that he probably could have done more to avoid having to take the kid's life.Your penis part?
Your penis part?
See. Herein lies the cruz of the issue. YOU went with the popular vote because you were raised in that first generation of beta males. Not meant to be a slap, it is what I said the other day about liberals and the education system creating the touchy feely male. There are many like you.
HOWEVER. You continued to seek more truth. Most of your liberal government educated generation will not seek any further.
There is hope for you yet!
Kudos.
Curious:
What do you guys think of this?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/hunterschwarz/florida-mother-receives-20-year-sentence-for-firing-warning
I have my own opinions, which I'm sure you can guess.
On the flip side of the coin, there are those who adamantly defended Zimmerman as completely innocent prior to knowing all of the facts. Just because the case turned out to support their premature conclusions does not mean that they're geniuses and everyone else who made opposite assumptions or remained undecided are brainwashed beta males.
But is that not what they are presumed until proven otherwise?
In a court of law, yes. But those who asserted Zimmerman was innocent from the beginning were not trying to say that he was innocent until proven guilty. They were saying that Zimmerman was flat out innocent prior to knowing all of the facts.
I'm sure there were those who were arguing the technicality that he is innocent until proven guilty, but you know as well as I do that there are those who automatically made the assumption that he was innocent and didn't want to hear anything to the contrary. Some people made this assumption due to racism or stereotypes. Others made it out of fear that their self defense rights could be diminished if a guilty verdict was reached.
Regardless of what assumption people made prior to all of the evidence being released, and regardless of why they made that assumption prior to seeing all of the evidence, those who made a correct assumption prematurely aren't suddenly alpha male prodigies from the best generation evarrrr who are superior over those of us who waited to hear the facts before making a decision.
As soon as they showed the blood on the back of Zimmerman's head, I proclaimed self defense. Only a weak beta male would not see it this way.
As soon as they showed the blood on the back of Zimmerman's head, I proclaimed self defense. Only a weak beta male would not see it this way.For me it was more of a snowball effect. I saw piece after piece of evidence of evidence that backed up Zimmerman's story. It looked legit at face value, and the pictures certainly supported what he was saying. His story never changed. It was very clear and made complete sense. He didn't plan on killing the kid. I just can't imagine him calling the police if he planned on death being the outcome. When he was brought in for questioning, he didn't know that they hadn't found any witnesses. His story still didn't change. One of the detectives even testified that they tried to trick him up and told him that they located a witness who had cell phone video of the event. His reply was "Thank God!", and he seemed relieved. Then the police nor the DA saw the need to press charges, or even send it to the grand jury.
For me it was more of a snowball effect. I saw piece after piece of evidence of evidence that backed up Zimmerman's story. It looked legit at face value, and the pictures certainly supported what he was saying. His story never changed. It was very clear and made complete sense. He didn't plan on killing the kid. I just can't imagine him calling the police if he planned on death being the outcome. When he was brought in for questioning, he didn't know that they hadn't found any witnesses. His story still didn't change. One of the detectives even testified that they tried to trick him up and told him that they located a witness who had cell phone video of the event. His reply was "Thank God!", and he seemed relieved. Then the police nor the DA saw the need to press charges, or even send it to the grand jury.(http://pbr116.photobucket.com/albums/o20/dtrudeau54/Blank%20Stare%20What%20Face%20Palm/YpOdA_zpsb03a4d3a.gif?t=1368644360)
Like I said before was Zimmerman overzealous? Sure. Did he have a little bit of hero syndrome? Probably. But in all of the times he called the police before, there wasn't any instances of him actually confronting the subject (that I'm aware of, anyway). I don't even think that if he had given Martin a "Hey, what are you doing here?" that it would be unreasonable. Zimmerman was where he was supposed to be. He has every right to be suspicious of somebody he doesn't recognize wandering around the neighborhood at night, especially when that person fits the description of people that had been committing burglaries in the neighborhood.
For me it was more of a snowball effect. I saw piece after piece of evidence of evidence that backed up Zimmerman's story. It looked legit at face value, and the pictures certainly supported what he was saying. His story never changed. It was very clear and made complete sense. He didn't plan on killing the kid. I just can't imagine him calling the police if he planned on death being the outcome. When he was brought in for questioning, he didn't know that they hadn't found any witnesses. His story still didn't change. One of the detectives even testified that they tried to trick him up and told him that they located a witness who had cell phone video of the event. His reply was "Thank God!", and he seemed relieved. Then the police nor the DA saw the need to press charges, or even send it to the grand jury.What I don't understand, why the fuck did/does the media continue to say that Zimmerman chased after him even when he was told not to (or in some mediot's case chasing after him with a gun, making it sound like Zimmerman was waving the gun around)? He was FOLLOWING Martin to try and tell the Police dispatch where he was going. Then when the dispatcher asked him if he was following him, he said yes (out of breath), then the dispatch told him to stop, he stopped (slowly regaining his breath and began telling the dispatch of his location)...Btw, that lasted a total of about 20 seconds. Also, Zimmerman said "it's fucking cold" (not "it's a fucking "coon" like the dumbass, racist, pieces of shit are trying to say that Zimmerman said). I'm starting to get very sick of this entire Country and if things continue to go like they're going, it's going to get a whole lot worse, which will be right around the time I move...probably to Canada or overseas somewhere. It was stated before, iirc someone here stated it, that this will probably be one of the shortest lived Dynastys in History.
Like I said before was Zimmerman overzealous? Sure. Did he have a little bit of hero syndrome? Probably. But in all of the times he called the police before, there wasn't any instances of him actually confronting the subject (that I'm aware of, anyway). I don't even think that if he had given Martin a "Hey, what are you doing here?" that it would be unreasonable. Zimmerman was where he was supposed to be. He has every right to be suspicious of somebody he doesn't recognize wandering around the neighborhood at night, especially when that person fits the description of people that had been committing burglaries in the neighborhood.
For me it was more of a snowball effect. I saw piece after piece of evidence of evidence that backed up Zimmerman's story. It looked legit at face value, and the pictures certainly supported what he was saying. His story never changed. It was very clear and made complete sense. He didn't plan on killing the kid. I just can't imagine him calling the police if he planned on death being the outcome. When he was brought in for questioning, he didn't know that they hadn't found any witnesses. His story still didn't change. One of the detectives even testified that they tried to trick him up and told him that they located a witness who had cell phone video of the event. His reply was "Thank God!", and he seemed relieved. Then the police nor the DA saw the need to press charges, or even send it to the grand jury.
Like I said before was Zimmerman overzealous? Sure. Did he have a little bit of hero syndrome? Probably. But in all of the times he called the police before, there wasn't any instances of him actually confronting the subject (that I'm aware of, anyway). I don't even think that if he had given Martin a "Hey, what are you doing here?" that it would be unreasonable. Zimmerman was where he was supposed to be. He has every right to be suspicious of somebody he doesn't recognize wandering around the neighborhood at night, especially when that person fits the description of people that had been committing burglaries in the neighborhood.
Self defense laws don't revolve around who has the most injuries, who was the first to incur injuries, or where those injuries are located. Someone who starts a fight can end up with injuries on the back of his head.
Updated 12/18/2009 10:41 PM
Jury Finds Roderick Scott Not Guilty
By: Mike Hedeen
Not guilty: The verdict in the manslaughter trial of Roderick Scott. After more than 19 hours of deliberations over two days, a jury acquitted the Greece man in the shooting death of Christopher Cervini, 17, last April.
"I just want to say thank you to the people who believed in me, who stood by me,†Scott said following the verdict. “I still have my regrets for the Cervini family; it's still an unfortunate situation for them. I am happy that at least this chapter is over."
As deliberations dragged on over two days and the jury asked for testimony to be read back, Scott admits he didn't know how it would all turn out.
"I was nervous of course,†he said. “You never know what direction this whole thing is going to turn, so I have no idea. But it worked out and I feel that justice (was) served today."
Cervini's family members say justice wasn't served. They say Christopher was murdered in cold blood, that he'd never been in trouble and Scott acted as judge, jury and executioner.
"The message is that we can all go out and get guns and feel anybody that we feel is threatening us and lie about the fact,†said Jim Cervini, Christopher’s father. “My son never threatened anybody. He was a gentle child, his nature was gentle, he was a good person and he was never, ever arrested for anything, and has never been in trouble. He was 16 years and four months old, and he was slaughtered."
Scott says he acted in self defense when he confronted Cervini and two others saying they were stealing from neighbors cars. He told them he had a gun and ordered them to freeze and wait for police.
Scott says he shot Cervini twice when the victim charged toward him yelling he was going to get Scott.
"How can this happen to a beautiful, sweet child like that?†asked Cervini’s aunt Carol Cervini. “All he wanted to do was go home. And then for them to say, he was saying, 'Please don't kill me. I'm just a kid,' and he just kept on shooting him."
Scott says the last seven months have been difficult for him and his family. If he could go back to the events in the early morning hours of April 4, there are things he says he would do differently.
"If it meant a person not losing their life, absolutely,†he said. “Would I still have tried to stop what was going on? That I would have done. But if I knew ahead of time that I could do something to help somebody from losing their life, I don't want anyone to lose their life."
Scott says the first thing he was going to do was go home and get a good night sleep. When asked if he'll continue living in his current home, which is just one street away from the Cervini's, he said “for the time being.â€
BUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE RACES WERE REVERSED???
Answer:
http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/
I need a 52" Sony for my back porch. Anyone interested in organizing a protest outside the Northside Dothan Wall Marks tonight around, ooohh...saayy 8:30?
I say we assemble in Tuscaloosa decked out in Bama gear and protest outside T-Town Menswear.
I'd join but I don't want to have to knock my teeth out, gain 50lbs, marry my sister and have a DVD of me fucking my mother/Aunt to blend in.
A man with a gun does not voluntarily allow an attacker to get close enough to bash his head in. THAT IS WHY THEY CARRY A GUN! That is why common sense should have prevailed.
But the media played on the new beta male touchy feely sense of justice and created a racial issue where there was none.
So it was clear form a common sense standpoint that GZ was attacked. When attacked a man will do what it takes to survive.
But because GZ looked white and TM was black, it was a hate killing......according the the media who only wants to keep ratings up.
I don't see what any of this has to do with prematurely assuming what happened.
You look at a picture of cuts on the back of someone's head and declare self defense? Premature assumption.
You wait until all the evidence has come out, or at least enough has come out to determine that self defense occurred? Not premature assumption.
All I was pointing out is that those "touchy feely beta males" who jumped to the conclusion that it was NOT self defense can not be blamed or berated any more than those who jumped to the conclusion that it WAS self defense.
I don't see what any of this has to do with prematurely assuming what happened.
You look at a picture of cuts on the back of someone's head and declare self defense? Premature assumption.
You wait until all the evidence has come out, or at least enough has come out to determine that self defense occurred? Not premature assumption.
All I was pointing out is that those "touchy feely beta males" who jumped to the conclusion that it was NOT self defense can not be blamed or berated any more than those who jumped to the conclusion that it WAS self defense.
No but you do notice the injuries are pretty consistent with his story.
While your posts here have been very good, you know like I do, that the truth, or more accurately, the entire truth doesn't usually come out at trial. Trials are not really a truth finding endeavor. Fact is, only 2 people know the truth, then entire truth, about what happened, and one is dead. Moreover, "the truth" to Zimmerman, may have been completely different than "the truth" to Trayvon, as both were subject to their own emotions and perception at the time, as well as their own psychological make up.
The ones that wanted Zimmerman convicted from the start, really wanted him convicted because a young black male died because Zimmerman did something, when he had a choice to do nothing. Many feel he was guilty from the moment he took it upon himself to investigate Trayvon, instead of just letting him walk on his way.
The ones that wanted him acquitted, wanted him acquitted because he "did the right thing". The type thing we all wish we had guys in our own neighborhood doing, and that has risks, but he was "doing the right thing" in their minds. They really feel that anything he did with "good intentions" should be given a pass.
Of course, underlying each side's opinions are agendas. Multiple agendas. Court of public opinion is just that, and is not fact.
The facts that could be proved in a court of law under the rules of evidence, proved to a jury that Zimmerman acted in self defense, or failed to prove he intentionally and unlawfully killed Trayvon. "The Truth" about it all is lost like a fart in the wind.
A trial is a fact finding endeavor (hence juries being referred to as the "triers of fact"), but no, the actual truth is not always discovered; I agree with that.
Maybe I used poor wording in one or more of my posts, but I was not attempting to state that a trial will always find the whole truth and nothing but the truth. All I was intending to point out was the fact that the trial will unearth much more evidence than what was initially reported in the media, and that a trial will usually attempt to verify those facts with a little more scrutiny than the media often does. Anyone who jumps to a conclusion based on the media's initial "facts" and without at least hearing the majority of the evidence presented at trial under the rules of evidence is making a premature legal assumption about what they think happened or wanted to happen.
I was actually agreeing with you, while trying to further explain for others. Sorry if it sounded like I was disagreeing.
Hey Vandy & JR...I heard Walmart has a couple 60" TVs let's go Riot in the parking lot and get those TVs?!?!?! WoooHooo!!!! This is for Zimmerman mutha fuckas!!!!!!!!
Are you disagreeing with me again? Look, I already said it once and I'll say it again, this time with fancy hashtags and capitalized letters for emphasis: #NOJUSTICE #WHITEPRIVILEGE #BLACKPANTHERS #ROLLTIDE
Hopefully that clarified my superior stance, as you obviously disagree when you shouldn't.
#whiterage
I wonder what Tarheel would think about this situation if Trayvon were Trayvina...
Well it would depend on whether or not he had a private dance or just seen her on the main stage? The social bond between him and his Nubian are strong once contact has been made.
When Charles Barkley is the voice of reason, everyone needs to stop and think.Charles is almost always right about everything. He's a real free thinker. I love the guy.
He is spot on 100% correct in everything he said.
When Charles Barkley is the voice of reason, everyone needs to stop and think.
He is spot on 100% correct in everything he said.
Charles is almost always right about everything. He's a real free thinker. I love the guy.Cue the labeling him "uncle Tom".
While he said it in jest, if Charles ran for governor I'd vote for him.I remember when he first announced that he would run in 2000, I was like in 6th grade at the time and did the math that in November 2000, I would have just turned 18 and was super pumped to be able to vote for him.
I'd vote for him for president.
When Charles Barkley is the voice of reason, everyone needs to stop and think.
He is spot on 100% correct in everything he said.
I agree with everything he said except the "fact" that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin.
If recent crimes have occurred and the suspects are identified as fat bald men, I'm not weight and follicle profiling a fat bald guy who's walking around my neighborhood at night. I'm profiling the person based on their actions and their physical match to the suspect description.
The reason they might match the description could be their race, but that doesn't make me a racist or a racial profiler. Had Zimmerman approached a black teen who was mowing a lawn in the middle of the day, sure, it would be racial profiling. But approaching a black male "looking about" and "staring" wearing his hoodie up that obfuscates his identity at night when previous crimes involved black males attempting burglary at night? Not racial profiling in my opinion.
Why is "racial profiling" such a supposed sin?
it's ASININE to expect people not to associate traits with people based on their race, manner of dress and behavior.
Way back when I was more of a bleeding heart liberal than I am today, I performed an experiment with some friends for a class project.
I dressed in my best suit and drove a friend's nice Regal down to the Mercedes dealership.
Two days later I put on overalls, a t-shirt and a stained baseball cap. Drove a beat up Monza.
My treatment by the sales staff was markedly different. I was profiled. At the time I was filled with outrage. Now in retrospect I understand. Those guys were busy trying to make a living and had to make a snap judgment on what I was capable of.
How is this any different? If I see a guy who doesn't "fit" my neighborhood by his color, dress or behavior I make a determination based on what I see.
Why is that wrong? Houses in Zimmerman's neighborhood had been robbed by black people. He saw a BLACK PERSON acting in what he considered to be a suspicious manner. He profiled him, sure, but it was CIRCUMSTANTIAL profiling of which race was a part.
I'm sick of "race discussions" anyway. Go back to segregation and i'd be fine with it.
Why is "racial profiling" such a supposed sin?
I think my definition of racial profiling is different than what we hear in the media and amongst the more idiotic of our peers.
If you think a black guy is about to commit a crime just because he's black, that's racial profiling in my book. I don't care what statistics say about blacks and crime, the color of a person's skin is not indicative of what they've done or are about to do.
If it's a black guy looking around suspiciously at night? Sure, I'd be concerned that he's up to something...but I'd also have that same concern if he was white. I'm not going to give a suspicious acting person a pass just because he's Asian and Asians statistically commit fewer crimes.
Either I have a reason to suspect them of doing something or I don't, but the color of their skin alone is not enough for suspicion in my opinion. To me, judging a person based on skin color alone is racial profiling.
Is it racial profiling because I know they blend in with the night better?
No, that's just a fact. Just like their affinity of chicken is a fact.
I think my definition of racial profiling is different than what we hear in the media and amongst the more idiotic of our peers.
If you think a black guy is about to commit a crime just because he's black, that's racial profiling in my book. I don't care what statistics say about blacks and crime, the color of a person's skin is not indicative of what they've done or are about to do.
If it's a black guy looking around suspiciously at night? Sure, I'd be concerned that he's up to something...but I'd also have that same concern if he was white. I'm not going to give a suspicious acting person a pass just because he's Asian and Asians statistically commit fewer crimes.
Either I have a reason to suspect them of doing something or I don't, but the color of their skin alone is not enough for suspicion in my opinion. To me, judging a person based on skin color alone is racial profiling.
Nothing you could do if they did commit crime: They all know Kung Fu.
Yeah, and if they were Ninjas you'd never see it coming.
I think my definition of racial profiling is different than what we hear in the media and amongst the more idiotic of our peers.
If you think a black guy is about to commit a crime just because he's black, that's racial profiling in my book. I don't care what statistics say about blacks and crime, the color of a person's skin is not indicative of what they've done or are about to do.
If it's a black guy looking around suspiciously at night? Sure, I'd be concerned that he's up to something...but I'd also have that same concern if he was white. I'm not going to give a suspicious acting person a pass just because he's Asian and Asians statistically commit fewer crimes.
Either I have a reason to suspect them of doing something or I don't, but the color of their skin alone is not enough for suspicion in my opinion. To me, judging a person based on skin color alone is racial profiling.
Have you ever moved to the other side of the street because a group of Asian kids were coming your way?
I haven't. But I've sure as heck taken a different path when a bunch of black kids in their saggy baggy clothes were strolling in my direction. FWIW, white kids dressed like punk gangsters may draw the same reaction. I don't want to deal with them.
If you were a store owner would you head to the upper room with the two way mirror to watch three Japanese kids dressed in Polo and khakis shop your store? What about the group with flat brims, pants dragging the ground and strap t-shirts? Is that racial profiling? Maybe the Japanese kids WERE going to rip you off and the black kids were just checking out the new shipment of pokeman cards. But because of the statistical probability, who are you going to keep an eye on.
Statistics exist for a reason.
Kevin Federline scares the bejeezus out of me.
Kevin Federline scares the bejeezus out of me.
I feel I am a great judge of character.
Have you ever moved to the other side of the street because a group of Asian kids were coming your way?I've never moved to the other side of the street because of a group of black guys are walking my way...I usually yell "RED ROVER!!!" as I barrel through their line.
I haven't. But I've sure as heck taken a different path when a bunch of black kids in their saggy baggy clothes were strolling in my direction. FWIW, white kids dressed like punk gangsters may draw the same reaction. I don't want to deal with them.
If you were a store owner would you head to the upper room with the two way mirror to watch three Japanese kids dressed in Polo and khakis shop your store? What about the group with flat brims, pants dragging the ground and strap t-shirts? Is that racial profiling? Maybe the Japanese kids WERE going to rip you off and the black kids were just checking out the new shipment of pokeman cards. But because of the statistical probability, who are you going to keep an eye on.
Statistics exist for a reason.
"Judge a man not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character."
I feel I am a great judge of character. I feel a person's actions, and the way a person dresses is a great indicator of someone's character. And I've found that profiling is very effective. Luckily for me, I don't work in an area that is heavily populated by black families. Because I'm certain that a large percentage of Americans don't actually know the real definition of racial profiling. But I profile the shit out of white people. And I'm damn good at it.
A Message to Trayvon Martin Sympathizers
Posted: 07/17/2013 2:37 pm
I haven't touched on the Trayvon Martin issue because race matters in this country are the paralysis of the American people. To constructively discuss Trayvon would require empathy, introspection and an understanding of America's social and economic history. This is why the open forums we have seen thus far seem to fuel more ignorance and bias than reasonable debate.
To be brutally honest, the only reason people are even aware of Trayvon Martin is because it became a topic within mainstream news and pop culture. Meaning: News directors saw it as a profitable, sensational story. Hundreds of blacks die annually in South Side Chicago without even a blurb. Trayvon isn't in the mainstream news for any reason other than ratings and profit. The news coverage on the Zimmerman case almost implies that the killing of this young black man is somehow an anomaly and I resent that.
In this country, if it isn't streamlined through mainstream media and pop culture, it doesn't seem to warrant national debate. Our "government" continues to wreak havoc on our civil liberties and there is little to no protest from the black community because of media diversion tactics that keep such pertinent issues out of mainstream media. But if Jay-Z or Rihanna were to make mention of it, we'd suddenly be jolted out of our sugar comas and protesting on freeways.
My point being, people are up in arms about Trayvon based on regurgitated pundits and manipulated facts aired to elicit emotion while fueling America's anger and division. That's how you boost ratings. No different from Piers Morgan's desperate rant over gun control when he knew his ratings were in the dumps. And from where I stand, anyone who still relies on corporate-owned media pundits to support an argument isn't equipped to offer worthwhile solutions.
People are using Trayvon Martin's death as an excuse to project their own deep-seated issues with racism and will not be capable of intelligent, empathetic debate until they've cooled down and afforded themselves an education.
Addressing Trayvon without first addressing the absence of critical thinking in our schools, the lack of introspection, the reasons for our low tolerance and our country's skewed value system does nothing more than create a sounding board for the ignorant. So rather than facilitate more racism outcry, I'd like to address young black people specifically.
I believe we lost that trial for Trayvon long before he was killed. Trayvon was doomed the moment ignorance became synonymous with young black America . We lost that case by using media outlets (music, movies, social media, etc.) as vehicles to perpetuate the same negative images and social issues that destroyed the black community in the first place. When we went on record glorifying violent crime and when we voted for a president we never thought to hold accountable. When we signed on to do reality shows that fed into the media's stereotypes of black men, we ingrained an image of Trayvon Martin so overwhelming that who he actually may have been didn't matter anymore.
Don't you find it peculiar that the same media outlets who have worked so diligently to galvanize the negative stigmas of black men in America are now airing open debates on improving the image of black males in American media? Do you honestly think CNN is using their competitive time slots for philanthropy?
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
If we really wanted to ensure Trayvon Martin's killing was not in vain, we'd stop perpetuating negative images that are now synonymous with black men in America. We'd stop rapping about selling drugs and killing niggas. The next time we saw a man beating a woman, we'd call for help or break it up, but one thing we would not do is stand by with our cellphones out -- yelling WORLDSTAR! Instead of rewarding kids for memorization, we'd reward them for independent and critical thinking.
We'd spend less time subconsciously repeating lyrics about death and murder and more time understanding why we are so willing to twerk to songs that bemean women and boast of having things we cannot afford. We'd set examples of self-love for our youth by honoring our own hair, skin and eye color. We'd stop spending money on designer gear that we should be spending on our physical and psychological health. We'd seek information outside the corporate owned-media that manipulates us. We'd stop letting television babysit our kids and we'd quit regurgitating pundits we haven't come up with on our own.
Education, introspection, self-love and excellence are the only ways to overcome the wrath of ignorance. So before going back to popping molly and getting Turnt Up, I urge you to consider the implications of your actions. Your child's life may depend on it.
Damnit Zimmerman and his thuggery.....
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/07/67266-zimmerman-emerges-from-hiding-for-heroic-rescue/
I bet it was staged.
Read these responses.
https://twitter.com/BreakingNews/status/359352751643303936
Read these responses.
https://twitter.com/BreakingNews/status/359352751643303936
Real winners aren't they?
GZ could spend the rest of his days fostering black kids, give millions to the united negro college fund and bow down to the NAACP leaders - and they would still want him dead.
I'm more interested to see if he can score on blackpeoplemeet.comWell he dated a black girl once.
I have no faith in the fucking human race...
The guy that played Jay on 40 Year Old Virgin and Conrad in the first couple of seasons of Weeds chimes in as the voice of reason.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/romany-malco/a-message-to-trayvon-mart_b_3612231.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
Yet more reasons I could never become a liberalI see what you did there, but I am in no way a liberal. You missed the point.
Well he dated a black girl once.Yeah but haven't we all had at least one of those "dates" with a black girl before? Can't you still be a racist if you hand them a 20?
But the hell with it. The fudgeer is racist!
I lean much further to the right than the left on most issues (despite the opinion of this board), however, until a lot changes, I will not identify 100% with either party.
(despite the opinion of this board), however, until a lot changes, I will not identify 100% with either party.You are a party pooper.
I remember when he first announced that he would run in 2000, I was like in 6th grade at the time and did the math that in November 2000, I would have just turned 18 and was super pumped to be able to vote for him.
Then it never happened.
I've never moved to the other side of the street because of a group of black guys are walking my way...I usually yell "RED ROVER!!!" as I barrel through their line.
I see what you did there, but I am in no way a liberal. You missed the point.
I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I lean much further to the right than the left on most issues (despite the opinion of this board), however, until a lot changes, I will not identify 100% with either party.
That's the problem though Chad. You admit you lean farther to the right, yet you support the left with your vote. You are never going to get either party to identify "100%" with you. You have to find out the most important issues for yourself and the country and vote on those. Social issues...in my opinion...are not the most important. I think that the majority of the right are a bunch of fucking dumb asses when it comes to social issues, however, that is the least important topic to me when deciding which direction our country should go...I have voted Republican once, Libertarian twice, and Democrat zero times, so there goes that.
I have voted Republican once, Libertarian twice, and Democrat zero times, so there goes that.
Not to make a direct comparison, but that mindset is how Hitler got into power. "Yeah, I may not agree with his 'social issues', but he's got a lot of good ideas about the economy and national defense!"
Ok.And for the record, if the Republican nominee was someone like the guy in the OP of the other thread about banning blowjobs (Rick Sanatorum was dangerously close to being the nominee) I would have had no qualms voting for Obama.
And for the record, if the Republican nominee was someone like the guy in the OP of the other thread about banning blowjobs (Rick Sanatorum was dangerously close to being the nominee) I would have had no qualms voting for Obama.Agree on santorum. But....
Agree on santorum. But....I know all that, and as I said, it would be foolish to make a direct comparison and say it's exactly the same thing. Any direct comparison to Nazi Germany is sensational. I'm just saying, if you're willing to trample over human rights for the sake of economics and national security, that's a dangerous path. I'm saying you shouldn't have to make that choice.
That's when you vote or neither. Lesser of two evils is still evil.
Btw, Hitler wasn't elected. He was appointed with limited powers. At that point he was able to gain a majority in Germany's parliament via back door promises with Von Hindenburg that he never really kept. Once he got majority in parliament, he was able to pass the Enabling act which was what essentially gave him absolute control. He won the public over after this through systematic propaganda which centered around german nationalism. He actually had a Chief of Propaganda cabinet position.
I know all that, and as I said, it would be foolish to make a direct comparison and say it's exactly the same thing. Any direct comparison to Nazi Germany is sensational. I'm just saying, if you're willing to trample over human rights for the sake of economics and national security, that's a dangerous path. I'm saying you shouldn't have to make that choice.
You know I didn't even get caught up on that. What I actually pondered and really like is that she obviously personally feels like he was guilty but did not let that her cloud her judgement of what the law said should happen.I didn't see the interview, but read that she said she tried to hang the jury and that she "fought to the end", etc., which like you're saying, doesn't make sense since obviously they came to a not guilty verdict. Seems inconsistent to me.
To me that speaks volumes about her.
I didn't see the interview, but read that she said she tried to hang the jury and that she "fought to the end", etc., which like you're saying, doesn't make sense since obviously they came to a not guilty verdict. Seems inconsistent to me.
You know I didn't even get caught up on that. What I actually pondered and really like is that she obviously personally feels like he was guilty but did not let that her cloud her judgement of what the law said should happen.
To me that speaks volumes about her.
Wait. I thought they were ALL white!
Unless she is claiming that all of the white people ganged up on her and forced her to capitulate!That's basically what she was saying, at least that's how it was spun in the editorial I read about it. And how black twitter has decided it happened.
Wait. I thought they were ALL white!
That's basically what she was saying, at least that's how it was spun in the editorial I read about it. And how black twitter has decided it happened.
HOMEOWNER CHARGED WITH ATTEMPTED MURDER IN NEW ORLEANS AFTER SHOOTING TEEN HE SUSPECTED OF BURGLARY — AND MEDIA ALREADY COMPARING TO TRAYVON MARTIN
Jul. 29, 2013 9:34am Jonathon M. Seidl
New Orleans boy Marshall Coulter shot by Merritt Landry in case being compared to Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin shooting
In a story some are already saying bears resemblance to the Trayvon Martin case, a homeowner in New Orleans has been arrested and charged with attempted second-degree murder after he shot an unarmed teen after he says he thought the boy was trying to break into his home.
14-year-old Marshall Coulter is in critical condition after being shot in the head by 33-year-old Merritt Landry at around 2 am Friday morning.
Police, the New Orleans Times-Picayune reports, said that the teen was shot near Landry’s car. Friends told the outlet that Landry’s car was behind a gate.
According to the arrest warrant, viewed by the Times-Picayune, Landry said he approached Coulter from his front yard, near his car. But as he drew closer, he said the boy made a “thwarted move, as if to reach for something.†Fearing it was a weapon, Landry shot him once from about 30 ft away.
The report also says that New Orleans Police Department Detective Nicholas Williams interviewed a witness who offered a differing account, but it’s not clear what that account was. Still, Williams determined that Coulter posed no “imminent threat†and was not trying to enter the house. The Advocat has a longer quote from the report: “victim was not armed, was not attempting to enter the residence, was not posing an imminent threat to Merritt Landry.â€
Sat Jul 27 19:29:29 PDT 2013
NOPD: TEEN SHOT IN HEAD IN MARIGNY WAS UNARMED, NOT A THREAT
There are still many unanswered questions about Friday’s shooting in the Marigny. view full article
“This incident is terrible, and Mr. Landry feels terrible about how things have occurred,†Landry’s lawyers, Michael Kennedy and Miles Swanson, said in a statement. “Nevertheless, we remain convinced our client has done nothing wrong, and we are sure — as facts come to light — it’ll become clear that Mr. Landry will be fully exonerated of any wrongdoing.â€
Landry posted a $100,000 bond late Friday and is out of jail. He works for the city as a building inspector for the Historic District Landmarks Commission but has been placed on suspension without pay.
(http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/ScreenSnapz0512-620x345.jpg)
The Yard of Merritt Landry showing the gate that Marshall Coulter was apparently behind when he was shot. (Source: WWL-TV)
As for Coulter, his brother admitted he does have a history of theft.
“He would steal — he was a professional thief, sure,†David Coulter told the Times-Picayune. “But he would never pick up a gun, not in a million years. He was too scared to aim a gun at the grass, let alone aim it at a person. No way. Before he’ll ever pick up a gun, he’ll be your friend first.
“He’s still a little boy,†he added. “Who pulls a trigger on a 14-year-old? What if it was your little brother or your sister? How would you feel?â€
“I love Marshall,†Clarissa Keller, a friend of Coulter’s other brother Brandon, told The Advocate. “I really just see him being with the wrong crowd, trying to fit in with the wrong people. He’s not crazy, he’s not stupid — he’s just a follower. Now he’s got a big hole in his head.â€
But adding to the complication is the existence of surveillance video from a neighbor and friend of Landry’s, Charles Hazouri, that may show Coulter and another boy around 1:44 am in front of Landry’s yard casing it out
Hazouri, who owns property near Landry's house, said his surveillance cameras captured two juveniles riding BMX bikes up and down Mandeville and Dauphine streets around 1:44 a.m. One of the teens was wearing a blue tank top with white stripes; the other was wearing a light-colored T-shirt, Hazouri said.
Earlier in the evening, a different neighbor said the teen in the blue tank top had been biking around the area around 8 p.m. and the neighbor believed he was looking at different houses.
"I thought about calling the cops, but the last thing I want to do is racially profile a little kid who's just biking," said the neighbor, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The neighbor and Landry are white; the two teens are black.
Hazouri said his video, which he gave to NOPD detectives, shows the two teens talking in the middle of Mandeville Street outside of Landry's house. The video then shows the teen in the light-colored T-shirt walk his bike across Mandeville toward Landry's house. Then, the teen walks back out to the middle of the road before climbing over Landry's fence, Hazouri said. The other teen in the tank top stayed on the other side of Mandeville Street, Hazouri said.
Landry's large dog started barking, which alerted Landry to the teen being inside his yard, according to Landry's friends.
Quickly, some have seized on the case as bearing close resemblance to the Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida -- a case where the shooter, George Zimmerman, was recently exonerated. The New York Daily News, for example, says Landry has been charged "despite citing the state's Castle statutes, which are similar to Florida's Stand Your Ground laws and were used as defense by George Zimmerman in his trial for the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin."
However, Florida’s “stand your ground†laws were never cited by Zimmerman’s defense.
“The case holds an uncanny similarity to last month’s sensational George Zimmerman murder trial, where the former Sanford, Fla. neighborhood watch captain was acquitted of murdering unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin,†the Daily News writes.
Marshall, one of eight children, is still in critical condition but is making progress. Family told the Times-Picayune that he could move the right side of his body but not the left.
One thing that I have learned through this tragedy and on this forum is that I have more respect for a blatant racist than a tiger who changes his stripes.
One thing that I have learned through this tragedy and on this forum is that I have more respect for a blatant racist than a tiger who changes his stripes.Elaborate. So because when all we knew about the case was what the media told us - Whitey shoots a black kid for no reason other than he didn't believe he belonged in his neighborhood, I defended the kid because there is precedent in this country for things as simple and as blatantly racist as that actually occuring. But because I educated myself on the actual facts of the case, and changed my mind, that's disingenuous and something to be taken negatively?
Elaborate. So because when all we knew about the case was what the media told us - Whitey shoots a black kid for no reason other than he didn't believe he belonged in his neighborhood, I defended the kid because there is precedent in this country for things as simple and as blatantly racist as that actually occuring. But because I educated myself on the actual facts of the case, and changed my mind, that's disingenuous and something to be taken negatively?I didn't point my finger at anyone but I don't need a weatherman to tell me when it's raining outside.
To me, there's nothing worse than someone who sticks to their guns in the face of evidence contrary to their earlier positions. There is nothing more honorable than being able to evolve on an issue. Actually letting information enter your brain and affect your opinion on something.
But I guess that makes me a worse person than the people who gave whitey the benefit of the doubt from the get-go because they thought all along that the dark kid had no business in the white neighborhood to begin with. Ok...
I didn't point my finger at anyone but I don't need a weatherman to tell me when it's raining outside.
Hey, I'll tell you what. You can get a good look at a butcher's ass by sticking your head up there. But, wouldn't you rather to take his word for it?
To me, there's nothing worse than someone who sticks to their guns in the face of evidence contrary to their earlier positions. There is nothing more honorable than being able to evolve on an issue. Actually letting information enter your brain and affect your opinion on something.
Elaborate. So because when all we knew about the case was what the media told us - Whitey shoots a black kid for no reason other than he didn't believe he belonged in his neighborhood, I defended the kid because there is precedent in this country for things as simple and as blatantly racist as that actually occuring. But because I educated myself on the actual facts of the case, and changed my mind, that's disingenuous and something to be taken negatively?I definitely agree. When I first heard about it, then saw it on Fox...I thought some white guy shot a little black kid for walking the street, on his way home...because that's what the media(s) wanted us to believe. It wasn't until I began to actually look into the case that I realized that Zimmerman wasn't a "White guy" and Martin wasn't the Sunday School, finger painting, kid that the media wanted me to think they were. Then I began to read all of the statements, including the flip flopping that the Prosecutors put on stand as their lead witness. I began to think that everything Zimmerman stated is everything that happened...because it all matched, aside from the few dumbasses that they put on stage. Then I read the Florida laws that states of you feel that your life is threatened or whatever, then you can defend yourself by any means necessary, even if that means shooting someone. It's a law that should be in place in every State. Self Defense.
To me, there's nothing worse than someone who sticks to their guns in the face of evidence contrary to their earlier positions. There is nothing more honorable than being able to evolve on an issue. Actually letting information enter your brain and affect your opinion on something.
But I guess that makes me a worse person than the people who gave whitey the benefit of the doubt from the get-go because they thought all along that the dark kid had no business in the white neighborhood to begin with. Ok...
Again, I was like Prowler (holy shit).Exactly. The media is partly to blame for all of the riots and you know what, they love it...it's their Fourth of July. They created a shit storm, and they get to sit back and watch it all unfold. The TMZ/Get the story out before confirmation media will do absolutely nothing for our Country except tear it apart.
I was disappointed that some guy shot a black kid for being in the wrong place...
Then the media was forced to reveal that Zimmerman nearly got his head smashed in on the sidewalk...
And then it was revealed that the only injury on Travon was the gunshot...
Skin color was no longer even of the slightest consideration in taking a position on whether he was guilty of second degree murder or not.
Why would anyone have an issue with another person changing their position based on newly discovered, previously unknown facts? Isn't that what adults - mature adults - are supposed to do? In my job as a contracts negotiator, I will defend a position vehemently until someone gives me a good reason not to. "Oh - payment terms are net 45 instead of net 30 because it takes time to get government approval to send dollars out of Argentina? That makes sense. Ok, I withdraw my objection."
All the facts in a case like this rarely are known until trial. That has to have been the worst part for Zimmerman. He was tried, convicted and executed in the media this whole time, because the media had total control of the narrative. He had to wait all this time to give his side of the story while all this hate was whipped up against him. Had the media done its real job, and reported in an unbiased manner without rushing to judgment, there would have been no overwhelming outcry when the results didn't fit the media's script.
Skin color is irrelevant when someone is on top of you and smashing your head into the pavement. It doesn't matter why they are there. It doesn't matter how they got there, or what was said or wasn't said or done or not done. Bottom line: A person should be able to defend their own life by whatever means possible if they are afraid they are about to die. The law in Florida recognizes that fact.
Not guilty.
The most frustrating thing about this is the media still won't stray from the script. When it's discussed on news panel shows, and podcasts, etc. even people that are in favor of the verdict seem to be afraid to call the race baiters out when they say things like "What am I supposed to tell my children?? That it is open season to shoot black children for no reason? That they don't belong in society and can be hunted?" Bitch, you tell them not to assault people. Plain and simple. IF Zimmerman was out of bounds in his suspicion, you explain to him what you were doing, kill him with kindness and make him feel like the racist richard that is (in that hypothetical). I don't understand why that's so hard to see.
The New Orleans case, I don't believe got much attention outside of our local news. But even in that case, people continue that narrative of the white man hunting down black kids for no reason. The police report that there was no intention to break in and his life was not in danger. That's fudgeing asinine. The kid was in his fenced in yard at 2am. Was he just enjoying the view? Him and his buddy are on surveillance video casing the place all evening. Have we lost our goddamn minds? This guy was locked up, posted $100,000 bond, and was suspended without pay from his job, and on top of all that, labeled as a racist child murderer for protecting his home from burglary, and reasonable to assume his and his family's lives? What do you tell your children? Not to fudgeing break into people's homes. Problem solved. He'd still be alive today.
The most frustrating thing about this is the media still won't stray from the script. When it's discussed on news panel shows, and podcasts, etc. even people that are in favor of the verdict seem to be afraid to call the race baiters out when they say things like "What am I supposed to tell my children?? That it is open season to shoot black children for no reason? That they don't belong in society and can be hunted?" Bitch, you tell them not to assault people. Plain and simple. IF Zimmerman was out of bounds in his suspicion, you explain to him what you were doing, kill him with kindness and make him feel like the racist dick that is (in that hypothetical). I don't understand why that's so hard to see.
The New Orleans case, I don't believe got much attention outside of our local news. But even in that case, people continue that narrative of the white man hunting down black kids for no reason. The police report that there was no intention to break in and his life was not in danger. That's fucking asinine. The kid was in his fenced in yard at 2am. Was he just enjoying the view? Him and his buddy are on surveillance video casing the place all evening. Have we lost our goddamn minds? This guy was locked up, posted $100,000 bond, and was suspended without pay from his job, and on top of all that, labeled as a racist child murderer for protecting his home from burglary, and reasonable to assume his and his family's lives? What do you tell your children? Not to fucking break into people's homes. Problem solved. He'd still be alive today.
Why do you hate black people?I don't know who hates but I do know there are a lot of people who like to take the most advantageous side on an issue. Fair weather promoters of justice, if you will. They are easy to spot if you know how.
I don't know who hates but I do know there are a lot of people who like to take the most advantageous side on an issue. Fair weather promoters of justice, if you will. They are easy to spot if you know how.WTF are you talking about man? Out with it. "Fair weather promoters of justice"? What is that code for? Are you mad at me for originally defending Trayvon, or for now defending Zimmerman? I can't even tell.
I don't know who hates but I do know there are a lot of people who like to take the most advantageous side on an issue. Fair weather promoters of justice, if you will. They are easy to spot if you know how.
I think you should just address your concerns with Chad directly.Or at least check your PMs...
I think you should just address your concerns with Chad directly. Instead of all the hinting.I don't have to hint. I'm big enough to take care of myself. If I have something to say to someone I say it directly to them. If I'm making a generalized statement, then it doesn't need to be directed at anyone in particular. Believe me, I know how things can escalate. Been there, done that. Literally for too long of a time.
I don't have to hint. I'm big enough to take care of myself. If I have something to say to someone I say it directly to them. If I'm making a generalized statement, then it doesn't need to be directed at anyone in particular. Believe me, I know how things can escalate. Been there, done that. Literally for too long of a time.
How big a fella are ya'?I sent you a pm. Check it.
I sent you a pm. Check it.
Well damn. We won't be hearing from Snags now that he has pics of the Wiregrass man meat.
Well damn. We won't be hearing from Snags now that he has pics of the Wiregrass man meat.
He won't look unless it's a shower pic.
Hey buzz check your pm. In re to mrs Dallas. Ohhh it's a good un!!
Yo.....uh....you didn't think about hookin' a brother up over here?
Brother? Or brotha?
Lonnie Bunch, the director of the National Museum of African American History and Culture, told the Post he'd "love" to acquire the sweatshirt for a collection, an idea endorsed by the Rev. Al Sharpton:
Martin’s hoodie, Bunch said, represents a unique opportunity to further the discussion about race in America. (And, by the way, he’d love to have it for his collection once the legal case plays out. He also has his eye on the hoodie that Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children's Defense Fund, wore in solidarity with protesters.)
“It became the symbolic way to talk the Trayvon Martin case. It’s rare that you get one artifact that really becomes the symbol,†Bunch said. “Because it’s such a symbol, it would allow you to talk about race in the age of Obama.â€
Curators, he mused, could “ask the bigger questions†prompted by the case. “Are we in a post-racial age?†Bunch asked, dreaming about how the hoodie might help shape perceptions. Then he answered the question: “This trial says, ‘No.’
I read about that one the other day.I believe racism is alive & well, it'll always be.
And it's perfect. It's the perfect story to expose these people for who they really are. They are just looking for anything to make it look like racism is alive and well.
Zimmerman was stopped for speeding in Forney, TX this past weekend. He was armed - but this is Texas. The cop told him simply to secure the gun in the glove box.He asked him to conceal it because you aren't an open carry state.
The cop did not recognize him, asked him if he was clear of outstanding warrants ("Absolutely."), gave him a warning, and sent him on his way.
Cop asked him where he was going. Zimmerman said "Nowhere in particular.". Cop said "Why's that?" and Zimmerman was like "Dude, WTF???" (paraphrased). Zimmerman even asked the cop if he recognized him from tv and the cop said no, even after he ran his license.
He will have to be armed for the rest of his life.
Zimmerman was stopped for speeding in Forney, TX this past weekend. He was armed - but this is Texas. The cop told him simply to secure the gun in the glove box.
The cop did not recognize him, asked him if he was clear of outstanding warrants ("Absolutely."), gave him a warning, and sent him on his way.
Cop asked him where he was going. Zimmerman said "Nowhere in particular.". Cop said "Why's that?" and Zimmerman was like "Dude, WTF???" (paraphrased). Zimmerman even asked the cop if he recognized him from tv and the cop said no, even after he ran his license.
He will have to be armed for the rest of his life.
He asked him to conceal it because you aren't an open carry state.
My point was that he did not arrest him, seize his weapon, make him jump through hoops, whatever.
I think they were profiling.
Zimmerman was stopped for speeding in Forney, TX this past weekend. He was armed - but this is Texas. The cop told him simply to secure the gun in the glove box.He was probably on his way to Long Beach, to do some shootin.
The cop did not recognize him, asked him if he was clear of outstanding warrants ("Absolutely."), gave him a warning, and sent him on his way.
Cop asked him where he was going. Zimmerman said "Nowhere in particular.". Cop said "Why's that?" and Zimmerman was like "Dude, WTF???" (paraphrased). Zimmerman even asked the cop if he recognized him from tv and the cop said no, even after he ran his license.
He will have to be armed for the rest of his life.
The Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman docudrama continues. This time, in the Florida State Capitol Building, where Friday, a 10-foot mural was unveiled. It carries the message: “We are all Trayvon Martin.â€
As reported by clickorlando.com, the mural shows a man who looks similar to George Zimmerman, with gun blazing, shooting a person wearing a hoodie – in the back of the head. Trayvon – er – “the person wearing a hoodie†– is standing next to Martin Luther King, Jr.
In place of the (Trayvon) face is a mirror. You know, so we can all be Trayvon. There are also blank spaces where members of the public can share their thoughts. Oh,and MLK has blood flowing down his head.
The mural, of course, is a complete fairytale. But, hey – so has been the story in the minds of some from the very beginning.
We've got a local "Trayvon" incident in New Orleans.By the way, sanity prevailed.
It's now racist to protect your home and shoot someone IN YOUR FENCED IN YARD at 2am.
:facepalm:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/29/homeowner-charged-with-attempted-murder-in-new-orleans-after-shooting-teen-he-says-he-thought-was-breaking-into-his-home (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/29/homeowner-charged-with-attempted-murder-in-new-orleans-after-shooting-teen-he-says-he-thought-was-breaking-into-his-home)
Marigny homeowner not indicted in teen's shooting
A grand jury has declined to indict Faubourg Marigny homeowner Meritt Landry in the shooting of a teenager on his property in July. Police arrested Landry and booked him on charges of attempted second degree murder.
The panel did not return any decision late today. However, the grand jury will continue work on the case next week.
By the way, sanity prevailed.Your fascination with this is obviously racist. You point toward anomalies as if they are representative of the true world we live in.
http://www.wwl.com/pages/18433949.php (http://www.wwl.com/pages/18433949.php)
Had he not been shot for being a dumbass, I would have a better chance of being named the new Auburn Athletic Director than he would of applying to flight school.
Bad example. It's been proven that Auburn will hire any douche as AD.
wareagle!!! our new AD. so exciting.