I think there's no question that Zimmerman, this self-appointed neighborhood watch guy, provoked the situation. He called 911, and the dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Martin. But he did, and whatever happened after, I think it can be argued he provoked the situation.
After the police got involved, it's a mystery to me why Zimmerman was not arrested. Clearly, even if Martin attacked Zimmerman as alleged, Zimmerman still initiated the situation by following Martin, which ended up getting Martin killed. (Although in fairness to the police, maybe they wanted to arrest him, but just did not have the evidence to justify an arrest. Although at the very least, I think they should have held Zimmerman several hours or overnight, and grilled him intensely about precisely what happened, that resulted in him shooting Martin dead.)
Martin had no criminal record, and was not known to ever provoke a fight.
I hear that dispatch call, and I see Zimmerman as the aggressor. That his actions resulted, with no logical expanation, in Martin ending up dead, I don't think he should be free. And the fact that the police let him go should warrant plenty of investigation.
The other part that bothers me is how the (liberal) media is whipping up a frenzy about the racial angle of this, before any investigation makes a case for that. Pending any further evidence to the contrary, it's a random absurdity, set in motion by one lone 28-year-old self-appointed vigilante nut. It isn't representative of some alleged rampant white racism nationwide. It's one random incident, the first in many years.
But already you have Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson out there tossing kerosene on the fire. And now Obama too.
And as I've pointed out in previous topics, if it was a black guy who shot a white kid, the crime would be just as serious, but the nationwide media would be nowhere to be found. This single random incident fits the ongoing media-favored liberal narrative of a black kid being lynched by a white racist (half-white half-hispanic, but I doubt a majority of coverage will detail that), and that's why it's getting coverage.
And as I've pointed out in prior topics, U.S. Justice Department statistics show black-on-white crime occurs at a rate of 50-to-1 of the reverse. Even though the media consistently buries this reality, and portrays victimization to be the exact reverse.
It reminds me of the Rodney King case in 1992. Where a jury acquitted four white officers of Rodney King's beating, and many of the same loud and exploitative pundits (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Maxine Waters) whipped up a riot in L.A. with their rhetoric, that without heated rhetoric should not have occurred. How many people have even heard of Robert Jewett of West Palm Beach, who was white, and was pulled over, with no criminal record and despite no clear motivation, was beaten to death by the two cops? And the cops were similarly exonerated of all charges. But that's not news. Because Jewett was white. It doesn't fit the media's racism narrative.
This isn't about race, it's a random absurdity. But I fear the same media and pundits are rushing to make it as racial as possible, to fit the narrative of their own ideology, and for their own personal and political gain.
SANFORD, Fla. – The police chief and prosecutor who have been bitterly criticized for not arresting a neighborhood watch volunteer in the shooting death of an unarmed black teenager both left the case Thursday, with the chief saying that he is temporarily leaving his job to let passions cool.
Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee's decision came less than a day after city commissioners gave him a "no confidence" vote, and after a couple of weeks of protests and uproar on social media websites. Lee has said evidence in the case supported George Zimmerman's claim that the Feb. 26 shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was self-defense.
"I do this in the hopes of restoring some semblance of calm to a city which has been in turmoil for several weeks," Lee said.
About three hours later, Gov. Rick Scott announced that the local state attorney, Norman Wolfinger, had recused himself from the case. In a letter to Scott, Wolfinger said that while he thought he could fairly oversee any prosecution that develops in the case, his recusal was aimed at "toning down the rhetoric and preserving the integrity of the investigation." [Governor] Scott appointed Angela B. Corey, the state attorney for the Jacksonville area, to take over the case.
Scott also appointed a task force led by Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll to conduct he News of the police chief's decision to step aside spread quickly among the protesters, many of whom showed up more than two hours before the start of the rally. They chanted "The chief is gone. Zimmerman is next."
Some carried signs that said: "100 years of lynching, justifiable homicide. Same thing." Others sold T-shirts that read: "Arrest Zimmerman."
"It's the norm around here, where anything involving black culture, they want to wipe their hands of it," said Shella Moore, who is black and grew up in Sanford.
The Justice Department and FBI have opened a civil rights investigation, and the local prosecutor has convened a grand jury April 10 to determine whether to charge Zimmerman.
Before the rally, Martin's parents met with the local U.S. attorney, the deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights in Washington and the head of the FBI's Tampa office to discuss the investigation.
"We listened carefully to the concerns of the family and their representatives," Special Agent Dave Couvertier, an FBI spokesman, said in a statement. "We continue to extend our deepest condolences to Trayvon's family for their loss."
Yes. This is one of those bad cases that often results in bad laws. I haven't seen any evidence that Zimmerman was justified or that the kid was a legitimate threat.
But I can anticipate-just as they tried to do with the Giffords shooting-certain elements of the government and media trying to use this to curtail people's rights.
Every state in the country has homicide laws on the books.
Zimmerman can, and most likely should be, prosecuted and convicted under existing laws.
How did this bad law come to be and who supported it?
I am speaking of the tendency for politicians to overreact and start passing unnecessary and overreaching laws in response to a highly publicized case such at this.
I fear we could have that happen again as a result of this shooting.
The NRA will keep that from happening. I suspect this law and others like it won't even be changed. It's a powerful lobby and it will protect this bad law despite the public outcry.
I likewise found it strange that Obama focused on Trayvon Martin's minority status, and Obama saying "that he would look like me." That was a clear attempt to galvanize black support for the upcoming election (a demographic who already voted for him at a ratio of 95% in the last election)
And based on the selective prosecution of attorney General Eric Holder's justice department over the last 3-plus years, whistle-blowing U.S attorneys, some of whom have resigned in protest, have made it clear that Holder's Justice Department is only interested in prosecuting cases where whites are guilty of racial discrimination, and an absolute refusal to prosecute cases where whites are the victims of minorities. A very one-way justice, that Obama endorses by keeping Holder in his position, and that Obama's statement is consistent with.
Thomas Sowell just two weeks ago said that Obama in 2008 was elected as president in an optimistic view of us having reached a "post-racial" society of full equality and breaking away from the past. But Obama surrounding himself, past and present, with the likes of Rev Jeremiah Wright, Frank Marshall Davis, Derrick Bell, Mark Lloyd, Van Jones, and attorney General Eric Holder, seems in both ideology and action to be more interested in a "payback/revenge society", rather than a truly equal society.
Obama's statement about Trayvon Martin, focusing only on the safety of minorities, follows consistently with that ideological mindset.
Why is Gingrich trying to make this all about race?
Come on, now. Right or wrong, Gingrich is far from the only, or first, person to make this about race.
Now, personally, I don't agree with Newt on this one. I thought Obama's statement was a very compassionate, and human, one. It was one of the better things I've heard from the president on matters of race and he deserved credit for saying something that, to this Obama detractor, seemed heartfelt and appropriate.
Quote:
Does he even address the bad law that is causing the ruckus?
According to the author of the self-defense law at issue, it isn't even applicable in this case:
if you carefully read the statute, which most of the critics have not, and read the legislative analysis, there's nothing in this statute that authorizes you to pursue or confront other people. If anything, this law would have protected the victim in this case; it could have...So - and in fact, the gentleman - Mr. Zimmerman's attorney, who when he first appeared on CNN the other night, he actually said he was not going to use this statute. The governor, Jeb Bush, has said it does not apply.
This [everyone trying to repeal a self-defense law before there's even been a verdict] is exactly the kind of politicizing and rush to judgement I worried about. Let's see how the case plays out before anyone decides whether a law is "bad" or "good."
George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch crime captain who shot dead 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, originally told police in a written statement that Martin knocked him down with a punch to the nose, repeatedly slammed his head on the ground and tried to take his gun, a police source told ABC News.
Zimmerman had claimed he had called police about Martin, whom he found suspicious, then went back to his car when Martin attacked him, punching him.
The new information is the most complete version yet of what Zimmerman claims happened on the night of Feb. 26 when he shot and killed the teenager.
In addition, an eyewitness, 13-year-old Austin Brown, told police he saw a man fitting Zimmerman's description lying on the grass moaning and crying for help just seconds before he heard the gunshot that killed Martin.
The initial police report noted that Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of the head and nose, and after medical attention it was decided that he was in good enough condition to travel in a police cruiser to the Sanford, Fla., police station for questioning. He was not arrested.
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.
Phone records obtained by ABC News show that the girl, who is 16 and asked to remain anonymous, called Martin at 7:12 p.m., five minutes before police arrived, and remained on the phone with Martin until moments before he was shot.
This, by no means, exonerates Zimmerman. His following Martin led to the confrontation. This does, though, throw into question the 'cold blooded murder' that the media and black special interest groups have portrayed it. We don't know who started the fight, we only know how it ended. Zimmerman should be punished by the criminal justice system. How severely? I'm not sure yet.
Wouldn't the big guy who followed the smaller kid around with the gun be the one who started the fight?
Again, you're making assumptions. And the guy was 5'9", over 200lbs., while the kid was 6'3" at around 150. So big is pretty much relative there. I don't doubt the possibilty of Zimmerman starting the fight. I also don't doubt that Martin could have either. Better than that, I'll admit that I flat out don't know.
Wouldn't the big guy who followed the smaller kid around with the gun be the one who started the fight?
Again, you're making assumptions. And the guy was 5'9", over 200lbs., while the kid was 6'3" at around 150. So big is pretty much relative there. I don't doubt the possibilty of Zimmerman starting the fight. I also don't doubt that Martin could have either. Better than that, I'll admit that I flat out don't know.
Presactly. We don't know what happened. We should see what really transpired and let a court decide what law does and doesn't apply before we make a decision about how to react.
Otherwise, this is a just another attempt to politicize something before the facts are in, no different than the Giffords shooting or the Duke Lacrosse case.
Wouldn't the big guy who followed the smaller kid around with the gun be the one who started the fight?
Again, you're making assumptions. And the guy was 5'9", over 200lbs., while the kid was 6'3" at around 150. So big is pretty much relative there. I don't doubt the possibilty of Zimmerman starting the fight. I also don't doubt that Martin could have either. Better than that, I'll admit that I flat out don't know.
I'm not making an assumption but feel that Zimmerman was being the aggresor by following the kid around from what we already know. Because of those actions he started the fight. We probably don't agree on that but that's my opinion. If Zimmerman had just listened to the cops Martin would be still alive eating his skittles.
I've already said that Zimmerman's following Martin led up to the fight. Whoever threw the first punch started the fight. I've also said that, for that reason, Zimmerman should face punishment. Now, if Martin attacked first, then Zimmerman should receive a milder sentence than if he attacked Martin.
So your feelings have the force of established fact now?
Quote:
...Zimmerman was being the aggresor by following the kid around from what we already know. Because of those actions he started the fight....
Following someone is starting a fight?
If that's what you really feel, you are abscribing to Martin the same right you think is a "bad law" when applied to Zimmerman: The right to attack someone in self-defense.
Further evidence you're politicizing this and not trying to look at it objectively.
You left out parts G-man. Zimmerman wasn't just following Martin but he was following him after police told him not too and he was following him armed with a gun. As usual you find yourself trying to hold court against the liberal. If you have a problem politicizing this than try changing tactics than your usual fare.
Your precise quote to which I responded was "Zimmerman was being the aggresor by following the kid around," not "Zimmerman was being the aggresor by following the kid around after police told him not to and armed with a gun." Nothing was left out. If you don't want people to misunderstand your point, you need to phrase it more clearly... or not change your argument when someone points out the logical flaws in it.
Furthermore, even you had included the phrase "following the kid around after police told him not to and armed with a gun," that still means you were abscribing to Martin a right you claim to oppose.
In either scenario, there is a person who perceives a threat and, rather than retreat or call for help, attacks the perceived threat with physical force.
If you truly believe that Martin was justified because of Zimmerman following him (armed or not) then you have basically just stated your support of the "stand your ground law," at least as how you've described it.
Quote:
If you have a problem politicizing this...
So you admit you're trying to politicize this.
Quote:
than try changing tactics than your usual fare.
The record will reflect my comments have largely consisted of saying Obama (D)'s comments were appropriate and that Gingrich (R) was off base in his criticism of Obama, along with pointing out we should not rush to judgment. The record will also reflect that you keep trying to blame this on Bush (R) and the NRA.
I've already said that Zimmerman's following Martin led up to the fight. Whoever threw the first punch started the fight. I've also said that, for that reason, Zimmerman should face punishment. Now, if Martin attacked first, then Zimmerman should receive a milder sentence than if he attacked Martin.
I'm going to be presumptive and say Trayvon probably threw the first punch. But only because he felt threatened. In which case, that's also the reason why Zimmerman pulled the trigger--dude was getting fucked up. As such, the precipitating factor boils down to the fact that Zimmerman followed him. Has there been any clarification on whether or not Neighborhood Watch is actually allowed to do this?
I don't know of any neighborhood watch that uses direct intervention. They're supposed to immediately notify police of suspicious behavior and that's it. They aren't some sort of security force. They're a bunch of civilians patrolling their own homes. At most they'd be able to use the power of citizen's arrest like any other person.
Again, simply following someone on a public street isn't illegal. Foolish and irresponsible, depending upon the situation.
all I know is that if I were gunned down in an alleged act of allegedly senseless alleged violence, I'd sure be comforted in the hereafter knowing my legacy would continue on as a political football in an election year.
Investigator wanted manslaughter charges against Zimmerman By Andrew Jones Tuesday, March 27, 2012 15:19 EDT 33 Topics: Chris Serino ♦ George Zimmerman ♦ homicide investigator
The lead homicide investigator on the Trayvon Martin case recommended that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter only to be denied, according to ABC News.
Chris Serino, the Sanford, Florida investigator, filed an affidavit on the night of crime saying he was unconvinced of Zimmerman’s account. However, the state attorney’s office Norman Wolfinger told Serino not to press charges against Zimmerman after he said there wasn’t enough evidence against him.
Police later accepted Zimmerman’s claim that he shot the 17-year-old Martin out of self-defense.
The state attorney’s office said “no comment” when asked about Serino’s affidavit.
Don't be presumptive or G-man is going to politicize you!
As noted previously, the record shows that my comments have largely consisted of saying Obama (D)'s comments were appropriate and that Gingrich (R) was off base in his criticism of Obama, along with pointing out we should not rush to judgment. The record also shows that you keep trying to blame this on Bush (R) and the NRA.
I'm going to be presumptive and say Trayvon probably threw the first punch. But only because he felt threatened. In which case, that's also the reason why Zimmerman pulled the trigger--dude was getting fucked up. As such, the precipitating factor boils down to the fact that Zimmerman followed him. Has there been any clarification on whether or not Neighborhood Watch is actually allowed to do this?
God help me, but...THIS!
But, we'll probably never really know. I don't see this going to criminal court save for--maybe--unintentional homicide or man 2 tops. Any "justice" for Trayvon would probably come more from civil suits than criminal prosecutions.
Chris Serino, the Sanford, Florida investigator, filed an affidavit on the night of crime saying he was unconvinced of Zimmerman’s account. However, the state attorney’s office Norman Wolfinger told Serino not to press charges against Zimmerman after he said there wasn’t enough evidence against him.
Lack of evidence would seem to be a different legal impediment than the "stand your ground law." If so, this tends to contradict, rather than bolster, your theory that "stand your ground" is somehow responsible.
In order to charge someone with a crime, there needs to be sufficient evidence to establish probable cause. The fact that a police officer does or does not believe a suspect may not, by itself, be probable cause.
Unless and until there is probable cause to charge someone, the question of justification would not be reached.
Has there been any clarification on whether or not Neighborhood Watch is actually allowed to do this?
God help me, but...THIS
The laws of every state vary but typically, following someone around in a public place is only illegal if there was no legitimate purpose for doing so and an intent to harass, annoy or alarm the other person.
If Zimmerman was following him because he believed the Martin was up to no good and was trying to track him to stop him or help the police locate him, that would tend to be a legitimate purpose and, therefore, legal.
Yeah, all we have to go on are the call to 911 and the second-hand testimony of the girl with whom he was on the phone. Circumstantial, at best IMO, "evidence" that he followed the kid with any intent to do harass, annoy, or alarm him.
Biggest indictment I could think of here is against the media. This case is the cause celebre that the media circus loves most. And, for the most part, it shows. Frankly, I'm astonished I haven't seen articles or postings about something stupid Nancy Grace had to say about this yet.
Like I said, even if I assume Zimmerman was in the wrong here, I don't think there will ever be enough clear facts to bring this to anything but a show trial.
Chris Serino, the Sanford, Florida investigator, filed an affidavit on the night of crime saying he was unconvinced of Zimmerman’s account. However, the state attorney’s office Norman Wolfinger told Serino not to press charges against Zimmerman after he said there wasn’t enough evidence against him.
Lack of evidence would seem to be a different legal impediment than the "stand your ground law." If so, this tends to contradict, rather than bolster, your theory that "stand your ground" is somehow responsible.
In order to charge someone with a crime, there needs to be sufficient evidence to establish probable cause. The fact that a police officer does or does not believe a suspect may not, by itself, be probable cause.
Unless and until there is probable cause to charge someone, the question of justification would not be reached.
The evidence in part would be the dead kid with a bag of skittles. Maybe there's more to the story but that alone seems to be enough to justify a manslaughter charge. As noted previously police in this case cited the stand your ground law (signed by Jeb Bush) as the reason for Zimmerman not being arrested.
Trayvon Martin: 6 foot 3 George Zimmerman: 5 foot 9
Which would you more wisely describe as the "big guy" and the "smaller kid"?
According to both Zimmerman and 911-phone-in police caller "John", Martin initiated the attack, and the bloody nose, head-lacerations and grass stains on Zimmerman's clothes and face back that up.
Wouldn't the big guy who followed the smaller kid around with the gun be the one who started the fight?
Again, you're making assumptions. And the guy was 5'9", over 200lbs., while the kid was 6'3" at around 150. So big is pretty much relative there. I don't doubt the possibilty of Zimmerman starting the fight. I also don't doubt that Martin could have either. Better than that, I'll admit that I flat out don't know.
Presactly. We don't know what happened. We should see what really transpired and let a court decide what law does and doesn't apply before we make a decision about how to react.
Otherwise, this is just another attempt to politicize something before the facts are in, no different than the Giffords shooting or the Duke Lacrosse case.
Great point.
I see you guys already discussed the size issue. The media likes to portray it as big Zimmerman and little Martin. Just as they portray Zimmerman as white (distorting that he is half white/half hispanic), vs black Trayvon Martin.
Chris Serino, the Sanford, Florida investigator, filed an affidavit on the night of crime saying he was unconvinced of Zimmerman’s account. However, the state attorney’s office Norman Wolfinger told Serino not to press charges against Zimmerman after he said there wasn’t enough evidence against him.
Lack of evidence would seem to be a different legal impediment than the "stand your ground law." If so, this tends to contradict, rather than bolster, your theory that "stand your ground" is somehow responsible.
In order to charge someone with a crime, there needs to be sufficient evidence to establish probable cause. The fact that a police officer does or does not believe a suspect may not, by itself, be probable cause.
Unless and until there is probable cause to charge someone, the question of justification would not be reached.
Yes.
What good is arresting someone, if it forces the police department to release the suspect within a few days for lack of evidence.
I spoke to a friend of mine who is an officer for the Broward Sherriff's office, and he said they were likely trying to gather the evidence before arresting Zimmerman, because once you arrest a suspect, there's a clock ticking, and if you don't have the evidence in time, you won't be able to hold him, and can blow your case.
So while the media, along with the Al Sharptons, Jesse Jacksons and Black Panthers are demonizing the Sanford police as giving Zimmerman a free pass and not arresting him for alleged racist reasons, the police may be aggressively investigating to build a case that they did not have the evidence to arrest Zimmerman for the first night.
That's y'know, in the spirit of the liberal media's eagerness to identify Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' shooter as a right-wing Republican, which shooter Jared Loughner turned out not to be, despite the slanders and insinuations otherwise.
police in this case cited the stand your ground law ... as the reason for Zimmerman not being arrested.
If a law was struck down simply because a police officer had misunderstood it or misapplied it there would be no laws on the books whatsoever. Police can, and do, make mistakes.
Quote:
(signed by Jeb Bush)
No, you're not trying to politicize this, not one bit...
Has it been established that the police did that? While Jeb Bush and the lower level republican guy that came up with it say the law they got passed shouldn't apply in this case, well reallity is that it was applied.
When analyzing a statute, one of the things to look at is the intent of the legislators who enacted it. If the people who wrote and passed the law say it doesn't apply that is good evidence the police misunderstood the law.
I think your post does what your all about justice WB.
Taking liberal smear tactics, and throwing them right back in your face?
As I pointed out, when liberals did this with Jared Loughner, it was a blatant lie and smear. Loughner is described by those who know him as a "pothead liberal".
Zimmerman in contrast is as described: a registered Democrat, and half-white/half-hispanic.
I was demonstrating that if conservatives wanted to do the same in the mainstream press, they could, with devastating effect. Because that portrayal of Zimmerman is absolute truth. Whereas the same spin of Loughner was an absolute lie.
Couple in fear after wrong address tweet: An elderly Florida couple have been forced to move into a hotel after their home address was wrongly tweeted by Spike Lee and others as belonging to the man who shot teen Trayvon Martin.
When analyzing a statute, one of the things to look at is the intent of the legislators who enacted it. If the people who wrote and passed the law say it doesn't apply that is good evidence the police misunderstood the law.
The legislators also now have a political motive to get some distance between their law and Zimmerman.
I think your post does what your all about justice WB.
Taking liberal smear tactics, and throwing them right back in your face?
As I pointed out, when liberals did this with Jared Loughner, it was a blatant lie and smear. Loughner is described by those who know him as a "pothead liberal".
Zimmerman in contrast is as described: a registered Democrat, and half-white/half-hispanic.
I was demonstrating that if conservatives wanted to do the same in the mainstream press, they could, with devastating effect. Because that portrayal of Zimmerman is absolute truth. Whereas the same spin of Loughner was an absolute lie.
How do you feel about the conservative media on this story?
When analyzing a statute, one of the things to look at is the intent of the legislators who enacted it. If the people who wrote and passed the law say it doesn't apply that is good evidence the police misunderstood the law.
The legislators also now have a political motive to get some distance between their law and Zimmerman.
There is a very good chance that, the Florida state legislature has contemporaneous documents, including minutes and memoranda, detailing the evolution of the bill and the opinions of its sponsors and detractors as to what it means.
Why is he blaming the incident on Trayvon wearing a hoodie? It's not as simple as "Trayvon was shot because people who wear hoodies are discriminated against."
...and people would have to be stupid not to be suspicious of people who are hiding their face in settings that don't really call for it. If it's just a fashion statement, then it falls to the wearer to accept the suspicions he gets for wearing suspicious clothing. We've got similar problems in here, lots of robbers try to avoid being recognized in CCTV cameras by wearing baseball caps. So, can people be faulted for being wary of someone wearing a baseball cap even when it's not sunny at all?
Also, that dude totally looks like morgan freeman.
I think your post does what your all about justice WB.
Taking liberal smear tactics, and throwing them right back in your face?
As I pointed out, when liberals did this with Jared Loughner, it was a blatant lie and smear. Loughner is described by those who know him as a "pothead liberal".
Zimmerman in contrast is as described: a registered Democrat, and half-white/half-hispanic.
I was demonstrating that if conservatives wanted to do the same in the mainstream press, they could, with devastating effect. Because that portrayal of Zimmerman is absolute truth. Whereas the same spin of Loughner was an absolute lie.
How do you feel about the conservative media on this story?
Just fine.
How do you feel about Al Sharpton hosting a rally, and then doing his daily program for MSNBC on the rally that he led! Nice neutral objectivity.
How do you feel about liberals trying Zimmerman in the court of public opinion before the facts are known, and giving plenty of airtime to people screaming for Zimmerman's blood, offering a million-dollar bounty for his hide, and otherwise giving a platform and sympathy to those calling for lawless vengeance?
Classic liberal race-baiting, divisive partisan rhetoric, that can only obstruct the actual investigation. Yet another example of how liberals would destroy the country itself just to score a few cheap political points and short-term gain.
Liberals like to portray conservatives as a racist lynch mob.
But it's the Democrats and liberal media who are calling for lawless payback against Trayvon Martin's "white" assailant. And when the media are forced to honestly revise Zimmerman's true ethnic background, the New York Times on down revises Zimmerman's description to "white hispanic".
As Bernard Goldberg said with perfect humor and sarcasm: "I guarantee you that if Zimmerman had won the Nobel prize for science, the New York Times would not describe him as "white hispanic".
This brings back memories of how Obama was winning state primaries, and then Hillary Clinton started winning primaries in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania. For which the liberal media labelled these states as ignorant and "racist" for not selecting the Annointed One. And Obama made his infamous remark about blue collar white Americans "clinging to their guns and religion."
But when Hillary won again in Peurto Rico, somehow hispanics weren't subjected to the same ignorant and racist labels. Because liberals are only comfortable labelling whites as racist. It's a one-way street, no matter how blatant and vile the minority racism directed at whites.
And white liberals are only too happy to give this anti-white vileness a free pass, so long as it advances the liberal cause against Republicans.
Why is he blaming the incident on Trayvon wearing a hoodie? It's not as simple as "Trayvon was shot because people who wear hoodies are discriminated against."
...and people would have to be stupid not to be suspicious of people who are hiding their face in settings that don't really call for it. If it's just a fashion statement, then it falls to the wearer to accept the suspicions he gets for wearing suspicious clothing. We've got similar problems in here, lots of robbers try to avoid being recognized in CCTV cameras by wearing baseball caps. So, can people be faulted for being wary of someone wearing a baseball cap even when it's not sunny at all?
Also, that dude totally looks like morgan freeman.
He's a politician, they aren't known for their grasp of reality. Just look at any of the posts from the former politician on these boards.
Why is he blaming the incident on Trayvon wearing a hoodie? It's not as simple as "Trayvon was shot because people who wear hoodies are discriminated against."
...and people would have to be stupid not to be suspicious of people who are hiding their face in settings that don't really call for it. If it's just a fashion statement, then it falls to the wearer to accept the suspicions he gets for wearing suspicious clothing. We've got similar problems in here, lots of robbers try to avoid being recognized in CCTV cameras by wearing baseball caps. So, can people be faulted for being wary of someone wearing a baseball cap even when it's not sunny at all?
Also, that dude totally looks like morgan freeman.
He's a politician, they aren't known for their grasp of reality. Just look at any of the posts from the former politician on these boards.
SoM has it right. The "hoodie" that hides a person's face certainly makes others around them cautious.
Similarly, innocent people in L.A. and other cities can get beaten up or shot for unwittingly wearing what could be perceived as gang-colors. Many U.S. schools require uniforms to prevent gangs from wearing colors to school and clashing.
I disagree with Geraldo on immigration issues. But he is a prominent journalist with a 40-year career, and I do agree with him on some issues.
I rejected his hoodie argument initially. But in context of the other gang-colors and uniforms issues I mentioned, it does make sense that wearing a hoodie puts the wearer in potentially more danger, of either getting shot by other thugs, more suspect to police, or to gun-toting people who think they're about to be jumped or robbed.
I disagree with Geraldo on immigration issues. But he is a prominent journalist with a 40-year career, and I do agree with him on some issues.
He started his career by wasting hours opening an empty vault. fox gives him the weekend night slot because no one watches during that time. He's a joke, he's the news media version of you.
How do you feel about the conservative media on this story?
Just fine.
How do you feel about Al Sharpton hosting a rally, and then doing his daily program for MSNBC on the rally that he led! Nice neural objectivity.
....
I've seen some dumb/biased reporting on this by both sides. The one doesn't excuse the other. Sharpton doing that isn't any different than what Beck has done with his events other than you complain when the other side does it.
This reveals more about the liberal media than it does about Trayvon Martin or the white supremacist who hacked martin's information.
It continues the narrative of trying to downplay anything negative about Martin, and portraying anyone who investigates or questions Martin's part in his own death as racist. Love all the [sic]'s that they would have corrected from a leftist website. I've seen plenty of typos on every board from pretty much everyone posting, either left or right, from WBAM to M E M to myself.
This much is still true:
1) Trayvon Martin was suspended three times from school, and was on suspension at the time he was shot.
2) There were witnesses who reported that it was Martin (not Zimmerman) who initiated the confrontation. There are also witness accounts of the reverse.
3) Martin is not a little kid, he was 6 foot 3, to Zimmerman's 5 foot 9, despite the liberal media's attempts to portray Zimmerman as the bully chasing a small kid. But you have to dig through coverage to see that.
4) Zimmerman regularly tutored black and other minority kids in his home, which isn't consistent with the "racist" profile that the liberal media is pushing, and the mainstream media are selectively omitting facts that disprove the Zimmerman-is-a-racist narrative.
inShare.0Share thisEmailPrintBy Stephanie Rabiner, Esq. at FindLaw.com
Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:23pm EDT
Have you heard about the George Zimmerman domestic violence allegations? What about the claims that he once attacked a cop?
They both appear to be true. Media has unearthed Zimmerman's criminal record, finding evidence that, in 2005, he was charged with resisting arrest with violence and battery of a law enforcement officer. That same year, his ex-fiance filed for a domestic violence restraining order, which was granted.
inShare.0Share thisEmailPrintBy Stephanie Rabiner, Esq. at FindLaw.com
Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:23pm EDT
Have you heard about the George Zimmerman domestic violence allegations? What about the claims that he once attacked a cop?
They both appear to be true. Media has unearthed Zimmerman's criminal record, finding evidence that, in 2005, he was charged with resisting arrest with violence and battery of a law enforcement officer. That same year, his ex-fiance filed for a domestic violence restraining order, which was granted.
So a history of violence for the guy who shot the kid.
What? That's impossible! Just ask Dave! He'll tell you! The white guy is a decent, white 'Merican citizen and the guy he gunned down in cold blooded murder was a dirty black kid. Don't you understand, MEM?
You're such a fucking, literal racist it's not even funny anymore. I hope you don't procreate and ruin the gene pool. Pathetic old man...
So you don't think it's funny that the media has actually hidden these more up to date pictures in favor of showing ones where he's a child?
The [liberal] media showed pictures of Trayvon Martin that made him look smaller and more innocent.
That same media showed older (2005) pictures of George Zimmerman that make him look larger, heavier, and more criminal and threatening. (Zimmerman has since lost a lot of weight, as you can see in the video of him at the police station the night of the shooting, when he was brought in handcuffs.)
SEE?!!! HE'S A NON-WHITE THUG!! HE DESERVED TO BE GUNNED DOWN!!! SOOOORRROOOOSSSSS!!!!
You're such a fucking, literal racist it's not even funny anymore. I hope you don't procreate and ruin the gene pool. Pathetic old man...
Ignoring your worthless taunts, slanders and baseless insults, it's not about Trayvon Martin being racially black. Many good and hardworking people in this country are black, that I'm glad to include among my professional associates and friends.
The issue is that Trayvon Martin, by his own self-chosen Facebook photos (that the media selectively omits) demonstrate that Trayvon was immersed in a criminal/thug subculture within the black community that was leading him down a criminal path. As Trayvon's three suspensions from school for drugs, spraying graffitti, and assaulting someone also manifest. Trayvon Martin was on a 10-day suspension from school on the night of the shooting. This kid was definitely not on his way to Harvard.
We're not talking about a black honor student who just innocently crossed paths with the wrong guy. Clearly, Martin's own actions --confronting Zimmerman physically, when Zimmerman had only watched him from a distance and reported him to police-- had a large role in what happened.
inShare.0Share thisEmailPrintBy Stephanie Rabiner, Esq. at FindLaw.com
Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:23pm EDT
Have you heard about the George Zimmerman domestic violence allegations? What about the claims that he once attacked a cop?
They both appear to be true. Media has unearthed Zimmerman's criminal record, finding evidence that, in 2005, he was charged with resisting arrest with violence and battery of a law enforcement officer. That same year, his ex-fiance filed for a domestic violence restraining order, which was granted.
The circumstances of each was clear. What you portray as a "violent assault" on a police officer, the article (L.A. Times) describes as a booking of non-violently resisting arrest.
Zimmerman also filed a restraining order against his wife, when she filed one on him. But those incidents are more than 6 years in the past, and he was at the time of the shooting back in scool to become a police officer.
And against Pro's slanders, Zimmerman is clearly half white/half hispanic, and a fluent spanish speaker. So my defense of Zimmerman is not a case of white=good, minority=bad.
In my initial posts, I clearly leaned toward Zimmerman being the one at fault. Further evidence and witnesses, and Martin's own media-supressed criminal thug tendencies, have made me lean more toward Zimmerman's account. But clearly, neither of these guys has a perfect record, and plenty more can still be revealed later.
[ So a history of violence for the guy who shot the kid.
In other words two people with a history of violence had a run-in and, as a result, one is dead and the other may be arrested. Pretty typical and sad crime story all in all.
However, that would seem to be further indication that 'stand your ground' was irrelevant to the case. This kind of thing (two hotheads have a run in) has been a cause of violent crime since time immemorial
How do you feel about the conservative media on this story?
Just fine.
How do you feel about Al Sharpton hosting a rally, and then doing his daily program for MSNBC on the rally that he led! Nice neural objectivity.
....
I've seen some dumb/biased reporting on this by both sides. The one doesn't excuse the other. Sharpton doing that isn't any different than what Beck has done with his events other than you complain when the other side does it.
Glenn Beck had a peaceful rally that was, if I recall, the third largest-attended protest ever in Washington square. Its intent was to restore values and accountability of Washington leadership (and trustworthiness) to the American people they represent, a return to our founding principles, and --specifically-- an elimination of deficit spending, decreasing federal growth, decreasing federal power.
Al Sharpton's rally, in contrast, was basically about hating whitey, and lynching George Zimmerman without a trial. That without evidence, advocated getting Zimmerman without any regard for (lack of) evidence, and circumnavigating the law to exact vengeance.
In Beck's case --and I watched the programs where Beck covered his rally-- he limited himself to focus on what the rally was truly about, vs. how it was portrayed on all other outlets of the [liberal] media, who dismissively downplayed it, and looked desperately to find that one questionable protest sign that they could portray as racist out of 10,000, and that other protestors often said was not representative of them and asked them to put away.
[ So a history of violence for the guy who shot the kid.
In other words two people with a history of violence had a run-in and, as a result, one is dead and the other may be arrested. Pretty typical and sad crime story all in all.
However, that would seem to be further indication that 'stand your ground' was irrelevant to the case. This kind of thing (two hotheads have a run in) has been a cause of violent crime since time immemorial
I may have missed it but Martin didn't have a police record or a record of snapping like Zimmerman. The one bit of trouble Martin did have with school didn't have anything to do with violence. It really doesn't seem fair using the word thug or saying he had a history of violence.
I also feel Stand Your Ground is relevant because that's what is keeping Zimmerman from being charged with manslaughter. The law existing or not probably wouldn't have prevented Martin's murder but it's going to protect Zimmerman.
I'd love to hear G-man's legal opinion on the significance of the "staand your ground" law.
My opinion is, it was still arguably self-defense for Zimmerman, with or without the law, and liberals and the media are making more of it, as leverage for their pre-existing desire to ban guns and any law favoring guns and self-protection.
This at least acknowledges that Travon Martin was, by his own father's account, an "average student" getting C's and not excelling. It also acknowledges --very briefly, no details-- that Martin was suspended several times, for graffitti, and for drugs. It selectively omits any of the thugged-up photos of Martin from his Facebook page, and mention of his assault of someone at school.
In which CNN again downplays and selectively omits the 911-caller "John", who corroborated the version Zimmerman gave to police, that Zimmerman was confronted by Martin, who initiated the fight, and that Martin was on top pounding on Zimmerman, until Zimmerman shot Martin. The article also selectively omits what police observed, grass stains, bloody nose and cuts to the back of Zimmerman's head, that corroberate his version.
All this selective omission makes me more sympathetic to Zimmerman's account, that the liberal media seems afraid to report because it contradicts the narrative they would like to present.
I also feel Stand Your Ground is relevant because that's what is keeping Zimmerman from being charged with manslaughter. The law existing or not probably wouldn't have prevented Martin's murder but it's going to protect Zimmerman.
Not sure why you need to be reminded here, but Trayvon was the one who attacked Zimmerman after he had decided to call it a day and go home.
What was the evidence of Martin being the one who attacked Zimmerman? Sure that's what Zimmerman says but we're not going to get Martin's side of the story because Zimmerman killed him.
I also feel Stand Your Ground is relevant because that's what is keeping Zimmerman from being charged with manslaughter. The law existing or not probably wouldn't have prevented Martin's murder but it's going to protect Zimmerman.
Not sure why you need to be reminded here, but Trayvon was the one who attacked Zimmerman after he had decided to call it a day and go home.
Exactly.
Initial liberal media reports tried to paint it differently, but even now they supress the fact that Zimmerman called 911, and when Martin began to run, when Zimmerman initally started to follow, the dispatcher at 911 said, "sir we don't need you to do that...", Zimmerman said OK and by his account walked back to his truck, at which point Trayvon Martin pursued Zimmerman and initiated the fight. And the 911 caller identified as "John" corroborates that, as does the physical evidence reported by police.
Here's a counterbalancing story that contrasts the liberal media's selective omission, and the overly sympathetic portrayal of Trayvon Martin:
What was the evidence of Martin being the one who attacked Zimmerman? Sure that's what Zimmerman says but we're not going to get Martin's side of the story because Zimmerman killed him.
911 calls and interviewed witnesses, as well as crime-scene evidence.
Which I linked above. That's the only side of the story CNN and other liberal media want to give full exposure to, as they selectively omit and minimize the evidence that supports Zimmerman's version.
An independent Florida state investigation is also under way.
Even as the Al Sharptons, Jesse Jacksons, black politicians and liberal media toss kerosine on the fire and push for lynching Zimmerman with no faith in the rule of law, exactly what happened with the Rodney King verdict in 1992.
Forensic experts: Zimmerman was not crying for help on 911 tapes By Andrew Jones Saturday, March 31, 2012 19:08 EDT 21 Topics: George Zimmerman ♦ orlando sentinel ♦ Owen Forensic Services LLC
Two forensic voice experts have told The Orlando Sentinel Saturday that neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman was not the voice crying for help in the 911 calls after he shot Trayvon Martin.
Tom Owen, a forensic consultant for Owen Forensic Services LLC and a court-qualified expert witness, used software called Easy Voice Biometrics to compare Zimmerman’s voice to the 911 calls with cries in the background after the shooting on February 26th.
“I took all of the screams and put those together, and cut out everything else,” Owen said. “As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it’s not Zimmerman.”
Another expert, Ed Primeau of Michigan, used audio enhancement and human analysis to also determined that it was the slain teenager’s voice instead of his shooter.
“I believe that’s Trayvon Martin in the background, without a doubt,” Primeau told The Orlando Sentinel. “That’s a young man screaming.”
What was the evidence of Martin being the one who attacked Zimmerman? Sure that's what Zimmerman says but we're not going to get Martin's side of the story because Zimmerman killed him.
So Zimmerman is lying by default, is that what you're saying?
Eye witnesses put Trayvon on top of Zimmerman beating the shit out of him. If Zimmerman wanted to do damage to him, all he had to do was pull out his handgun before Trayvon got that close to him.
Screams can be heard in at least one call made to police before officers arrived at the scene in Sanford, Fla. Martin’s parents say the voice is their son yelling for help; a friend of Zimmerman’s has said it is Zimmerman screaming.
Screams can be heard in at least one call made to police before officers arrived at the scene in Sanford, Fla. Martin’s parents say the voice is their son yelling for help; a friend of Zimmerman’s has said it is Zimmerman screaming.
inShare.0Share thisEmailPrintBy Stephanie Rabiner, Esq. at FindLaw.com
Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:23pm EDT
Have you heard about the George Zimmerman domestic violence allegations? What about the claims that he once attacked a cop?
They both appear to be true. Media has unearthed Zimmerman's criminal record, finding evidence that, in 2005, he was charged with resisting arrest with violence and battery of a law enforcement officer. That same year, his ex-fiance filed for a domestic violence restraining order, which was granted.
So a history of violence for the guy who shot the kid.
What? That's impossible! Just ask Dave! He'll tell you! The white guy is a decent, white 'Merican citizen and the guy he gunned down in cold blooded murder was a dirty black kid. Don't you understand, MEM?
SEE?!!! HE'S A NON-WHITE THUG!! HE DESERVED TO BE GUNNED DOWN!!! SOOOORRROOOOSSSSS!!!!
You're such a fucking, literal racist it's not even funny anymore. I hope you don't procreate and ruin the gene pool. Pathetic old man...
Ignoring your worthless taunts, slanders and baseless insults, it's not about Trayvon Martin being racially black. Many good and hardworking people in this country are black, that I'm glad to include among my professional associates and friends.
The issue is that Trayvon Martin, by his own self-chosen Facebook photos (that the media selectively omits) demonstrate that Trayvon was immersed in a criminal/thug subculture within the black community that was leading him down a criminal path. As Trayvon's three suspensions from school for drugs, spraying graffitti, and assaulting someone also manifest. Trayvon Martin was on a 10-day suspension from school on the night of the shooting. This kid was definitely not on his way to Harvard.
We're not talking about a black honor student who just innocently crossed paths with the wrong guy. Clearly, Martin's own actions --confronting Zimmerman physically, when Zimmerman had only watched him from a distance and reported him to police-- had a large role in what happened.
You know Pro is admitting defeat when he goes into Repostmetheus mode.
New details about Trayvon Martin's record as well as his personal interactions on Facebook and Twitter accounts have emerged recently, as George Zimmerman supporters defend his actions.
The Trayvon Martin case continues to stir emotions throughout the country with supporters on both sides of the fence rallying and attempting to quell outcries from the other. New details about Trayvon Martin's record as well as his personal interactions on Facebook and Twitter have emerged recently, as George Zimmerman supporters defend his "Stand Your Ground" right.
Zimmerman, of white and Peruvian descent, shot and killed the 17-year-old African American on Feb. 26 while he was walking to his father's house in Sanford, Fla., after going to a nearby store to buy candy. Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain, has not been charged with any crime. He claims that he shot the unarmed Martin, with a Kel-Tec 9mm handgun, in self-defense.
The Sanford Police Department has been criticized for its handling of the killing. Police did not conduct an alcohol or drug test on Zimmerman, and Zimmerman was allowed to keep his registered handgun even after the killing. Also, a witness said one of the officers "corrected" her when she said she heard Martin screaming for help, reported Yahoo! News.
Like us on Facebook
But the tide may be turning as more details emerge about the case from Zimmerman's side of the fence (or at least from those who do not want to jump to any conclusions).
Most recently, a police report from the Trayvon Martin case was leaked to the Orlando Sentinel, detailing George Zimmerman's account of the confrontation. "With a single punch," the Orlando Sentinel reported Monday, citing police sources. "Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer ... climbed on top of [him] and slammed his head into the sidewalk several times, leaving him bloody and battered."
Ever since the case erupted into a national story, George Zimmerman has been fingered as a villain and a cold-blooded killer. According to a CNN poll released on Monday, 73 percent of Americans think police should arrest him.
Three School Suspensions
New details have emerged about Trayvon Martin's record. The 17-year-old had been suspended three times from Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School in North Miami-Dade.
His first suspension was a result of tardiness and truancy, his family admitted, according to the Miami Herald.
Trayvon Martin's second suspension occurred on Oct. 21. Initially, it was reported that this suspension came after Martin and his friends spray-painted "WTF" on a locker at school. However, the Miami Herald reports that the real reason Martin was suspended in October was that he was caught with a "burglary tool" -- a flathead screwdriver -- and 12 pieces of jewelry, reported the Miami Herald. Martin insisted that the jewelry belonged to a friend.
"Trayvon was not disciplined because of the discovery, but was instead suspended for graffiti, according to the report. School police impounded the jewelry and sent photos of the items to detectives at Miami-Dade police for further investigation," reported the Miami Herald.
Finally, Trayvon Martin was suspended on Feb. 26 for 10 days. On Feb. 21, Martin's cousin tweeted to him about an incident with a bus driver: "Yu ain't tell me you swung on a bus driver." However, his father denied this purported incident had anything to do with Martin's February suspension. "He was not suspended for something dealing with violence or anything like that," his father said. "It wasn't a crime he committed, but he was in an unauthorized area [on school property]," declining to offer more details.
A family spokesman told the Associated Press on Monday that Martin was suspended because marijuana residue was found in his book bag.
Ben Crump, a lawyer for Trayvon's parents, said, "We think everybody is trying to demonize him."
A Pushback Against the Media's Portrayal of Slain Teen
Photos of Trayvon Martin were culled from his Facebook account along with messages from his Twitter feed. Dan Linehan of Wagist.com compiled photos from Martin's social networking pages and raised the question of whether or not the teen's image has been distorted in the media.
"Even though Trayvon was only 17, he already was sporting gold teeth, and several large tattoos. This one was on his wrist, apparently of his girlfriend's mother's name," wrote Linehan. Linehan showed images that Trayvon Martin posted to his Twitter account, with the handle @NO_LIMIT_N----, depicting his multiple tattoos.
"Almost all of this is in stark contrast to the media's central narrative that Trayvon was a normal, happy, well-adjusted teenager. Instead of that, we are seeing long suspensions from school, tattoos, racially charged epitaphs [sic] and violence," wrote Linehan.
Michael Brendan Dougherty of BusinessInsider.com compared the Trayvon Martin case to the Duke lacrosse rape accusations of 2006. "They [skeptics of the media's portrayal] remember the outrage about the Duke Lacrosse rape story, in which white students were accused of raping a black woman, turned into a feeding frenzy, and indicted in the public mind of heinous racism and abuse when they weren't guilty of much other than being pigs," wrote Dougherty. "They are suspicious of any story that attracts the moralizing of Al Sharpton, owing to his association with things like the Tawana Brawley case, in which a New York girl claimed to have been sexually assaulted and abused and then was later found to have been lying."
"But let's get real. No one knows what really happened," he wrote. "The Trayvon Martin story is just a distressing collection of disconnected facts. The media and social justice activists have told one story with them: of a murder motivated by racism that was covered up by the cops. Now people are pushing back on it. But we don't have definitive answers to all the questions."
Others have taken offense at the immediate public indictment of George Zimmerman when many facts of the case are still unknown.
"Oh how little we have learned," David Shane wrote on PolicyMic.com
"The media has rushed to judgment yet again. Now, it's quite possible that Zimmerman is guilty of everything his worst foes accuse him of. There is plenty about this case that troubles me. But that's exactly the point: I don't know. Neither does anyone else, and both the scope and tone of the media coverage ought to reflect that fact."
Forensic experts: Zimmerman was not crying for help on 911 tapes By Andrew Jones Saturday, March 31, 2012 19:08 EDT 21 Topics: George Zimmerman ♦ orlando sentinel ♦ Owen Forensic Services LLC
Two forensic voice experts have told The Orlando Sentinel Saturday that neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman was not the voice crying for help in the 911 calls after he shot Trayvon Martin.
Tom Owen, a forensic consultant for Owen Forensic Services LLC and a court-qualified expert witness, used software called Easy Voice Biometrics to compare Zimmerman’s voice to the 911 calls with cries in the background after the shooting on February 26th.
“I took all of the screams and put those together, and cut out everything else,” Owen said. “As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it’s not Zimmerman.”
Another expert, Ed Primeau of Michigan, used audio enhancement and human analysis to also determined that it was the slain teenager’s voice instead of his shooter.
“I believe that’s Trayvon Martin in the background, without a doubt,” Primeau told The Orlando Sentinel. “That’s a young man screaming.”
inShare.0Share thisEmailPrintBy Stephanie Rabiner, Esq. at FindLaw.com
Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:23pm EDT
Have you heard about the George Zimmerman domestic violence allegations? What about the claims that he once attacked a cop?
They both appear to be true. Media has unearthed Zimmerman's criminal record, finding evidence that, in 2005, he was charged with resisting arrest with violence and battery of a law enforcement officer. That same year, his ex-fiance filed for a domestic violence restraining order, which was granted.
So a history of violence for the guy who shot the kid.
What? That's impossible! Just ask Dave! He'll tell you! The white guy is a decent, white 'Merican citizen and the guy he gunned down in cold blooded murder was a dirty black kid. Don't you understand, MEM?
Trayvon Martin shooting: It's not George Zimmerman crying for help on 911 recording, 2 experts say Trayvon Martin's family says unarmed teen begged for his life. Experts say it's not George Zimmerman's voice. 4:38 p.m. CDT, March 31, 2012 As the Trayvon Martin controversy splinters into a debate about self-defense, a central question remains: Who was heard crying for help on a 911 call in the moments before the teen was shot?
A leading expert in the field of forensic voice identification sought to answer that question by analyzing the recordings for the Orlando Sentinel.
His result: It was not George Zimmerman who called for help.
Tom Owen, forensic consultant for Owen Forensic Services LLC and chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence, used voice identification software to rule out Zimmerman. Another expert contacted by the Sentinel, utilizing different techniques, came to the same conclusion.
Zimmerman claims self-defense in the shooting and told police he was the one screaming for help. But these experts say the evidence tells a different story.
'Scientific certainty'
On a rainy night in late February, a woman called 911 to report someone crying out for help in her gated Sanford community, Retreat at Twin Lakes.
Though several of her neighbors eventually called authorities, she phoned early enough for dispatchers to hear the panicked cries and the gunshot that took Trayvon Martin's life.
George Zimmerman, a Neighborhood Watch volunteer, shot Trayvon, an unarmed 17-year-old, during a one-on-one confrontation Feb. 26.
Before the shot, one of them can be heard screaming for help.
Owen, a court-qualified expert witness and former chief engineer for the New York Public Library's Rodgers and Hammerstein Archives of Recorded Sound, is an authority on biometric voice analysis — a computerized process comparing attributes of voices to determine whether they match.
After the Sentinel contacted Owen, he used software called Easy Voice Biometrics to compare Zimmerman's voice to the 911 call screams.
"I took all of the screams and put those together, and cut out everything else," Owen says.
The software compared that audio to Zimmerman's voice. It returned a 48 percent match. Owen said to reach a positive match with audio of this quality, he'd expect higher than 90 percent. ...
The exact same thing can be said of acoustics being fed into an audio-splitter through rain, stucco, and the analog feedback. And yet you fully support it.
I do not buy for a second that Trayvon was screaming for help and begging for his life while he was putting the beat down on Zimmerman. It's not impossible, but I don't buy it. Especially not after his dad--one of those "experts" you mentioned--flip-flopped on the voice belonging to his son. First he said it wasn't, and then he said it was. He even avoided telling the press about why his son was suspended for fuck's sake.
I mean, really. For some reason it's just not enough to say things got out of hand. People really have to go out of their way to bury this guy and call him a racist, cold-blooded murder for trying to do his job.
There are also other accounts that conflict with what Zimmerman says happened. This seems to have all the different accounts...
Quote:
One man interviewed by a local Fox news station, who asked to be identified only as John, said he saw the man wearing a red jacket — Zimmerman — on the ground, being beaten by someone on top of him — Trayvon. “The guy on the bottom, who I believe had a red sweater on, was yelling to me ‘Help, help,’ and I told him to stop and I was calling 911. I got upstairs and looked down, the person that was on top beating up the other guy was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point,” he said. But last week another unidentified man told CNN that he saw a larger man on top and a boy underneath. There wasn’t much movement, he said. Zimmerman’s father told the Orlando TV station that as his son was being beaten he tried to move from the concrete onto the grass. In doing so, he said, the gun his son kept in a holster on his waist was exposed. “Trayvon Martin said something to the effect of ‘You’re going to die now’ or ‘You’re gonna die tonight’ — something to that effect,” Robert Zimmerman said. “He continued to beat George. At some point, George pulled his pistol and did what he did.” Seven calls came in to 911. “They’re wrestling right in the back of my porch,” one caller said. “A guy is yelling, ‘Help.’…. I’m pretty sure the guy is dead.” “I saw a man lying on the ground and he needed help, screaming,” one 13-year-old boy told 911. “I heard a loud sound, and the screaming stopped.” Selma Mora Lamilla heard no fighting, only what she says was the wail of a child and the distinct crack of gunfire that silenced it. She ran outside her back porch, where she said she saw Zimmerman standing above Trayvon, apparently holding him down. “I asked him, “What’s happening here? What’s going on?” Mora said. “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.’ ” ...ABC News later reported that a boy who witnessed part of the incident said he saw someone matching Zimmerman’s red-jacket description lying on the grass, suggesting the shooter had told the truth when he said Trayvon had knocked him down. But the boy, 13-year-old Austin McLendon, gave 911 and The Miami Herald a different account. “He never said he saw someone in a red shirt or someone on top of another person — someone is switching his story,” said Austin’s mother, Cheryl Brown. “The police came here and asked him leading questions like, ‘The first person had a red shirt?’ because they wanted him to say, ‘Yes, the person had a red shirt.’ ” Brown said she will hire an attorney to demand a copy of the audio statement her son gave to prove he has never wavered, and never claimed to see Zimmerman on the ground.
It's not a matter of trusting one account over the other since I posted them all. Why would you assume Zimmerman didn't start the fight just because he had some minor injuries during their scuffle?
What was the evidence of Martin being the one who attacked Zimmerman? Sure that's what Zimmerman says but we're not going to get Martin's side of the story because Zimmerman killed him.
911 calls and interviewed witnesses, as well as crime-scene evidence.
Which I linked above. That's the only side of the story CNN and other liberal media want to give full exposure to, as they selectively omit and minimize the evidence that supports Zimmerman's version.
An independent Florida state investigation is also under way.
Even as the Al Sharptons, Jesse Jacksons, black politicians and liberal media toss kerosine on the fire and push for lynching Zimmerman with no faith in the rule of law, exactly what happened with the Rodney King verdict in 1992.
You may not have read all the 911 calls WB since some seem not to support Zimmerman's story. If you're picking and choosing to support one side over the other I don't get that but whatever.
It's not a matter of trusting one account over the other since
Apparently it is since you're attributing more credibility to one story over another and trying to marginalize the fact that Zimmerman was injured. You've clearly taken a position on this.
You may not have read all the 911 calls WB since some seem not to support Zimmerman's story. If you're picking and choosing to support one side over the other I don't get that but whatever.
M E M, how could you possibly have missed the clips and articles I've posted that give both sides? As I said in my post yesterday with the 2 CNN articles, they give emphasis to the witnesses that paint Trayvon as the victim, but I posted them anyway.
The fact that the (liberal) media gives emphasis to the witnesses that portray Trayvon as the victim, and for the most part selectively omits coverage of facts supportive of Zimmerman's account, makes me lean at this point toward believing Zimmerman's version. At this point, they're still posting photos of Trayvon as a 12 year old, and selectively omitting photos of how Trayvon himself presented his image on Facebook and elsewhere. The media also have largely buried the facts about Trayvon's suspensions for various thug activities. I don't even think the media has made clear that Trayvon actually lived and went to school in Miami, and that during his 10-day suspension, he was punished by having to stay in Sanford (Orlando area, 4 hours away) during his suspension, to separate him from his friends and other pleasures at home.
I've been pretty clear. I posted an extensive profile of George Zimmerman in my first few posts, that showed pretty much every last detail of Zimmerman's legal, marital, and even financial troubles. The media profile of Trayvon Martin in my next post right after was glowingly positive and didn't reveal anything about his current appearance on Facebook, or his 3 recent school suspensions. Interesting contrast, how the media trashed Zimmerman's character, and sugarcoated Martin's character. To date, the news media has yet to do ONE similar investigative profile of Trayvon Martin. And oddly, have laid out every last detail of Zimmerman's personal problems.
The truth is, neither of these guys were total boy scouts. Zimmerman seems to have had a difficult time 7 years ago, but was staightening out. He was training to be a police officer, so apparently he wasn't as criminal as some would like to portray him, or he would not qualify.
I've laid out both sides, warts and all, and initially favored Martin's side. Evidence could still prove Zimmerman the one at fault, but I lean toward his side, based on the one-sidedness of coverage, and the eagerness of the partisan media to character-assassinate Zimmerman as a racist, essentially convicting him without a trial, to taint the facts before they are fully revealed.
As I said earlier, this was a random absurdity, that is being supercharged unnecessarily by the media and black politicians and race-baiters to be more about race than it truly is.
Zimmerman's initial 911 call was reporting suspicious activity. Asked by the 911 dispatch, is the suspect black, Zimmerman said: I don't know. Following from a distance, Zimmerman later answered as asked: Yes, he's black. So he wasn't even targeting Martin for being black, but just because he was in a hoodie and behaving (his perception) suspiciously, because there had been robberies in the neighborhood.
You, on the other hand, seem partisan toward Trayvon Martin, and immune to any facts that support Zimmerman.
I can see it as a situation where both guys are partly at fault. Two guys with attitude about the situation, neither one backing down. I had a similar run-in years ago where I was in Trayvon Martin's situation and an overzealous neighborhood watch guy was following me for several blocks less than a mile from my home, and it was really starting to piss me off, and I finally turned around and started walking toward him to intimidate him. Fortunately in my situation, the police arrived before anything happened between us.
Here is another photo in virtually the identical pose that is the real Trayvon Martin:
But again, the question is not whether Martin was a thug, but whether he attacked Zimmerman and caused Zimmerman to shoot him in self defense.
And again: the liberal media didn't even report that Trayvon Martin was in Sanford, FL because he was on a 10-day suspension for marijuana possession, or that he had been suspended twice prior in less than a year for spraying graffitti on a locker, and for skipping school, or had assaulted someone as well.
A kid can only be so innocent and well behaved with a user-name like "NO_LIMIT_NIGGA"
or sending tweet messages like this:
Call me strange, but that at least begins to make me think innocent little Trayvon Martin just might be capable of going all-out ghetto gangster and jumping on Zimmerman's face.
But I'll settle for whatever the Florida Justice Department's independent investigation reveals, and not jump to any conclusions on the limited facts and speculation currently released.
So eager to present a certain picture of Martin they posted somebody elses.
You're wasting your time trying to talk to Klan-Dave. Facts are irrelevant when all you can do is hate people different from you. Can't you tell from the time and passion he's put into trying to "prove you wrong" and trying to "prove" that little kid that was murdered by the wife-beater was "black" and therefor "guilty"? He's already determined to defend the white guy for no other reason than he's white. No more, no less. You don't see him running to defend non-whites suspected of criminal intent. Nope. Just Whitey, cause that's all he cares about. Fact.
So, this is all G-Spin. If he were interested in "discussing" The Movement, he wouldn't consistently just try and search out the worst, rightwing-biased, anti-OWS articles he can find to post in an effort to paint the entire Movement with a single stroke. He's G-Shill, and all he can do is shill for his Rightwing Corporate masters.
That's why he has me on Ignore. I don't fall for his simple shit and it drives him absolutely crazy.
Evolve or die. Fact of life.
Fact.
No.
You dodge the facts that disprove your indoctrinated beliefs, by launching into the bitterest of personal slander.
In addition to calling anyone who disagrees with you a racist or klansmen or inbred redneck, your most vile recent personal attack is going after G-man's wife and daughters. Which again, is cowardly, because you know he has you on ignore, and therefore can't read what you are saying.
And we all know from your pussy antics toward Rex a few months ago, where you started topics attacking him on every forum, that when someone goes after your wife, you go ridiculously ballistic and hold an incredible double-standard of outrage.
After seeing your antics on these and the DC boards for over 10 years, I didn't think it was possible to have a lower opinion of you. That has changed. You have absolutely no principles, and are pure petty vindictiveness incarnate. And you deceitfully hide from the truth behind a wall of personal slander.
So eager to present a certain picture of Martin they posted somebody elses.
You're wasting your time trying to talk to Klan-Dave. Facts are irrelevant when all you can do is hate people different from you. Can't you tell from the time and passion he's put into trying to "prove you wrong" and trying to "prove" that little kid that was murdered by the wife-beater was "black" and therefor "guilty"? He's already determined to defend the white guy for no other reason than he's white. No more, no less. You don't see him running to defend non-whites suspected of criminal intent. Nope. Just Whitey, cause that's all he cares about. Fact.
So, this is all G-Spin. If he were interested in "discussing" The Movement, he wouldn't consistently just try and search out the worst, rightwing-biased, anti-OWS articles he can find to post in an effort to paint the entire Movement with a single stroke. He's G-Shill, and all he can do is shill for his Rightwing Corporate masters.
That's why he has me on Ignore. I don't fall for his simple shit and it drives him absolutely crazy.
SEE?!!! HE'S A NON-WHITE THUG!! HE DESERVED TO BE GUNNED DOWN!!! SOOOORRROOOOSSSSS!!!!
You're such a fucking, literal racist it's not even funny anymore. I hope you don't procreate and ruin the gene pool. Pathetic old man...
Ignoring your worthless taunts, slanders and baseless insults, it's not about Trayvon Martin being racially black. Many good and hardworking people in this country are black, that I'm glad to include among my professional associates and friends.
The issue is that Trayvon Martin, by his own self-chosen Facebook photos (that the media selectively omits) demonstrate that Trayvon was immersed in a criminal/thug subculture within the black community that was leading him down a criminal path. As Trayvon's three suspensions from school for drugs, spraying graffitti, and assaulting someone also manifest. Trayvon Martin was on a 10-day suspension from school on the night of the shooting. This kid was definitely not on his way to Harvard.
We're not talking about a black honor student who just innocently crossed paths with the wrong guy. Clearly, Martin's own actions --confronting Zimmerman physically, when Zimmerman had only watched him from a distance and reported him to police-- had a large role in what happened.
You know Pro is admitting defeat when he goes into Repostmetheus mode.
So, this is all G-Spin. If he were interested in "discussing" The Movement, he wouldn't consistently just try and search out the worst, rightwing-biased, anti-OWS articles he can find to post in an effort to paint the entire Movement with a single stroke. He's G-Shill, and all he can do is shill for his Rightwing Corporate masters.
That's why he has me on Ignore. I don't fall for his simple shit and it drives him absolutely crazy.
Originally Posted By: Traitor-Dave, the Wonder Racist
Your post is obsolete, Repostmetheus. I haven't had you on ignore for about a month now.
So, you're saying that YOU are G-Man?
Quote:
But you're still a petty vindictive schmuck hiding behind a wall of personal slander.
Back at you, racist scum. Burn in hell with all the rest of your murdering Nazi brethren. But, until you do, I'll continue to laugh at your simple ignorance, old man.
So eager to present a certain picture of Martin they posted somebody elses.
You're wasting your time trying to talk to Klan-Dave. Facts are irrelevant when all you can do is hate people different from you. Can't you tell from the time and passion he's put into trying to "prove you wrong" and trying to "prove" that little kid that was murdered by the wife-beater was "black" and therefor "guilty"? He's already determined to defend the white guy for no other reason than he's white. No more, no less. You don't see him running to defend non-whites suspected of criminal intent. Nope. Just Whitey, cause that's all he cares about.
So, this is all G-Spin. If he were interested in "discussing" The Movement, he wouldn't consistently just try and search out the worst, rightwing-biased, anti-OWS articles he can find to post in an effort to paint the entire Movement with a single stroke. He's G-Shill, and all he can do is shill for his Rightwing Corporate masters.
That's why he has me on Ignore. I don't fall for his simple shit and it drives him absolutely crazy.
Evolve or die. Fact of life.
Fact.
No.
You dodge the facts that disprove your indoctrinated beliefs, by launching into the bitterest of personal slander.
In addition to calling anyone who disagrees with you a racist or klansmen or inbred redneck, your most vile recent personal attack is going after G-man's wife and daughters. Which again, is cowardly, because you know he has you on ignore, and therefore can't read what you are saying.
And we all know from your pussy antics toward Rex a few months ago, where you started topics attacking him on every forum, that when someone goes after your wife, you go ridiculously ballistic and hold an incredible double-standard of outrage.
After seeing your antics on these and the DC boards for over 10 years, I didn't think it was possible to have a lower opinion of you. That has changed. You have absolutely no principles, and are pure petty vindictiveness incarnate. And you deceitfully hide from the truth behind a wall of personal slander.
Your re-posting the same lies and personal slander makes them no more true, Pro. You just continue to fling you poo across every forum, and bring down the quality of every conversation.
Originally Posted By: Traitor-Dave, the Wonder Racist
Your post is obsolete, Repostmetheus. I haven't had you on ignore for about a month now.
So, you're saying that YOU are G-Man?
Quote:
But you're still a petty vindictive schmuck hiding behind a wall of personal slander.
Back at you, racist scum. Burn in hell with all the rest of your murdering Nazi brethren. But, until you do, I'll continue to laugh at your simple ignorance, old man.
So, this is all G-Spin. If he were interested in "discussing" The Movement, he wouldn't consistently just try and search out the worst, rightwing-biased, anti-OWS articles he can find to post in an effort to paint the entire Movement with a single stroke. He's G-Shill, and all he can do is shill for his Rightwing Corporate masters.
That's why he has me on Ignore. I don't fall for his simple shit and it drives him absolutely crazy.
So eager to present a certain picture of Martin they posted somebody elses.
You're wasting your time trying to talk to Klan-Dave. Facts are irrelevant when all you can do is hate people different from you. Can't you tell from the time and passion he's put into trying to "prove you wrong" and trying to "prove" that little kid that was murdered by the wife-beater was "black" and therefor "guilty"? He's already determined to defend the white guy for no other reason than he's white. No more, no less. You don't see him running to defend non-whites suspected of criminal intent. Nope. Just Whitey, cause that's all he cares about.
It still surprises me that WB and others are still trying to essential hold court on the dead kid. He wasn't the one who stalked somebody with a gun. It was Zimmerman who did that and really should have been charged with at least manslaughter a long time ago. Instead it's very likely he's not going to be charged at all.
You're wasting your time trying to talk to Klan-Dave. Facts are irrelevant when all you can do is hate people different from you. Can't you tell from the time and passion he's put into trying to "prove you wrong" and trying to "prove" that little kid that was murdered by the wife-beater was "black" and therefore "guilty"? He's already determined to defend the white guy for no other reason than he's white. No more, no less. You don't see him running to defend non-whites suspected of criminal intent. Nope. Just Whitey, cause that's all he cares about.
It still surprises me that WB and others are still trying to essential hold court on the dead kid. He wasn't the one who stalked somebody with a gun. It was Zimmerman who did that and really should have been charged...
As you well know, there is a presumption of innocence in our jurisprudence. Courts require evidence. Police are supposed to have probable cause to charge someone.
Furthermore, under any self defense case, "stand your ground" or not, one of the questions is whether the shooter had a reasonable fear of serious physical injury. One of the questions surrounding whether Zimmerman's actions, therefore, would be what-if anything-about Martin placed Zimmerman in 'reasonable fear.' Therefore, Martin's size, clothing and actions would all be factors to be examined.
Therefore, under the law, every self defense case "holds court" on the deceased.
Finally, neither you nor WB were there, neither of you are police officers and neither of you are sitting on a jury hearing admissible evidence. Therefore, both of you are simply engaged in speculation.
There's nothing wrong with that, as long as your not part of the court case. However, it does mean that you're just as guilty as anyone of prejudging the case. But you're doing so to convict Zimmerman without benefit of a trial.
Worse, you seem to think that a person should be charged--and subject to potential loss of life, liberty and property--even if there isn't adequate evidence to do so.
Quote:
Instead it's very likely he's not going to be charged at all.
What happened to "it is better one hundred guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer"?
Therefore, under the law, every self defense case "holds court" on the deceased.
Finally, neither you nor WB were there, neither of you are police officers and neither of you are sitting on a jury hearing admissible evidence. Therefore, both of you are simply engaged in speculation.
Yes.
beyond that, I've certainly been weighing both sides of the argument. When I began this topic, I was clearly sympathetic to Trayvon Martin's side of the debate. But have since been swayed toward leaning in the other direction. Or even that there's a shared portioned blame for both Martin and Zimmerman, that each are mutually or partially responsible for the escalation that led to the shooting.
And even though I lean toward Trayvon Martin partly bringing this on himself by physically assaulting Zimmerman who had previously only watched him from a distance according to at least 2 witnesses and physical evidence, I've also posted several articles that show witnesses and arguments against Zimmerman's version.
So all the "WB: racist, racist, klansman, bigot" shit rings pretty hollow.
Whereas I think M E M has been uncritically entrenched toward the Trayvon Martin side.
It still surprises me that WB and others are still trying to essential hold court on the dead kid. He wasn't the one who stalked somebody with a gun. It was Zimmerman who did that and really should have been charged...
As you well know, I'm a complete Rightwing nutjob shill who attempts to twist logic, reason, and the law to favor the rich and the white. I'm a corporate tool who has given nothing to this world but heartache and deceit, just like most of my Extremist brethren.
Originally Posted By: Traitor-Dave, the Wonder Racist
Your post is obsolete, Repostmetheus. I haven't had you on ignore for about a month now.
So, you're saying that YOU are G-Man?
Quote:
But you're still a petty vindictive schmuck hiding behind a wall of personal slander.
Back at you, racist scum. Burn in hell with all the rest of your murdering Nazi brethren. But, until you do, I'll continue to laugh at your simple ignorance, old man.
So, this is all G-Spin. If he were interested in "discussing" The Movement, he wouldn't consistently just try and search out the worst, rightwing-biased, anti-OWS articles he can find to post in an effort to paint the entire Movement with a single stroke. He's G-Shill, and all he can do is shill for his Rightwing Corporate masters.
That's why he has me on Ignore. I don't fall for his simple shit and it drives him absolutely crazy.
So eager to present a certain picture of Martin they posted somebody elses.
You're wasting your time trying to talk to Klan-Dave. Facts are irrelevant when all you can do is hate people different from you. Can't you tell from the time and passion he's put into trying to "prove you wrong" and trying to "prove" that little kid that was murdered by the wife-beater was "black" and therefor "guilty"? He's already determined to defend the white guy for no other reason than he's white. No more, no less. You don't see him running to defend non-whites suspected of criminal intent. Nope. Just Whitey, cause that's all he cares about.
Therefore, under the law, every self defense case "holds court" on the deceased.
Finally, neither you nor WB were there, neither of you are police officers and neither of you are sitting on a jury hearing admissible evidence. Therefore, both of you are simply engaged in speculation.
Yes.
beyond that, I've certainly been weighing both sides of the argument. When I began this topic, I was clearly sympathetic to Trayvon Martin's side of the debate. But have since been swayed toward leaning in the other direction. Or even that there's a shared portioned blame for both Martin and Zimmerman, that each are mutually or partially responsible for the escalation that led to the shooting.
And even though I lean toward Trayvon Martin partly bringing this on himself by physically assaulting Zimmerman who had previously only watched him from a distance according to at least 2 witnesses and physical evidence, I've also posted several articles that show witnesses and arguments against Zimmerman's version.
So all the "WB: racist, racist, klansman, bigot" shit rings pretty hollow.
Whereas I think M E M has been uncritically entrenched toward the Trayvon Martin side.
In MEM's defense I think there is a tendency in a lot of us to see a dead kid and immediately want to blame someone. When a child or teenager dies, we all want to make sense of it. And sometimes the easiest way to do that is assign criminal blame. There is comfort is being able to tell ourselves that it wasnt just a horrible act of random chance, that a "bad guy" caused it and, once we "get" the bad guy things will be better.
But the legal system can't work that way. We need to have checks and balances and we need to remember that not every tragedy is a crime. Otherwise, we risk codemnng the innocent on emotion instead of evidence.
It still surprises me that WB and others are still trying to essential hold court on the dead kid. He wasn't the one who stalked somebody with a gun. It was Zimmerman who did that and really should have been charged...
As you well know, I'm a complete Rightwing nutjob shill who attempts to twist logic, reason, and the law to favor the rich and the white. I'm a corporate tool who has given nothing to this world but heartache and deceit, just like most of my Extremist brethren.
There's more to it than what you say G-man. Zimmerman at the very least created the situation that ended up with him shooting Martin. Because he had the gun, that should have come with extra responsibility. He killed somebody wrongly. I'm not crying for Zimmerman's blood but having the law do nothing isn't justice either.
Again, you don't know that. Zimmerman says he was attacked, and there are eyewitnesses that back up his claim. Maybe you should actually wait for the police to finish their investigation before throwing around guilty verdicts.
It still surprises me that WB and others are still trying to essential hold court on the dead kid. He wasn't the one who stalked somebody with a gun. It was Zimmerman who did that and really should have been charged...
As you well know, I'm a complete Rightwing nutjob shill who attempts to twist logic, reason, and the law to favor the rich and the white. I'm a corporate tool who has given nothing to this world but heartache and deceit, just like most of my Extremist brethren.
It still surprises me that WB and others are still trying to essential hold court on the dead kid. He wasn't the one who stalked somebody with a gun. It was Zimmerman who did that and really should have been charged...
As you well know, I'm a complete Rightwing nutjob shill who attempts to twist logic, reason, and the law to favor the rich and the white. I'm a corporate tool who has given nothing to this world but heartache and deceit, just like most of my Extremist brethren.
So eager to present a certain picture of Martin they posted somebody elses.
You're wasting your time trying to talk to Klan-Dave. Facts are irrelevant when all you can do is hate people different from you. Can't you tell from the time and passion he's put into trying to "prove you wrong" and trying to "prove" that little kid that was murdered by the wife-beater was "black" and therefor "guilty"? He's already determined to defend the white guy for no other reason than he's white. No more, no less. You don't see him running to defend non-whites suspected of criminal intent. Nope. Just Whitey, cause that's all he cares about.
It still surprises me that WB and others are still trying to essential hold court on the dead kid. He wasn't the one who stalked somebody with a gun. It was Zimmerman who did that and really should have been charged...
As you well know, I'm a complete Rightwing nutjob shill who attempts to twist logic, reason, and the law to favor the rich and the white. I'm a corporate tool who has given nothing to this world but heartache and deceit, just like most of my Extremist brethren.
However it played out Zimmerman still started it by following a kid around with a gun.
As I mentioned previously, this means you are arguing that Martin had a reasonable fear of injury from Zimmerman and, therefore, was justified in fighting with Zimmerman.
In other words, as noted before, you are arguing that Martin had a "stand your ground" right to defend himself.
The fact that you are using the very concept you condemn in the abstract in order to defend Martin is very indicative of bias on your part.
What if Zimmerman didn't have a gun and Martin wound up beating him to death? Would you still be blaming Zimmerman for following Martin around?
I don't think that's a reasonable hypothetical. Zimmerman outweighed Martin for starters and by the looks of the video it wasn't all fat. Also while some conservatives have dug up anything and everything that could possibly make Martin look bad, they have yet to turn up any incidents where he attacked another person. (Zimmerman has though) Fights don't usually end with somebody being beaten to death. It does happen but what would have been Martin's motive for even attempting? This is where it gets into bad law protecting Zimmerman btw. It doesn't matter that Martin had no weapon or reason to actually beat somebody to death. All that really matters in Zimmermans case is that the gun owner felt that his life was threatened.
He was a punk kid that ran from the neighborhood watch while wearing a hoodie (the universal clothing of the punk kid criminal). There were also recent break ins in the neighborhood. All the punk kid had to do was say that he lives in the neighborhood and that the neighborhood watch guy could follow him home or call one of his parents. Instead the punk kid fought him. Its a shame he died but he shouldn't have been a little shit.
What if Zimmerman didn't have a gun and Martin wound up beating him to death? Would you still be blaming Zimmerman for following Martin around?
I don't think that's a reasonable hypothetical. Zimmerman outweighed Martin for starters and by the looks of the video it wasn't all fat. Also while some conservatives have dug up anything and everything that could possibly make Martin look bad, they have yet to turn up any incidents where he attacked another person. (Zimmerman has though) Fights don't usually end with somebody being beaten to death. It does happen but what would have been Martin's motive for even attempting? This is where it gets into bad law protecting Zimmerman btw. It doesn't matter that Martin had no weapon or reason to actually beat somebody to death. All that really matters in Zimmermans case is that the gun owner felt that his life was threatened.
But some fights do end with someone being beaten to death. We've also shown that Martin was a big guy himself and not the kid that was shown in the old pictures that were first broadcast. Just so you know, ABC did a digital enhancement to the video of Zimmerman in the police station that you posted earlier to show that Zimmerman had what looked like a gash and welts on the back of his head. Also, the law still requires there to be proof of self defense. It's not a blank check for people to kill like the media is portraying it. So, again, there is too much misinformation out there right now to start laying blame unquestionably on one side or the other.
Two men in a rural town were involved in a struggle, one killed. There is a push by many locals to execute the surviving man, even though all suppressed evidence shows it was justifiable self-defense and not murder. An irrational hatred of the accused man, and an eagerness to vindictively see him executed, regardless of the facts.
Life imitates art.
Only in the episode the call is for lynching a black man.
And in the current situation, the call is to lynch a "white hispanic."
So far we don't know how the fight started ...You can't assume that's what happened.
Riiight....because that's your job.
Seriously, however, on several occasions you have stated that Zimmerman started the fight by following Martin with a gun.
The fact you refer to there having been a fight, as opposed to simply an execution, would seem to be tacit admission on your part that there was a confrontation involving both parties.
If there was a confrontation, then both parties committed some sort of violent or threatening act.
And if both parties did so and you believe that Martin was not guilty of any criminal conduct--ie, that he was simply defending himself against Zimmerman--then you are acknowledging that self defense laws are, at times, valid.
It still surprises me that WB and others are still trying to essential hold court on the dead kid. He wasn't the one who stalked somebody with a gun. It was Zimmerman who did that and really should have been charged...
As you well know, I'm a complete Rightwing nutjob shill who attempts to twist logic, reason, and the law to favor the rich and the white. I'm a corporate tool who has given nothing to this world but heartache and deceit, just like most of my Extremist brethren.
So eager to present a certain picture of Martin they posted somebody elses.
You're wasting your time trying to talk to Klan-Dave. Facts are irrelevant when all you can do is hate people different from you. Can't you tell from the time and passion he's put into trying to "prove you wrong" and trying to "prove" that little kid that was murdered by the wife-beater was "black" and therefor "guilty"? He's already determined to defend the white guy for no other reason than he's white. No more, no less. You don't see him running to defend non-whites suspected of criminal intent. Nope. Just Whitey, cause that's all he cares about.
So far we don't know how the fight started ...You can't assume that's what happened.
Riiight....because that's your job.
Seriously, however, on several occasions you have stated that Zimmerman started the fight by following Martin with a gun.
The fact you refer to there having been a fight, as opposed to simply an execution, would seem to be tacit admission on your part that there was a confrontation involving both parties.
If there was a confrontation, then both parties committed some sort of violent or threatening act.
And if both parties did so and you believe that Martin was not guilty of any criminal conduct--ie, that he was simply defending himself against Zimmerman--then you are acknowledging that self defense laws are, at times, valid.
Exactly.
As the record indicates at this point, Zimmerman had followed the 911 operator's instruction and broken off from following martin.
At that point, Trayvon Martin attacked him and became the aggressor, and by his actions warranted Zimmerman to legally defend himself.
So eager to present a certain picture of Martin they posted somebody elses.
You're wasting your time trying to talk to Klan-Dave. Facts are irrelevant when all you can do is hate people different from you. Can't you tell from the time and passion he's put into trying to "prove you wrong" and trying to "prove" that little kid that was murdered by the wife-beater was "black" and therefor "guilty"? He's already determined to defend the white guy for no other reason than he's white. No more, no less. You don't see him running to defend non-whites suspected of criminal intent. Nope. Just Whitey, cause that's all he cares about.
So far we don't know how the fight started ...You can't assume that's what happened.
Riiight....because that's your job.
Seriously, however, on several occasions you have stated that Zimmerman started the fight by following Martin with a gun.
The fact you refer to there having been a fight, as opposed to simply an execution, would seem to be tacit admission on your part that there was a confrontation involving both parties.
If there was a confrontation, then both parties committed some sort of violent or threatening act.
And if both parties did so and you believe that Martin was not guilty of any criminal conduct--ie, that he was simply defending himself against Zimmerman--then you are acknowledging that self defense laws are, at times, valid.
Exactly.
As the record indicates at this point, Zimmerman had followed the 911 operator's instruction and broken off from following martin.
At that point, Trayvon Martin attacked him and became the aggressor, and by his actions warranted Zimmerman to legally defend himself.
What I said applies to you as well. It's not established exactly what happened. It may be your opinion that Martin attacked him but that is not established as fact. It is also unclear that Zimmerman broke off following Martin. It is part of the record that instead of meeting the police at his vehicle he instead asked them to call him and he would tell them where he was. Only reason I can think of is that he was still looking for the kid he eventually ended up killing.
If nobody could be charged unless evidence proved conclusive that they were guilty you would never need trials. Considering what we do know I think this should go to trial. A child was killed by Zimmerman's hand and there's conflicting evidence. Is there a good reason for this not to go to trial?
If nobody could be charged unless evidence proved conclusive that they were guilty you would never need trials...a child was killed by Zimmerman's hand and there's conflicting evidence. Is there a good reason for this not to go to trial?
Under the code of ethics a prosecutor has an ethical obligation to bring to trial only those persons whom he or she believes can fairly be found guilty by a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt.
In other words, under our system of laws, the district attorney is not supposed to charge someone on the "I don't know what happened" theory.
I would also note that, for all your talk about how you haven't prejudged the case, language like "a child was killed by Zimmerman's hand," certainly implies you've made your mind up before knowing the facts.
I don't see much point now in speculating about Zimmerman's guilt or innocence, until the Florida state Justice Dept completes its independent investigation, and releases the as-yet-undisclosed evidence.
I feel like, no matter what the evidence, to the Al Sharptons, Jesse Jacksons, to angry black victim-culture-indoctrinated America, to the posturing Democrat politicians and the partisan liberal media pundits who pump up that anger, that no matter what the evidence disclosed that might corroborate, justify, and exonerate George Zimmerman's actions, these ideologically driven zealots will continue to scream for Zimmerman's blood. No matter what.
I can envision a rush to convict Zimmerman on weak evidence, just to appease the zealots and prevent nationwide riots.
I can envision not having sufficient evidence, but still arresting Zimmerman, and holding him for a period of time before releasing him on insufficient evidence, with authorities saying "well, we tried..." just as a show, to again appease and prevent riots.
Or there might be evidence to at least pursue a trial of Zimmerman, or even convict him.
And I can envision Zimmerman being killed, either in prison or as a free man. No matter what the evidence.
If nobody could be charged unless evidence proved conclusive that they were guilty you would never need trials...a child was killed by Zimmerman's hand and there's conflicting evidence. Is there a good reason for this not to go to trial?
Under the code of ethics a prosecutor has an ethical obligation to bring to trial only those persons whom he or she believes can fairly be found guilty by a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt.
In other words, under our system of laws, the district attorney is not supposed to charge someone on the "I don't know what happened" theory.
I would hope so. My only fear is that "stand your ground" will circumvent what should normally happen in this type of case.
Quote:
I would also note that, for all your talk about how you haven't prejudged the case, language like "a child was killed by Zimmerman's hand," certainly implies you've made your mind up before knowing the facts.
You might feel that way but your selective in your criticism. WB takes Zimmerman at his word and states his story as fact and I notice you remain silent. Isn't that bias on your part as well as WB's?
I would also note that, for all your talk about how you haven't prejudged the case, language like "a child was killed by Zimmerman's hand," certainly implies you've made your mind up before knowing the facts.
You might feel that way but your selective in your criticism. WB takes Zimmerman at his word and states his story as fact and I notice you remain silent. Isn't that bias on your part as well as WB's?
I call bullshit.
My comments are made with the strong and clear statement --repeatedly-- that not all the evidence is in, and we should wait for the FL Justice Dept's independent investigation to be completed and announced.
I simply say I lean toward believing Zimmerman, pending further evidence.
Your POV (and likewise, the POV of the biggest troll asshole on these boards) is no matter what the evidence, is that Zimmerman is guilty, and anyone who disagrees is a white racist bigot, as you selectively omit considerable evidence that contradicts that mindset.
Originally Posted By: Traitor David, the Wonder Racist
Originally Posted By: M E M
Originally Posted By: the G-man
I would also note that, for all your talk about how you haven't prejudged the case, language like "a child was killed by Zimmerman's hand," certainly implies you've made your mind up before knowing the facts.
You might feel that way but your selective in your criticism. WB takes Zimmerman at his word and states his story as fact and I notice you remain silent. Isn't that bias on your part as well as WB's?
I call bullshit.
My comments are made with the strong and clear statement --repeatedly-- that not all the evidence is in, and we should wait for the FL Justice Dept's independent investigation to be completed and announced.
I simply say I lean toward believing Zimmerman, because he's white.
Zimmerman is half-white, half-hispanic. And also part native American, and if I recall, also part jewish. If anything Zimmerman himself would identify as hispanic.
Pro fails. Again.
Only the media, and lying sacks of shit like you, Pro, would try to pass off Zimmerman as "white", to try and paint his shooting as a "white racist" event. It's not.
Originally Posted By: Traitor David, the Wonder Racist
Originally Posted By: M E M
Originally Posted By: the G-man
I would also note that, for all your talk about how you haven't prejudged the case, language like "a child was killed by Zimmerman's hand," certainly implies you've made your mind up before knowing the facts.
You might feel that way but your selective in your criticism. WB takes Zimmerman at his word and states his story as fact and I notice you remain silent. Isn't that bias on your part as well as WB's?
I call bullshit.
My comments are made with the strong and clear statement --repeatedly-- that not all the evidence is in, and we should wait for the FL Justice Dept's independent investigation to be completed and announced.
I simply say I lean toward believing Zimmerman, because he's white.
So eager to present a certain picture of Martin they posted somebody elses.
You're wasting your time trying to talk to Klan-Dave. Facts are irrelevant when all you can do is hate people different from you. Can't you tell from the time and passion he's put into trying to "prove you wrong" and trying to "prove" that little kid that was murdered by the wife-beater was "black" and therefor "guilty"? He's already determined to defend the white guy for no other reason than he's white. No more, no less. You don't see him running to defend non-whites suspected of criminal intent. Nope. Just Whitey, cause that's all he cares about.
As the record indicates at this point, Zimmerman had followed the 911 operator's instruction and broken off from following martin.
At that point, Trayvon Martin attacked him and became the aggressor, and by his actions warranted Zimmerman to legally defend himself.
You apparently can't smell your own heaping mounds of bs. This isn't leaning one way but taking whatever Zimmerman said as factual despite conflicting evidence or the not so small matter that Martin isn't alive to tell his side of the story.
As the record indicates at this point, Zimmerman had followed the 911 operator's instruction and broken off from following martin.
At that point, Trayvon Martin attacked him and became the aggressor, and by his actions warranted Zimmerman to legally defend himself.
You apparently can't smell your own heaping mounds of bs. This isn't leaning one way but taking whatever Zimmerman said as factual despite conflicting evidence or the not so small matter that Martin isn't alive to tell his side of the story.
As I said barely 20 posts ago:
Originally Posted By: WB
I call bullshit.
My comments are made with the strong and clear statement --repeatedly-- that not all the evidence is in, and we should wait for the FL Justice Dept's independent investigation to be completed and announced.
I simply say I lean toward believing Zimmerman, pending further evidence.
Your POV (and likewise, the POV of the biggest troll asshole on these boards) is no matter what the evidence, is that Zimmerman is guilty, and anyone who disagrees is a white racist bigot, as you selectively omit considerable evidence that contradicts that mindset.
And it was only by selective omission of part of said post, that you can misleadingly imply otherwise.
I said I lean toward believing Zimmerman, based on what has been revealed so far, with awareness that is not all the evidence, and that there are conflicting witness accounts. I repeatedly urge waiting for the independent investigation findings to be unveiled, that will give the full story.
You implying I said otherwise is complete BS.
As for trayvon Martin's side, as I said previously, there are 911 calls, scene evidence and witnesses that reveal what happened, regardless of either Trayvon Martin's or Zimmerman's presence or absence.
And who exactly is the one that's constantly forgetting that he was getting his head beat into the sidewalk?
That's Zimmerman's story. He apparently had a bump or something to the back of his head but did it happen because Martin was fighting for his life or as Zimmerman tells it Martin attacked him all of a sudden? Zimmerman's story doesn't really jibe with what Martin's girlfriend has reportedly said as well as several of the 911 calls. Recorded screams that have been examined have two experts claiming it wasn't Zimmerman screaming for help. Zimmerman does have a bump or something on his head in that video though so I'll keep an open mind.
If nobody could be charged unless evidence proved conclusive that they were guilty you would never need trials...a child was killed by Zimmerman's hand and there's conflicting evidence. Is there a good reason for this not to go to trial?
Under the code of ethics a prosecutor has an ethical obligation to bring to trial only those persons whom he or she believes can fairly be found guilty by a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt.
In other words, under our system of laws, the district attorney is not supposed to charge someone on the "I don't know what happened" theory.
I would hope so. My only fear is that "stand your ground" will circumvent what should normally happen in this type of case.
Quote:
I would also note that, for all your talk about how you haven't prejudged the case, language like "a child was killed by Zimmerman's hand," certainly implies you've made your mind up before knowing the facts.
You might feel that way but your selective in your criticism. WB takes Zimmerman at his word and states his story as fact and I notice you remain silent. Isn't that bias on your part as well as WB's?
WB is arguing for the defense.
The defense enjoys the presumption of innocence.
You are arguing for the prosecution.
The prosecution is charged with the burden of proof.
Therefore, you should be forced to present a stronger argument than WB in this case.
Furthermore, WB is--right or wrong--arguing the case as a single, specific, case. You are, by your own admission, trying to use what you think happened for political, or policy, purposes.
I am always suspicious of taking one case and using it to enact wide-reaching laws in a rush (see, e.g., the old axiom "bad cases make bad laws").
Finally, as I keep pointing out [and you keep ignoring], your position is inherently self-contradictory. You say you are against self defense/stand your ground laws but you keep using the concept to explain why Martin would (hypothetically) have the right to fight with Zimmerman for following him around.
Originally Posted By: Traitor David, the Wonder Racist
Originally Posted By: M E M
Originally Posted By: the G-man
I would also note that, for all your talk about how you haven't prejudged the case, language like "a child was killed by Zimmerman's hand," certainly implies you've made your mind up before knowing the facts.
You might feel that way but your selective in your criticism. WB takes Zimmerman at his word and states his story as fact and I notice you remain silent. Isn't that bias on your part as well as WB's?
I call bullshit.
My comments are made with the strong and clear statement --repeatedly-- that not all the evidence is in, and we should wait for the FL Justice Dept's independent investigation to be completed and announced.
I simply say I lean toward believing Zimmerman, because he's white.
So eager to present a certain picture of Martin they posted somebody elses.
You're wasting your time trying to talk to Klan-Dave. Facts are irrelevant when all you can do is hate people different from you. Can't you tell from the time and passion he's put into trying to "prove you wrong" and trying to "prove" that little kid that was murdered by the wife-beater was "black" and therefor "guilty"? He's already determined to defend the white guy for no other reason than he's white. No more, no less. You don't see him running to defend non-whites suspected of criminal intent. Nope. Just Whitey, cause that's all he cares about.
It still surprises me that WB and others are still trying to essential hold court on the dead kid. He wasn't the one who stalked somebody with a gun. It was Zimmerman who did that and really should have been charged...
As you well know, I'm a complete Rightwing nutjob shill who attempts to twist logic, reason, and the law to favor the rich and the white. I'm a corporate tool who has given nothing to this world but heartache and deceit, just like most of my Extremist brethren.
All the racist Republican nutjobs...G-Shill, Traitor David, and Pariah....is it me, or they all starting to sound alike? Maybe it's because they're all three working tirelessly, day after day, in an attempt to prove a dead black kid is wrong, and the white wife-beating murderer is right(Right)? Constantly coming back in an attempt to alter reality and facts in hopes that, I guess, ultimately everyone will throw their hands up and go, "OH! He's BLACK! Not white? And he was a child? And unarmed? Well he MUST have been deserving of a bullet!"
So, I'm starting to theorize....especially with Traitor Dave's need to repeatedly defend G-Shill in other threads....that they are, in fact, all the same person. Maybe not Pariah. He might just be a crazy little kid. But, Wondy and G? Both old....both ignorant...both heartless, with no compassion for other lifeforms other than white Americans......hmmmmm......
If nobody could be charged unless evidence proved conclusive that they were guilty you would never need trials...a child was killed by Zimmerman's hand and there's conflicting evidence. Is there a good reason for this not to go to trial?
Under the code of ethics a prosecutor has an ethical obligation to bring to trial only those persons whom he or she believes can fairly be found guilty by a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt.
In other words, under our system of laws, the district attorney is not supposed to charge someone on the "I don't know what happened" theory.
I would hope so. My only fear is that "stand your ground" will circumvent what should normally happen in this type of case.
Quote:
I would also note that, for all your talk about how you haven't prejudged the case, language like "a child was killed by Zimmerman's hand," certainly implies you've made your mind up before knowing the facts.
You might feel that way but your selective in your criticism. WB takes Zimmerman at his word and states his story as fact and I notice you remain silent. Isn't that bias on your part as well as WB's?
WB is arguing for the defense.
The defense enjoys the presumption of innocence.
You are arguing for the prosecution.
The prosecution is charged with the burden of proof.
Therefore, you should be forced to present a stronger argument than WB in this case.
This isn't court and WB was saying that we know something that we obviously don't know. You're rationalising his bias while alleging it on others.
Quote:
Furthermore, WB is--right or wrong--arguing the case as a single, specific, case. You are, by your own admission, trying to use what you think happened for political, or policy, purposes.
His rants in this thread about Obama, the "liberal" media and liberals are not political?
Quote:
I am always suspicious of taking one case and using it to enact wide-reaching laws in a rush (see, e.g., the old axiom "bad cases make bad laws").
Finally, as I keep pointing out [and you keep ignoring], your position is inherently self-contradictory. You say you are against self defense/stand your ground laws but you keep using the concept to explain why Martin would (hypothetically) have the right to fight with Zimmerman for following him around.
I am against the "stand your ground" law but that hardly means I'm against all self defense laws. This is just bad law and this case is probably going to be used as an example of why it's bad law as long as it's allowed to exist. Despite your claims that this law isn't in play here, it clearly is. The police said so and Zimmerman's lawyers are mounting a defense using it.
As I've said repeatedly: I'm witholding judgement until all the evidence is revealed by the independent investigation.
I've posted evidence here giving evidence and witness accounts for both sides. Apparently you guys think anything but selective omission of evidence that supports George Zimmerman, including two witnesses, 911 calls and physical evidence that Traayvon martin assaulted Zimmerman... acknowledging any of the considerable evidence that supports Zimmerman's account of events.... is "racist".
You guys are pathetic, in your inability to withold judgement and wait for the full evidence. Which hasn't been made public yet.
He caused those injuries on his own! There's no way Trayvon was violent! Look at his pictures! He's a sweet innocent child.
Or so the media projects, by only showing photos from when he was about 12. He does not look "innocent" in his more recent photos.
Along with his THREE 10-day suspensions in less than a year, tatoos, and other "bling". Trayvon Martin's girlfriend on the phone told him to leave. But he was, by all evidence so far, standing his ground just as much as George Zimmerman. And by several accounts, while Zimmerman was retreating to his truck, Trayvon struck the first blow, and himself put the violence in motion, forcing Zimmerman to defend himself. Two witnesses back that account.
I am against the "stand your ground" law but that hardly means I'm against all self defense laws...
From what you've written here it appears that you believe that the following (or something close to it) occurred in this case:
Zimmerman, unjustly suspicious of Martin, followed him with a loaded weapon.
This caused Martin, rather than retreat or run away, to confront Zimmerman. Martin was justified in doing so because of the perceived threat from Zimmerman.
Martin's confronting Zimmerman led to an altercation, during which Zimmerman shot Martin
If that is what you believe (and if its not, please feel free to set forth a statement/narrative of what you think did happen), then it would appear that you are supporting Martin's right to "stand [his] ground." Rather than retreat, Martin confronted the perceived threat, which is what you call the "bad law" allows.
So eager to present a certain picture of Martin they posted somebody elses.
You're wasting your time trying to talk to Klan-Dave. Facts are irrelevant when all you can do is hate people different from you. Can't you tell from the time and passion he's put into trying to "prove you wrong" and trying to "prove" that little kid that was murdered by the wife-beater was "black" and therefor "guilty"? He's already determined to defend the white guy for no other reason than he's white. No more, no less. You don't see him running to defend non-whites suspected of criminal intent. Nope. Just Whitey, cause that's all he cares about.
It still surprises me that WB and others are still trying to essential hold court on the dead kid. He wasn't the one who stalked somebody with a gun. It was Zimmerman who did that and really should have been charged...
As you well know, I'm a complete Rightwing nutjob shill who attempts to twist logic, reason, and the law to favor the rich and the white. I'm a corporate tool who has given nothing to this world but heartache and deceit, just like most of my Extremist brethren.
All the racist Republican nutjobs...G-Shill, Traitor David, and Pariah....is it me, or they all starting to sound alike? Maybe it's because they're all three working tirelessly, day after day, in an attempt to prove a dead black kid is wrong, and the white wife-beating murderer is right(Right)? Constantly coming back in an attempt to alter reality and facts in hopes that, I guess, ultimately everyone will throw their hands up and go, "OH! He's BLACK! Not white? And he was a child? And unarmed? Well he MUST have been deserving of a bullet!"
So, I'm starting to theorize....especially with Traitor Dave's need to repeatedly defend G-Shill in other threads....that they are, in fact, all the same person. Maybe not Pariah. He might just be a crazy little kid. But, Wondy and G? Both old....both ignorant...both heartless, with no compassion for other lifeforms other than white Americans......hmmmmm......
Murder charge in Trayvon Martin case By Brendan Farrington Associated Press / April 11, 2012 E-mail| Print| Comments (379)Text size – + 170 1 ShareThis1E-mail E-mail this article To: Invalid E-mail address Add a personal message:(80 character limit) Your E-mail: Invalid E-mail address Sending your articleYour article has been sent. TALLAHASSEE, Fla.—Neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman has been arrested and faces a charge of second-degree murder in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press Wednesday.
The official with knowledge of the case says that the charge against George Zimmerman will be announced at a news conference by special prosecutor Angela Corey at 6 p.m. Wednesday. The official says the 28-year-old Sanford man is in custody in Florida but wouldn't say where.
A second-degree murder charge in Florida carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. It is typically charged when there is a fight or other confrontation that results in death and where there is no premeditated plan to kill someone.
The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to disclose the information.
Zimmerman's arrest was delayed partly because of Florida's "stand your ground" law, which gives people wide leeway to use deadly force without having to retreat in the face of danger. The lack of an arrest had sparked outrage and rallies for justice in the Orlando suburb and across the country. ...
As I've said repeatedly: I'm witholding judgement until all the evidence is revealed by the independent investigation.
I've posted here giving evidence and witness accounts for both sides. Apparently you guys think anything but selective omission of evidence that supports George Zimmerman, including two witnesses, 911 calls and physical evidence that Traayvon martin assaulted Zimmerman... acknowledging any of the considerable evidence that supports Zimmerman's account of events.... is "racist".
You guys are pathetic, in your inability to withold judgement and wait for the full evidence. Which hasn't been made public yet.
I was honestly surprised that Zimmerman was charged with 2nd degree murder and not a lesser charge. It will be interesting to see what new evidence if any comes out.
It will be interesting to see if the guy lives long enough to stand trial, what with the pretrial publicity and the Black Panthers putting a huge bounty on his head. Zimmerman could end up being murdered in jail by another inmate.
I would hope authorities keep that in mind and take the appropiate precautions to insure Zimmerman's protection. Also now that he's been charged, that alone probably has calmed things down considerably.
I actually thought that Zimmerman might have been arrested
1) to assure he wouldn't flee
and 2) to protect him better than he would be outside jail.
As i said previously, as described to me by a Broward Country sheriff friend of mine, he said that often you delay arrest until evidence can be gathered. Because once you arrst them, there's basically a clock ticking, and if you can't present your case in time, you're forced to let them go and lose the ability to prosecute.
But since they waited 2 months to make the arrest, one assumes they've gathered the evidence they feel is needed to make --or at least attempt-- a prosecution.
Sometimes bad laws don't thwart justice. We're not in the clear yet though since I suspect Zimmerman will try to make use of it in his defense.
Also I wonder since the cops said they were not charging him because of the "stand your ground" law if that also affected the initial investigation.
From the way I've understood the 'stand your ground' law, it's not an automatic out for killing someone. There will now be a pretrial hearing to determine if there is enough evidence to substantiate the claim of self-defense. The cops may have misapplied the law, but that's bad police work and not necessarily a bad law. At least you're now being more honest about your prejudice in this case. You were never waiting for justice. You've just been waiting for a conviction.
I know the pictures that were shown on TV were of a 14 year-old; but you do know that Martin was a 17 year-old, right? Someone a year or less away from being able to vote and decide to pick up a gun to kill in the name of national defense is hardly someone I'd classify as a 'kid' or 'child'. I'm not saying that it's not possible that Zimmerman is a cold blooded murder; but I do think we need to wait until all the facts, not speculations from either side are in, before we jump to a conclusion. Have we not learned our lesson from the Duke Lacrosse case?
Or Richard Jewell. This is a media driven trial. The media doctored the phone calls and the video. He might as well be hung. Its a shame that people like pro and mem are slaves to their own perceived realities.
Guilty white people are so butt hurt over slavery that they think every black person is innocent no matter what. All they care about is race, not the actual individual. These people are complete scum. They are the true racists.
rex, can you not read? Pro has undeniable proof that Zimmerman is a racist. As we all know, whenever that word is brought into use, any and all facts to the contrary cannot exist.
I just caught some of the rerun of the arrest announcement by the special prosecutor.
Granted, I did so on "Jon Stewart."
However, and all traffic court jokes aside, speaking as someone who has actually been a prosecutor, watching that woman grin through the announcement was chilling.
You do not take joy in something like that. There is dead kid and a man facing life in prison.
I hope I'm wrong but everything about her demeanor was 'shameless camera whore,' and not 'ethical public servant.'
Sometimes bad laws don't thwart justice. We're not in the clear yet though since I suspect Zimmerman will try to make use of it in his defense.
Also I wonder since the cops said they were not charging him because of the "stand your ground" law if that also affected the initial investigation.
From the way I've understood the 'stand your ground' law, it's not an automatic out for killing someone. There will now be a pretrial hearing to determine if there is enough evidence to substantiate the claim of self-defense. The cops may have misapplied the law, but that's bad police work and not necessarily a bad law.
What part of the law did the police not follow when you say they "misapplied"?
Quote:
At least you're now being more honest about your prejudice in this case. You were never waiting for justice. You've just been waiting for a conviction.
Of course I want justice. Based on the evidence at hand I have an opinion but that certainly can change based on the evidence.
Sometimes bad laws don't thwart justice. We're not in the clear yet though since I suspect Zimmerman will try to make use of it in his defense.
Also I wonder since the cops said they were not charging him because of the "stand your ground" law if that also affected the initial investigation.
From the way I've understood the 'stand your ground' law, it's not an automatic out for killing someone. There will now be a pretrial hearing to determine if there is enough evidence to substantiate the claim of self-defense. The cops may have misapplied the law, but that's bad police work and not necessarily a bad law.
What part of the law did the police not follow when you say they "misapplied"?
The police aren't supposed to make the determination if the law applies in the situation or not. That's supposed to be done by the courts if the defendant decides to use it as a defense for his/her actions. The police were supposed to follow normal procedures (take suspect into custody and perform sobriety test, etc.). They fucked up.
The charges brought against George Zimmerman sure look like prosecutorial misconduct. The case as put forward by the prosecutor in the “affidavit of probable cause” is startlingly weak. As a former chief economist at the U.S. Sentencing Commission, I have read a number of such affidavits, and cannot recall one lacking so much relevant information.
The prosecutor has most likely deliberately overcharged, hoping to intimidate Zimmerman into agreeing to a plea bargain. If this case goes to trial, Zimmerman will almost definitely be found “not guilty” on the charge of second-degree murder.
The prosecutor wasn’t required to go to the grand jury for the indictment, but the fact that she didn’t in such a high-profile case is troubling. Everyone knows how easy it is for a prosecutor to get a grand jury to indict, because only the prosecutor presents evidence. A grand-jury indictment would have provided political cover; that charges were brought without one means that the prosecutor was worried that a grand jury would not give her the indictment.
The affidavit consists of six main points:
● Zimmerman was upset about all “the break-ins in his neighborhood” and expressed anger at how criminals “always get away.”
● According to a discussion with Trayvon Martin’s girlfriend, who said that she was talking to Martin before the attack, Zimmerman followed Martin. He did so despite the police operator’s saying “we don’t need you to do that.”
● Zimmerman “confronted Martin and a struggle ensued,” though no evidence is cited on this point.
● Trayvon Martin’s mother identified the voice crying for help on a 9-1-1 call as her son’s.
● Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest, and this is confirmed by both Zimmerman’s statement and ballistics tests.
● Martin died from the gunshot wound.
Note some of the points that are missing. The prosecution doesn’t claim Zimmerman had racial animus against blacks. There was no “f***ing coons” on the police call. Some extremely relevant information from the police report is completely excluded: There is no mention of the grass and wetness found on the back of Zimmerman’s shirt, the gashes on the back of his head, the bloody nose, or the other witnesses who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, beating him, before the shot was fired. There is not even an attempt to say that the police report was in error; instead the affidavit just disregards it.
Even if everything in the affidavit is correct, it does not even begin to deal with the most crucial question: Who attacked whom? Even if it is true that “Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued,” there may have been no wrongdoing on Zimmerman’s part. “Confronted” does not mean “provoked” or “assaulted.” It could simply mean that Zimmerman followed Martin and asked him what he was doing in the neighborhood. Surely Zimmerman had the right to investigate a strange person in his neighborhood. The police operator’s advice that “we don’t need you to do that” was merely suggestive, not an order to stop. Indeed, the police had no authority to give Zimmerman such an order.
Now take the charge of “second degree” murder. There is no way that the affidavit justifies such a charge. In Florida, second-degree murder is defined as “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.” But if Zimmerman was being beaten, there was no “depraved mind regardless of human life,” and the act “imminently dangerous to another” would be justified as self-defense.
Angela Corey, the special prosecutor who filed charges, claimed multiple times on Wednesday that the prosecutors “are seekers of the truth.” In our legal system, grand juries can sometimes provide a check on prosecutors who indict based on political pressure or the desire to seek the limelight. It is no surprise that Corey avoided the grand jury.
That's what it looks like. They didn't have a case, so they made a show-arrest to appease the black community and discourage potential large-scale riots.
But that didn't make a difference in 1992 after the four police officers were exonerated in the Rodney King beating either. The likes of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Maxine Waters will exploit emotions regardless, as soon as the verdict is read.
It wasn't really a surprise this didn't go to a grand jury because I think I read that this prosecutor has never done that. BTW this attack on the prosecutor as seeking the limelight is so predictable. No way is she not going to go through this with many wanting her head on a stick.
No way is [the prosecutor] not going to go through this with many wanting her head on a stick.
Which would be a violation of attorney ethics. A prosecutor cannot charge someone simply because he or she fears a (literal or metaphorical) impaling. They need evidence of they are violating the rules of attorney conduct.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
I just caught some of the rerun of the arrest announcement by the special prosecutor...I hope I'm wrong but everything about her demeanor was 'shameless camera whore,' and not 'ethical public servant.'
ABC News: a photograph showing the bloodied back of Zimmerman's head was apparently taken three minutes after he shot and killed Martin. The photo could give credence to Zimmerman's claim that Martin had bashed his head against the concrete as Zimmerman fought for his life.
With ABC News’ release of the George Zimmerman photo showing blood flowing freely from his head, the question becomes whether Angela Corey, the prosecutor in the case, had access to the photo before charging Zimmerman with second-degree murder.
The arrest affidavit did not mention the photograph, or the bleeding, gashes, and bruises on Zimmermans’ head. Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School stated upon release of the arrest affidavit that it was “so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge … everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense.”
After the release of the photo, however, Dershowitz went much further, telling Breitbart News that if the prosecutors did have the photo and didn’t mention it in the affidavit, that would constitute a “grave ethical violation,” since affidavits are supposed to contain “all relevant information.”
Dershowitz continued, “An affidavit that willfully misstates undisputed evidence known to the prosecution is not only unethical but borders on perjury because an affiant swears to tell not only the truth, but the whole truth, and suppressing an important part of the whole truth is a lie."
When asked if it made a difference whether the prosecution had the bloody photograph at the time they charged Zimmerman, Dershowitz responded, “We do know that there were earlier photographs before the affidavit was done that strongly suggested blood on the back of the head, and we know the police had first access to him, so if there was blood they [the prosecution] would know about it …
"I've had cases in Florida against prosecutors,” Dershowitz said, “and this is not the first time they have willfully omitted exculpatory evidence. It's a continuing problem. Here, it’s not only immoral, but stupid. The whole country is watching. What do they benefit from having half-truths in an affidavit?"
Dershowitz added, "I'm not taking sides, but I'm insisting that both sides play by the rules, and so far the prosecution is not playing by the rules."
It does seem like he's taking sides. Even the most minor of head wounds can bleed heavy. Nor does it prove that Zimmerman killed Martin in purely in self defense.
It does seem like he's taking sides. Even the most minor of head wounds can bleed heavy. Nor does it prove that Zimmerman killed Martin in purely in self defense.
It's not a question of "proving" self defense. It's a question of prosecutorial ethics.
Under the US Supreme Court's "Brady v Maryland" ruling a prosecutor has an ethical duty to disclose exculpatory evidence. A prosecutor also has an ethical duty of "fair dealing" to the accused.
Dershowitz, a liberal BTW, is simply pointing out that a prosecutor who fails to act ethically both undermines the rights of the accused and causes people to lose faith in the ultimate outcome.
Do you really think expecting a DA to do his or her job ethically is "taking sides"?
Why do you think this is a Law School Blog Website? Common sense and actual ethical morality can always trump any lawyer technicality in the most basic and honest ways. It's simple: Ethical Morality is Truth, and Lawyers Lie. See?
If Dershowitz isn't taking sides why is he assuming they had the photograph when he doesn't know? Plus this statement that he makes here isn't impartial at all... "I've had cases in Florida against prosecutors,” Dershowitz said, “and this is not the first time they have willfully omitted exculpatory evidence. It's a continuing problem. Here, it’s not only immoral, but stupid. The whole country is watching. What do they benefit from having half-truths in an affidavit?"
Again he doesn't know if they had the photo but he's already declared the prosecution of being guilty.
Why do you think this is a Law School Blog Website? Common sense and actual ethical morality can always trump any lawyer technicality in the most basic and honest ways. It's simple: Ethical Morality is Truth, and Lawyers Lie. See?
You're again attacking G-man in a cowardly way --repeatedly-- when you know he has you on ignore and can't read what you say.
Beyond that, your view of events is that what you believe prejudicially out of liberal self-righteousness is "truth". Despite that the evidence contradicts your preconceived biases, and appears to justify Zimmerman's acquittal. Since the state fails to make a case beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not kill Trayvon Martin in self-defense.
And the simple statement of the facts --i.e., reality-- you distortedly spin as a "lawyer trick". Somehow in your deluded mind, any facts that exonerate Zimmerman --witnesses that say Martin was on top of Zimmerman, photos of Zimmerman's wounds that prove self-defense-- are an affront to "Ethical Morality" and "Truth". Whatever selective Orwellian definition of those terms you choose to espouse.
Why do you think this is a Law School Blog Website? Common sense and actual ethical morality can always trump any lawyer technicality in the most basic and honest ways. It's simple: Ethical Morality is Truth, and Lawyers Lie. See?
You're again attacking G-man in a cowardly way --repeatedly-- when you know he has you on ignore and can't read what you say.
Once again, you rush to defend G-Man like a lover. Either you two are fucking, or you're just one of his alts. Either option still paints you as kind of pathetic.
David, it's not "cowardly" to respond to G-Man. I don't have him on "Ignore". It's not my problem if he has ME on "Ignore". And believe me, my friend, he's reading every single word I post. Trust me on that one.
Quote:
Beyond that, your view of events is that what you believe prejudicially out of liberal self-righteousness is "truth".
I applaud your ability to work the word "liberal" into that sentence. Seriously. It's an artform I recognize and acknowledge.
Quote:
Despite that the evidence contradicts your preconceived biases
No it doesn't.
Quote:
and appears to justify Zimmerman's acquittal.
No it doesn't.
Quote:
Since the state fails to make a case beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not kill Trayvon Martin in self-defense.
He didn't. The proof is in the fact that Martin was an unarmed child, and Zimmerman was a failed cop who had a history of spousal abuse, and a zeal for violence against ethnic minorities. As we see when he gunned down a black kid in cold blooded murder. Just that simple.
Quote:
And the simple statement of the facts --i.e., reality-- you distortedly spin as a "lawyer trick".
Lawyers do their job for money and status, not for truth. Any debate or argument they make is instantly biased to making their case the one that wins. Assuming them to be the mouthpiece of righteous truth and justice, as you seem to do with G-Man, shows a willful naivete on your part.
3. ‘Inconsistencies’ in Zimmerman’s story raised police suspicions Testimony at the hearing suggested that Sanford police – who released Zimmerman without charges before a special prosecutor filed charges against him last week – didn’t fully believe Zimmerman's story, noting” inconsistencies” in his account of how he was attacked by Trayvon.
When Zimmerman was on the stand, Mr. De La Rionda asked him about whether, when police asked him about inconsistencies in his story, he began to say that he didn’t remember exactly what happened. The judge cut off that line of questioning, saying it veered into evidence that should be introduced at trial.
But during his turn on the stand, Gilbreath drew attention to Zimmerman's assertion to police that Trayvon was at one point running around Zimmerman's car. Gilbreath questioned why that should make Zimmerman fear for his life. “[Zimmerman] was so scared that he still got out of the car and chased Mr. Martin,” Gilbreath said skeptically.
Under questioning from O’Mara, Gilbreath also described new details that Zimmerman told police, including the claim that Trayvon allegedly tried to suffocate Zimmerman and grab for his gun before Zimmerman “scooted away” and shot Trayvon at close range.
described new details that Zimmerman told police, including the claim that Trayvon allegedly tried to suffocate Zimmerman and grab for his gun before Zimmerman “scooted away” and shot Trayvon at close range.
He became "white" the second the media decided to convict him of a race crime. I think they use Superman's blackification machine but put it in reverse.
For the first 10 days after Martin's death, the story was covered by only the Florida media. On March 8, 2012, CBS News, acting on a tip it received from the network's local bureau in Atlanta, Georgia, obtained an exclusive interview with Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton that was broadcast on CBS This Morning.
So, really, this was local only for almost two weeks. Plenty of time for the facts to come to light. Trayvon Martin was an unarmed African-American child, and Zimerman is an ex-cop with a history of spousal abuse and racial discrimination that stalked this boy, even after the cops told him not to, and then murdered him. It's easy to understand, really. The facts are all there.
It strikes me as funny that anyone believes it would be that hard for an armed, trained adult to subdue an unarmed teenager, without just fucking murdering him in cold blood. This might as well have been an execution...
For the first 10 days after Martin's death, the story was covered by only the Florida media. On March 8, 2012, CBS News, acting on a tip it received from the network's local bureau in Atlanta, Georgia, obtained an exclusive interview with Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton that was broadcast on CBS This Morning.
So, really, this was local only for almost two weeks. Plenty of time for the facts to come to light. Trayvon Martin was an unarmed African-American child, and Zimerman is an ex-cop with a history of spousal abuse and racial discrimination that stalked this boy, even after the cops told him not to, and then murdered him. It's easy to understand, really. The facts are all there.
No, the facts will never come out. Only Zimmerman was there. You are just making assumptions.
Do you think older age is all it takes to get someone to the ground? Really?
You and MEM don't know a great deal about grappling do you?
Zimmerman also weighed more than Martin. You like to just go by height for some reason but if you compare builds it looks to me like Martin was basically a stick while Zimmerman was beefier.
Saying you know for sure what happened that night you are embracing ignorance.
Nope. Just looking at the facts of the case. It clear Trayvon was unarmed and Zimmerman was armed. That's all I need to see. All anyone needs to see. He murdered an unarmed kid. Fact.
Do you think older age is all it takes to get someone to the ground? Really?
You and MEM don't know a great deal about grappling do you?
Zimmerman also weighed more than Martin. You like to just go by height for some reason but if you compare builds it looks to me like Martin was basically a stick while Zimmerman was beefier.
Originally Posted By: Pariah
Ignoring actual law for a second to address MEM's knowledge of physics, which seems to be woefully lacking:
Quote:
I don't think that's a reasonable hypothetical. Zimmerman outweighed Martin--
Do you really think that's all it takes to ground someone? Really?
Saying you know for sure what happened that night you are embracing ignorance.
Nope. Just looking at the facts of the case. It clear Trayvon was unarmed and Zimmerman was armed. That's all I need to see. All anyone needs to see. He murdered an unarmed kid. Fact.
I expected as much, intelligent thought was never your strong suit.
I guess there has never ever been any incident of an unarmed man attacking somebody who had a weapon on them.
Saying you know for sure what happened that night you are embracing ignorance.
Nope. Just looking at the facts of the case. It clear Trayvon was unarmed and Zimmerman was armed. That's all I need to see. All anyone needs to see. He murdered an unarmed kid. Fact.
I expected as much, intelligent thought was never your strong suit.
I guess there has never ever been any incident of an unarmed man attacking somebody who had a weapon on them.
The trouble with that is Martin didn't have a history of doing that. Zimmerman however does. Besides an ex's allegations he also got into a fight with a cop.
Do you think older age is all it takes to get someone to the ground? Really?
You and MEM don't know a great deal about grappling do you?
Zimmerman also weighed more than Martin. You like to just go by height for some reason but if you compare builds it looks to me like Martin was basically a stick while Zimmerman was beefier.
This is another bone of contention with how the media reported this. Seems like the weight of 250 for Zimmerman was a six year old stat. Martin's own family puts him at 6'2" instead of the 6' reported. Turns out that both were about the same size with Martin having the height advantage and Zimmerman the weight (about a ten to twenty pound difference). So, it could have been anyone's game.
Again, you don't have all the facts; but you've decided that you already know the truth.
Do you think older age is all it takes to get someone to the ground? Really?
You and MEM don't know a great deal about grappling do you?
Zimmerman also weighed more than Martin. You like to just go by height for some reason but if you compare builds it looks to me like Martin was basically a stick while Zimmerman was beefier.
This is another bone of contention with how the media reported this. Seems like the weight of 250 for Zimmerman was a six year old stat. Martin's own family puts him at 6'2" instead of the 6' reported. Turns out that both were about the same size with Martin having the height advantage and Zimmerman the weight (about a ten to twenty pound difference). So, it could have been anyone's game.
...
I was looking at the more recent pictures of Martin and the footage of Zimmerman just after he killed Martin. Martin's arms look like pipe cleaners, while Zimmerman has a more burly build.
I was looking at the more recent pictures of Martin and the footage of Zimmerman just after he killed Martin. Martin's arms look like pipe cleaners, while Zimmerman has a more burly build.
Seriously, how much do you really know about shifting your weight and being bulky vs. being wiry?
Or--better question--how many fights have you actually been in?
Be careful there are alot of pics of Martin out there that are him at age 14.
Have you seen any pics where his arms don't look like pipe cleaners? The kid may have been over 6 feet but Martin only weighed around 160 lbs. That weight and height equals thin & gangly.
He became "white" the second the media decided to convict him of a race crime. I think they use Superman's blackification machine but put it in reverse.
Now Reuters is reporting Zimmerman is part black as well. The left's whole "white racist killed a black kid" narrative is rapidly falling apart, proving again how stupid it is to prejudge anything about this case.
The left's whole "white racist killed a black kid" narrative is rapidly falling apart, proving again how stupid it is to prejudge anything about this case.
No it's not. He's a white man with a pistol that disobeyed the police and stalked Trayvon like a serial killer. He murdered an unarmed, black child. Clear cut. Facts. The end.
Anything else is partisan pandering in an attempt to make you all feel better for trying to help free a CHILD KILLER. Politics have ruined your soul. Think about that.
I mean, except G. As we've seen previously, he thinks of non-whites as "subhumans".
The left's whole "white racist killed a black kid" narrative is rapidly falling apart, proving again how stupid it is to prejudge anything about this case.
No it's not. He's a white man with a pistol that disobeyed the police and stalked Trayvon like a serial killer. He murdered an unarmed, black child. Clear cut. Facts. The end.
Anything else is partisan pandering in an attempt to make you all feel better for trying to help free a CHILD KILLER. Politics have ruined your soul. Think about that.
I mean, except G. As we've seen previously, he thinks of non-whites as "subhumans".
Are you deliberately trying to be the left-wing Wonder Boy?
Saying you know for sure what happened that night you are embracing ignorance.
Nope. Just looking at the facts of the case. It clear Trayvon was unarmed and Zimmerman was armed. That's all I need to see. All anyone needs to see. He murdered an unarmed kid. Fact.
I expected as much, intelligent thought was never your strong suit.
Then, how do I make you like a child in every thread? Simp.
Quote:
I guess there has never ever been any incident of an unarmed man attacking somebody who had a weapon on them.
I'm sure there is. But, this was a gangly, unarmed teenager. Zimmerman's an abusive ex-cop that stalked and murdered him with a pistol he carried.
Again, twist and turn and "I'll wait and see MORE facts" (as what's going to 'come to light' that will exonerate Zimmerman, I don't know...unless Trayvon had a pistol, as well?) all you want.
Shooter murders kid. That's all the facts I need to see. It's called actual morality. Not justified/validated/political arena morality. If an armed, abusive BLACK ex-cop stalked and murdered an unarmed, gangly WHITE teenager, it would STILL be wrong. No matter who it is and how you "look at it". You're all trying to frame this action as if a child wasn't killed. "Oh, he was in his rights", "Oh the kid dressed 'gangsta", "Oh we haven't seen all the facts", "Oh he's part-black so it's okay that he murdered him", etc., etc. Ridiculous. Get some perspective.
Murder is a sin against nature. Against God, in whatever form you believe. There's no other case to make. Don't think soldiers of any nation get a clean-pass to the afterlife because they were doing it "for their country". That's between them and whatever almighty you might believe in. In the end, it always comes down to this: You took another human's life.
Anything after that is desperation in seeking validation from society. Nothing more. Nothing less.
The left's whole "white racist killed a black kid" narrative is rapidly falling apart, proving again how stupid it is to prejudge anything about this case.
No it's not. He's a white man with a pistol that disobeyed the police and stalked Trayvon like a serial killer. He murdered an unarmed, black child. Clear cut. Facts. The end.
Anything else is partisan pandering in an attempt to make you all feel better for trying to help free a CHILD KILLER. Politics have ruined your soul. Think about that.
I mean, except G. As we've seen previously, he thinks of non-whites as "subhumans".
Are you deliberately trying to be the left-wing Wonder Boy?
Nope, just pointing out how everyone is dancing around the morality of the issue as if they had some evolved morality that would explain why it's okay to justify the murder of an innocent...
The trouble with that is Martin didn't have a history of doing that. Zimmerman however does. Besides an ex's allegations he also got into a fight with a cop.
Shhh!!! MEM!! All the "facts" aren't in yet!
Uh...you DO know Trayvon was wearing a hoodie, right?
The left's whole "white racist killed a black kid" narrative is rapidly falling apart, proving again how stupid it is to prejudge anything about this case.
No it's not. He's a white man with a pistol that disobeyed the police and stalked Trayvon like a serial killer. He murdered an unarmed, black child. Clear cut. Facts. The end.
Anything else is partisan pandering in an attempt to make you all feel better for trying to help free a CHILD KILLER. Politics have ruined your soul. Think about that.
I mean, except G. As we've seen previously, he thinks of non-whites as "subhumans".
Are you deliberately trying to be the left-wing Wonder Boy?
Nope, just pointing out how everyone is dancing around the morality of the issue as if they had some evolved morality that would explain why it's okay to justify the murder of an innocent...
You have no proof that Martin didn't attack Zimmerman, therefore you can't use such broad strokes as claiming Martin was 'an innocent'. If it's shown that Martin didn't attack Zimmerman and Zimmerman made it all up (including, apparently, beating himself up), then I'll agree that he's a cold-blooded murderer that should be locked up. Otherwise, you're simply making shit up to let yourself feel as though you've got the moral high-ground. Zimmerman wasn't an ex-cop, as you keep incorrectly stating. Nor is there any evidence of racists tendencies in his past. There is actually the opposite. After the recent media fuck-ups with unjust calls of racism, I'm preferring to make an informed opinion rather than rash judgements.
I concede if he's not an ex-cop, that I misheard that in another article. Fair enough. But, let me ask you this: I'm half-Irish. Does that make it okay if I stalk and kill, specifically, an Irish teenager walking around? According to G-man's post it does.
But....the "facts" as you keep claiming you're waiting for...seem to be clear:
Zimmerman / Weapon = Pistol / Disobeyed police orders not to stalk the kid / Shot and killed kid
Martin / Weapon = Hoodie / Walking by himself at night / Gets stalked by Zimmerman / Shot and killed by Zimmerman
Unless someone can show me the advanced hand-to-hand combat training Martin took....unless someone can show me the weapon or gun he was carrying....unless someone can show me what illegal activity he was involved in when he was murdered.....unless someone can show me Zimmerman remained in his car and did not intentionally stalk the aforementioned hoodie-wearing, unarmed kid....and was NOT the shooter that killed him.....then, no, I don't see where any more "facts" need to appear. It's pretty much all there.
If I were walking the sidewalk at night, and some dude was following me and carrying a gun? And you think Trayvon was the instigator here? LOL!! Again, perspective.
If two grown men got into a fist-fight, and one of them pulled a gun and shot the other, then said shooter gets charged with murder. How is it not the exact same case here? Especially since we're talking about a teenager in this instance and a grown man.
Or, is it, because the kid was black that it's questionable?
You can sit there and state I'm trying to find some moral high ground on this argument. Thing is, I don't need to find it. I know it.
Armed man kills unarmed kid. That's the broken-down truth, right there. No cultural polish. No media or racial agenda. Just that.
I concede if he's not an ex-cop, that I misheard that in another article. Fair enough. But, let me ask you this: I'm half-Irish. Does that make it okay if I stalk and kill, specifically, an Irish teenager walking around? According to G-man's post it does.
It makes it less likely that you're biased against Irish. That's what the article is pointing out. Nowhere does it justify killing. It simply points out that the 'facts' about Zimmerman have been wrong. Just like your 'fact' about him being an ex-cop.
Originally Posted By: Prometheus
But....the "facts" as you keep claiming you're waiting for...seem to be clear:
Zimmerman / Weapon = Pistol / Disobeyed police orders not to stalk the kid / Shot and killed kid
Zimmerman didn't disobey police orders. The 911 dispatcher, who is not a cop, said that he didn't have to follow Martin. Zimmerman, having been told the same thing in another incident where the thief (as he was caught days later) got away, decided that he wasn't chancing another one disappearing before the police showed up.
Originally Posted By: Prometheus
Martin / Weapon = Hoodie / Walking by himself at night / Gets stalked by Zimmerman / Shot and killed by Zimmerman
Martin/ Weapon = possibly fist. Again, you've left our a lot of the real fact to concentrate on the ones that support the decision you've already made. You neglect that the neighborhood had been suffering from a rash of robberies and vandalism for years. What would you do if you suddenly saw someone you didn't know walking around your neighborhood at night after repeated instances of burglary? I'm guessing you'd probably say, "Well, he's black; and I can do anything that might be considered racist. I'll just have to ignore this whole episode."
Originally Posted By: Prometheus
Unless someone can show me the advanced hand-to-hand combat training Martin took....unless someone can show me the weapon or gun he was carrying....unless someone can show me what illegal activity he was involved in when he was murdered.....unless someone can show me Zimmerman remained in his car and did not intentionally stalk the aforementioned hoodie-wearing, unarmed kid....and was NOT the shooter that killed him.....then, no, I don't see where any more "facts" need to appear. It's pretty much all there.
You have just shown your own stubbornness and ignorance in this one rant. You've made a decision and require bullshit evidence to change it. Martin can't just be a kid who could brawl with his hands and fists. He has to have 'advanced' training to be a danger to anyone. I guess anyone who has beaten anyone else to death must have been military trained or spent years in isolated Shao Lin temples.
It's those last two lines of yours that echoes with me. I remember having a discussion with this uber partisan chick once who, when I brought out honest to god facts, told me, "I don't care what the facts are. The facts won't change my mind."
Originally Posted By: Prometheus
If I were walking the sidewalk at night, and some dude was following me and carrying a gun? And you think Trayvon was the instigator here? LOL!! Again, perspective.
So Zimmerman was following Martin with his gun drawn and waving it about? My god, Pro, if you witnessed this crime, why the hell haven't you come forward and given testimony? You cruel motherfucker.
Originally Posted By: Prometheus
If two grown men got into a fist-fight, and one of them pulled a gun and shot the other, then said shooter gets charged with murder. How is it not the exact same case here? Especially since we're talking about a teenager in this instance and a grown man.
You're claiming to know that Zimmerman is guilty without knowing if he was the aggressor or Martin was. There is a legal process to show if self defense is credible. You've made up your mind before that process has taken place.
Originally Posted By: Prometheus
Or, is it, because the kid was black that it's questionable?
You're the one concerned with race since you're okay with foregoing due process to penalize a 'racist'.
Originally Posted By: Prometheus
You can sit there and state I'm trying to find some moral high ground on this argument. Thing is, I don't need to find it. I know it.
Thank you for proving my point.
Originally Posted By: Prometheus
Armed man kills unarmed kid. That's the broken-down truth, right there. No cultural polish. No media or racial agenda. Just that.
And no facts.
Originally Posted By: Prometheus
He's guilty. Everything else is spin.
Guilty of what? Murder? Bad judgement? That's the question. Zimmerman shouldn't be let loose if he killed Martin when he could have avoided it. Again, if Martin attacked Zimmerman, Zimmerman shouldn't just lay on the ground and let someone fucking hammer him. A man has a right to defend himself. The question is whether Zimmerman's actions were defense or something else and criminal.
Zimmerman didn't disobey police orders. The 911 dispatcher, who is not a cop, said that he didn't have to follow Martin. Zimmerman, having been told the same thing in another incident where the thief (as he was caught days later) got away, decided that he wasn't chancing another one disappearing before the police showed up.
So, then, it wasn't that Trayvon was a threat of any real kind, other than he might have stolen some TV's? And THAT'S justification for stalking and murdering an unarmed teenager?
Gotcha.
Originally Posted By: Prometheus
Martin/ Weapon = possibly fist.
Oh my god, a fist??! From a scrawny teenager?? Thank GOD this grown adult who took upon himself to patrol the night like fucking Batman had a pistol on him...........................
Quote:
Again, you've left our a lot of the real fact to concentrate on the ones that support the decision you've already made.
Just as you ignore all the actual, proven facts to support validation of the political consensus of your party?
Quote:
You neglect that the neighborhood had been suffering from a rash of robberies and vandalism for years. What would you do if you suddenly saw someone you didn't know walking around your neighborhood at night after repeated instances of burglary?
Call the police. That's what my taxes pay for. How about they do something other than gas protesters and war vets?
What? You think the right thing to do is pick up a pistol and go take the law into your own hands? Not unless they're coming in my house. That's the law, man.
Quote:
I'm guessing you'd probably say, "Well, he's black; and I can do anything that might be considered racist. I'll just have to ignore this whole episode."
Well, you know me, JD. I'm always making excuses for those "darkies", right? How facetiously silly you are...
Quote:
Originally Posted By: Prometheus
Unless someone can show me the advanced hand-to-hand combat training Martin took....unless someone can show me the weapon or gun he was carrying....unless someone can show me what illegal activity he was involved in when he was murdered.....unless someone can show me Zimmerman remained in his car and did not intentionally stalk the aforementioned hoodie-wearing, unarmed kid....and was NOT the shooter that killed him.....then, no, I don't see where any more "facts" need to appear. It's pretty much all there.
You have just shown your own stubbornness and ignorance in this one rant.
Stubborn? Sure. Ignorance? Don't cry. I get enough of that from--{HE WHOSE NAME MUST NEVER BE SPOKEN IN 3RD PERSON}.
Quote:
You've made a decision and require bullshit evidence to change it.
You mean facts that would oppose the actual facts of the case? Yes. Yes, I require evidence to support why it was justified in any way, shape, or form that a grown, armed man who stalked and instigated a violent encounter with an unarmed teenager is then allowed to KILL said unarmed teenager in cold blood. That's the way it works.
Quote:
Martin can't just be a kid who could brawl with his hands and fists.
Yeah, that's cool. I'm sure he could have been JUST a kid that brawled on the streets. So, that means, it's even LESS of a reason a grown man like Zimmerman couldn't subdue or restrain him without just fucking gunning him down. Good point.
Quote:
He has to have 'advanced' training to be a danger to anyone. I guess anyone who has beaten anyone else to death must have been military trained or spent years in isolated Shao Lin temples.
No, not at all. But, since we're talking about an armed stalker and an unarmed kid, your point defeats itself.
Quote:
It's those last two lines of yours that echoes with me. I remember having a discussion with this uber partisan chick once who, when I brought out honest to god facts, told me, "I don't care what the facts are. The facts won't change my mind."
Well then, you're in luck, man, for two reasons:
A) My points are clear, and backed by legitimate facts.
B) I ain't the chick you talked to. Take your lesbian frustrations out on someone else.
Quote:
So Zimmerman was following Martin with his gun drawn and waving it about? My god, Pro, if you witnessed this crime, why the hell haven't you come forward and given testimony? You cruel motherfucker.
I'd rather sit here and torture the weak. It's what evil does. Ask Dave. I'm also able to consider the reality of the scenario. Zimmerman stalked kid. Zimmerman killed kid. Same math, no matter how you slice it.
Quote:
Originally Posted By: Prometheus
Armed man kills unarmed kid. That's the broken-down truth, right there. No cultural polish. No media or racial agenda. Just that.
And no facts.
Wait, wait....did Zimmerman shoot the kid? Yes or no? If "YES", then I just gave you the facts. Right there. Your bias is blinding you.
Quote:
Originally Posted By: Prometheus
He's guilty. Everything else is spin.
Guilty of what? Murder?
Yes.
Quote:
Again, if Martin attacked Zimmerman, Zimmerman shouldn't just lay on the ground and let someone fucking hammer him.
One-hundred-percent true. He should have fought back with his fists. If he was unprepared, physically, to be able to take a scrawny teen then the fact he was armed was premeditation. He had every intention of using that pistol the moment he picked it up to take it with him. He never should have been out there. He never should have disobeyed police instructions (oh, I'm sorry....9/11 instructions...you know, the official dispatchers of the police). He never should have stalked that kid. He was going to kill him. Again, that's obvious.
Quote:
A man has a right to defend himself.
He doesn't have the right to murder an unarmed child. Period.
Quote:
The question is whether Zimmerman's actions were defense or something else and criminal.
How can they be defensive? Again, you seem to forget, Zimmerman was a grown man, armed with a gun. Trayvon was a teenager, with no weapon at all. There's nothing to defend against.
If he was unprepared, physically, to be able to take a scrawny teen then the fact he was armed was premeditation.
Okay, you and MEM need to stop proclaiming yourselves as being the foremost experts on hand-to-hand in relation to weight classes. You have no clue what you're talking about.
This isn't boxing we're talking about where fighters are confined to jabs, hooks, and haymakers. And even then, if you know how to throw your weight correctly, you can do some hefty damage regardless of a weight disparity.
Speaking from personal experience in combatives certification courses I can tell you that being tall and wiry gives you a tremendous advantage in leveraging someone to the ground. While it may be true that conventional ground grapples become useless when you get to a certain disparity in weight class, that simply was not the case here. Unless Zimmerman's superior weight class consisted of pure muscle--which I sincerely doubt judging from his build--you have no case here.
Okay, you and MEM need to stop proclaiming yourselves as being the foremost experts on hand-to-hand in relation to weight classes. You have no clue what you're talking about.
I never proclaimed to be an expert. I just proclaimed the facts of the case. Thanks for the "expert" insight you gave on your personal experience in advanced hand-to-hand combat. Unfortunately, as has been proven, Trayvon was a scrawny unarmed teen. Zimmerman is a stout guy with a pistol. No matter how you describe either peerson, only one had a gun. End of story.
It seems to me that Pro has the image of Zimmerman walking around with the gun in an ole west holster (since, you know, he was an ex-cop) ready for the quick draw like fucking Wyatt Earp.
I think the original pictures of Martin at 14 has really sunk into a lot of people's minds and made them think that there was no way he could beat up Zimmerman. Well, I've seen a 15 year-old beat the shit out of a grown man. And she was a chick.
It seems to me that Pro has the image of Zimmerman walking around with the gun in an ole west holster (since, you know, he was an ex-cop) ready for the quick draw like fucking Wyatt Earp.
I think the original pictures of Martin at 14 has really sunk into a lot of people's minds and made them think that there was no way he could beat up Zimmerman. Well, I've seen a 15 year-old beat the shit out of a grown man. And she was a chick.
Well, I guess you shouldn't have asked her to quiet down.
It seems to me that Pro has the image of Zimmerman walking around with the gun in an ole west holster (since, you know, he was an ex-cop) ready for the quick draw like fucking Wyatt Earp.
I think the original pictures of Martin at 14 has really sunk into a lot of people's minds and made them think that there was no way he could beat up Zimmerman. Well, I've seen a 15 year-old beat the shit out of a grown man. And she was a chick.
Well, I guess you shouldn't have asked her to quiet down.
It seems to me that Pro has the image of Zimmerman walking around with the gun in an ole west holster (since, you know, he was an ex-cop) ready for the quick draw like fucking Wyatt Earp.
Seems to me that Doc has the image of a 7-ft-7 'gangsta' with brass knuckles and a 9-mil, chasing poor little old Zimmerman, who was just minding his own (white)business...
Quote:
I think the original pictures of Martin at 14 has really sunk into a lot of people's minds and made them think that there was no way he could beat up Zimmerman.
Well, that and the fact he was unarmed and facing a pistol...
Quote:
Well, I've seen a 15 year-old beat the shit out of a grown man. And she was a chick.
We're not talking USA channel action movies, man...
It seems to me that Pro has the image of Zimmerman walking around with the gun in an ole west holster (since, you know, he was an ex-cop) ready for the quick draw like fucking Wyatt Earp.
I think the original pictures of Martin at 14 has really sunk into a lot of people's minds and made them think that there was no way he could beat up Zimmerman. Well, I've seen a 15 year-old beat the shit out of a grown man. And she was a chick.
Well, I guess you shouldn't have asked her to quiet down.
She said she wasn't interested in facts. Doc tried to give her some...
It seems to me that Pro has the image of Zimmerman walking around with the gun in an ole west holster (since, you know, he was an ex-cop) ready for the quick draw like fucking Wyatt Earp.
Seems to me that Doc has the image of a 7-ft-7 'gangsta' with brass knuckles and a 9-mil, chasing poor little old Zimmerman, who was just minding his own (white)business...
No, I just know that a 17 year-old isn't incapable of beating up a 27 year-old. Nor have I made any judgement that Martin was responsible. I'm only waiting for all the evidence to come in to inform my opinion.
Originally Posted By: Prometheus
Quote:
I think the original pictures of Martin at 14 has really sunk into a lot of people's minds and made them think that there was no way he could beat up Zimmerman.
Well, that and the fact he was unarmed and facing a pistol...
We don't know if Martin was aware of the gun or not until he was shot. Zimmerman shows evidence of being in a fight. Neither of us know if Martin fought him in anger or self defense. Unless you have knowledge of evidence that the media itself hasn't reported (like the 'fact' that Zimmerman was an ex-cop).
Originally Posted By: Prometheus
Quote:
Well, I've seen a 15 year-old beat the shit out of a grown man. And she was a chick.
We're not talking USA channel action movies, man...
(CNN) -- The lawyer for the neighborhood watch leader who fatally shot unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, said Thursday that his client has received about $200,000 from supporters.
Orlando lawyer Mark O'Mara told CNN's "AC360" that George Zimmerman told him Wednesday of the donations as they were trying to shut down his Internet presence to avoid concerns about possible impersonators and problems with his Twitter and Facebook accounts.
"He asked me what to do with his PayPal accounts and I asked him what he was talking about," O'Mara told Anderson Cooper. "And he said those were the accounts that had the money from the website he had. And there was about 200, $204,000 that had come in to date."
seriously though, whether he was "forced" to shoot to save his life or not, one thing is known for sure: Zimmerman hunted down martin. Whatever happened between the chase and martins death, we will most likely never know truthfully. but I think Zimmerman should be held accountable for at the least manslaughter. this would never have happened if he'd backed off like the operator said.
seriously though, whether he was "forced" to shoot to save his life or not, one thing is known for sure: Zimmerman hunted down martin. Whatever happened between the chase and martins death, we will most likely never know truthfully. but I think Zimmerman should be held accountable for at the least manslaughter. this would never have happened if he'd backed off like the operator said.
That's a lighter version of exactly what I'm saying. Zimmerman instigated this by not following directions and by taking the law into his own hands. Now an innocent kid is dead.
But, no one is listening. They're all scrambling for a way to clear this killer...
(CNN) -- The lawyer for the neighborhood watch leader who fatally shot unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, said Thursday that his client has received about $200,000 from supporters.
Orlando lawyer Mark O'Mara told CNN's "AC360" that George Zimmerman told him Wednesday of the donations as they were trying to shut down his Internet presence to avoid concerns about possible impersonators and problems with his Twitter and Facebook accounts.
"He asked me what to do with his PayPal accounts and I asked him what he was talking about," O'Mara told Anderson Cooper. "And he said those were the accounts that had the money from the website he had. And there was about 200, $204,000 that had come in to date."
seriously though, whether he was "forced" to shoot to save his life or not, one thing is known for sure: Zimmerman hunted down martin.
Based on what evidence? You can only say he "hunted" him if he had murder in mind all along.
According to Zimmerman, he was observing. And by all accounts, that's exactly what he was doing until he was attacked.
The fact that Zimmerman followed was definitely what set Martin off, but that doesn't mean it should be the deciding factor in a manslaughter case. To my understanding, following someone doesn't equate to negligent homicide especially since, again, he didn't instigate a fight.
Quote:
this would never have happened if he'd backed off like the operator said.
Indeed. But assuming the eye witness and Zimmerman's account is correct, one could also argue that if Martin hadn't instigated the fight no one would have died.
Fine, poor choice of words. Zimmerman chased Martin. And my evidence is the 911 call that clearly shows Zimmerman was moving at a very fast pace. The operator catches on that he's running and asks him to not, but he does anyway.
...Indeed. But assuming the eye witness and Zimmerman's account is correct, one could also argue that if Martin hadn't instigated the fight no one would have died.
There is no evidence that Martin instigated the fight other than Zimmerman saying so. His story of Martin coming out of nowhere and asking him if he had a problem doesn't seem to match up with what the friend of Martin's said she heard over the phone.
Quote:
“Trayvon said, ‘What, are you following me for,’ and the man said, ‘What are you doing here.’ Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell.
(CNN) -- The lawyer for the neighborhood watch leader who fatally shot unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, said Thursday that his client has received about $200,000 from supporters.
Orlando lawyer Mark O'Mara told CNN's "AC360" that George Zimmerman told him Wednesday of the donations as they were trying to shut down his Internet presence to avoid concerns about possible impersonators and problems with his Twitter and Facebook accounts.
"He asked me what to do with his PayPal accounts and I asked him what he was talking about," O'Mara told Anderson Cooper. "And he said those were the accounts that had the money from the website he had. And there was about 200, $204,000 that had come in to date."
The interview looks like O'Mara covering his ass as it was a well circulated article before he took the case that Zimmerman had set up a website to collect donations for his legal defense. Either way, if they failed to disclose it, I see Zimmerman going back inside for the duration.
seriously though, whether he was "forced" to shoot to save his life or not, one thing is known for sure: Zimmerman hunted down martin. Whatever happened between the chase and martins death, we will most likely never know truthfully. but I think Zimmerman should be held accountable for at the least manslaughter. this would never have happened if he'd backed off like the operator said.
That's a lighter version of exactly what I'm saying. Zimmerman instigated this by not following directions and by taking the law into his own hands. Now an innocent kid is dead.
But, no one is listening. They're all scrambling for a way to clear this killer...
No, what I'm saying is that we don't have all the facts to know what really happened and to what degree Zimmerman is culpable under the law. What you've been saying is that Zimmerman is a racist who was just waiting to kill a darkie.
Race notwithstanding, as a gun "enthusiast" and CHL holder, I'd like to weigh in on the matter.
Zimmerman should've NEVER given chase. Not JUST because the dispatchers said "Don't," though, frankly, ignoring the direction of someone working for a law enforcement agency who has you recorded is definitely not going to help your case. Ever. Take for instance Joe Horn, a Texas man who reported a break-in/robbery at his neighbor's place, which he acknowledged was vacant (he was checking in on the place while they were on vacation) and, while the phone was still live with the 911 dispatcher, he clearly expressed his intent, chased two guys down and shot them with his 12 gauge.
Both cases share not only the aforementioned common point, but also, in any defensive classes you take, be it hand-to-hand or with a weapon, the common point is: Fight to neutralize your threat, but every POSSIBLE attempt should be made to defuse the situation first, be it by flight, by intimidation or by reasoning. In effect, if someone's got a gun trained on you, it's safe to assume the average human won't be able to outrun bullets, and trying to intimidate or reason with the assailant would be an exercise in futility at worst, and a gamble at best. The only exception to this, in the state of Texas, is within your own home, where you do not need to run.
With that being said, one indisputable fact about this case (and the Horn case I alluded to) is that there was no real threat to the shooter in either one. More could have been done by trying to ID the person(s) in question and letting the police handle it. My biggest issue with this whole story is simply that: Did Zimmerman NEED to chase down Martin? What did he expect was going to come of following him? The end result was violence that could've been easily avoided by following the direction given by the dispatchers and -- dare I say it -- using a little common sense. Martin could've been a fucking Smurf, Zimmerman a Klansman. Doesn't change those facts.
See also In effect, guy claims self defense after getting rear-ended, throwing his vehicle into reverse and pushing the departed onto the median. The guy being pushed then flashes a gun, the shooter draws his own, gets OUT of his truck and puts a bullet in the other guy's head. End result? Charged with murder.
Take for instance Joe Horn, a Texas man who reported a break-in/robbery at his neighbor's place, which he acknowledged was vacant (he was checking in on the place while they were on vacation) and, while the phone was still live with the 911 dispatcher, he clearly expressed his intent, chased two guys down and shot them with his 12 gauge.
Suppose for a moment that Horn didn't call 911 and wasn't instructed not to leave the house. How much do you think the situation has really changed? How much more or less liable do you think Horn has become?
What you've been saying is that Zimmerman is a racist who was just waiting to kill a darkie.
Actually, I was only really emphasizing the racist aspect to torment Dave. However, the facts all seem to point to the obvious conclusion. If it looks, acts, smells, and sounds like a duck, you don't have to "wait for OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT ANSWER" to morally and intellectually understand it's not a beautiful swan wearing a pearl necklace. It's a fucking duck, man. No matter how much you love your duck-brothers and want to believe they're something else.
I was searching for a Howard the Duck reference, but couldn't squeeze it out. Sorry.
Anyway, motivation is the key here. What's Zimmerman's motivation for being out in the night, armed with a pistol that's designed to do only one thing (there's no "stun-setting" in real life)? To kill. Period. What's Zimmerman's motivation to stalk an unarmed kid and murder him? Because he "looked suspicious". He was wearing a "hoodie". Profiling. Racial profiling, to be specific.
To claim you "don't know what happened so you'll wait for the facts" is a faux-naivete I'm unaccustomed to you adopting. Usually you're able to see the truth in discussions. But, I think you've allowed personal bias to cloud your objectivity. I'll repeat myself: no matter how your slice it, the math adds up the same. Zimmerman, armed with a pistol, stalked and murdered unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin because he looked 'suspiciously black'. Simple as that.
But, I'm sure someone out there still believes OJ Simpson is innocent, too...
Take for instance Joe Horn, a Texas man who reported a break-in/robbery at his neighbor's place, which he acknowledged was vacant (he was checking in on the place while they were on vacation) and, while the phone was still live with the 911 dispatcher, he clearly expressed his intent, chased two guys down and shot them with his 12 gauge.
Suppose for a moment that Horn didn't call 911 and wasn't instructed not to leave the house. How much do you think the situation has really changed? How much more or less liable do you think Horn has become?
In that particular instance, he's liable for intentional murder no matter how you look at it. It wasn't his house, there was nothing they could steal, and he chased them off his and the neighbor's property, and still killed them. That's murder.
Did Zimmerman NEED to chase down Martin? What did he expect was going to come of following him? The end result was violence that could've been easily avoided by following the direction given by the dispatchers and -- dare I say it -- using a little common sense.
Did he 'chase down,' Martin, implying an aggressive running after the young man, or did he quietly follow Martin, implying a less threatening action?
Note that this is not a rhetorical or argumentative question. Has one or the other been established?
Did Zimmerman NEED to chase down Martin? What did he expect was going to come of following him? The end result was violence that could've been easily avoided by following the direction given by the dispatchers and -- dare I say it -- using a little common sense.
Did he 'chase down,' Martin, implying an aggressive running after the young man, or did he quietly follow Martin, implying a less threatening action?
From what I understand of it Zimmerman claims that he wasn't trying to chase him down so much as he was trying to keep track of the direction he went in till the cops got there. However, at some point he pushed his luck and Martin felt threatened enough to backtrack on him.
I'm not sure if the law sees a distinction between that and all the terms that people are coming up with to describe what Zimmerman did. "Follow," "chase," "stalk," "hunt."
What you've been saying is that Zimmerman is a racist who was just waiting to kill a darkie.
Actually, I was only really emphasizing the racist aspect to torment Dave. However, the facts all seem to point to the obvious conclusion. If it looks, acts, smells, and sounds like a duck, you don't have to "wait for OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT ANSWER" to morally and intellectually understand it's not a beautiful swan wearing a pearl necklace. It's a fucking duck, man. No matter how much you love your duck-brothers and want to believe they're something else.
I guess Richard Jewell was a lone bomber duck, then? Oh, wait. Turns out he didn't make and plant the bomb despite the media branding him as a failed cop looking to be a hero. Turns out that he actually was a hero who saved lives.
The Duke Lacross team was a group of racist, rich, white mallards who raped a poor, defenseless black girl. Oops. Turned out that the chick was a crazy, lying hooker who made up the whole thing.
Originally Posted By: Prometheus
I was searching for a Howard the Duck reference, but couldn't squeeze it out. Sorry.
You sick son of a bitch!
Originally Posted By: Prometheus
Anyway, motivation is the key here. What's Zimmerman's motivation for being out in the night, armed with a pistol that's designed to do only one thing (there's no "stun-setting" in real life)? To kill. Period. What's Zimmerman's motivation to stalk an unarmed kid and murder him? Because he "looked suspicious". He was wearing a "hoodie". Profiling. Racial profiling, to be specific.
You, again, ignore the fact that there is no evidence of racism in Zimmerman's past. There is also evidence that his neighborhood was several years into a rash of robberies and vandalism. In just a little over the previous year, about 500 calls had been made to 911 from that gated community. So can you really blame Zimmerman for being suspicious of a complete stranger walking around his gated community at night?
Originally Posted By: Prometheus
To claim you "don't know what happened so you'll wait for the facts" is a faux-naivete I'm unaccustomed to you adopting. Usually you're able to see the truth in discussions. But, I think you've allowed personal bias to cloud your objectivity. I'll repeat myself: no matter how your slice it, the math adds up the same. Zimmerman, armed with a pistol, stalked and murdered unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin because he looked 'suspiciously black'. Simple as that.
I try to not rush to a conclusion when racism is tossed willie-nillie about. I've seen that used too much as a cover while completely ignoring the facts of the situation. If anything, I'm trying to keep bias from clouding my objectivity. I'm not 100% convinced that Zimmerman's telling the whole truth. I'll let public disclosure of evidence inform my final decision.
You've obviously let incorrect information and passion fashion your decision and unwilling to reconsider it, DC (considering your previous post using my initials, I thought that's what we were doing now. Also, you won't get by thinking it's associated with DC comics. No. It's associated with DC clothes, manufacturers of clothing for douchebags everywhere.). Zimmerman never described Martin as 'suspiciously black', so your use of quotes with that phrase is terribly misleading. You also paint a picture of Zimmerman walking around with a gun drawn, ready to kill Martin when the time suits him. You have nothing to back that up. As far as we know, Zimmerman followed from a distance and didn't confront Martin. Maybe he did. I'll wait for the collected evidence and not talking heads opinions in those regards.
Originally Posted By: Prometheus
But, I'm sure someone out there still believes OJ Simpson is innocent, too...
You hate OJ because you suck at basketball. He's an ex-football player, Pro. How many times do we have to go over this?
Take for instance Joe Horn, a Texas man who reported a break-in/robbery at his neighbor's place, which he acknowledged was vacant (he was checking in on the place while they were on vacation) and, while the phone was still live with the 911 dispatcher, he clearly expressed his intent, chased two guys down and shot them with his 12 gauge.
Suppose for a moment that Horn didn't call 911 and wasn't instructed not to leave the house. How much do you think the situation has really changed? How much more or less liable do you think Horn has become?
Morally and ethically? Liability remains intact. Legally? He gave them the rope, and invited them to the hanging.
Did Zimmerman NEED to chase down Martin? What did he expect was going to come of following him? The end result was violence that could've been easily avoided by following the direction given by the dispatchers and -- dare I say it -- using a little common sense.
Did he 'chase down,' Martin, implying an aggressive running after the young man, or did he quietly follow Martin, implying a less threatening action?
Note that this is not a rhetorical or argumentative question. Has one or the other been established?
Morally and ethically? Liability remains intact. Legally? He gave them the rope, and invited them to the hanging.
Negative.
People can hark back to the 'he was told to do this or that' tune all they like, but that's not going to assign the attendant over the phone a better perspective than Horn--or even Zimmerman for that matter.
The 911 attendant's advice is definitely fodder for the masses. But not necessarily for a prosecutor.
If anyone recalls, there was a case of a 75 year old woman who chased a burglar out of her house and into her backyard with a .38 Special. She fired off a warning shot after he refused to freeze and scared him enough to make him stay on the ground. While she informed a 911 operator of this, she had to fire off another warning shot as he was making a second attempt to get away. The operator had the gall to say, "Stop shooting at him!" The operator was more concerned with the fact that the woman had a gun pointed at him than she was with her safety. If she followed that person's advice, she would have been put at great risk.
Take for instance Joe Horn, a Texas man who reported a break-in/robbery at his neighbor's place, which he acknowledged was vacant (he was checking in on the place while they were on vacation) and, while the phone was still live with the 911 dispatcher, he clearly expressed his intent, chased two guys down and shot them with his 12 gauge.
Suppose for a moment that Horn didn't call 911 and wasn't instructed not to leave the house. How much do you think the situation has really changed? How much more or less liable do you think Horn has become?
Morally and ethically? Liability remains intact. Legally? He gave them the rope, and invited them to the hanging.
If I recall correctly, Horn was never convicted or even tried, was he?
If she had killed him while he was attempting to leave that would have been murder.
No.
You see, the problem with intruders and/or attackers that don't stay still is that you have no idea what they're trying to do. They could very well be looking for an opportunity to regroup.
If she had killed him while he was attempting to leave that would have been murder.
That I'll agree with. Someone fleeing no longer puts you in danger. You have no right, legally or ethically, to shoot someone who is fleeing.
Correct. And I could be wrong because the laws of each state vary, but I don't think that even a "stand your ground" law allows you to shoot someone who is running away.
"In order to get the protection of the law," said Florida state Sen. David Simmons, an alleged victim "must not, for example, be the aggressor; cannot be waving a gun at someone; and cannot be engaged in drug dealing."
In fact, generally, even a police officer normally can't shoot someone running away, except to prevent the escape of a “fleeing felon” who poses a significant threat to human life after escape.
Yes, it is. You shoot someone fleeing, it is legally murder. Your opinion doesn't matter. That's the law in every state that I'm aware of.
If the person is on the ground and suddenly decides to move, you have no idea what he or she is planning. You can't just assume the intent is to run away and you shouldn't have to wait and see what he or she does to find out. There is cause to shoot.
Even if your analysis of the situation is correct, Pariah, you're going to have trouble convincing a court of that fact.
Though I would note that doc may be wrong on it being murder. Depending on the facts it might be a lesser charge of manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide.
George Zimmerman’s crude Myspace page from 2005 uncovered By Frances Robles The Miami Herald
SANFORD -- Just as George Zimmerman’s attorney pushes the envelope of accepted legal practices by launching a social media operation for his client, another site has popped up that belonged to the controversial former neighborhood watch volunteer who now faces a murder charge. This one is a 7-year old Myspace page called “only to be king again” that makes disparaging comments about Mexicans. The Web page, which his attorney confirmed Tuesday is legitimate, makes reference to 2005 criminal cases and a brush in court with a woman who Zimmerman called his “ex-hoe.” There are several photos of Zimmerman on the page, and in one of them he appears to be wearing the same orange polo shirt that he donned in his 2005 police mug shot. Zimmerman used the name “Joe G.” on the site, and posted a biography that mentions he grew up in Manassas, Va., had recently opened an insurance business and missed all his friends. Last month, a Zimmerman Myspace page under the username “datniggytb” was taken down. The Joe G page includes a missive written in street slang. “I dont miss driving around scared to hit mexicans walkin on the side of the street, soft ass wanna be thugs messin with peoples cars when they aint around (what are you provin, that you can dent a car when no ones watchin) dont make you a man in my book,” the 2005 Myspace page said. “Workin 96 hours to get a decent pay check, gettin knifes pulled on you by every mexican you run into!” Another line suggested his friends went to jail and did not rat him out. “They do a year and dont ever open thier [sic] mouth to get my ass pinched.” The pictures posted on the page including several with an ethnically diverse group of friends. The blog section boasts about having two felonies knocked down to misdemeanors and describes a court battle with an ex-girlfriend. Zimmerman faced two felonies in 2005 for obstructing justice and battery on a law enforcement officer, but the cases were reduced to misdemeanor simple battery, and he was left with no criminal conviction on his record. Zimmerman’s attorney, Mark O’Mara, confirmed the page was his client’s, and that it was abandoned in 2005. ...
Seems like we got Martin's social media dirt (both the real and the manufactured) much earlier. Probably the most interesting thing to me is that Zimmerman seems to be bragging about getting away with his previous assault of a cop. Kind of doubt if any of this would be used as part of the trial though.
Seems like we got Martin's social media dirt (both the real and the manufactured) much earlier. Probably the most interesting thing to me is that Zimmerman seems to be bragging about getting away with his previous assault of a cop. Kind of doubt if any of this would be used as part of the trial though.
If Zimmerman testifies I think it might be legitmately used to impeach his character.
Zimmerman seems to be bragging about getting away with his previous assault of a cop.
THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE! Haven't you read anything G-Shill & Co. have been telling you, MEM? Zimmerman is nice, perfect-white American citizen who was only protecting his family and loved ones from an unarmed negro teenager who was WALKING THROUGH THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD! *gasp* How can you even THINK he's a violent man? The kid was BLACK and acting like a free citizen of this country! He was BLACK!! Zimmerman only murdered him because, you know, he had to, not because he's a racist psychopath or anything... JEEEZ!
Zimmerman seems to be bragging about getting away with his previous assault of a cop.
THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE! Haven't you read anything G-Shill & Co. have been telling you, MEM? Zimmerman is nice, perfect-white American citizen who was only protecting his family and loved ones from an unarmed negro teenager who was WALKING THROUGH THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD! *gasp* How can you even THINK he's a violent man? The kid was BLACK and acting like a free citizen of this country! He was BLACK!! Zimmerman only murdered him because, you know, he had to, not because he's a racist psychopath or anything... JEEEZ!
Did Zimmerrman call the kid racists names or refer to the kid in racists terms?
Zimmerman seems to be bragging about getting away with his previous assault of a cop.
THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE! Haven't you read anything G-Shill & Co. have been telling you, MEM? Zimmerman is nice, perfect-white American citizen who was only protecting his family and loved ones from an unarmed negro teenager who was WALKING THROUGH THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD! *gasp* How can you even THINK he's a violent man? The kid was BLACK and acting like a free citizen of this country! He was BLACK!! Zimmerman only murdered him because, you know, he had to, not because he's a racist psychopath or anything... JEEEZ!
Did Zimmerrman call the kid racists names or refer to the kid in racists terms?
Source: Zimmerman says Trayvon circled his SUV, frightened him By Rene Stutzman and Jeff Weiner, Orlando Sentinel
6:41 p.m. EST, May 3, 2012 George Zimmerman told investigators that while he was on the phone with a Sanford police dispatcher reporting Trayvon Martin as suspicious, the teenager was circling his vehicle on foot, a source familiar with the investigation told the Orlando Sentinel.
The source said Zimmerman's account of events hasn't changed in his several statements to police — in which he said he was so unnerved by the teen's behavior that he rolled up his window to avoid a confrontation. However, he never mentioned any of that while talking to the dispatcher.
The details revealed by the source provide new insight into what Zimmerman said happened in the earliest moments of his contact with Trayvon. And they may reveal the inconsistencies alluded to by prosecutors in the case.
One of those inconsistencies: Zimmerman told police Trayvon had his hand over Zimmerman's mouth during their fight on the night he shot Trayvon.
The Sentinel's source confirmed that Zimmerman's statements include that allegation. But authorities do not believe that happened, the source told the Sentinel, because on one 911 call, someone can be heard screaming for help. If it were Zimmerman, as he claims, his cries were not muffled, the source said.
Zimmerman also told police, the source told the Sentinel, that while the two were on the ground, Trayvon reached for Zimmerman's gun, and the two struggled over it.
Those portions of Zimmerman's account are not corroborated by other evidence, the source said.
So Pro is full of shit here at least on the above post.
Don't come into the middle of an adult conversation, alt-ID David, and pretend you can add something of relevance.
The racism is an obvious fact. Zimmerman wouldn't have been out there stalking a white teenager to murder him. He was worried cause he thought "the blacks" were trying to steal his HD TV. Plenty of reason to gun an unarmed kid down in cold blood, right?
So Pro is full of shit here at least on the above post.
Don't come into the middle of an adult conversation, alt-ID David, and pretend you can add something of relevance.
The racism is an obvious fact. Zimmerman wouldn't have been out there stalking a white teenager to murder him. He was worried cause he thought "the blacks" were trying to steal his HD TV. Plenty of reason to gun an unarmed kid down in cold blood, right?
You don't know that Zimmerman wouldn't have checked out a white guy in a hoodie.
The facts are there. It's the willfully-blind pundits such as yourself that embrace ignorance. He profiled him based on his "hoodie" (racial profiling) and recent string of thefts (not murder, violence, or anything else....just taking material goods non-essential to living). He was supposedly "scared" because the teenager was walking through his neighborhood. Acting like it's an innocent gesture to stalk and murder and unarmed black kid is some kind of immoral spin to make those who "sympathize" with Zimmerman (i.e. other racists) feel better about the cruelty in their heart. Fact.
No, no facts. Ignorance. You claim to know exactly what happened when only one person does. Only two people were there, one of them is dead.
You don't know for a fact that Zimmerman wouldn't have checked out a white guy in a hoodie.
Also, I do not sympathize with Zimmerman. At all.
I'm not just going to assume Zimmerman was out there specifically to kill the first black people he came across either. That is ridiculous.
He most likely was the cause of Martin's death, just by his attitude.
My only position on this is that we do not have all the facts and most likely never will. I do not see how that puts me in a camp for either Martin or Zimmerman.
So Pro is full of shit here at least on the above post.
The racism is an obvious fact. Zimmerman wouldn't have been out there stalking a white teenager to murder him. He was worried cause he thought "the blacks" were trying to steal his HD TV. Plenty of reason to gun an unarmed kid down in cold blood, right?
No.Show me some facts that prove what you're saying. Otherwise I declare you to be full of shit up past your eyeballs and leaking out your ears.
I would be a little pissed if I was walking through a neighborhood minding my own damnn business and some asshole came at me demanding to know what I was doing here and blah bah blah. I'd tell hime I was there to do his mom and ask him if he could let me know when she was done with the five guys in line in front of me.
No, no facts. Ignorance. You claim to know exactly what happened when only one person does. Only two people were there, one of them is dead.
You don't know for a fact that Zimmerman wouldn't have checked out a white guy in a hoodie.
Also, I do not sympathize with Zimmerman. At all.
I'm not just going to assume Zimmerman was out there specifically to kill the first black people he came across either. That is ridiculous.
He most likely was the cause of Martin's death, just by his attitude.
My only position on this is that we do not have all the facts and most likely never will. I do not see how that puts me in a camp for either Martin or Zimmerman.
I still mostly blame the media on this one. But I noticed that of all the things Pro was very quick to respond to from me, this wasn't one of them.
Did he deliberately avoid it?
Did he just not see it?
Two very different stories that led to the same end.
See, Pro cannot even prove his head doesn't look like a testicle let alone prove Zimmerman would not have shot a white kid. Other than one wasn't there.
The facts are there. It's the willfully-blind pundits such as yourself that embrace ignorance. He profiled him based on his "hoodie" (racial profiling) and recent string of thefts (not murder, violence, or anything else....just taking material goods non-essential to living). He was supposedly "scared" because the teenager was walking through his neighborhood. Acting like it's an innocent gesture to stalk and murder and unarmed black kid is some kind of immoral spin to make those who "sympathize" with Zimmerman (i.e. other racists) feel better about the cruelty in their heart. Fact.
The people trying to politicize and capitalize on this are having a problem deciding on which narrative to push.
Originally, it was that self defense laws should be repealed because they can allow kids wearing hoodies to get shot.
When it was pointed out that the law wasn't necessarily applicable in this case and that Martin may have been an agressor they fell back on the "white racism kills innocent black kids" claim, figuring they could use that to guilt everyone into voting for Obama.
When it was discovered that Zimmerman is part black and part Hispanic, that became a problem, and many of them started trying to push the "no self defense" cause again.
And so on...
Conspicuously absent from either narrative is the idea of actually waiting until all the facts are in or trying to preserve the rights of the accused.
Hell, there are some people out there (for example, "9/11 was a government conspiracy" types) who were more willing to give Osama the benefit of the doubt than want to give Zimmerman.
BTW, why haven't they executed the racist murderer yet? Whitey stalling for time? Waiting for the 24-media cycle so they can slip a pardon under the radar?
Zimmerman Had Cuts, Black Eyes After Shooting: Court records show George Zimmerman had a pair of black eyes, a nose fracture and two cuts to the back of his head after the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. The medical records were part of evidence released Tuesday that prosecutors have in the second-degree murder case against Zimmerman
He couldn't really keep an eye on him from there either.
I dunno. Looking at it again, I don't think there was anything principally wrong with following Martin around the street corner just to see which direction he was going in to tell the cops--if indeed that's what he was doing. After all, to observe and report, one must follow to some extent.
Leaving behind the debate of whether or not he was in the right to tail him, if he had been more careful about it, this wouldn't have happened.
...evidence is being released that Zimmerman was treated for a broken nose and other injuries. And that Trayvon Martin had bruises on his knuckles consistent with his punching someone.
What the article --of course!-- fails to do, is come right out and say that the evidence released supports Zimmerman's account of events, that he was attacked by Trayvon Martin, and injuries to both of them support that account.
But he couldn't beat Zimmerman had he stayed in his car.
Agreed! But the Rightwing Racists don't see justice. They just want to blame the unarmed black teenager and save their white murdering brother.
You know, it's one thing for you Rightwingers to push your political ideologies. It's something totally different to rush to any contingency in an effort to protect and defend a murderer of children.
You fucking suck. Seriously. Your inhuman desire to exonerate a bloodthirsty psycho like Zimmerman truly proves how little you have in common with your fellow humans. Go to hell you pathetic fucks. Especially you, G-Man. At least Dave has the balls to debate me. You're just a fucking old coward. Pathetic.
Zimmerman Had Cuts, Black Eyes After Shooting: Court records show George Zimmerman had a pair of black eyes, a nose fracture and two cuts to the back of his head after the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. The medical records were part of evidence released Tuesday that prosecutors have in the second-degree murder case against Zimmerman
But he couldn't beat Zimmerman had he stayed in his car.
Agreed! But the Rightwing Racists don't see justice. They just want to blame the unarmed black teenager and save their white murdering brother.
You know, it's one thing for you Rightwingers to push your political ideologies. It's something totally different to rush to any contingency in an effort to protect and defend a murderer of children.
You fucking suck. Seriously. Your inhuman desire to exonerate a bloodthirsty psycho like Zimmerman truly proves how little you have in common with your fellow humans. Go to hell you pathetic fucks. Especially you, G-Man. At least Dave has the balls to debate me. You're just a fucking old coward. Pathetic.
All you have is the label "racist", with no facts to back up what you allege.
Perhaps between me and G-man, he is the wiser, to not try to reason with the unreasonable.
You constantly scream "white racist" despite that Zimmerman is very mixed race (including jewish, hispanic, native american and black) and identifies primarily as hispanic.
You ignore that Zimmerman has black friends and even black family members, and even tutors black kids.
Beyond Zimmerman, you also ignore that I began this topic siding with Trayvon Martin before the facts changed my opinion, and as I said repeatedly, I'm with-holding judgement till ALL the evidence is released. I only posted the above about Zimmerman's treatment for a broken nose and bruising on Trayvon Martin's knuckles to show that there is at least a case for self-defense, with arguably corroborating evidence.
Zimmerman didn't alone make this happen. By his account, he'd broken off following Martin, and was returning to his truck, when he was attacked without provocation by Martin.
...evidence is being released that Zimmerman was treated for a broken nose and other injuries. And that Trayvon Martin had bruises on his knuckles consistent with his punching someone.
What the article --of course!-- fails to do, is come right out and say that the evidence released supports Zimmerman's account of events, that he was attacked by Trayvon Martin. And injuries to both of them support that account.
But he couldn't beat Zimmerman had he stayed in his car.
Agreed! But the Rightwing Racists don't see justice. They just want to blame the unarmed black teenager and save their white murdering brother.
You know, it's one thing for you Rightwingers to push your political ideologies. It's something totally different to rush to any contingency in an effort to protect and defend a murderer of children.
You fucking suck. Seriously. Your inhuman desire to exonerate a bloodthirsty psycho like Zimmerman truly proves how little you have in common with your fellow humans. Go to hell you pathetic fucks. Especially you, G-Man. At least Dave has the balls to debate me. You're just a fucking old coward. Pathetic.
As much as I think Zimmerman is in the wrong in this, I still don't believe he was "bloodthirsty" or racially motivated.
I do think he was probably an asshole who was playing cop.
I think the fight happened because they were both afraid of each other. Both guys probably thought the other was going to mug them.
Armed white civilian stalks unarmed black child, even after he was told not to by the authorities. He shoots the child because....well, I guess because the kid was going to pull a bag of skittles on him. Either way, he was racially motivated (FACT) and he murdered an innocent, unarmed child (FACT).
The blood is on the hands of every coward that attempts to validate this murderer. (FACT)
Yep. Same math. Rightwing is more concerned with saving their white brother than actual justice for the dead child. Your hearts are exactly in the right place, you pathetic fucks.
BTW, that cartoon that Dave is trying to pass off as Huffington Post is actually from http://reasonradionetwork.com/, a Rightwing nutjob base. Objectivity, as ever, is WB's specialty....
Armed white civilian stalks unarmed black child, even after he was told not to by the authorities. He shoots the child because....well, I guess because the kid was going to pull a bag of skittles on him. Either way, he was racially motivated (FACT) and he murdered an innocent, unarmed child (FACT).
The blood is on the hands of every coward that attempts to validate this murderer. (FACT)
Yep. Same math. Rightwing is more concerned with saving their white brother than actual justice for the dead child. Your hearts are exactly in the right place, you pathetic fucks.
He didn't look "injured" to me in that smiling pic of his. But, then again, if he doesn't have a corresponding bullet hole in him, it really doesn't matter now does it?
Gun > Fist. Grown Armed Man > Unarmed Teen. The math is always the same. It's technicalities created by politicians and lawyers that prevent people from seeking actual justice. Welcome to the 21st century American legal system...
He didn't look "injured" to me in that smiling pic of his. But, then again, if he doesn't have a corresponding bullet hole in him, it really doesn't matter now does it?
Gun > Fist. Grown Armed Man > Unarmed Teen. The math is always the same. It's technicalities created by politicians and lawyers that prevent people from seeking actual justice. Welcome to the 21st century American legal system...
How do you account for the medical reports of his injuries?
Which smiling pic did you see, how much time had past since the shooting?
BTW, that cartoon that Dave is trying to pass off as Huffington Post is actually from http://reasonradionetwork.com/, a Rightwing nutjob base. Objectivity, as ever, is WB's specialty....
Oh the "white" part is open to debate. But, I'll play it your way...
Originally Posted By: Prometheus
Armed adult civilian stalks unarmed black child, even after he was told not to by the authorities. He shoots the child because....well, I guess because the kid was going to pull a bag of skittles on him. Either way, he murdered an innocent, unarmed child.
The blood is on the hands of every coward that attempts to validate this murderer.
Yep. Same math. Now, why did Zimmerman stalk this child? Was it because he didn't at all look suspicious? Was Zimmerman stalking women pushing their cribs through the neighborhood? Was he following, armed with a pistol, the elderly as they passed his neighborhood? OR...was it because a black kid wearing a hoodie immediately fired up his suspicious meter? Enough to force him stalk the teen, contrary to being instructed not to by the authorities? The answer is YES. He targeted this kid because he profiled him.
Ignoring the obvious facts of motivation makes people trying to defend his actions come off as not only naive and clueless, but willfully ignorant of reality. They'd much rather play dumb and give the killer a break, than actually admit that violent, dangerous racism exists. Mainly because, I sincerely believe, they recognize similar traits in themselves and can't come to grips with their own inherited hate and prejudice. It's textbook 101. It's why the Republicans hate education. It shines too brightly on their antiquated power-lust of class dominance. Simple, really.
It's all right there in front of you. You just have to be willing to set aside your own fears and acknowledge the problems we haven't fixed in our supposedly "advanced" society...
Armed white civilian stalks unarmed black child, even after he was told not to by the authorities. He shoots the child because....well, I guess because the kid was going to pull a bag of skittles on him. Either way, he was racially motivated (FACT) and he murdered an innocent, unarmed child (FACT).
The blood is on the hands of every coward that attempts to validate this murderer. (FACT)
Yep. Same math. Rightwing is more concerned with saving their white brother than actual justice for the dead child. Your hearts are exactly in the right place, you pathetic fucks.
You know who's a pathetic fuck? You are.
I said in my opening post that this was a random absurdity that had nothing to do with race, before the usual assholes in the media, including Obama and the Dems, chose to exploit it and turn it racial.
To say those who disagree with your point-of-view are "racist" and "defending their white brother", when the shooter is multi-racial --including black-- and primarily identifies himself as hispanic, is just beyond ridiculous.
BTW, that cartoon that Dave is trying to pass off as Huffington Post is actually from http://reasonradionetwork.com/, a Rightwing nutjob base. Objectivity, as ever, is WB's specialty....
Dude.
It's a political cartoon.
And you're the one that shot off his mouth and called me a dumbass, when I wasn't even talking about YOUR post. So, suck it Lothar.
Why are you guys soooo desperate to exonerate a murderer?? I'm incredibly baffled that you cannot see the inherent injustice in gunning down an UNARMED TEENAGER?! I mean, for FUCKS SAKE, guys!! This isn't politics! This is a dead son! A DEAD child! Is this how you deal with all the soldiers that died for oil in the Middle East? All the grieving mothers and fathers and husbands and wives? You just stick your fingers in your ears and "LALALALALALALALALALA"??
For gods sake. What happened to basic human empathy?
Armed white civilian stalks unarmed black child, even after he was told not to by the authorities. He shoots the child because....well, I guess because the kid was going to pull a bag of skittles on him. Either way, he was racially motivated (FACT) and he murdered an innocent, unarmed child (FACT).
The blood is on the hands of every coward that attempts to validate this murderer. (FACT)
Yep. Same math. Rightwing is more concerned with saving their white brother than actual justice for the dead child. Your hearts are exactly in the right place, you pathetic fucks.
PRO USED FACTS TO POINT OUT MY INHERENT RACISM AND I CAN'T BEAT HIM SO
BTW, that cartoon that Dave is trying to pass off as Huffington Post is actually from http://reasonradionetwork.com/, a Rightwing nutjob base. Objectivity, as ever, is WB's specialty....
Dude.
It's a political cartoon.
And you're the one that shot off his mouth and called me a dumbass, when I wasn't even talking about YOUR post. So, suck it Lothar.
You were talking about the article I linked, and you alleged it was Fox News, when it was clearly HuffingtonPost.
Who's the dumbass?
Your insults and allegations of "white racist" motivation fly in clear opposition to the facts.
BTW, that cartoon that Dave is trying to pass off as Huffington Post is actually from http://reasonradionetwork.com/, a Rightwing nutjob base. Objectivity, as ever, is WB's specialty....
Dude.
It's a political cartoon.
And you're the one that shot off his mouth and called me a dumbass, when I wasn't even talking about YOUR post. So, suck it Lothar.
You were talking about the article I linked, and you alleged it was Fox News, when it was clearly HuffingtonPost.
Who's the dumbass?
YOU are.
Goddamit David. Go back to the post where I quoted G-MAN.....not you. PLEASE try and keep up, okay?
Zimmerman Had Cuts, Black Eyes After Shooting: Court records show George Zimmerman had a pair of black eyes, a nose fracture and two cuts to the back of his head after the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. The medical records were part of evidence released Tuesday that prosecutors have in the second-degree murder case against Zimmerman
Why are you guys soooo desperate to exonerate a murderer?? I'm incredibly baffled that you cannot see the inherent injustice in gunning down an UNARMED TEENAGER?! I mean, for FUCKS SAKE, guys!! This isn't politics! This is a dead son! A DEAD child! Is this how you deal with all the soldiers that died for oil in the Middle East? All the grieving mothers and fathers and husbands and wives? You just stick your fingers in your ears and "LALALALALALALALALALA"??
For gods sake. What happened to basic human empathy?
What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
And the right to your own opinion? Which, by the way, the new evidence, as I said does not by itself prove, but clearly supports the scenario as presented by Zimmerman, and two witnesses.
It seems to me you want to lynch Zimmerman just to forward your partisan liberal agenda, to paint white conservatives as all racists. Except the facts don't support that eaither. As I posted earlier, Zimmerman is a registered Democrat. And is white, black, hispanic and native american, and identifies himself as hispanic, not white.
He also has black family members, and tutors minority kids, that includes black kids. He may be guilty of something, but not racism. Any more than people are racist to think Zimmerman was defending himself. There is forensic evidence that Zimmerman was injured by Martin, and bruised knuckles on Martin that indicate he inflicted Zimmerman's treated injuries.
Zimmerman Had Cuts, Black Eyes After Shooting: Court records show George Zimmerman had a pair of black eyes, a nose fracture and two cuts to the back of his head after the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. The medical records were part of evidence released Tuesday that prosecutors have in the second-degree murder case against Zimmerman
Smoke and distraction on your part, Pro.
You're just being a jerk and a liar. As usual. Fanatically slandering those who disagree with you, out of pure spitefulness.
You know who has hate and blackness in his soul, Pro? You do.
The rest of us are waiting for the full evidence before we judge Zimmerman or anyone else.
Why are you guys soooo desperate to exonerate a murderer?? I'm incredibly baffled that you cannot see the inherent injustice in gunning down an UNARMED TEENAGER?! I mean, for FUCKS SAKE, guys!! This isn't politics! This is a dead son! A DEAD child! Is this how you deal with all the soldiers that died for oil in the Middle East? All the grieving mothers and fathers and husbands and wives? You just stick your fingers in your ears and "LALALALALALALALALALA"??
For gods sake. What happened to basic human empathy?
...opinion...you want to lynch Zimmerman just to forward your partisan liberal agenda, to paint white conservatives as all racists...Democrat.....And is not white....he also has black family members...
Math is the same, you broken record. No amount of "LIBERAL AGENDA" changes anything. He racially profiled the kid. He stalked him against the orders of the authorities. He executed an unarmed child based on racial prejudice. Fact, you apologist.
Oh the "white" part is open to debate. But, I'll play it your way...
Originally Posted By: Prometheus
Armed adult civilian stalks unarmed black child, even after he was told not to by the authorities. He shoots the child because....well, I guess because the kid was going to pull a bag of skittles on him. Either way, he murdered an innocent, unarmed child.
The blood is on the hands of every coward that attempts to validate this murderer.
Yep. Same math. Now, why did Zimmerman stalk this child? Was it because he didn't at all look suspicious? Was Zimmerman stalking women pushing their cribs through the neighborhood? Was he following, armed with a pistol, the elderly as they passed his neighborhood? OR...was it because a black kid wearing a hoodie immediately fired up his suspicious meter? Enough to force him stalk the teen, contrary to being instructed not to by the authorities? The answer is YES. He targeted this kid because he profiled him.
Ignoring the obvious facts of motivation makes people trying to defend his actions come off as not only naive and clueless, but willfully ignorant of reality. They'd much rather play dumb and give the killer a break, than actually admit that violent, dangerous racism exists. Mainly because, I sincerely believe, they recognize similar traits in themselves and can't come to grips with their own inherited hate and prejudice. It's textbook 101. It's why the Republicans hate education. It shines too brightly on their antiquated power-lust of class dominance. Simple, really.
It's all right there in front of you. You just have to be willing to set aside your own fears and acknowledge the problems we haven't fixed in our supposedly "advanced" society...
I'm not defending Zimmerman at all, I'm just trying to correct your misinformation.
I completely agree Zimmerman was in the wrong, but I don't think he got out of his car with the intention of killing somebody.
Zimmerman Had Cuts, Black Eyes After Shooting: Court records show George Zimmerman had a pair of black eyes, a nose fracture and two cuts to the back of his head after the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. The medical records were part of evidence released Tuesday that prosecutors have in the second-degree murder case against Zimmerman
Smoke and distraction on your part, Pro.
You're just being a jerk and a liar.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!
Dave is actually trying to say the fact that he FUCKED UP means it's "smoke and distraction"!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Yeah I can understand why the cops were not buying his story.
Doesn't look broken to me. How fast do black eyes heal?
I believe, but I'm not positive, that this photo was taken weeks, maybe over a month after the shooting at Zimmerman's arraignment.
Also, we are talking about medical records from the hospital on Zimmerman's injuries, not just off of somebody's word. The news organizations now have copies of these documents.
Yeah I can understand why the cops were not buying his story.
Doesn't look broken to me. How fast do black eyes heal?
I believe, but I'm not positive, that this photo was taken weeks, maybe over a month after the shooting at Zimmerman's arraignment.
Also, we are talking about medical records from the hospital on Zimmerman's injuries, not just off of somebody's word. The news organizations now have copies of these documents.
Why are you guys soooo desperate to exonerate a murderer?? I'm incredibly baffled that you cannot see the inherent injustice in gunning down an UNARMED TEENAGER?! I mean, for FUCKS SAKE, guys!! This isn't politics! This is a dead son! A DEAD child! Is this how you deal with all the soldiers that died for oil in the Middle East? All the grieving mothers and fathers and husbands and wives? You just stick your fingers in your ears and "LALALALALALALALALALA"??
For gods sake. What happened to basic human empathy?
Zimmerman Had Cuts, Black Eyes After Shooting: Court records show George Zimmerman had a pair of black eyes, a nose fracture and two cuts to the back of his head after the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. The medical records were part of evidence released Tuesday that prosecutors have in the second-degree murder case against Zimmerman
Smoke and distraction on your part, Pro.
You're just being a jerk and a liar.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!
Oh god, that's still killing me. I wish I could frame the desperation. The on Dave's part.
It's okay, Lothar. I know shit moves fast for someone of your age and temperament. Don't get angry. Just let it go and we will call it a foul ball, okay?
Pro, if Zimmerman had just shot Martin in the back of the head, and went just went back to his own car safe and sound to masturbate until the police arrived, maybe I would be on your side.
But this wasn't an execution, it was an altercation that escalated to a death.
In light of the confirmed injuries, I'd like to revive a question that Doc asked MEM earlier in the thread:
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Originally Posted By: thedoctor
What if Zimmerman didn't have a gun and Martin wound up beating him to death? Would you still be blaming Zimmerman for following Martin around?
I don't think that's a reasonable hypothetical. Zimmerman outweighed Martin for starters and by the looks of the video it wasn't all fat. Also while some conservatives have dug up anything and everything that could possibly make Martin look bad, they have yet to turn up any incidents where he attacked another person.
Barring further perceptions of what you consider to be "reasonable" since hypotheticals aren't necessarily meant to fit any such preconceptions--plus all of your assumptions with regards to their weight classes and the likelihood of one getting beat up over another turned out to be wrong--in light of the new evidence, do you care to make any amendments to your position?
I tend not to waste time repeating my posts. Once I've made my point, and no one is able to contradict it, all I have to do is repost it to make my point. Learn to read and then you can have something to say on the subject. I mean, other than
I tend not to waste time repeating my posts. Once I've made my point, and no one is able to contradict it, all I have to do is repost it to make my point. Learn to read and then you can have something to say on the subject. I mean, other than
People can contradict you, you childishly ignore them then call them a name.
You call others cowards but instead of discuss or debate you spam.
It's weak and lazy.
Your childish attitude makes you open for ridicule, but it doesn't make me angry.
In light of the confirmed injuries, I'd like to revive a question that Doc asked MEM earlier in the thread:
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Originally Posted By: thedoctor
What if Zimmerman didn't have a gun and Martin wound up beating him to death? Would you still be blaming Zimmerman for following Martin around?
I don't think that's a reasonable hypothetical. Zimmerman outweighed Martin for starters and by the looks of the video it wasn't all fat. Also while some conservatives have dug up anything and everything that could possibly make Martin look bad, they have yet to turn up any incidents where he attacked another person.
Barring further perceptions of what you consider to be "reasonable" since hypotheticals aren't necessarily meant to fit any such preconceptions--plus all of your assumptions with regards to their weight classes and the likelihood of one getting beat up over another turned out to be wrong--in light of the new evidence, do you care to make any amendments to your position?
So Zimmerman had some minor injuries and that proves what exactly? The doc was talking about Zimmerman hypothetically being beaten to death. He was clearly not injured anywhere near that.
Martin had marijuana in his system, which I can say little about, I smoked pot as a teen and never had a physical confrontation.
Problem is new witness account
Quote:
A witness, whose name is redacted, told investigators he saw "a black male, wearing a dark colored hoodie," on top of a white or Hispanic male who was yelling for help.
The witness, who was looking out the sliding glass door at his home about 30 feet away, said he saw the black male throwing punches "MMA (mixed martial arts) style."
He said he told the fighters he was calling the police. He said that as he was making the call, he heard a shot. He looked outside and saw the person who had been on top laid out on the grass as if he had been shot. He said the other fighter was standing on the sidewalk, talking to another person with a flashlight.
My question was, in essence, if the roles had been reversed or just that Zimmerman didn't have a gun and was the victim of violence from Martin, would you still blame Zimmerman, or would you recognize Martin as being an aggressor and responsible?
I'm waiting to see if they release the trajectory of the bullet that killed Martin. That should give us a better idea of the situation when Zimmerman fired.
Martin had marijuana in his system, which I can say little about, I smoked pot as a teen and never had a physical confrontation.
Problem is new witness account
...
The trace amount Martin had in his body wouldn't have affected him. Zimmerman however was on a couple of prescription that treat a couple of mental disorders.
The witness account isn't new. That and several others who saw and heard different things have already been posted in this thread.
Zimmerman however was on a couple of prescription that treat a couple of mental disorders.
Holy. Shit. Are you kidding me? And The Rightwing Racists are scrambling to defend this fucking whackjob?
Quote:
The witness account isn't new. That and several others who saw and heard different things have already been posted in this thread.
And I'm sure it will be posted again and again in different formats, from different Right-sites, with different slants, by all the Righto's in this thread. Hell, G's probably right now looking for a way to question you, MEM. He sure loves you, there's no denying that one...
I've smoked pot for 18 years and I can tell you with absolute certainty there's nothing in weed that makes ANYONE want to "confront" anyone or anything else except your couch and the fridge. It's ludicrous when kneejerks (not you, I'm ranting) who have never tried anything try and say with some sense of expertise that they know the effects of marijuana and how people "should" react to it. The greatest argument I love is: "Well, I've never jumped off a bridge, but I don't have to know it will hurt me/I don't want to/etc." It makes me laugh when ignorants try and correlate any type of harm or death to pot when there's absolutely zero accounts of weed causing any deaths or medical conditions that weren't already present. Just more Federal-Spin because they literally can't control it. Unlike alcohol, tobacco, and cocaine (!) all of which are rated lower in risk. However, I have yet to find any actual scientific fact to back that up. Just the Feds and their power grip. They want to tax it soooo bad, but because it's so easy to grow Philip-Morris battles against its legality every chance they get, while simultaneously preparing for the day it happens by prepping entire factories and fields to grow Corporate Addiction-Added Marijuana for the masses. Because, if they can't make money off it, you sure as FUCK don't have the right to enjoy yourself. Don't you understand the Amerikan System of Corporate Government?
To say the amount wouldn't have had an effect is silly.
It may have, it may not.
No, factually, it would not have had any effect. The trace amount in his bloodstream merely indicates that sometime in the past 30 days he'd inhaled (possibly only a single puff). Medically, weed loses its effects on you after a couple of hours. If he'd been toking up within hours of his death, the amount would be a lot more than a "trace". And, let's face it, he'd probably be chilling out somewhere, not passing through...
To say the amount wouldn't have had an effect is silly.
It may have, it may not.
No, factually, it would not have had any effect. The trace amount in his bloodstream merely indicates that sometime in the past 30 days he'd inhaled (possibly only a single puff). Medically, weed loses its effects on you after a couple of hours. If he'd been toking up within hours of his death, the amount would be a lot more than a "trace". And, let's face it, he'd probably be chilling out somewhere, not passing through...
I'm not trying to say it had any thing to do with the shooting.
I was really more interested in the witness account I had never heard before.
In light of the confirmed injuries, I'd like to revive a question that Doc asked MEM earlier in the thread:
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Originally Posted By: thedoctor
What if Zimmerman didn't have a gun and Martin wound up beating him to death? Would you still be blaming Zimmerman for following Martin around?
I don't think that's a reasonable hypothetical. Zimmerman outweighed Martin for starters and by the looks of the video it wasn't all fat. Also while some conservatives have dug up anything and everything that could possibly make Martin look bad, they have yet to turn up any incidents where he attacked another person.
Barring further perceptions of what you consider to be "reasonable" since hypotheticals aren't necessarily meant to fit any such preconceptions--plus all of your assumptions with regards to their weight classes and the likelihood of one getting beat up over another turned out to be wrong--in light of the new evidence, do you care to make any amendments to your position?
In light of the confirmed injuries, I'd like to revive a question that Doc asked MEM earlier in the thread:
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Originally Posted By: thedoctor
What if Zimmerman didn't have a gun and Martin wound up beating him to death? Would you still be blaming Zimmerman for following Martin around?
I don't think that's a reasonable hypothetical. Zimmerman outweighed Martin for starters and by the looks of the video it wasn't all fat. Also while some conservatives have dug up anything and everything that could possibly make Martin look bad, they have yet to turn up any incidents where he attacked another person.
Barring further perceptions of what you consider to be "reasonable" since hypotheticals aren't necessarily meant to fit any such preconceptions--plus all of your assumptions with regards to their weight classes and the likelihood of one getting beat up over another turned out to be wrong--in light of the new evidence, do you care to make any amendments to your position?
So Zimmerman had some minor injuries ...
This from a guy who calls a haircut "rape..."
This from a guy that calls brown people "subhuman..."
...The girl, whose name has not been made public, told Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda that Martin got away from the man, who turned out to be Zimmerman, but only temporarily.
He was out of breath from running away and scared, she said, and decided not to keep running because he was close to the house where he was staying.
And as Zimmerman drew closer, the girl said, Martin called out, "Why you following me for?" according to the recording.
"I hear this man, like this old man, say, 'What are you doing around here?' " the girl said.
The girl said she called out to Martin, asking what was happening, but he didn't answer. The next thing she heard was a bumping sound, followed by what might have been a scuffle.
"I could hear it a little bit, 'Get off, get off,' then the phone just hung up," the girl said.
This is going to be a problem for the defense since previously it was just thought that only Zimmerman was the only one left to testify how the fight started. If Martin's friend testifies that she could hear Martin saying "get off, get off" that is going to give the prosecution testimony to use that it was Zimmerman who started the fight.
In light of the confirmed injuries, I'd like to revive a question that Doc asked MEM earlier in the thread:
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Originally Posted By: thedoctor
What if Zimmerman didn't have a gun and Martin wound up beating him to death? Would you still be blaming Zimmerman for following Martin around?
I don't think that's a reasonable hypothetical. Zimmerman outweighed Martin for starters and by the looks of the video it wasn't all fat. Also while some conservatives have dug up anything and everything that could possibly make Martin look bad, they have yet to turn up any incidents where he attacked another person.
Barring further perceptions of what you consider to be "reasonable" since hypotheticals aren't necessarily meant to fit any such preconceptions--plus all of your assumptions with regards to their weight classes and the likelihood of one getting beat up over another turned out to be wrong--in light of the new evidence, do you care to make any amendments to your position?
So Zimmerman had some minor injuries ...
This from a guy who calls a haircut "rape..."
This from a guy that calls brown people "subhuman..."
Actually, what G-man said, in full context, was that radical muslim Afghans who kill U.S. soldiers --killing the very people who are rebuilding Afghans' country and training an Afghan army, killing U.S. soldiers who defend them against radical Taliban and Al Qaida fanatics, who saw people's heads off, who brutalize women, that Afghan fanatics who kill the people who are trying to pull them out of a radical islamic stone age-- are subhuman.
NOT "brown people" are subhuman.
Specific islamic fanatics who kill people are subhuman.
I frankly didn't fully agree with G-man's comment when he made it. But I still feel you slanderously misrepresented the context.
I don't think we should go in and carpet bomb the whole country. But I do think at this point we should stop training Afghan soldiers who are shooting our own soldiers in the back, and withdraw entirely from Afghanistan as soon as our national security interests and stability allow.
And I think we should reserve the right to invade and/or carpet bomb them in the future, if Afghanistan again harbors terrorism that threatens the United States.
I still think it's obvious that recreational marijuana use was the main catalyst for the events that precipitated this tragedy, no matter how much far-left enablers of evil try and maintain otherwise.
I still think it's obvious that recreational marijuana use was the main catalyst for the events that precipitated this tragedy, no matter how much far-left enablers of evil try and maintain otherwise.
You mean if he hadn't been high he wouldn't have needed Skittles?
Please please PLEASE don't even try to say the trace thc in his bloodstream is what made martin ask that wanna-be cop why he was following him. First off, did martin smoke weed or did he hang with people who did? Because I've gotten contact high from friends smoking weed around me but I've never puffed a joint in my life. Second, I've never known a person who was anything other than mellow when stoned. I don't understand the "devil weed" mentality people still have.
"dude...you know what would rawk right now?" "skittles?" "dude..." "dude just chill. I'll go get some. there's like a circle k and shit like up the street. What's the worst that can happen?" "What if a Mexican guy follows you because he thinks you're robbing a house or something..." " you want anything else?" "......." "?" "iced tea" "awesome. Back in 5."
Not really related to the Martin incident, but my take on the whole marijuana thingie is that it's like alcohol in the sense that it can be the catalyst but it's not the root. It's not a magic elixir that can turn a person into someone they're not.
I mean, there are people who already have a tendency to do stupid things, but when they're perfectly sober, they still have the ability to second guess and prevent themselves because they know the consequences or it's the whole hardware vs software thingie about morality. But as soon as a catalyst enters the picture, whether it's alcohol removing inhibitions or marijuana making them more creative and insightful of what they really want to do - shit happens.
Marijuana is actually illegal in my country, and I don't know if it's correlation or causation but the number of crimes committed by people who have pot in their system is an issue. Marijuana users are usually those from the poverty class, since rich people have access to and prefer more expensive highs like e, cocaine, and crack. (note that the divide between the rich and the poor in here is wider than your country's. I make $12 US dollars a day and I'm still a few pesos above the government's mandated minimum wage, whereas we have politicians, CEOs and celebrities who are rich enough to make it to Forbes list of people I want to kick in the balls and rob.)
At least in here, the people who are committing crimes with pot on their system are the kinds of people who still invested money on marijuana, despite not having a job, or not having enough income to provide for their family. It's safe to say that they're the kind of people who are naturally predisposed to poor life choices. They'd have fucked up their lives (and someone else's) through some other catalyst, pot was just the first thing that came along.
I still think it's obvious that recreational marijuana use was the main catalyst for the events that precipitated this tragedy, no matter how much far-left enablers of evil try and maintain otherwise.
I've smoked pot for 18 years and I can tell you with absolute certainty there's nothing in weed that makes ANYONE want to "confront" anyone or anything else except your couch and the fridge. It's ludicrous when kneejerks (not you, I'm ranting) who have never tried anything try and say with some sense of expertise that they know the effects of marijuana and how people "should" react to it. The greatest argument I love is: "Well, I've never jumped off a bridge, but I don't have to know it will hurt me/I don't want to/etc." It makes me laugh when ignorants try and correlate any type of harm or death to pot when there's absolutely zero accounts of weed causing any deaths or medical conditions that weren't already present. Just more Federal-Spin because they literally can't control it. Unlike alcohol, tobacco, and cocaine (!) all of which are rated lower in risk. However, I have yet to find any actual scientific fact to back that up. Just the Feds and their power grip. They want to tax it soooo bad, but because it's so easy to grow Philip-Morris battles against its legality every chance they get, while simultaneously preparing for the day it happens by prepping entire factories and fields to grow Corporate Addiction-Added Marijuana for the masses. Because, if they can't make money off it, you sure as FUCK don't have the right to enjoy yourself. Don't you understand the Amerikan System of Corporate Government?
Please please PLEASE don't even try to say the trace thc in his bloodstream is what made martin ask that wanna-be cop why he was following him. First off, did martin smoke weed or did he hang with people who did? Because I've gotten contact high from friends smoking weed around me but I've never puffed a joint in my life. Second, I've never known a person who was anything other than mellow when stoned. I don't understand the "devil weed" mentality people still have.
I've smoked pot for 18 years and I can tell you with absolute certainty there's nothing in weed that makes ANYONE want to "confront" anyone or anything else except your couch and the fridge. It's ludicrous when kneejerks (not you, I'm ranting) who have never tried anything try and say with some sense of expertise that they know the effects of marijuana and how people "should" react to it. The greatest argument I love is: "Well, I've never jumped off a bridge, but I don't have to know it will hurt me/I don't want to/etc." It makes me laugh when ignorants try and correlate any type of harm or death to pot when there's absolutely zero accounts of weed causing any deaths or medical conditions that weren't already present. Just more Federal-Spin because they literally can't control it. Unlike alcohol, tobacco, and cocaine (!) all of which are rated lower in risk. However, I have yet to find any actual scientific fact to back that up. Just the Feds and their power grip. They want to tax it soooo bad, but because it's so easy to grow Philip-Morris battles against its legality every chance they get, while simultaneously preparing for the day it happens by prepping entire factories and fields to grow Corporate Addiction-Added Marijuana for the masses. Because, if they can't make money off it, you sure as FUCK don't have the right to enjoy yourself. Don't you understand the Amerikan System of Corporate Government?
Seriously....less motive to lie. That's fucking retarded.
For Zimmerman the motive for lying would be to avoid prison. Martin's friend however would actually be taking a risk if she gave false testimony.
Glad I could explain it for you Pariah.
There's a de-facto fallacy in way you phrased the argument, but the name still escapes me.
For now, all I have to do is point out your presumptuousness. The question here wouldn't revolve around motives to either lie or tell the truth, but rather what one would typically expect from a given individual's character in relation to their view of friends and/or family. You really have no idea whether or not someone who lied about the case would necessarily put greater consideration into a level of risk over their own perception of social justice and revenge like, for instance, the parents when they lied about Martin's voice--or the prosecutor who only tried Zimmerman due to social pressure.
Furthermore, because the integrity of her statements can neither be confirmed nor falsified by anyone else but her, she's subject to little to no risk of being tried for perjury.
Seriously....less motive to lie. That's fucking retarded.
For Zimmerman the motive for lying would be to avoid prison. Martin's friend however would actually be taking a risk if she gave false testimony.
Glad I could explain it for you Pariah.
There's a de-facto fallacy in way you phrased the argument, but the name still escapes me.
Probably having a rough time finding that name because what I said was pretty simple and recognizably true.
Originally Posted By: Pariah
For now, all I have to do is point out your presumptuousness. The question here wouldn't revolve around motives to either lie or tell the truth, but rather what one would typically expect from a given individual's character in relation to their view of friends and/or family. You really have no idea whether or not someone who lied about the case would necessarily put greater consideration into a level of risk over their own perception of social justice and revenge like, for instance, the parents when they lied about Martin's voice--or the prosecutor who only tried Zimmerman due to social pressure.
Furthermore, because the integrity of her statements can neither be confirmed nor falsified by anyone else but her, she's subject to little to no risk of being tried for perjury.
Why would you say Martin's parents lied or that the prosecutor only tried Zimmerman due to social pressure? At best those are your opinions and not facts as you state them.
No, not really. I was doing it to (A) annoy Jake, and (B) repeat my own personal experiences with marijuana and the (lack of) effects it genuinely has on a human body. Not all react the exact same, of course. And there's plenty of psycho's out there that could freak-out from drinking a Pepsi. AND, smoking weed and THEN adding alcohol or other drugs in your system could very well cause further issues. But, weed alone is relatively harmless. Even in smoke form, it has negligible effects on your lungs in comparison to tobacco. But, as with everything on the planet except pussy, moderation is the key.
I'm sure plenty of people arrested can have weed in their system. But, what else is in there? The kind of weed I've ever smoked would in no way, shape, or form gives any urges outside the lazy and apathetic symptoms well known to exist in pot. If people are committing crimes, I can say with 99% absolute authority and certainty from nearly 20 years of experience that retracting the marijuana from the situation would in no way improve or change the issues causing the problem. People can make mistakes, sure. But, that would be more like someone accidentally breaking something because they're so stoned they're clumsy. No way is someone going to smoke a joint and go "Oh man let's go cause some CRIME and kill some people! Yeah! I'm soooo jaazzed up!!" That's cocaine, man. That's crack-rock, which I once again mention that...according to the US Federal Government....is somehow more harmless than weed. Yet, absolutely ZERO scientific proof can be offered to support that. Just money, lobbyists, and a corrupt Corporate-controlled system of greed...
No, not really. I was doing it to (A) annoy Jake, and (B) repeat my own personal experiences with marijuana and the (lack of) effects it genuinely has on a human body. Not all react the exact same, of course. And there's plenty of psycho's out there that could freak-out from drinking a Pepsi. AND, smoking weed and THEN adding alcohol or other drugs in your system could very well cause further issues. But, weed alone is relatively harmless. Even in smoke form, it has negligible effects on your lungs in comparison to tobacco. But, as with everything on the planet except pussy, moderation is the key.
I'm sure plenty of people arrested can have weed in their system. But, what else is in there? The kind of weed I've ever smoked would in no way, shape, or form gives any urges outside the lazy and apathetic symptoms well known to exist in pot. If people are committing crimes, I can say with 99% absolute authority and certainty from nearly 20 years of experience that retracting the marijuana from the situation would in no way improve or change the issues causing the problem. People can make mistakes, sure. But, that would be more like someone accidentally breaking something because they're so stoned they're clumsy. No way is someone going to smoke a joint and go "Oh man let's go cause some CRIME and kill some people! Yeah! I'm soooo jaazzed up!!" That's cocaine, man. That's crack-rock, which I once again mention that...according to the US Federal Government....is somehow more harmless than weed. Yet, absolutely ZERO scientific proof can be offered to support that. Just money, lobbyists, and a corrupt Corporate-controlled system of greed...
You didn't do it to annoy me. You did it because that's what you do.
You've done it in tons of threads I've never posted in.
Don't make me the scapegoat for your lazy comment/spamming.
Stand by your spam. Give him two arms to cling to.
So, why would you bitch at these same assholes to clean up "the system"?
You want these people to have more say over what corporations can and cannot do?
Look at the DMV. Are these exceptional people working behind these counters?
Those are the same idiots who are going to be behind the counters running government health care if politicians are left to their own devices.
Not to mention the waves of senators, congressmen, governors, mayors, and all other politicians who have been embroiled in some sort of scandal throughout their careers as politicians.
These are the same people you want more involved?
Let me get this strait Democrats, you want the government to fix shit?
Probably having a rough time finding that name because what I said was pretty simple and recognizably true.
Using a negative to affirm a red herring as the deciding factor of an argument is a lot of things. A "recognizable truth" is not one of them. It's more like verisimilitude.
Quote:
Why would you say Martin's parents lied or that the prosecutor only tried Zimmerman due to social pressure?
Common sense.
They flip-flopped on whether or not it was his voice.
And this prosecutor--against the better judgement of just about every single competent lawyer in the country--has the audacity to try him for second degree murder. There's no way in hell that would stick with the evidence at hand. She knows this and yet she still went through with it. She is a pandering cunt.
Probably having a rough time finding that name because what I said was pretty simple and recognizably true.
Using a negative to affirm a red herring as the deciding factor of an argument is a lot of things. A "recognizable truth" is not one of them. It's more like verisimilitude.
What you said doesn't make sense but whatever. Zimmerman has a huge motive to lie about what happened. Martin's girlfriend really only takes a risk for the most part by not telling the truth. Maybe not a big one but just the same it's still a risk.
Originally Posted By: Pariah
Quote:
Why would you say Martin's parents lied or that the prosecutor only tried Zimmerman due to social pressure?
Common sense.
They flip-flopped on whether or not it was his voice.
Sorry but they didn't flip flop. The father heard a cleaned up version and says he recognized Martin's voice from that. Martin's mom has as far as I know always said it was her son's voice. Glad I could help you with that bit of ignorance.
Originally Posted By: Pariah
And this prosecutor--against the better judgement of just about every single competent lawyer in the country--has the audacity to try him for second degree murder. There's no way in hell that would stick with the evidence at hand. She knows this and yet she still went through with it. She is a pandering cunt.
Please source this, otherwise I have to assume this is just untrue.
The red herring can either be applied negatively or positively to try and make your point. You chose a negative when you said "less motive", which is counter intuitive according to every deductive principle in existence. Motive is identified based on gain. Not loss.
In which case, SoM identified a motive for her to lie based on her friend-status with Martin. You responded by trying to use Zimmerman's own circumstances as a negating factor--even though the two aren't even remotely comparable--and then dressed it up as a deductive observation by phrasing it affirmatively.
Quote:
Sorry but they didn't flip flop. The father heard a cleaned up version and says he recognized Martin's voice from that. Martin's mom has as far as I know always said it was her son's voice. Glad I could help you with that bit of ignorance.
The recording was no less or more cleaned up then before. He decided to change his tune when he realized it would help his dead son's case.
The mother only decided to speak when the father flip-flopped. So trying to use the phrase, "all along" to help along your claim only demonstrates all the more how deceptive you are.
Quote:
Please source this, otherwise I have to assume this is just untrue.
That's the beautiful thing about a generalization. I don't have to cite anything. And it's especially frustrating for you because you can't deny it: this case does not have enough evidence to support a murder charge. It doesn't take a lawyer to see that.
Martin's friend can testify that he was afraid and trying to evade Zimmerman. Martin's last words she heard sounded like he was being attacked. That's evidence that I think a jury is going to be interested in and compare to what Zimmerman alleges.
The information describing the events of that night are slowly being released to the public answering many questions, except for the one that is begging to be told, why did this man shoot an unarmed teen?
I guess Zimmerman's injuries didn't give this author a clue. Seriously, that's fucking stupid.
Then again, it was you who linked to it.
Usually, when someone attacks you--and you're carrying a gun--that's grounds for shooting that person. There's no rule that your attacker has to have a bludgeon or a firearm to have cause to shoot. That kinda defeats the purpose of using a gun in the first place.
Do you honestly--HONESTLY believe that Martin was yelling for help all the while he's concentrated on putting the beat down on Zimmerman? What's more, do you really think that would change anything now that it's been confirmed that Martin was beating his head into the ground? It doesn't take a genius to realize that Martin went after him because he felt threatened, but that wouldn't negate the fact that he started the fight and that Zimmerman reacted to it.
How do you know Martin started it? All we know is Martin stopped running and confronted Zimmerman, then there was a tussle. Just because Zimmerman has injuries doesn't mean he was a helpless white guy getting beat up by a black thug. You're making shit up.
Martin's friend can testify that he was afraid and trying to evade Zimmerman. Martin's last words she heard sounded like he was being attacked. That's evidence that I think a jury is going to be interested in and compare to what Zimmerman alleges.
Because an "afraid" guy, instead of running away in fear, confronts a guy who had only been observing Martin from a distance, punches Zimmerman in the face, breaks his nose (documented), gives him two black eyes (documented), beats Zimmerman's head against the sidewalk and covers Zimmerman's head with bloody lacerations (documented, photographed), causes Zimmerman to scream 20 times at the top of his lungs for help (documented in 911 calls, and by at least 2 witnesses, and Zimmerman's own account), and jumps on Zimmerman for several minutes (those pesky 911 calls and witnesses again), before Zimmerman, finally pulls out a gun and shoots Martin, at an approximated distance of between 1 and 18 inches (documented, by forensic evaluation of the powder burns on Martin's clothes).
Yeah. Because an "afraid" guy always confronts the guy he's afraid of and beats him within an inch of his life, before he unexpectedly gets blown away when the guy he's beating on turns out to be armed.
If Martin was "afraid" he'd have run away. Instead he confronted Zimmerman. And didn't just confront him, but beat on Zimmerman relentlessly until Zimmerman was forced to shoot Martin in self-defense. Pending further evidence, there is no justifiable case for prosecuting Zimmerman for homicide. The lady D.A. arrested Zimmerman in a pointless show-arrest, even though she already had the evidence weeks before it was released a few days ago. She knew well in advance there was no evidence to justify the 2nd arrest of Zimmerman. And she herself may face legal action for this deliberate suppression of the available facts in order to make a 2nd arrest, that was no more than theatre for the race-baiting masses.
I'm not reading through fifty pages of this shit. Someone want to tell me where we established that Zimmerman is part black, please. I thought he was Jew-spanic.
I'm not reading through fifty pages of this shit. Someone want to tell me where we established that Zimmerman is part black, please. I thought he was Jew-spanic.
I'm going to repeat that he's not white even though we've already discussed it.
"Roger."
Ok, so you know he is hispanic and black, yet keep repeating he is white.
Why?
Because "white" does not mean "Caucasian". It means "not African-American". That's pretty simple. And something we've discussed before.
And really, of all people, YOU are going to type "google.com" to someone coming into the middle of a conversation? The guy who pitches a fit when people won't repeat their points from three pages ago? Puh-leeze!
I'm not reading through fifty pages of this shit. Someone want to tell me where we established that Zimmerman is part black, please. I thought he was Jew-spanic.
He is Jew-Spanic. The Rightwing is scrambling to find some way of saying "Oh look, that racial profiling he did of Martin? Yeah, it wasn't racial. It was just....you know....profiling. TERRORISTS!! "
Zimmerman = White Martin = Black
All the facts are there. All the the Right does won't change a single line.
I'm not reading through fifty pages of this shit. Someone want to tell me where we established that Zimmerman is part black, please. I thought he was Jew-spanic.
He is Jew-Spanic. The Rightwing is scrambling to find some way of saying "Oh look, that racial profiling he did of Martin? Yeah, it wasn't racial. It was just....you know....profiling. TERRORISTS!! "
Zimmerman = White Martin = Black
All the facts are there. All the the Right does won't change a single line.
I'm not reading through fifty pages of this shit. Someone want to tell me where we established that Zimmerman is part black, please. I thought he was Jew-spanic.
He is Jew-Spanic. The Rightwing is scrambling to find some way of saying "Oh look, that racial profiling he did of Martin? Yeah, it wasn't racial. It was just....you know....profiling. TERRORISTS!! "
Zimmerman = White Martin = Black
All the facts are there. All the the Right does won't change a single line.
The Rightwingers are to find a way to help their murdering white brother out of this. Poor hatemongers.
Do you actually believe the slanderous shit you hack out?
Or is it just about trying to get a rise and generate some cheap heat? Either way, you're an idiot. With a petty vindictive streak, but still an idiot.
But no matter how many times you repost Zimmerman is white doesn't make it true.
Yes it does. I didn't say he was Caucasian. Even the MOST Nordic of us have some mixed-race genetics in our backgrounds. Trying to say a white guy like Zimmerman is...in any way...black is, well, a lie. It's also insulting to people who are actually black. Fact.
Quote:
You can be any race and still profile a person of another race.
True. In this case it was a white guy off his meds with a pistol, stalking and profiling a hoodie-wearing, unarmed black teen. Fact.
Quote:
Just because you profile doesn't make you "white".
Nope. But, the fact that Zimmerman IS white doesn't mean he wasn't profiling based off race. Simple, really.
I know you're desperate to "prove me wrong" and help get this murdering fuck out of jail. I know you're desperate, probably due to some racist guilt you see in yourself. But, in the end, the reality is this was an old-school racially-motivated murder. Everything else is technicalities forcibly added to the debate by the Rightwing hatemongers in a desperate attempt to maintain their faux-moral, proto-religious powerbase. Fact..
The Rightwingers are to find a way to help their murdering white brother out of this. Poor hatemongers.
Do you actually believe the slanderous shit you hack out?
I only speak the truth. Don't shoot the messenger.
Quote:
Or is it just about trying to get a rise and generate some cheap heat?
Quote:
Either way, you're an idiot. With a petty vindictive streak, but still an idiot.
It's okay, Dave. Cross your fingers, close your eyes, and wish really hard. And maybe....just MAYBE...they'll find some way to exonerate the murderer...
But no matter how many times you repost Zimmerman is white doesn't make it true.
Yes it does. I didn't say he was Caucasian. Even the MOST Nordic of us have some mixed-race genetics in our backgrounds. Trying to say a white guy like Zimmerman is...in any way...black is, well, a lie. It's also insulting to people who are actually black. Fact.
Quote:
You can be any race and still profile a person of another race.
True. In this case it was a white guy off his meds with a pistol, stalking and profiling a hoodie-wearing, unarmed black teen. Fact.
Quote:
Just because you profile doesn't make you "white".
Nope. But, the fact that Zimmerman IS white doesn't mean he wasn't profiling based off race. Simple, really.
I know you're desperate to "prove me wrong" and help get this murdering fuck out of jail. I know you're desperate, probably due to some racist guilt you see in yourself. But, in the end, the reality is this was an old-school racially-motivated murder. Everything else is technicalities forcibly added to the debate by the Rightwing hatemongers in a desperate attempt to maintain their faux-moral, proto-religious powerbase. Fact..
Dear Dick Face,
There are many, many wonderful races, and cultures on this great Earth than just Black, and white.
Knowing that doesn't make me a racist, but it does make you an idiot.
Also, I never thought that Zimmerman should get out of jail.
My point was that race is brought up too often, as if it proves anything. Zimmermans complexion is lite enough that in the eyes of the general public he's white. I don't care if he's partly Hispanic or whatever, dudes still an asshole.
But no matter how many times you repost Zimmerman is white doesn't make it true.
Yes it does. I didn't say he was Caucasian. Even the MOST Nordic of us have some mixed-race genetics in our backgrounds. Trying to say a white guy like Zimmerman is...in any way...black is, well, a lie. It's also insulting to people who are actually black. Fact.
Zimmerman "the white racist" is very mixed-race, looks and personally identifies as hispanic. But is also part black and has black family. FACT.
Originally Posted By: Pro
Originally Posted By: Jaburg
You can be any race and still profile a person of another race.
True. In this case it was a white guy off his meds with a pistol, stalking and profiling a hoodie-wearing, unarmed black teen. Fact.
Zimmerman is a hispanic guy, who did not know the race of Martin when he called police, and only after asked by the dispatch if Martin was white, black or hispanic, did Zimmerman after a long pause of evaluation say "um... I think he's black."
He only followed Martin to identify and inform police of Martin's location. Then, by Zimmerman's account, he broke pursuit and was walking back to his truck, when assaulted by Martin, who initiated the physical conflict.
Originally Posted By: Pro
Originally Posted By: Jaburg
Just because you profile doesn't make you "white".
Nope. But, the fact that Zimmerman IS white doesn't mean he wasn't profiling based off race. Simple, really.
That doesn't even make sense.
Originally Posted By: Pro
I know you're desperate to "prove me wrong" and help get this murdering fuck out of jail. I know you're desperate, probably due to some racist guilt you see in yourself. But, in the end, the reality is this was an old-school racially-motivated murder. Everything else is technicalities forcibly added to the debate by the Rightwing hatemongers in a desperate attempt to maintain their faux-moral, proto-religious powerbase. Fact..
Actually, the lack of evidence to prosecute will get Zimmerman out of jail.
Everything else is your self-indoctrinated delusion, and infantile lashing out at whoever simply disagrees with you.
How do you know Martin started it? All we know is Martin stopped running and confronted Zimmerman, then there was a tussle. Just because Zimmerman has injuries doesn't mean he was a helpless white guy getting beat up by a black thug. You're making shit up.
Speaking of bullshit insinuations...
Why didn't Zimmerman shoot him immediately? Or, being minimalistic, why didn't he just draw the gun and tell him to stay where he was? You're so obsessed with claiming that he's some gung ho amateur cop, and that's essentially what they do.
Based on what we know, the evidence points towards Zimmerman observing and reporting albeit overzealously.
True. In this case it was a white guy off his meds with a pistol, stalking and profiling a hoodie-wearing, unarmed black teen. Fact.
I know you're [Wonder Traitor] desperate to "prove me wrong" and help get this murdering fuck out of jail. I know you're desperate, probably due to the fact you're a hateful racist, yourself. But, in the end, the reality is this was an old-school racially-motivated murder. Everything else is technicalities forcibly added to the debate by the Rightwing hatemongers in a desperate attempt to maintain their faux-moral, proto-religious powerbase. Like you. Fact..
True. In this case it was a white guy off his meds with a pistol, stalking and profiling a hoodie-wearing, unarmed black teen. Fact.
I know you're [Wonder Traitor] desperate to "prove me wrong" and help get this murdering fuck out of jail. I know you're desperate, probably due to the fact you're a hateful racist, yourself. But, in the end, the reality is this was an old-school racially-motivated murder. Everything else is technicalities forcibly added to the debate by the Rightwing hatemongers in a desperate attempt to maintain their faux-moral, proto-religious powerbase. Like you. Fact..
He is Jew-Spanic. The Rightwing is scrambling to find some way of saying "Oh look, that racial profiling he did of Martin? Yeah, it wasn't racial. It was just....you know....profiling. TERRORISTS!! "
Zimmerman = White Martin = Black
All the facts are there. All the the Right does won't change a single line.
He is Jew-Spanic. The Rightwing is scrambling to find some way of saying "Oh look, that racial profiling he did of Martin? Yeah, it wasn't racial. It was just....you know....profiling. TERRORISTS!! "
Zimmerman = White Martin = Black
All the facts are there. All the the Right does won't change a single line.
He is Jew-Spanic. The Rightwing is scrambling to find some way of saying "Oh look, that racial profiling he did of Martin? Yeah, it wasn't racial. It was just....you know....profiling. TERRORISTS!! "
Zimmerman = White Martin = Black
All the facts are there. All the the Right does won't change a single line.
This situation actually strikes me as an example of dormant racism on Prometheus' part. He's so concerned with identifying Zimmerman as culturally "white" so as to expose what he sees as the plight of black people that he's willing to deny the ethnic identity of other races.
He's probably the kinda person who'd describe Tiger Woods as "white" just because he plays golf and doesn't have a tendency towards Ebonics.
He is Jew-Spanic. The Rightwing is scrambling to find some way of saying "Oh look, that racial profiling he did of Martin? Yeah, it wasn't racial. It was just....you know....profiling. TERRORISTS!! "
Zimmerman = White Martin = Black
All the facts are there. All the the Right does won't change a single line.
NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE WHAT I SAAAAAY!!!!! JACKIE CHAN ISN'T WHITE!!!!! HIS SKIN IS AN ILLUSION!!!!!!
Poor Jake. It's okay, buddy. That's why I repost. So you can catch up...
This situation actually strikes me as an example of somehow being Prometheus' fault. I suspect because I'm a racist hypocrite I think he points out facts people of my kind would like to blatantly ignore. If you listen to what I'm saying, you'll see he's wrong, I'm Right, and Martin Zimmerman is a hero to all Caucasian Americans.
True. In this case it was a white guy off his meds with a pistol, stalking and profiling a hoodie-wearing, unarmed black teen. Fact.
The reality is this was an old-school racially-motivated murder. Everything else is technicalities forcibly added to the debate by the Rightwing hatemongers in a desperate attempt to maintain their faux-moral, proto-religious powerbase. Fact..
He is Jew-Spanic. The Rightwing is scrambling to find some way of saying "Oh look, that racial profiling he did of Martin? Yeah, it wasn't racial. It was just....you know....profiling. TERRORISTS!! "
Zimmerman = White Martin = Black
All the facts are there. All the the Right does won't change a single line.
He is Jew-Spanic. The Rightwing is scrambling to find some way of saying "Oh look, that racial profiling he did of Martin? Yeah, it wasn't racial. It was just....you know....profiling. TERRORISTS!! "
Zimmerman = White Martin = Black
All the facts are there. All the the Right does won't change a single line.
NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE WHAT I SAAAAAY!!!!! JACKIE CHAN ISN'T WHITE!!!!! HIS SKIN IS AN ILLUSION!!!!!!
Poor Jake. It's okay, buddy. That's why I repost. So you can catch up...
How do you know Martin started it? All we know is Martin stopped running and confronted Zimmerman, then there was a tussle. Just because Zimmerman has injuries doesn't mean he was a helpless white guy getting beat up by a black thug. You're making shit up.
Speaking of bullshit insinuations...
Why didn't Zimmerman shoot him immediately? Or, being minimalistic, why didn't he just draw the gun and tell him to stay where he was? You're so obsessed with claiming that he's some gung ho amateur cop, and that's essentially what they do.
Based on what we know, the evidence points towards Zimmerman observing and reporting albeit overzealously.
based on what we know, Zimmerman was sitting in his car when he saw a man in a hoodie going down the street.
Based on what we know, Zimmerman called 911 and left his car to follow him.
Based on a witness account, Zimmerman was following close enough for martin to see him.
Based on the same witness account, martin felt threatened, stopped, and asked Zimmerman why he was following him. Zimmerman wanted to know what martin was doing in the neighborhood.
Based on what we know there was a fight.
Based on what we know, someone was screaming for help.
Based on Zimmerman, that was him.
Based on martins mom, that was him.
Martins father later said it was him.
A separate witness said it was Zimmerman, then retracted.
Based on what we know, at one point Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked.
Based on what we know, Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.
I think I want to hear more evidence. I think both parties were responsible but one is dead and the other has stupid shits like you lauding him as a hero. I think ultimately the prosecutor should have charged Zimmerman with unintentional 2nd degree murder. I further think cock suckers like Jesse Jackson and al sharpton et all were turning this into a race issue when race shouldn't have been brought up and those greedy fucks don't need to be muddying the waters (so to speak).
How do you know Martin started it? All we know is Martin stopped running and confronted Zimmerman, then there was a tussle. Just because Zimmerman has injuries doesn't mean he was a helpless white guy getting beat up by a black thug. You're making shit up.
Speaking of bullshit insinuations...
Why didn't Zimmerman shoot him immediately? Or, being minimalistic, why didn't he just draw the gun and tell him to stay where he was? You're so obsessed with claiming that he's some gung ho amateur cop, and that's essentially what they do.
Based on what we know, the evidence points towards Zimmerman observing and reporting albeit overzealously.
based on what we know, Zimmerman was sitting in his car when he saw a man in a hoodie going down the street.
Based on what we know, Zimmerman called 911 and left his car to follow him.
Based on a witness account, Zimmerman was following close enough for martin to see him.
Based on the same witness account, martin felt threatened, stopped, and asked Zimmerman why he was following him. Zimmerman wanted to know what martin was doing in the neighborhood.
Based on what we know there was a fight.
Based on what we know, someone was screaming for help.
Based on Zimmerman, that was him.
Based on martins mom, that was him.
Martins father later said it was him.
A separate witness said it was Zimmerman, then retracted.
Based on what we know, at one point Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked.
Based on what we know, Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.
I think I want to hear more evidence. I think both parties were responsible but one is dead and the other has stupid shits like you lauding him as a hero. I think ultimately the prosecutor should have charged Zimmerman with unintentional 2nd degree murder. I further think cock suckers like Jesse Jackson and al sharpton et all were turning this into a race issue when race shouldn't have been brought up and those greedy fucks don't need to be muddying the waters (so to speak).
Well said, but I don't think anybody here has called Zimmerman a hero.
If she's gonna try anything just to placate the masses, at least go for a charge that's even remotely likely, like manslaughter. But even that's a stretch.
Manslaughters not a stretch. First degree murder would be. I've stated before that manslaughter would have been a better charge. 2nd degree doesn't imply intent of murder but it does imply intent to cause bodily injury, which I don't think was zimmerman was originally motivated to do. However when shit got real a chest shot at close range is indicative of intent to kill.
So can Zimmerman. Plus he has a huge motive to lie. We at least can agree on that.
Originally Posted By: Pariah
Quote:
The information describing the events of that night are slowly being released to the public answering many questions, except for the one that is begging to be told, why did this man shoot an unarmed teen?
I guess Zimmerman's injuries didn't give this author a clue. Seriously, that's fucking stupid.
Then again, it was you who linked to it.
Usually, when someone attacks you--and you're carrying a gun--that's grounds for shooting that person. There's no rule that your attacker has to have a bludgeon or a firearm to have cause to shoot. That kinda defeats the purpose of using a gun in the first place.
If you just assume the killer is automatically telling the truth, sure.
Originally Posted By: Pariah
Do you honestly--HONESTLY believe that Martin was yelling for help all the while he's concentrated on putting the beat down on Zimmerman? What's more, do you really think that would change anything now that it's been confirmed that Martin was beating his head into the ground? It doesn't take a genius to realize that Martin went after him because he felt threatened, but that wouldn't negate the fact that he started the fight and that Zimmerman reacted to it.
You're making some assumptions on that front. As far as we know Zimmerman pulled his gun on Martin and the poor kid just got some licks in before Zimmerman got one of those assholes that always get away. I think I would fight for my life if I was in that situation and also be screaming for help while doing it.
If he hadn't intended to kill someone, he wouldn't have been armed. Guns don't have "stun" settings...
So all cops carry guns because they're looking for people to kill?
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Why would manslaughter be a stretch?
Because there's no way for them to prove that starting a fight is a reasonable reaction for Zimmerman being on his tail.
If this was any other case, academics would be saying that Martin should have just warned him to back off, and only attack if Zimmerman physically approached him with the intent to maim or kill. As mentioned earlier, there's no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman was interested in doing that since he didn't just draw the gun to begin with.
Supposition of manslaughter on Zimmerman's part would suggest that Martin would have been in the right if he had beaten Zimmerman to death.
I pay more attention to what his injuries and the eye witness say than what Zimmerman said. There's value to it of course, but it's peripheral.
Quote:
If you just assume the killer is automatically telling the truth, sure.
In which case, the author automatically assumes he's lying because he actually has the gall to ignore the idea that he was defending himself in favor of making the idea that an unarmed individual being gunned down is inherently unjust. So cops shouldn't fire on unarmed criminals that try to attack them? Why are they even issued firearms?
Quote:
You're making some assumptions on that front. As far as we know Zimmerman pulled his gun on Martin and the poor kid just got some licks in before Zimmerman got one of those assholes that always get away. I think I would fight for my life if I was in that situation and also be screaming for help while doing it.
You argue against what you claim is an assumption with another assumption.
And, quite frankly, I don't believe that most parties (you included) would risk a gun shot if they thought being still would keep someone from firing on them. That would lead me to believe that Martin didn't know he had a gun as he beat him into the ground until Zimmerman managed to pull it out and shoot.
But really, why bother calling 911 if he was just going to gun him down? Why not shoot him immediately? You've yet to address this.
Martin's friend can testify that he was afraid and trying to evade Zimmerman. Martin's last words she heard sounded like he was being attacked. That's evidence that I think a jury is going to be interested in and compare to what Zimmerman alleges.
Because an "afraid" guy, instead of running away in fear, confronts a guy who had only been observing Martin from a distance, punches Zimmerman in the face, breaks his nose (documented), gives him two black eyes (documented), beats Zimmerman's head against the sidewalk and covers Zimmerman's head with bloody lacerations (documented, photographed), causes Zimmerman to scream 20 times at the top of his lungs for help (documented in 911 calls, and by at least 2 witnesses, and Zimmerman's own account), and jumps on Zimmerman for several minutes (those pesky 911 calls and witnesses again), before Zimmerman, finally pulls out a gun and shoots Martin, at an approximated distance of between 1 and 18 inches (documented, by forensic evaluation of the powder burns on Martin's clothes).
Yeah. Because an "afraid" guy always confronts the guy he's afraid of and beats him within an inch of his life, before he unexpectedly gets blown away when the guy he's beating on turns out to be armed.
If Martin was "afraid" he'd have run away. Instead he confronted Zimmerman. And didn't just confront him, but beat on Zimmerman relentlessly until Zimmerman was forced to shoot Martin in self-defense. Pending further evidence, there is no justifiable case for prosecuting Zimmerman for homicide. The lady D.A. arrested Zimmerman in a pointless show-arrest, even though she already had the evidence weeks before it was released a few days ago. She knew well in advance there was no evidence to justify the 2nd arrest of Zimmerman. And she herself may face legal action for this deliberate suppression of the available facts in order to make a 2nd arrest, that was no more than theatre for the race-baiting masses.
You're making some assumptions that have yet to be proven and also ignore some pesky evidence that doesn't fit those assumptions. There is still also evidence that hasn't been released yet.
You're making some assumptions that have yet to be proven and also ignore some pesky evidence that doesn't fit those assumptions. There is still also evidence that hasn't been released yet.
A very good point.
Does this mean you've stopped assuming Zimmerman's guilty and that the self-defense law was the cause of this?
I have an opinion but I'm very well aware that the evidence isn't all in. Honestly though it's hard for me to understand the pro-zimmerman crowd that is so sure that he can't be guilty that the case needs to be thrown out. Stand Your Ground despite what you said at the beginning has played a role in this and it looks like it's still in play.
Honestly though it's hard for me to understand the pro-zimmerman crowd that is so sure that he can't be guilty that the case needs to be thrown out. Stand Your Ground despite what you said at the beginning has played a role in this and it looks like it's still in play.
Because G and his ilk are racists. They can't STAND to see a white murderer brought to justice. Of course, if Zimmerman were black and the kid he killed was white, well, they would instantly reverse all course of thought and action. That's their thing, you see. They have no scruples or ethics. Whatever they need to lie or believe to "win" is all they care about. Don't you pay attention to the hate-speech that gushes from their mouths with every post?
"Discussion"? You mean where all the "WE HATE BLACK/LIBERALS"-Rightwingers scrambling to justify this murder of an innocent child? You mean because Zimmerman had a Florida license it was okay for him to take it with the intention of using it? Again, no stun-setting. Guns can only be used for one thing. Thus, purely via logic, Zimmerman had that pistol to kill someone. No more, no less. Everything else are the hatemongers screaming to validate murder. Fact.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a white ( "HISPANIC! NO, WAIT! HE'S A JEW!!" - Rightwing Shills) adult that has a history of violence and psychotic medication.
FACT: Trayvon Martin was a black ( "NO! HE WAS A THUG! DIDN'T YOU SEE HIS TEETH?!" - Rightwing Shills) teenager, minding his own business, walking on a sidewalk in what's considered a "free country" for most (i.e. Whites).
FACT: Trayvon Martin made no contact with Martin Zimmerman.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman disobeyed the instructions of the police and stalked Trayvon Martin.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman carried a concealed pistol.
FACT: Trayvon Martin carried a bag of Skittles.
FACT: Martin shot Trayvon point-blank, murdering him on the spot.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a killer that deserves a life sentence for murdering an innocent child in cold blood.
None of that is in dispute. None of that is in error. Motherfucking FACT.
Originally Posted By: Rightwingers and Posters Who Pretend Not to Hate Prometheus
NOOOOOO!!!! FAIR JUSTICE!!! Uh...HE'S NOT WHITE!! Uh...some TVs were stolen somewhere!! Uh....THE UNARMED BLACK TEENAGER WAS A THREAT TO HIS LIFE!!! ZIMMERMAN IS INNOCENT AND YOU JUST HATE....uh....PEOPLE WHO ARE INNOCENT!! YOU JUST WANT TO SPAM!!! REPOST!! LALALALALALALALALA!!! CAN'T HEAR YOU!!
Honestly though it's hard for me to understand the pro-zimmerman crowd that is so sure that he can't be guilty that the case needs to be thrown out. Stand Your Ground despite what you said at the beginning has played a role in this and it looks like it's still in play.
Because G and his ilk are racists. They can't STAND to see a white murderer brought to justice. Of course, if Zimmerman were black and the kid he killed was white, well, they would instantly reverse all course of thought and action. That's their thing, you see. They have no scruples or ethics. Whatever they need to lie or believe to "win" is all they care about. Don't you pay attention to the hate-speech that gushes from their mouths with every post?
I have an opinion but I'm very well aware that the evidence isn't all in. Honestly though it's hard for me to understand the pro-zimmerman crowd that is so sure that he can't be guilty that the case needs to be thrown out....
Granted I may have missed a point or two while trying to wade through pages of "You are ignoring this user" when Promod is (presumably) spamming us with drivel about how we're all "republinazi Faux news indoctrinated corporate shills" (or whatever he vomited up from this week's Occutard twitter feed). However, from what I've seen, the posters here haven't said Zimmerman "can't be guilty." They've simply expressed doubt in the narrative that Zimmerman was some sort of white (he isn't) racist (he probably isn't, given he's part black) who shot an unarmed kid without provocation.
Furthermore, many of those doubts, as the facts roll in, seem to be grounded in at least some of the evidence.
I will concede that a few posters have expressed the opinion that a murder charge should--or will be--thrown out. And maybe (see above) I missed someone saying more. However, it also appears to me that those posters are doing so based upon the idea that lesser charges such as manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide were more appropriate. If I recall correctly, that was your opinion as well early on.
Quote:
Stand Your Ground despite what you said at the beginning has played a role in this and it looks like it's still in play.
As near as I can tell the aspects of the SYGL that are possibly applicable in this case are typical self-defense questions:
Who was the initial aggressor; If Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, had he exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force; Did Zimmerman reasonably believe it is necessary to use deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself;
The only one that is potentially different than a typical self defense case is whether, if he was the initial aggressor, Zimmerman had no duty to retreat. But even there under SYGL he has to have exhausted every other avenue, which is a similar concept.
And, if Zimmerman wasn't the initial aggressor (and I think a court may be hard pressed to find that following Martin filled that role) then SYGL wouldn't be applicable anyway. It would be "regular" self defense.
Ultimately, based on what I've seen, I think this case will more likely hinge on "regular" self defense and on who attacked who first.
Granted I may have missed a point or two while trying to pretend I'm ignoring Pro. I mean, since I'm ignoring his posts, that mean I don't know what he's talking about. Nor could I possibly comment on it, since I'm pretending to ignore him. But, really, I'm reading every single post. And his facts scare me.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a white ( "HISPANIC! NO, WAIT! HE'S A JEW!!" - Rightwing Shills) adult that has a history of violence and psychotic medication.
FACT: Trayvon Martin was a black ( "NO! HE WAS A THUG! DIDN'T YOU SEE HIS TEETH?!" - Rightwing Shills) teenager, minding his own business, walking on a sidewalk in what's considered a "free country" for most (i.e. Whites).
FACT: Trayvon Martin made no contact with Martin Zimmerman.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman disobeyed the instructions of the police and stalked Trayvon Martin.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman carried a concealed pistol.
FACT: Trayvon Martin carried a bag of Skittles.
FACT: Martin shot Trayvon point-blank, murdering him on the spot.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a killer that deserves a life sentence for murdering an innocent child in cold blood.
None of that is in dispute. None of that is in error. Motherfucking FACT.
Originally Posted By: Rightwingers and Posters Who Pretend Not to Hate Prometheus
NOOOOOO!!!! FAIR JUSTICE!!! Uh...HE'S NOT WHITE!! Uh...some TVs were stolen somewhere!! Uh....THE UNARMED BLACK TEENAGER WAS A THREAT TO HIS LIFE!!! ZIMMERMAN IS INNOCENT AND YOU JUST HATE....uh....PEOPLE WHO ARE INNOCENT!! YOU JUST WANT TO SPAM!!! REPOST!! LALALALALALALALALA!!! CAN'T HEAR YOU!!
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a white ( "HISPANIC! NO, WAIT! HE'S A JEW!!" - Rightwing Shills) adult that has a history of violence and psychotic medication.
FACT: Trayvon Martin was a black ( "NO! HE WAS A THUG! DIDN'T YOU SEE HIS TEETH?!" - Rightwing Shills) teenager, minding his own business, walking on a sidewalk in what's considered a "free country" for most (i.e. Whites).
FACT: Trayvon Martin made no contact with Martin Zimmerman.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman disobeyed the instructions of the police and stalked Trayvon Martin.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman carried a concealed pistol.
FACT: Trayvon Martin carried a bag of Skittles.
FACT: Martin shot Trayvon point-blank, murdering him on the spot.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a killer that deserves a life sentence for murdering an innocent child in cold blood.
None of that is in dispute. None of that is in error. Motherfucking FACT.
Originally Posted By: Rightwingers and Posters Who Pretend Not to Hate Prometheus
NOOOOOO!!!! FAIR JUSTICE!!! Uh...HE'S NOT WHITE!! Uh...some TVs were stolen somewhere!! Uh....THE UNARMED BLACK TEENAGER WAS A THREAT TO HIS LIFE!!! ZIMMERMAN IS INNOCENT AND YOU JUST HATE....uh....PEOPLE WHO ARE INNOCENT!! YOU JUST WANT TO SPAM!!! REPOST!! LALALALALALALALALA!!! CAN'T HEAR YOU!!
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a white ( "HISPANIC! NO, WAIT! HE'S A JEW!!" - Rightwing Shills) adult that has a history of violence and psychotic medication.
FACT: Trayvon Martin was a black ( "NO! HE WAS A THUG! DIDN'T YOU SEE HIS TEETH?!" - Rightwing Shills) teenager, minding his own business, walking on a sidewalk in what's considered a "free country" for most (i.e. Whites).
FACT: Trayvon Martin made no contact with Martin Zimmerman.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman disobeyed the instructions of the police and stalked Trayvon Martin.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman carried a concealed pistol.
FACT: Trayvon Martin carried a bag of Skittles.
FACT: Martin shot Trayvon point-blank, murdering him on the spot.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a killer that deserves a life sentence for murdering an innocent child in cold blood.
None of that is in dispute. None of that is in error. Motherfucking FACT.
Originally Posted By: Rightwingers and Posters Who Pretend Not to Hate Prometheus
NOOOOOO!!!! FAIR JUSTICE!!! Uh...HE'S NOT WHITE!! Uh...some TVs were stolen somewhere!! Uh....THE UNARMED BLACK TEENAGER WAS A THREAT TO HIS LIFE!!! ZIMMERMAN IS INNOCENT AND YOU JUST HATE....uh....PEOPLE WHO ARE INNOCENT!! YOU JUST WANT TO SPAM!!! REPOST!! LALALALALALALALALA!!! CAN'T HEAR YOU!!
"Discussion"? You mean where all the "WE HATE BLACK/LIBERALS"-Rightwingers scrambling to justify this murder of an innocent child? You mean because Zimmerman had a Florida license it was okay for him to take it with the intention of using it? Again, no stun-setting. Guns can only be used for one thing. Thus, purely via logic, Zimmerman had that pistol to kill someone. No more, no less. Everything else are the hatemongers screaming to validate murder. Fact.
So Zimmerman specifically carried his weapon for the purpose of a gunning down a random black guy...
Interesting "logic".
Guns are deterrents. Their prevention of death is just as prevalent as their causing of it.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a white ( "HISPANIC! NO, WAIT! HE'S A JEW!!" - Rightwing Shills) adult that has a history of violence and psychotic medication.
FACT: Trayvon Martin was a black ( "NO! HE WAS A THUG! DIDN'T YOU SEE HIS TEETH?!" - Rightwing Shills) teenager, minding his own business, walking on a sidewalk in what's considered a "free country" for most (i.e. Whites).
FACT: Trayvon Martin made no contact with Martin Zimmerman.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman disobeyed the instructions of the police and stalked Trayvon Martin.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman carried a concealed pistol.
FACT: Trayvon Martin carried a bag of Skittles.
FACT: Martin shot Trayvon point-blank, murdering him on the spot.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a killer that deserves a life sentence for murdering an innocent child in cold blood.
None of that is in dispute. None of that is in error. Motherfucking FACT.
Originally Posted By: Rightwingers and Posters Who Pretend Not to Hate Prometheus
NOOOOOO!!!! FAIR JUSTICE!!! Uh...HE'S NOT WHITE!! Uh...some TVs were stolen somewhere!! Uh....THE UNARMED BLACK TEENAGER WAS A THREAT TO HIS LIFE!!! ZIMMERMAN IS INNOCENT AND YOU JUST HATE....uh....PEOPLE WHO ARE INNOCENT!! YOU JUST WANT TO SPAM!!! REPOST!! LALALALALALALALALA!!! CAN'T HEAR YOU!!
Manslaughters not a stretch. First degree murder would be. I've stated before that manslaughter would have been a better charge. 2nd degree doesn't imply intent of murder but it does imply intent to cause bodily injury, which I don't think was zimmerman was originally motivated to do. However when shit got real a chest shot at close range is indicative of intent to kill.
When forensics say the powder burns indicate Zimmerman was between 1 and 18 inches from Martin when he fired the fatal shot, combined with the broken nose and lacerations to Zimmerman's head, I'd say his motivation was not 1st- or 2nd-degree murder, or even manslaughter. It was clear self defense.
Zimmerman's motivation was to not end up a quadraplegic drinking his meals through a straw for the rest of his life.
Pending further evidence, I don't think Zimmerman provoked what happened. He'd already broken off pursuit and was returning to his truck, when unsolicitedly assaulted by Martin. Self-defense.
It's not about whether Zimmerman was on anti-depressants, or was arrested 6 years ago for resisting police arresting his friend, or about his wife filing a restraining order on him. It's not about whether Trayvon Martin was suspended three times from school, had tatoos and a thug demeanor, and in his autopsy had THC in his blood stream. Neither one of these guys were heroes or geniuses.
It's only about their actions from the time Zimmerman made his 911 call, and when the gunhole opened in Martin's chest. And pending further evidence, the forensics indicate self-defense in Zimmerman's actions.
If he hadn't intended to kill someone, he wouldn't have been armed. Guns don't have "stun" settings...
So any police officer, or anyone else who has a concealed weapon permit, clearly wants to kill someone, and if anythinng ever happens, is guilty of murder.
If he hadn't intended to kill someone, he wouldn't have been armed. Guns don't have "stun" settings...
So all cops carry guns because they're looking for people to kill?
Not equatable. Cops are liscensed to carry guns. A crazy murdering racist isn't. Glad I could explain that to you.
Zimmerman was in training to be a police officer. I've seen nothing to indicate he was charged with illegally possessing a handgun, so it's logical to assume he had a concealed weapon permit. The only possible gap is whether Zimmerman was authorized by his neighborhood watch to carry a gun while patrolling as a representative under their neighborhood watch. But as an individual on his own, he was authorized to carry a gun.
And as I've said repeatedly, it was dark and raining, and Zimmerman rattled off a list of reasons on his 911 call why Martin was suspicious, none of them racial. And only when asked if the suspect was white, black, or hispanic, did Zimmerman after a long pause go "um... I think he's black". Indicating race was not even a consideration for Zimmerman, and it was only when asked that he weighed it for a few seconds, and finally guessed at Martin's race.
"Discussion"? You mean where all the "WE HATE BLACK/LIBERALS"-Rightwingers scrambling to justify this murder of an innocent child? You mean because Zimmerman had a Florida license it was okay for him to take it with the intention of using it? Again, no stun-setting. Guns can only be used for one thing. Thus, purely via logic, Zimmerman had that pistol to kill someone. No more, no less. Everything else are the hatemongers screaming to validate murder. Fact.
So Zimmerman specifically carried his weapon for the purpose of a gunning down a random black guy...
Interesting "logic".
Guns are deterrents. Their prevention of death is just as prevalent as their causing of it.
If he hadn't intended to kill someone, he wouldn't have been armed. Guns don't have "stun" settings...
So any police officer, or anyone else who has a concealed weapon permit, clearly wants to kill someone, and if anythinng ever happens, is guilty of murder.
Exactly my point. As I explained.
OH. No wait. That's the straw man you're repeating from above. Sorry. I thought you had an actual point, instead of just grasping for air...
If he hadn't intended to kill someone, he wouldn't have been armed. Guns don't have "stun" settings...
So any police officer, or anyone else who has a concealed weapon permit, clearly wants to kill someone, and if anythinng ever happens, is guilty of murder.
Exactly my point. As I explained.
OH. No wait. That's the straw man you're repeating from above. Sorry. I thought you had an actual point, instead of just grasping for air...
SUNDAY! SUNDAY! SUNDAY! Strawman vs. Strawman in the ultimate grudge match. No matter how it turns out, they'll be no resolution.
If he hadn't intended to kill someone, he wouldn't have been armed. Guns don't have "stun" settings...
So all cops carry guns because they're looking for people to kill?
Not equatable. Cops are liscensed to carry guns. A crazy murdering racist isn't. Glad I could explain that to you.
Zimmerman was in training to be a police officer.
But, he's not the police. He's a crazy racist with a history of violence that went off his meds. There is never any reason to arm yourself with a pistol unless you plan to use it. Guns cannot be used to stun people. They can only be used to shoot and kill.
I know I'm picking on your about the racist stuff. Seriously? I believe Zimmerman would have never even noticed Trayvon if he had been white. He saw 'hoodie' and profiled him. He killed a kid. End of story.
But, he's not the police. He's a crazy racist with a history of violence that went off his meds. There is never any reason to arm yourself with a pistol unless you plan to use it. Guns cannot be used to stun people. They can only be used to shoot and kill.
I know I'm picking on [you] about the racist stuff. Seriously? I believe Zimmerman would have never even noticed Trayvon if he had been white. He saw 'hoodie' and profiled him. He killed a kid. End of story.
Originally Posted By: WB
And as I've said repeatedly, it was dark and raining, and Zimmerman rattled off a list of reasons on his 911 call why Martin was suspicious, none of them racial. And only when asked if the suspect was white, black, or hispanic, did Zimmerman after a long pause go "um... I think he's black". Indicating race was not even a consideration for Zimmerman, and it was only when asked that he weighed it for a few seconds, and finally guessed at Martin's race.
But, he's not the police. He's a crazy racist with a history of violence that went off his meds. There is never any reason to arm yourself with a pistol unless you plan to use it. Guns cannot be used to stun people. They can only be used to shoot and kill.
I know I'm picking on you about the racist stuff. Seriously? I believe Zimmerman would have never even noticed Trayvon if he had been white. He saw 'hoodie' and profiled him. He killed a kid. End of story.
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
I got nothing.
Stop trying to protect this guy, Dave. Chalk it up a loss and move on...
Several George Zimmerman witnesses change their accounts 5:51 p.m. EST, May 22, 2012|By Rene Stutzman and Jeff Weiner, Orlando Sentinel
Evidence released last week in the second-degree-murder case against George Zimmerman shows four key witnesses made major changes in what they say they saw and heard the night he fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford.
Three changed their stories in ways that may damage Zimmerman. A fourth abandoned her initial story, that she saw one person chasing another. Now, she says, she saw a single figure running.
They were reinterviewed in mid-March, after Sanford police handed the case off to State Attorney Norm Wolfinger. The case changed hands again when Gov. Rick Scott passed it on to a special prosecutor. Zimmerman was arrested April 11 on a charge of second-degree murder.
Here are the key ways in which their stories changed.
Witness 2
A young woman who lives in the Retreat at Twin Lakes community, where Trayvon was shot, was interviewed twice by Sanford police and once by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
She told authorities that she had taken out her contact lenses just before the incident. In her first recorded interview with Sanford police four days after the shooting, she told lead Investigator Chris Serino, "I saw two guys running. Couldn't tell you who was in front, who was behind."
She stepped away from her window, and when she looked again, she "saw a fistfight. Just fists. I don't know who was hitting who."
A week later, she added a detail when talking again to Serino: During the chase, the two figures had been 10 feet apart.
That all changed when she was reinterviewed March 20 by an FDLE agent. That time, she recalled catching a glimpse of just one running figure, she told FDLE Investigator John Batchelor, and she heard the person more than saw him.
"I couldn't tell you if it was a man, a woman, a kid, black or white. I couldn't tell you because it was dark and because I didn't have my contacts on or glasses. … I just know I saw a person out there."
Witness 12
A young mother who is also a neighbor in the town-home community never gave a recorded interview to Sanford police, according to prosecution records released last week. She first sat down for an audio-recorded interview with an FDLE agent March 20, more than three weeks after the shooting.
During that session, she said she saw two people on the ground immediately after the shooting and was not sure who was on top, Zimmerman or Trayvon.
"I don't know which one. … All I saw when they were on the ground was dark colors," she said.
Six days later, however, she was sure: It was Zimmerman on top, she told trial prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda during a 21/2-minute recorded session.
"I know after seeing the TV of what's happening, comparing their sizes, I think Zimmerman was definitely on top because of his size," she said.
Witness 6
This witness lived a few feet from where Trayvon and Zimmerman had their fight. On the night of the shooting, he told Serino he saw a black man on top of a lighter-skinned man "just throwing down blows on the guy, MMA-style," a reference to mixed martial arts.
He also said the one calling for help was "the one being beat up," a reference to Zimmerman.
But three weeks later, when he was interviewed by an FDLE agent, the man said he was no longer sure which one called for help.
"I truly can't tell who, after thinking about it, was yelling for help just because it was so dark out on that sidewalk," he said.
He also said he was no longer sure Trayvon was throwing punches. The teenager may have simply been keeping Zimmerman pinned to the ground, he said.
He did not equivocate, though, about who was on top.
"The black guy was on top," he said.
Witness 13
He is important because he talked with Zimmerman and watched the way he behaved immediately after the shooting, before police arrived.
After this neighbor heard gunfire, he went outside and spotted Zimmerman standing there with"blood on the back of his head," he told Sanford police the night of the shooting.
Zimmerman told him that Trayvon "was beating up on me, so I had to shoot him," the witness told Serino. The Neighborhood Watch captain then asked the witness to call his wife, Shellie Zimmerman, and tell her what happened.
In two subsequent interviews about a month later — one with an FDLE investigator and one with de la Rionda — the witness described Zimmerman's demeanor in greater detail, adding that he spoke as if the shooting were no big deal.
Zimmerman's tone, the witness said, was "not like 'I can't believe I just shot someone!' — it was more like, 'Just tell my wife I shot somebody …,' like it was nothing."
Those witnesses are likely to be interviewed at least once more before Zimmerman's trial. Defense attorneys in Florida routinely question witnesses under oath as they prepare for trial.
Does Zimmerman still have any testimony from eye witnesses that helps him out?
Manslaughters not a stretch. First degree murder would be. I've stated before that manslaughter would have been a better charge. 2nd degree doesn't imply intent of murder but it does imply intent to cause bodily injury, which I don't think was zimmerman was originally motivated to do. However when shit got real a chest shot at close range is indicative of intent to kill.
When forensics say the powder burns indicate Zimmerman was between 1 and 18 inches from Martin when he fired the fatal shot, combined with the broken nose and lacerations to Zimmerman's head, I'd say his motivation was not 1st- or 2nd-degree murder, or even manslaughter. It was clear self defense.
Zimmerman's motivation was to not end up a quadraplecic drinking his meals through a straw for the rest of his life.
Pending further evidence, I don't think Zimmerman provoked what happened. He'd already broken off pursuit and was returning to his truck, when unsolicitedly assaulted by Martin. Self-defense.
If you ignore the pesky evidence and just rely on what Zimmerman alleges, sure. I have to ask how it makes sense to you that Martin first runs away from Zimmerman and than apparently comes back and essentially announces to Zimmerman that he's going to beat him up? Sounds like a pretty darn convenient thing for a killer to say.
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
It's not about whether Zimmerman was on anti-depressants, or was arrested 6 years ago for resisting police arresting his friend, or about his wife filing a restraining order on him. It's not about whether Trayvon Martin was suspended three times from school, had tatoos and a thug demeanor, and had THC in his blood stream. Neither one of these guys were heroes or geniuses.
It's only about their actions from the time Zimmerman made his 911 call, and when the gunhole opened in Martin's chest. And pending further evidence, the forensics indicate self-defense in Zimmerman's actions.
If Zimmerman is taking drugs for various mental problems wouldn't that potentially come into play? Especially since these seem to have some serious potential side effects that affect mood.
Martin was only 17 when Zimmerman shot him dead. He could have been a hero or a genius. A bullet fired by a fool (at the very least) ended any chance to see what he grew up to be.
Martin was only 17 when Zimmerman shot him dead. He could have been a hero or a genius. A bullet fired by a fool (at the very least) ended any chance to see what he grew up to be.
He could also have been the next Hitler, or OB/GYN who molested his patients.
Actually Zimmerman had minor injuries that didn't require any hospitalization so the eye witness account now fits better. It also fits that Martin would be trying to keep Zimmerman pinned down in an effort not to get shot.
Actually Zimmerman had minor injuries that didn't require any hospitalization so the eye witness account now fits better. It also fits that Martin would be trying to keep Zimmerman pinned down in an effort not to get shot.
Yeah, I'm sure you get marks on your knuckles just from holding someone down...
Actually Zimmerman had minor injuries that didn't require any hospitalization so the eye witness account now fits better. It also fits that Martin would be trying to keep Zimmerman pinned down in an effort not to get shot.
Yeah, I'm sure you get marks on your knuckles just from holding someone down...
Wasn't it just it just one small abrasion on his ring finger? So instead of "knuckles" it's actually "knuckle".
More evil white racism. Oh wait! No whites involved. But it does give example to the underlying tensions between blacks and hispanics.
Just demonstrating that it could have been Martin's racism toward Zimmerman that caused him to initiate the attack, and his face pounding of Zimmerman only ended when he got surprised by a bullet to his chest.
Wasn't it just it just one small abrasion on his ring finger? So instead of "knuckles" it's actually "knuckle".
Haha! I don't know, you tell me since you're the one trying to school me on it.
I'm not even gonna bother Google diving for a source on that since it doesn't actually change the reality of the injuries--just like how stressing the word "minor" doesn't change the reality of two black eyes, a broken nose, multiple cuts to the back of the head, and blunt trauma to the cranium.
Seriously though, you're pretty funny: you actually think mincing words rearranges reality to your whim. It takes someone with a real knack for mental gymnastics to be so hyperbolic.
More evil white racism. Oh wait! No whites involved. But it does give example to the underlying tensions between blacks and hispanics.
Just demonstrating that it could have been Martin's racism toward Zimmerman that caused him to initiate the attack, and his face pounding of Zimmerman only ended when he got surprised by a bullet to his chest.
According to Pro Hispanics are white.
I think this had little or nothing to do with race or politics, but everything about George Zimmerman being an asshole.
but everything about George Zimmerman being an asshole.
Very possible. Zimmerman strikes me as overzealous. In which case, if he were a less severe individual, this never would have happened. Then again, the same could be said about Martin.
Personally, the reason I'm not so harsh towards Zimmerman's character is because there was cause to be cautious of burglaries. That wasn't a fabrication on his part. And if you live in the area and are also charged with keeping an eye on the goings on within it, then you're going to want the most ideal place to observe so that you can report. The problem is he overdid it--a common mistake for everyone really.
I'm well aware that his grave misjudgements are at the primary cause of this case, but I honestly don't think other people in his situation would have done much differently--including us.
Now I do not necessarily disagree with preemptive strikes against would be attackers, but if Zimmerman didn't actually make any movements to attack or threaten Martin beyond being on his tail, then Martin's reaction was completely unwarranted, and not even his death--or the hype surrounding it--will negate that.
Racism is nothing new, it's been going on since there were humans.
I believe the fearing what is different was/is built into the human mind for survival during it's infancy.
To survive as a caveperson, especially a pre-fire caveperson anything that wasn't you/your tribe/whatever was competition for resources.
It's something that is now in the human mind that isn't really needed anymore. Like your appendix.
Problem is in the history of Earth humankind has only been around a very short time.
It's something that we will probably evolve out of as time goes on.
Until then you have to use you intellect and reason to rise above those ancient human instincts.
Or, I could be completely full of shit.
I respectfully disagree.
Not just in the United States, but throughout the world, ethnocentrism and ethnonationalism is on the increase. Blacks and hispanics in the U.S. see the decline in whites as a percentage of the population (down from 89% in 1965, to about 72% now, and decreasing 1 or 2% every 4 years, mostly due to massive waves of immigration from the third world), as their numbers are rising, particularly hispanics. That is the reason Democrats are pushing race and class divisions, to try and rally support based in whipped-up fear, hatred and scapegoatism against a decreasing white population, and Democrats paint themselves as protectors of minorities against the phantom of decades-old past white racism, against Republicans they slanderously label as the white racist party.
So much for the utopian delusion of a truly equal post-racial multi-ethnic society. As is, I guess, human nature, when other black or hispanic groups become the majority, they will exert power and discrimination over the white minority. You see the beginnings of that in Obama's rhetoric that he --in kneejerk impulse-- blames police when a black college professor behaves badly, and in particular in Eric Holder's justice department, that absolutely refuses to prosecute minority-on-white discrimination and threats of violence toward whites. Only minorities are given protection under the law. This is the shape of things to come under the new Democrat power structure.
You see the same rising ethnocentrism/ethnonationalism around the world. In Ecuador, in Venezuela, in Brazil, all the non-european candidates fan the flames of hatred and envy of ethnic hispanics toward european hispanics, a mentality of taking back the country from European oppressors, fanning the flames of race and class envy. Identical to the Obama political model.
And throughout the world, ethnocentric separatism is on the rise: French Quebec that constantly weighs breaking off from english Canada. Ironically, it is only large waves of new immigrants to Quebec that has prevented French Quebec from having the votes to secede.
Likewise, Scotland is contemplating breaking off from the United Kingdom. And there is definitely racial hatred among Scots for the historic conflict and wrongs of the English toward them.
Likewise Belgium is on the edge of splitting into two states, one French-speaking, one Flemish-speaking. Likewise the more friendly separation of Czech Republic from Slovakia. A greater sense of ethnocentric nationalism made this necessary. Likewise the sometimes violent push for separation of Barcelona from Spain. The separation of Kosovo from Serbia.
And these are all places that are peaceful and prosperous, many where they have a large degree of shared culture along with their prosperity.
Then you get into the more violent ethnonationalism in places like Bosnia, Croatia, and the Caucuses.
And in mixed christian/muslim African countries like Sudan and Kenya.
I could go on with multiple examples of separation and conflict in the Middle East and Asia as well.
But my point is, it is only white western democracies who delude themselves that race no longer matters. And they are for their benevolent attitude even more hated and threatened by violence from minorities. Who are being whipped into a frenzy of anti-white hatred by minority leaders and academics, and by white liberals who will eventually find themselves swept aside when minorities no longer need them.
Up till around 10 years ago, I bought the benign delusion that we were moving toward a truly equal and harmonious multi-racial society. I envisioned a future being somewhat like Star Trek.
But I've seen minority rhetoric become increasingly resentful, and instead of continued pushes for true equality, minority rhetoric has increasingly called for reparations, payback, seizure, redistribution, and threats of violence. the lack of punishment for these threats inevitably will embolden actual violence that goes beyond mere rhetoric.
but everything about George Zimmerman being an asshole.
Very possible. Zimmerman strikes me as overzealous. In which case, if he were a less severe individual, this never would have happened. Then again, the same could be said about Martin.
Personally, the reason I'm not so harsh towards Zimmerman's character is because there was cause to be cautious of burglaries. That wasn't a fabrication on his part. And if you live in the area and are also charged with keeping an eye on the goings on within it, then you're going to want the most ideal place to observe so that you can report. The problem is he overdid it--a common mistake for everyone really.
I'm well aware that his grave misjudgements are at the primary cause of this case, but I honestly don't think other people in his situation would have done much differently--including us.
Now I do not necessarily disagree with preemptive strikes against would be attackers, but if Zimmerman didn't actually make any movements to attack or threaten Martin beyond being on his tail, then Martin's reaction was completely unwarranted, and not even his death--or the hype surrounding it--will negate that.
Exactly.
It's not that Zimmerman was this stellar guy who is free of any blame with a flawless personal history. Zimmerman clearly is not. But there were burglaries in Zimmerman's neighborhood, and he was on neighborhood watch for his community, with several years experience. And he did plan to be a police officer, and had that experience as well.
And ultimately, Zimmerman only watched Martin from a distance. Trayvon Martin could have just turned his back and walked or run away. It was Martin who initiated the first punch, and wasn't satisfied with one punch, but continued relentlessly beating on Zimmerman. And Zimmerman was fortunate enough to have a gun to pull out and defend himself.
There is no case for prosecuting Zimmerman. Beyond a reasonable doubt, it was self-defense.
Wasn't it just it just one small abrasion on his ring finger? So instead of "knuckles" it's actually "knuckle".
Haha! I don't know, you tell me since you're the one trying to school me on it.
I'm not even gonna bother Google diving for a source on that since it doesn't actually change the reality of the injuries--just like how stressing the word "minor" doesn't change the reality of two black eyes, a broken nose, multiple cuts to the back of the head, and blunt trauma to the cranium.
Seriously though, you're pretty funny: you actually think mincing words rearranges reality to your whim. It takes someone with a real knack for mental gymnastics to be so hyperbolic.
I don't think it's mincing words to point out Martin only had one small abrasion on his ring finger. That's what is in the report and as you can see it does play into what that witness now says otherwise Martin probably would have more damage to the knuckles.
Martin probably would have more damage to the knuckles.
And yet again, MEM tries to pass himself off as a specialist in hand-to-hand combat.
Okay, okay...so because you think the injuries on Martin's fists weren't extensive enough, the black eyes and broken nose could not have been caused by Martin--and the cuts on the back of Zimmerman's head were self-inflicted...interesting.
I guess no concession is too great, no bullshit excuse too retarded as long as its in the pursuit of destroying laws that protect self-defense.
And ultimately, Zimmerman only watched Martin from a distance. Trayvon Martin could have just turned his back and walked or run away. It was Martin who initiated the first punch, and wasn't satisfied with one punch, but continued relentlessly beating on Zimmerman. And Zimmerman was fortunate enough to have a gun to pull out and defend himself.
There is no case for prosecuting Zimmerman. Beyond a reasonable doubt, it was self-defense.
Zimmerman did more than watch Martin from a distance. He followed Martin and it sounded like he chased him. Who started the fight is also unestablished. Zimmerman says Martin did. Martin's friend indicates it was Zimmerman who started it. According to her Martin's last words were him yelling "Get off, get off". This was after he told her a weird creepy guy was following him. Considering what she's saying I'm not sure how you can say the prosecution has no case.
And ultimately, Zimmerman only watched Martin from a distance. Trayvon Martin could have just turned his back and walked or run away. It was Martin who initiated the first punch, and wasn't satisfied with one punch, but continued relentlessly beating on Zimmerman. And Zimmerman was fortunate enough to have a gun to pull out and defend himself.
There is no case for prosecuting Zimmerman. Beyond a reasonable doubt, it was self-defense.
Zimmerman did more than watch Martin from a distance. He followed Martin and it sounded like he chased him. Who started the fight is also unestablished. Zimmerman says Martin did. Martin's friend indicates it was Zimmerman who started it. According to her Martin's last words were him yelling "Get off, get off". This was after he told her a weird creepy guy was following him. Considering what she's saying I'm not sure how you can say the prosecution has no case.
I'll grant that Zimmerman followed Martin. That's not new information. You can hear in the 911 call where he jumps out of his truck (you can hear the bell of the door and the door open and close, and his rapid footsteps) and says to the 911 operator "He ran..." At which point the 911 operator asks "are you following him?" And Zimmerman answers yes. And the operator say "Okay sir, we don't need you to do that", and I can't recall Zimmerman's response, but I think he just acknowledged "OK". He followed long enough to give Martin's location to 911, and then by his account broke off pursuit and walked back toward his truck, when he was blindsided by Martin.
I'll concede that we don't know for certain who started the fight. But if Zimmerman threw the first punch, why was there no evidence of bruising or injuries from punches on Martin?
I would fully expect Martin's girlfriend on the phone to give an account favorable to Martin, and incriminating toward Zimmerman. All she heard over the phone is Martin's version, and she heard sounds that she could interpret to have come from either person.
The prosecution has no case because the evidence is at best circumstantial, nothing clear. And the injuries to Zimmerman, with no apparent bodily injuries to Martin, indicate that all the fighting was done by Martin, and all the defending by Zimmerman. To prosecute Zimmerman, the D.A. has to prove that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense, and shot without provocation. Zimmerman's injuries show justifiable cause for him firing in self-defense.
And there are forensic evidence and witnesses who either back Zimmerman's account, or at worst don't contradict it.
As I've said prior, I say all this based on what has been made public so far, and we all know there's more evidence that could tilt it either way. But as I've said, at this point I lean toward believing Zimmerman. If forensics had shown Martin was shot at a distance of 10 or 12 feet, I'd say it hurt Zimmerman's credibility. If Zimmerman had no broken nose or other injuries, I'd say the fornsic evidence likewise incriminated Zimmerman as not acting in self-defense. But they didn't.
Martin yelling "get off" would imply that Zimmerman grabbed hold of him. In which case, a punch to Zimmermans face would be considered self defense also, right? Zimmerman never has to throw a punch to be considered threatening.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a white ( "HISPANIC! NO, WAIT! HE'S A JEW!!" - Rightwing Shills) adult that has a history of violence and psychotic medication.
FACT: Trayvon Martin was a black ( "NO! HE WAS A THUG! DIDN'T YOU SEE HIS TEETH?!" - Rightwing Shills) teenager, minding his own business, walking on a sidewalk in what's considered a "free country" for most (i.e. Whites).
FACT: Trayvon Martin made no contact with Martin Zimmerman.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman disobeyed the instructions of the police and stalked Trayvon Martin.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman carried a concealed pistol.
FACT: Trayvon Martin carried a bag of Skittles.
FACT: Martin shot Trayvon point-blank, murdering him on the spot.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a killer that deserves a life sentence for murdering an innocent child in cold blood.
None of that is in dispute. None of that is in error. Motherfucking FACT.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a white ( "HISPANIC! NO, WAIT! HE'S A JEW!!" - Rightwing Shills) adult that has a history of violence and psychotic medication.
FACT: Trayvon Martin was a black ( "NO! HE WAS A THUG! DIDN'T YOU SEE HIS TEETH?!" - Rightwing Shills) teenager, minding his own business, walking on a sidewalk in what's considered a "free country" for most (i.e. Whites).
FACT: Trayvon Martin made no contact with Martin Zimmerman.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman disobeyed the instructions of the police and stalked Trayvon Martin.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman carried a concealed pistol.
FACT: Trayvon Martin carried a bag of Skittles.
FACT: Martin shot Trayvon point-blank, murdering him on the spot.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a killer that deserves a life sentence for murdering an innocent child in cold blood.
None of that is in dispute. None of that is in error. Motherfucking FACT.
Incontrovertible. Undeniable. Facts. Watch the hatemongers SPIN into trying to prove hate is okay and murdering an unarmed child is 'MERICAN!
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a white ( "HISPANIC! NO, WAIT! HE'S A JEW!!" - Rightwing Shills) adult that has a history of violence and psychotic medication.
FACT: Trayvon Martin was a black ( "NO! HE WAS A THUG! DIDN'T YOU SEE HIS TEETH?!" - Rightwing Shills) teenager, minding his own business, walking on a sidewalk in what's considered a "free country" for most (i.e. Whites).
FACT: Trayvon Martin made no contact with Martin Zimmerman.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman disobeyed the instructions of the police and stalked Trayvon Martin.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman carried a concealed pistol.
FACT: Trayvon Martin carried a bag of Skittles.
FACT: Martin shot Trayvon point-blank, murdering him on the spot.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a killer that deserves a life sentence for murdering an innocent child in cold blood.
None of that is in dispute. None of that is in error. Motherfucking FACT.
Incontrovertible. Undeniable. Facts. Watch the hatemongers SPIN into trying to prove hate is okay and murdering an unarmed child is 'MERICAN!
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a white ( "HISPANIC! NO, WAIT! HE'S A JEW!!" - Rightwing Shills) adult that has a history of violence and psychotic medication.
FACT: Trayvon Martin was a black ( "NO! HE WAS A THUG! DIDN'T YOU SEE HIS TEETH?!" - Rightwing Shills) teenager, minding his own business, walking on a sidewalk in what's considered a "free country" for most (i.e. Whites).
FACT: Trayvon Martin made no contact with Martin Zimmerman.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman disobeyed the instructions of the police and stalked Trayvon Martin.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman carried a concealed pistol.
FACT: Trayvon Martin carried a bag of Skittles.
FACT: Martin shot Trayvon point-blank, murdering him on the spot.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a killer that deserves a life sentence for murdering an innocent child in cold blood.
None of that is in dispute. None of that is in error. Motherfucking FACT.
Incontrovertible. Undeniable. Facts. Watch the hatemongers SPIN into trying to prove hate is okay and murdering an unarmed child is 'MERICAN!
I didn't talk about anything Zimmerman said. I just referred you to his injuries and the eyewitnesses--who don't know the guy--that saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.
Quote:
Martin yelling "get off" would imply that Zimmerman grabbed hold of him. In which case, a punch to Zimmermans face would be considered self defense also, right? Zimmerman never has to throw a punch to be considered threatening.
Which would undermine MEM's assumption that just because the witness recanted seeing flying fists, that they weren't actually thrown.
Four witnesses in the Trayvon Martin case have changed their stories, some "in ways that may damage" George Zimmerman, the Orlando Sentinel reports.
According to records released last week in the second-degree murder case, the witnesses—all of them neighbors—were interviewed multiple times by police and special prosecutors about what they saw on Feb. 26, the night Zimmerman fatally shot Martin in Sanford, Fla.
Four days after the shooting, one woman told police she "saw two guys running" and then "a fistfight. Just fists. I don't know who was hitting who." But on March 20, she told investigators she saw just one person.
"I couldn't tell you if it was a man, a woman, a kid, black or white," the woman, "Witness 2," said. "I couldn't tell you because it was dark and because I didn't have my contacts on or glasses. I just know I saw a person out there."
Another witness, who was initially interviewed on March 20, said she saw two people on the ground immediately after the shooting but was not sure who was on top.
But in another interview with investigators six days later, the paper reported, she was sure: It was Zimmerman on top.
"I know after seeing the TV of what's happening, comparing their sizes, I think Zimmerman was definitely on top because of his size," the woman, "Witness 12," said.
A third witness, "Witness 6," told police on the night of the shooting that he saw a black man on top of a lighter-skinned man "just throwing down blows on the guy, MMA-style." He said the lighter-skinned man was calling for help. Interviewed later by investigators, he said he was not sure who was calling for help, and was not sure any punches were thrown.
A fourth witness also interviewed on the night of the shooting said he heard the shooting, ran outside, and saw Zimmerman standing with "blood on the back of his head." According to "Witness 13," Zimmerman told him that Martin "was beating up on me, so I had to shoot him."
A month later, the same witness described Zimmerman's demeanor: "[It was] not like 'I can't believe I just shot someone!' It was more like, 'Just tell my wife I shot somebody,' like it was nothing."
There was an earlier story where somebody's mom said the police that questioned her son seemed to be trying to get him to say it was Zimmerman on the bottom and crying for help. Maybe the initial questioning is the problem in some of this?
I'm not going to assume that at this point. However, if a witness was worried about, for example, Spike Lee tweeting their home address and/or the Black Panthers paying them a visit, becoming unsure of what they saw is not outside the realm of possibility.
Yeah. Witness intimidation is certainly there, whether or not witnesses are changing their stories because of it.
More direct tampering through personal threats and intimidation seems less likely, and like Zimmerman's alleged murderous intent, can't be said to have occured unless backed with evidence.
But intimidation by the Black Panthers and others could be considered a subtle form of witness tampering.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a white ( "HISPANIC! NO, WAIT! HE'S A JEW!!" - Rightwing Shills) adult that has a history of violence and psychotic medication.
FACT: Trayvon Martin was a black ( "NO! HE WAS A THUG! DIDN'T YOU SEE HIS TEETH?!" - Rightwing Shills) teenager, minding his own business, walking on a sidewalk in what's considered a "free country" for most (i.e. Whites).
FACT: Trayvon Martin made no contact with Martin Zimmerman.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman disobeyed the instructions of the police and stalked Trayvon Martin.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman carried a concealed pistol.
FACT: Trayvon Martin carried a bag of Skittles.
FACT: Martin shot Trayvon point-blank, murdering him on the spot.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a killer that deserves a life sentence for murdering an innocent child in cold blood.
None of that is in dispute. None of that is in error. Motherfucking FACT.
I love it. When the facts start to prove them wrong, the Rightwing Superfriends immediately go into conspiracy mode.
"What? The witnesses DON'T state that Zimmerman was innocent?? WITNESS TAMPERING!! BLACK PANTHERS (but we're not racist, swear)!! LIBERAL MEDIA!! "
You're such a two-year-old, Pro. All your infantile mocking and gloating doesn't change this: the case against Zimmerman has no substance. It will ultimately not warrant prosecution.
Witnesses who say they saw one thing, and now say another, only destroy their own credibility. That still doesn't change the forensic evidence of self-defense, the powder burns less than 18 inches away when fired, the broken nose and other injuries to Zimmerman, the 911 calls that more accurately indicate what witnesses saw when it happened.
It's not "racist" or "paranoid" or whatever. When witnesses change their testimony, they lose credibility. They look like liars, or at best unsure of what they saw.
As I've repeatedly said, I favored conviction of Zimmerman when I started this topic. But with new evidence revealed since the story first broke, I now see Zimmerman's actions as self-defense. Despite the politicizing and racializing of a simple shooting, and attempts at intimidation by groups who want to convict Zimmerman, no matter what the evidence.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a white ( "HISPANIC! NO, WAIT! HE'S A JEW!!" - Rightwing Shills) adult that has a history of violence and psychotic medication.
FACT: Trayvon Martin was a black ( "NO! HE WAS A THUG! DIDN'T YOU SEE HIS TEETH?!" - Rightwing Shills) teenager, minding his own business, walking on a sidewalk in what's considered a "free country" for most (i.e. Whites).
FACT: Trayvon Martin made no contact with Martin Zimmerman.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman disobeyed the instructions of the police and stalked Trayvon Martin.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman carried a concealed pistol.
FACT: Trayvon Martin carried a bag of Skittles.
FACT: Martin shot Trayvon point-blank, murdering him on the spot.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a killer that deserves a life sentence for murdering an innocent child in cold blood.
None of that is in dispute. None of that is in error. Motherfucking FACT.
I love it. When the facts start to prove them wrong, the Rightwing Superfriends immediately go into conspiracy mode.
"What? The witnesses DON'T state that Zimmerman was innocent?? WITNESS TAMPERING!! BLACK PANTHERS (but we're not racist, swear)!! LIBERAL MEDIA!! "
You don't go from describing an assault as "MMA style" to "uh, well, I'm not sure."
Usually, recants occur over night, closer to the initial explanation. Four witnesses changing their stories so severely after two months is unusual, and this case is extremely high pressure.
There was an earlier story where somebody's mom said the police that questioned her son seemed to be trying to get him to say it was Zimmerman on the bottom and crying for help. Maybe the initial questioning is the problem in some of this?
We already know he was on the bottom based on his injuries. Nice try though.
....minding his own business, walking on a sidewalk in what's considered a "free country" for most (i.e. Whites).
Uh...
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
And more directly tied to the Trayvon Martin case:
Clearly racially motivated black violence toward two whites. Liberal reporters no less, and still the media doesn't want to report it.
Add to that: U.S. justice department statistics show incidents of blacks attacking whites occur at a ratio 50-to-1 of the reverse. FACT.
Likewise, 90 percent of murders of black Americans are black-on-black crime.
Perfectly consistent with that demographically, there were 49 other murders of blacks in the weekend Trayvon Martin was shot. All were black-on-black. Including a 6 year old girl. Yet the media chose not to even mention these other murders.
There was an earlier story where somebody's mom said the police that questioned her son seemed to be trying to get him to say it was Zimmerman on the bottom and crying for help. Maybe the initial questioning is the problem in some of this?
We already know he was on the bottom based on his injuries. Nice try though.
Now, let's keep an open mind. If there's one thing MEM's an expert on, it's having men on the bottom.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a white ( "HISPANIC! NO, WAIT! HE'S A JEW!!" - Rightwing Shills) adult that has a history of violence and psychotic medication.
FACT: Trayvon Martin was a black ( "NO! HE WAS A THUG! DIDN'T YOU SEE HIS TEETH?!" - Rightwing Shills) teenager, minding his own business, walking on a sidewalk in what's considered a "free country" for most (i.e. Whites).
FACT: Trayvon Martin made no contact with Martin Zimmerman.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman disobeyed the instructions of the police and stalked Trayvon Martin.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman carried a concealed pistol.
FACT: Trayvon Martin carried a bag of Skittles.
FACT: Martin shot Trayvon point-blank, murdering him on the spot.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a killer that deserves a life sentence for murdering an innocent child in cold blood.
None of that is in dispute. None of that is in error. Motherfucking FACT.
I love it. When the facts start to prove them wrong, the Rightwing Superfriends immediately go into conspiracy mode.
"What? The witnesses DON'T state that Zimmerman was innocent?? WITNESS TAMPERING!! BLACK PANTHERS (but we're not racist, swear)!! LIBERAL MEDIA!! "
You don't go from describing an assault as "MMA style" to "uh, well, I'm not sure."
Usually, recants occur over night, closer to the initial explanation. Four witnesses changing their stories so severely after two months is unusual, and this case is extremely high pressure.
Being able to see well enough to identify the particular style the assailant was flinging punches makes implausible that the witness couldn't discern at least by their clothes which was on top, and which on the bottom.
I love it. When the facts start to prove them wrong, the Rightwing Superfriends immediately go into conspiracy mode.
"What? The witnesses DON'T state that Zimmerman was innocent?? WITNESS TAMPERING!! BLACK PANTHERS (but we're not racist, swear)!! LIBERAL MEDIA!! "
You don't go from describing an assault as "MMA style" to "uh, well, I'm not sure."
Usually, recants occur over night, closer to the initial explanation. Four witnesses changing their stories so severely after two months is unusual, and this case is extremely high pressure.
Being able to see well enough to identify the particular style the assailant was flinging punches makes implausible that the witness couldn't discern at least by their clothes which was on top, and which on the bottom.
Since the witness is saying that the mixed martial arts thing could have been Martin just trying to keep Zimmerman pinned down and that it was too dark to see who was yelling for help, just how well did he see things?
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a white ( "HISPANIC! NO, WAIT! HE'S A JEW!!" - Rightwing Shills) adult that has a history of violence and psychotic medication.
FACT: Trayvon Martin was a black ( "NO! HE WAS A THUG! DIDN'T YOU SEE HIS TEETH?!" - Rightwing Shills) teenager, minding his own business, walking on a sidewalk in what's considered a "free country" for most (i.e. Whites).
FACT: Trayvon Martin made no contact with Martin Zimmerman.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman disobeyed the instructions of the police and stalked Trayvon Martin.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman carried a concealed pistol.
FACT: Trayvon Martin carried a bag of Skittles.
FACT: Martin shot Trayvon point-blank, murdering him on the spot.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a killer that deserves a life sentence for murdering an innocent child in cold blood.
None of that is in dispute. None of that is in error. Motherfucking FACT.
Originally Posted By: Rightwing Superfriends: Wondy, Pariah, G-Shill, & G-Burg
We got nothing!! But, the white guy is INNOCENT!!!
You're such a two-year-old, Pro. All your infantile mocking and gloating doesn't change this: the case against Zimmerman has no substance. It will ultimately not warrant prosecution.
Witnesses who say they saw one thing, and now say another, only destroy their own credibility. That still doesn't change the forensic evidence of self-defense, the powder burns less than 18 inches away when fired, the broken nose and other injuries to Zimmerman, the 911 calls that more accurately indicate what witnesses saw when it happened.
It's not "racist" or "paranoid" or whatever. When witnesses change their testimony, they lose credibility. They look like liars, or at best unsure of what they saw.
As I've repeatedly said, I favored conviction of Zimmerman when I started this topic. But with new evidence revealed since the story first broke, I now see Zimmerman's actions as self-defense. Despite the politicizing and racializing of a simple shooting, and attempts at intimidation by groups who want to convict Zimmerman, no matter what the evidence.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a white ( "HISPANIC! NO, WAIT! HE'S A JEW!!" - Rightwing Shills) adult that has a history of violence and psychotic medication.
FACT: Trayvon Martin was a black ( "NO! HE WAS A THUG! DIDN'T YOU SEE HIS TEETH?!" - Rightwing Shills) teenager, minding his own business, walking on a sidewalk in what's considered a "free country" for most (i.e. Whites).
FACT: Trayvon Martin made no contact with Martin Zimmerman.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman disobeyed the instructions of the police and stalked Trayvon Martin.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman carried a concealed pistol.
FACT: Trayvon Martin carried a bag of Skittles.
FACT: Martin shot Trayvon point-blank, murdering him on the spot.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a killer that deserves a life sentence for murdering an innocent child in cold blood.
None of that is in dispute. None of that is in error. Motherfucking FACT.
Originally Posted By: Rightwing Superfriends: Wondy, Pariah, G-Shill, & G-Burg
We got nothing!! But, the white guy is INNOCENT!!!
I don't know whether Pro truly --irrationally-- believes anyone who disagrees with him is a racist. Or whether he's just being a jerk (as usual) trying to solicit an angry reaction.
But he's so clearly got his facts wrong either way, and just flinging poo from his baby-chair, so there's no point in bothering to correct his idiocy.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a white ( "HISPANIC! NO, WAIT! HE'S A JEW!!" - Rightwing Shills) adult that has a history of violence and psychotic medication.
FACT: Trayvon Martin was a black ( "NO! HE WAS A THUG! DIDN'T YOU SEE HIS TEETH?!" - Rightwing Shills) teenager, minding his own business, walking on a sidewalk in what's considered a "free country" for most (i.e. Whites).
FACT: Trayvon Martin made no contact with Martin Zimmerman.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman disobeyed the instructions of the police and stalked Trayvon Martin.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman carried a concealed pistol.
FACT: Trayvon Martin carried a bag of Skittles.
FACT: Martin shot Trayvon point-blank, murdering him on the spot.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a killer that deserves a life sentence for murdering an innocent child in cold blood.
None of that is in dispute. None of that is in error. Motherfucking FACT.
Originally Posted By: Rightwing Superfriends: Wondy, Pariah, G-Shill, & G-Burg
We got nothing!! But, the white guy is INNOCENT!!!
You racists (David). Always making me laugh. With pity.
I have an opinion but I'm very well aware that the evidence isn't all in. Honestly though it's hard for me to understand the pro-zimmerman crowd that is so sure that he can't be guilty that the case needs to be thrown out....
Granted I may have missed a point or two while trying to wade through pages of "You are ignoring this user" when Promod is (presumably) spamming us with drivel about how we're all "republinazi Faux news indoctrinated corporate shills" (or whatever he vomited up from this week's Occutard twitter feed). However, from what I've seen, the posters here haven't said Zimmerman "can't be guilty." They've simply expressed doubt in the narrative that Zimmerman was some sort of white (he isn't) racist (he probably isn't, given he's part black) who shot an unarmed kid without provocation.
Furthermore, many of those doubts, as the facts roll in, seem to be grounded in at least some of the evidence.
I will concede that a few posters have expressed the opinion that a murder charge should--or will be--thrown out. And maybe (see above) I missed someone saying more. However, it also appears to me that those posters are doing so based upon the idea that lesser charges such as manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide were more appropriate. If I recall correctly, that was your opinion as well early on.
Quote:
Stand Your Ground despite what you said at the beginning has played a role in this and it looks like it's still in play.
As near as I can tell the aspects of the SYGL that are possibly applicable in this case are typical self-defense questions:
Who was the initial aggressor; If Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, had he exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force; Did Zimmerman reasonably believe it is necessary to use deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself;
The only one that is potentially different than a typical self defense case is whether, if he was the initial aggressor, Zimmerman had no duty to retreat. But even there under SYGL he has to have exhausted every other avenue, which is a similar concept.
And, if Zimmerman wasn't the initial aggressor (and I think a court may be hard pressed to find that following Martin filled that role) then SYGL wouldn't be applicable anyway. It would be "regular" self defense.
Ultimately, based on what I've seen, I think this case will more likely hinge on "regular" self defense and on who attacked who first.
They'd most likely have to try the alleged perjury separately from the homicide charges. So it may be to the prosecution's advantage not to charge Zimmerman until they know if he's doing time on the original charges.
If, for example, he gets life, there's no real reason to add a perjury charge. Also, once they charge him with anything new, speedy trial kicks in.
Witness claims Zimmerman molested her for at least a decade By David Edwards Monday, July 16, 2012 13:32
The Florida State Attorney’s Office on Monday released audio of shocking testimony from a woman who said that George Zimmerman molested when her she was about 6 years old until she was 16.
A motion filed by Zimmerman’s attorney, Mark O’Mara, attempted to seal the testimony of “witness 9″ on the grounds that it was incendiary and irrelevant to the shooting of Trayvon Martin, the 17-year-old who Zimmerman is accused of murdering. But that motion did not make it to the court in time and the testimony was released at 11 a.m. on Monday.
According to The Miami Herald, the woman had contacted prosecutors early in the investigation to say she knew that Zimmerman’s family did not like blacks.
She also testified that that the former neighborhood watch captain had sexually molested her at his parents house when he was 8 and she was 6.
“We would watch movies in front of the TV and we would all lay in front of the TV,” witness 9 explained. “And he would reach under the blanket and try to do things and I would try to push him off, but he was bigger and stronger and older. It was in front of everybody!”
“He would put his hands under my pants, under my underwear and basically just finger me,” the woman said, adding that at one point Zimmerman forced her “rub” his penis after he had an operation due to problems urinating.
Witness 9 said the “groping” continued for years, until she was 16 years old and Zimmerman allegedly put his erection on her and she ran from the house.
She also testified that that the former neighborhood watch captain had sexually molested her at his parents house when he was 8 and she was 6.
Weird story. It could be something. Or could be the 'victim' is crazy.
Typically, an eight year old and a six year old messing around was considered 'playing doctor,' not 'molestation.'
Either way, bringing it up (when it has basically zero probative value in a murder case [unless the DA is now arguing that Zimmerman killed Martin while trying to rape him]) seems a little like the DA is trying to poison the jury pool. That could backfire.
If it was going on for 10 years that goes beyond playing doctor. It does appear to have little to do with Zimmerman killing Martin though.
It seems we're in agreement on relevance.
As for your other point, generally 'molestation' implies an adult sexually abusing a child, not what allegedly happened here. they're both about the same age. The fact she would call that 'molestation,' implies a bias on her part and/or perhaps coaching by the prosecutors to make it sound like Zimmerman is a grown man who preys on little kids.
Originally Posted By: Ultimate Jaburg53
The prosecution is probably trying to prove that Zimmerman has had a long history of deviant, anti-social behavior.
...which is typically a prejudicial tactic that can backfire, on appeal or otherwise.
While prior bad behavior can , in some situations, be used to impeach a witness, including the defendant, there still has to be a showing that relevance outweighs prejudice. Furthermore, such evidence typically doesn't come into play until trial and af the time a defendant testifies. For the DA to release it now smacks of an intent to unfairly taint the jury pool.
Doesn't Florida law require the prosecution to release pretty much everything? I don't agree with you about what constitutes molestation. If this went on for 10 years and she was afraid of him that goes way beyond what you call playing doctor and into molestation.
The people trying to politicize and capitalize on this are having a problem deciding on which narrative to push.
Originally, it was that self defense laws should be repealed because they can allow kids wearing hoodies to get shot.
When it was pointed out that the law wasn't necessarily applicable in this case and that Martin may have been an agressor they fell back on the "white racism kills innocent black kids" claim, figuring they could use that to guilt everyone into voting for Obama.
When it was discovered that Zimmerman is part black and part Hispanic, that became a problem, and many of them started trying to push the "no self defense" cause again.
And so on...
Conspicuously absent from either narrative is the idea of actually waiting until all the facts are in or trying to preserve the rights of the accused.
Hell, there are some people out there (for example, "9/11 was a government conspiracy" types) who were more willing to give Osama the benefit of the doubt than want to give Zimmerman.
Not to mention the media who want ratings to attract advertisers therefor will rush to a story without waiting for any actual information.
Originally Posted By: Ultimate Jaburg53
For a long time now a lot of media outlets are using terms like "people are saying", "such and such are reporting", and "sources say".
They do it to indemnify themselves against actual facts coming to light.
Also quoted for stating the core truth.
The media is definitely interested in lynching Zimmerman prematurely over the airwaves, irregardless of the facts, if it brings them higher ratings. I'd only add that many of these reporters, far beyond simple careless reporting that gets the facts wrong for ratings, are politically comitted to Zimmerman being found guilty. The news desks covering the Zimmerman story are branch wings of the Obama campaign. Playing that race card to the hilt. And (according to Sanford police, FL state police and --a week ago-- FBI investigators) a race card falsely played, based on absolutely no evidence.
I give O'Reilly and Limbaugh credit for more integrity that. They both were number one in ratings when W.Bush and the Republicans were in charge, over much of the last 10 years. And Limbaugh has been the king of talk radio for over 20 years.
But it's certainly true that Fox News' ratings rose after Obama was elected. But I think that is more due to the complete loss of objectivity in the mainstream media, that makes people crave a source that doesn't just run pro-Obama Newspeak. I have primarily watched PBS News Hour since 1981, and almost never watched Fox, until August 2008, when the selective omission of the mainstream media drove me to Fox, to see what was not being reported.
If the other networks were still doing their job instead of running cover for Obama, then O'Reilly and Limbaugh, and Fox, would not see the rise in ratings that they have.
FOX gets better ratings because conservatives who like biased coverage that favors the GOP all watch it while everyone else is divided amongst the rest of the news channels.
Sorry for derailing again, so what do people who don't have any party leanings and just want to be updated with the news do? Which network do they turn to?
Or is the proper way just to watch both sides, as well as use the Innarnet and just choose the one that he feels to be true after seeing every single interpretation? Seems like an awful lot of work just for the truth.
Or is the proper way just to watch both sides, as well as use the Innarnet and just choose the one that he feels to be true after seeing every single interpretation? Seems like an awful lot of work just for the truth.
That is exactly what I do. I look at all the sources I can.
It helps most of them just post the same Reuters articles.
Or is the proper way just to watch both sides, as well as use the Innarnet and just choose the one that he feels to be true after seeing every single interpretation? Seems like an awful lot of work just for the truth.
That is exactly what I do. I look at all the sources I can.
It helps most of them just post the same Reuters articles.
Oh, also alot of asshats like to pretend their blog is a newssource.
I just assume they are always completely full of shit.
FOX gets better ratings because conservatives who like biased coverage that favors the GOP all watch it while everyone else is divided amongst the rest of the news channels.
Wow, what an open-minded perspective.
Someone whose primary news source is MediaMatters would see it that way. But O'Reilly often touts the statistics of independents, and even Democrats, who watch Fox because they get news and perspective that is selectively omitted from the other networks.
As I just said, I myself --a jhardline conservative-- preferred other sources, until their partisan fellating of Obama's cock drove me to Fox, because it was the only network not selectively omitting the facts, regarding Obama's connections to Frank Marshall Davis, William Ayers, Tony Rezko, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Saul Alinsky, ACORN, and other far-left ties that the other media not only selectively omit, but they also trash as extremist, racist, etc., any source that reports the true facts regarding Obama and his record.
Despite that much of what the mainstream media omits and scorns as paranoid is clearly said in taped audio and video of Obama and his subordinates, And in Obama's own autobiography Dreams From My Father the title alone of which makes clear he shares the far-left ideology of his father.
Sorry for derailing again, so what do people who don't have any party leanings and just want to be updated with the news do? Which network do they turn to?
Or is the proper way just to watch both sides, as well as use the Innarnet and just choose the one that he feels to be true after seeing every single interpretation? Seems like an awful lot of work just for the truth.
Unfortunately, that's the only way to do it.
I gave an example a few months ago, where I watched PBS News Hour, and they reported that Obama's 2nd stimulus bill (ironically and deceitfully focus-group renamed the "Jobs Bill") was not getting through, accompanied by a lot of partisan whining from the Democrats about it, and Republican Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell stood up on the Senate floor and said "Hey, if the president wants a vote on the bill, let's put it up for a vote." PBS reported that Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid tabled the bill saying there were other priorities. That's how PBS reported it. I flipped over to Fox News, and they showed the same two Mconnell and Reid quotes, but further explained that even though the Democrats had a Senate majority, that not even a majority of Democrat senators would support Obama's jobs bill, and that's why Reid and the Democrats tabled the bill.
In fairness, there is partisan coverage on both sides. I recall one Republican representative was on Hannity in 2010 right before the election, and despite pumping up how he was going to win, Hannity the next night didn't even report the election results when the guy he interviewd lost.
It gave some interesting details that weren't disclosed before, such as that when Marin had broken Zimmerman's nose and was bashing his head on the sidewalk, Zimmerman said he managed to slide out from under Martin and onto the grass, so that Martin couldn't continue to bash his head on the sidewalk, and at that point Martin started jamming his hand into Zimmerman's face and broken nose, painfully trying to suffocate him. and when unable to suffocate Zimmerman, started reaching for his gun, at which point Zimmerman said he realized he was "out of time" and had no choice but to use the gun and save himself.
I felt the interview reflected well on Zimmerman, although a few parts sounded contrived and stupid, such as the "God's plan" part, where he said he didn't question his own actions that night, and accepted what happened as God's plan. But overall, he came across as very sincere and thoughtful, and I felt it helped his case.
The next night (Thursday), Hannity had Trayvon Martin's parents and their two lawyers on the show to respond to the interview. Predictably, they didn't like the "God's will" remark about their son being murdered. Their lawyer at one point was arguing that Trayvon Martin had "every right" to kill Zimmerman, because Zimmerman was following Martin. Weakly failing to address the fact that Zimmerman was at a distance, and that Trayvon Martin initiated the attack, and threw all the punches.
Looks like nothing new to me. Zimmerman's side of the story was already disclosed before this. I remember at the time thinking that it was funny how Zimmerman was able to do all this stuff at the same time he claims he was overpowered by Martin.
He makes great points about how the New Black Panther Party, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Spike Lee have all racialized this for their own self-serving purposes, in complete disregard and falsification of the true facts. Attempting (as the Occupy Wall Street strikes attempted) to spark a visceral revolution along the same lines as the Arab Spring, and often with participants even coming out and saying it in exactly those words.
Calling Zimmerman "Cracker" on T-shirts, and trying to turn a random non-racially-motivated shooting into a violent racially polarizing revolution.
Especially vile are the actions of Spike Lee, who tweeted what he believed to be the address of Zimmerman's parents, and thus endangered a couple who had absolutely nothing to do with Zimmerman or the case. Then whipped up hype for a "million-hoodie march", and didn't even show up to stand with the people he prodded to do so.
My first time watching Beck since he left Fox News over a year ago. As when I last saw him, he makes a lot of good points that no one else is making.
If only white people had their own version of Jesse Jackson that they could listen too and get upset over what the blacks are doing.
There is the KKK, and the folks ranting about "Zionist Occupied Government"(ZOG), and similar groups.
The difference is, the overwhelming majority of white America doesn't buy into the irrational hatred, that so easily sways black Americans under the banner of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and other race-hustlers, including (no exaggeration) the overwhelming majority of black politicians. The comments of any of them can be pulled up from youtube to support my point.
Black and hispanic America, I have seen and become aware of over the last 10 years, have incredible race-centric hostility toward the white community. And it seems that any concessions or attempts to be conciliatory just increase the venom aimed at white America.
If only white people had their own version of Jesse Jackson that they could listen too and get upset over what the blacks are doing.
They do. But the press doesn't treat them as statesmen. You don't see, for instance, the head of the KKK getting his own talk show, the way Sharpton does.
So if folks like Jesse Jackson kept his rhetoric toned down like the conservative talking heads you guys would be fine with that? (I'll wait for a reply but you know what's coming)
So if folks like Jesse Jackson kept his rhetoric toned down like the conservative talking heads you guys would be fine with that? (I'll wait for a reply but you know what's coming)
Which conservative talking head referred to NYC as "Hymietown"? Which one led marchers through the streets chanting the black equivalent of "blood sucking jews," "cracker" and "white inteloper"? Which one tweeted the (wrong) home address of a black criminal defendant in the hopes people would show up to his house and threaten his family?
And, more to the point, which conservative talking head did anything similar to that and was allowed to keep his or her prestigious reputation as a network TV talk show host and/or unofficial US ambassador?
Yes, there are intemperate comments made by both sides and there are racists on both sides.
But only one side gets to do these things and keep their "credibility" with the mainstream press and the political class.
Furthermore, even if you take an inappropriate comment like Limbaugh jokingly calling that professional protester a "slut," and try to compare, there is no comparison. Limbaugh's comment didn't threaten to start a riot or get someone killed. The mess in FL has the real possibility of turning into either.
Limbaugh once told a black caller to take the bone out of her nose. This is the same guy RNC chairmen have to apologise to if they call him an entertainer. BTW making up a pretend title for a student who was respectfully just asking for insurrance to cover contraception and downplaying Rush's 3 day attack on her as just a "joke" further displays evidence of your double standard.
Romney supporter Ted Nugent said he would either be dead or in jail if Obama won another term. Before that...
Quote:
On the August 24 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity aired video footage of musician and right-wing activist Ted Nugent at an August 21 concert calling Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) a "piece of shit" and referring to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) as a "worthless bitch." In the video clip, Nugent holds up what appear to be two assault rifles and says he told Obama "to suck on my machine gun" and says he told Clinton "you might want to ride one of these into the sunset." After airing the clip, Hannity referred to Nugent as a "friend and frequent guest on the program,"
Because according to them, that quote is approximately 40 years old, Limbaugh said it while playing an "insult comic" radio DJ, "Jeff Christie," and he's felt guilty about it since.
In any event, you have=as is so often the case-failed to address my question:
Originally Posted By: the G-man
And, more to the point, which conservative talking head did anything similar to that and was allowed to keep his or her prestigious reputation as a network TV talk show host and/or unofficial US ambassador? [O]nly one side gets to do these things and keep their "credibility" with the mainstream press and the political class.
Did I miss ABC rehiring Limbaugh on Monday Night Football? Because the last time I looked he was still fired.
And when was the last time someone-of either party-let Ted Nugent negotiate on behalf of the US?
So there was a time limit for when a white guy says something? How long for the blacks can you go back and use a quote? (it seems like you can go back at least a couple of decades)
As I pointed out Rush is somebody the RNC chair chooses to bow down to. Your party doesn't just support him but also treats him like a leader. Before you point at your finger at the other side, maybe you should stop making excuses for yours?
You're going to try and keep ignoring my point, aren't you? Let me say it again:
Quote:
And, more to the point, which conservative talking head did anything similar to that and was allowed to keep his or her prestigious reputation as a network TV talk show host and/or unofficial US ambassador? [O]nly one side gets to do these things and keep their "credibility" with the mainstream press and the political class.
I fully concede that members of each side tolerate behavior from their own that they might criticize in the other side. But when does the "objective media" do it?
Show me where the supposedly objective mainstream media, not members of the conservative's own party, allows a conservative to get away with the same type of thing they excuse when Jackson and Sharpton does it.
Cite an example of a sitting administration, not somebody running for office, letting a conservative talk show host act as a de facto head of state, the way that Jackson does.
If Rush Limbaugh has his own network TV approved talk show, tell me when its on. If G. Gordon Liddy negotiates on behalf of the US government at the invite of the president, link to a news story about it.
Give me one example of the above fact-patterns. If, as you claim, it happens all the time, it shouldn't be that hard.
That's what Duke University psychologist Dan Ariely said this morning on NPR's Morning Edition about a survey he recently conducted:
Dan Ariely: We recently did a study on this. We just asked a few hundred people online to what extent they think that their candidates could be dishonest if it promoted their political agenda.
Ari Shapiro: He found that people were totally comfortable with politicians of their own party being dishonest to get elected.
Dan Ariely: By the way, for Democrats this was a slightly more endorsed position than for Republicans. The Democrats were more willing for their politicians to lie to a higher degree than Republicans.
The NPR segment goes on to talk about the pervasiveness of confirmation bias. Ariely's survey backs recent research that argues that human brains are not designed to find out facts, but to persuade people to do what we want them to do. As the New York Times reported:
Now some researchers are suggesting that reason evolved for a completely different purpose: to win arguments. Rationality, by this yardstick (and irrationality too, but we’ll get to that) is nothing more or less than a servant of the hard-wired compulsion to triumph in the debating arena. According to this view, bias, lack of logic and other supposed flaws that pollute the stream of reason are instead social adaptations that enable one group to persuade (and defeat) another. Certitude works, however sharply it may depart from the truth.
The idea, labeled the argumentative theory of reasoning, is the brainchild of French cognitive social scientists, and it has stirred excited discussion (and appalled dissent) among philosophers, political scientists, educators and psychologists, some of whom say it offers profound insight into the way people think and behave. The Journal of Behavioral and Brain Sciences devoted its April issue to debates over the theory, with participants challenging everything from the definition of reason to the origins of verbal communication.
“Reasoning doesn’t have this function of helping us to get better beliefs and make better decisions,” said Hugo Mercier, who is a co-author of the journal article, with Dan Sperber. “It was a purely social phenomenon. It evolved to help us convince others and to be careful when others try to convince us.” Truth and accuracy were beside the point.
I live in a "swing state" so we've been inundated with plain dishonest campaign ads by both Obama and Romney. So far no heavy objects have yet been hurled at the screen, but....
I have been fascinated with research on confirmation bias for a long time. For more background see my columns, Everyone Who Knows What They Are Talking About Agrees With Me, Climate Change and Confirmation Bias, and More Information Confirms What You Already Know.
By the way, for Democrats this was a slightly more endorsed position than for Republicans. The Democrats were more willing for their politicians to lie to a higher degree than Republicans.
You're going to try and keep ignoring my point, aren't you? Let me say it again:
Quote:
And, more to the point, which conservative talking head did anything similar to that and was allowed to keep his or her prestigious reputation as a network TV talk show host and/or unofficial US ambassador? [O]nly one side gets to do these things and keep their "credibility" with the mainstream press and the political class.
I fully concede that members of each side tolerate behavior from their own that they might criticize in the other side. But when does the "objective media" do it?
Show me where the supposedly objective mainstream media, not members of the conservative's own party, allows a conservative to get away with the same type of thing they excuse when Jackson and Sharpton does it.
Cite an example of a sitting administration, not somebody running for office, letting a conservative talk show host act as a de facto head of state, the way that Jackson does.
If Rush Limbaugh has his own network TV approved talk show, tell me when its on. If G. Gordon Liddy negotiates on behalf of the US government at the invite of the president, link to a news story about it.
Give me one example of the above fact-patterns. If, as you claim, it happens all the time, it shouldn't be that hard.
Fact patterns? Conservatives have tv shows on cable too so when you link to Al Sharpton being on MSNBC you'll have to explain how that's different than say Sean Hannity having a show on FOX's cable channel. Also your link to Jesse Jackson saying he's willing to negotiate something, did the government take him up on it?
Fact patterns? Conservatives have tv shows on cable too so when you link to Al Sharpton being on MSNBC you'll have to explain how that's different than say Sean Hannity having a show on FOX's cable channel.
Mr Jackson was named in October 1997 as a special US envoy to Africa, leading to further successes there and elsewhere, including the release of the three US soldiers in Yugoslavia.
Now that your dodge failed (again) want to take another stab (no pun intended) at answering the question?
Considering that the link you posted appeared to be a story about Jackson willing to volunteer for something it's not a dodge to ask if he actually did. I don't know why Ronald Reagen used Jesse Jackson for this type of stuff but maybe he's actually good at it? Considering the government also pipes in Rush's show to the troops I'm not sure you've got much of a difference. For the record I would be fine with sending Rush to Syria.
Mr Jackson was named in October 1997 as a special US envoy to Africa...
Originally Posted By: MEM
I don't know why Ronald Reagen used Jesse Jackson for this type of stuff...
Clinton was president in 1997, not Reagan.
Quote:
Considering the government also pipes in Rush's show to the troops...
Along with, for example, NPR and Ed Schultz, which (given the wide disparity of viewpoints there) would seem to indicate there's no endorsement of anyone's views, including Limbaugh's, intended.
So, still haven't found an example to prove me wrong I see.
Mr Jackson was named in October 1997 as a special US envoy to Africa...
Originally Posted By: MEM
I don't know why Ronald Reagen used Jesse Jackson for this type of stuff...
Clinton was president in 1997, not Reagan.
Quote:
Considering the government also pipes in Rush's show to the troops...
Along with, for example, NPR and Ed Schultz, which (given the wide disparity of viewpoints there) would seem to indicate there's no endorsement of anyone's views, including Limbaugh's, intended.
...
Actually I think Rush has had a long run before Ed Schulz was added. They also added Hannity at the same time as Schultz so it's still lopsided treatment. Jesse Jackson being a special envoy in 1997 might not have been a big deal back then. Perhaps if you could supply a timeline with comments he made prior that you feel should have made him off limits to anything governmental.
Originally Posted By: the G-man, 03/26/12, 07:21 PM
According to the author of the [stand your ground] law at issue, it isn't even applicable in this case:
if you carefully read the statute, which most of the critics have not, and read the legislative analysis, there's nothing in this statute that authorizes you to pursue or confront other people. If anything, this law would have protected the victim in this case; it could have...So - and in fact, the gentleman - Mr. Zimmerman's attorney, who when he first appeared on CNN the other night, he actually said he was not going to use this statute. The governor, Jeb Bush, has said it does not apply.
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man, 04/07/12, 02:14 PM
I am against the "stand your ground" law but that hardly means I'm against all self defense laws. This is just bad law and this case is probably going to be used as an example of why it's bad law as long as it's allowed to exist. Despite your claims that this law isn't in play here, it clearly is. The police said so and Zimmerman's lawyers are mounting a defense using it.
Actually G-man despite your title, Stand Your Ground does apply. At best from what I've read Zimmerman's lawyer is choosing not to no longer use that defense. It was only a couple of days ago he was on record that he was going to continue using that defense.
Intersting that he's choosing the defense that has a higher threshold. I thought lawyers were obligated to go with the best defense.
Actually G-man despite your title, Stand Your Ground does apply.
I've cited the bill's sponsors the governor who signed it and now Zimmerman's lawyer, all of whom agreed it doesn't apply.
For you to say it does apply is simply a deliberate falsehood on your part.
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Intersting that [Zimmerman's lawyer is] choosing the defense that has a higher threshold. I thought lawyers were obligated to go with the best defense.
It's not the best defense if, as noted previously, it doesn't apply.
Once again, you are forced to make shit up rather than admit you were wrong. You really need to drop that "fair play" tagline. That's a lie too at this point.
Wait your trying to say Zimmerman's lawyer up till just a couple of days ago wasn't using stand your ground as a defense previously or that the police initially didn't charge Zimmerman because of the stand your ground law?
Zimmerman's attorneys seek 'stand your ground' hearing, say evidence supports self-defense Zimmerman will seek 'stand your ground' hearing By CURT ANDERSON | Associated Press | Aug 9, 2012 11:33 AM CDT in
George Zimmerman will seek to have second-degree murder charges dismissed under Florida's "stand your ground" law in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, his attorney said Thursday.
The hearing, which likely won't take place for several months, will amount to a mini-trial involving much of the evidence collected by prosecutors as well as expert testimony from both sides. Although the posting did not say so, legal experts say it's likely that Zimmerman himself would testify since he is the sole survivor of the Feb. 26 confrontation.
"Most of the arguments, witnesses, experts and evidence that the defense would muster in a criminal trial will be presented in the `stand your ground' hearing," said the statement posted on Zimmerman's official defense website.
Under the law, Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester can dismiss the charges if Zimmerman conclusively shows he fatally shot Martin because he "reasonably believed" he might be killed or suffer "great bodily harm" at the hands of the unarmed teenager. The law also says a person has no duty to retreat in the face of such a threat.
Is this mini trial than cancelled? This is after all part of the stand your ground law and since that is no longer in play than this goes away correct?
Wait your trying to say Zimmerman's lawyer up till just a couple of days ago wasn't using stand your ground as a defense previously or that the police initially didn't charge Zimmerman because of the stand your ground law?
I'm saying that I said all along the law didn't apply.
Clearly, Zimmerman's attorney, an actual lawyer and not someone like yourself trying to push an agenda, saw that to be the case as well.
The fact that, as late as today, you tried to claim it applied--even after his attorneys said it didn't--shows duplicity on your part.
I'm saying the lawyer is making a choice not to use stand your ground. Also of note is if they're still having the stand your ground mini trial than it's still being used.
I'm saying the lawyer is making a choice not to use stand your ground. Also of note is if they're still having the stand your ground mini trial than it's still being used.
Isn't it reasonable for a lawyer to know there is a "stand your ground" law, weigh whether it is a relevant or best course of defense for his client, and discard it as not relevant enough to use in defending his client?
Stand your ground has at least one more benefit to it though. Under the law Zimmerman essentially gets an extra chance with a mini trial. If Zimmerman is still having the stand your ground mini trial, than I would think that law is still in play. I'm still seeing references to it...
Quote:
Zimmerman Appeals for New Judge in Martin Shooting
More Sharing ServicesShareShare on facebook_likeEmail7 Comments Print Text Size- / +By By MIKE SCHNEIDER ORLANDO, Fla. August 14, 2012 (AP)
The former neighborhood watch volunteer who shot and killed Florida teenager Trayvon Martin filed an appeal Tuesday saying the judge in the case is biased against him and should be replaced.
George Zimmerman said in an appeal filed with the 5th District Court of Appeal in Daytona Beach that he fears he would not be able to get a fair trial if Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester continues presiding over the case. Lester had previously rejected a motion filed by Zimmerman to disqualify himself.
Zimmerman cited Lester's July order granting him a second bond in which the judge said the former neighborhood watch leader "flouted" the system by misleading the court about how much money he had available during a previous bail hearing. At the earlier bail hearing in April, Zimmerman sat silently while his wife testified by telephone that they had limited resources for bail. In fact, the Zimmermans had raised at least $135,000 in donations to a website set up for his legal defense.
Zimmerman's original $150,000 bail was revoked after prosecutors presented the judge with jailhouse recordings of Zimmerman instructing his wife how to transfer the money raised from the website to different accounts. The second bail was set at $1 million.
"Generally a statement by the judge that he feels a party lied in a case indicates bias against the party," Zimmerman said in the motion.
The order's suggestion that Zimmerman could be charged with perjury or held in contempt also "creates a horrible chilling effect on the case," the motion said.
Zimmerman fears that Lester might not believe his account of what happened at a "stand your ground" hearing in which a judge determines if the defendant was justified in using self-defense, the motion said. If the judge agrees with the defendant, then criminal charges are dropped and civil lawsuits can't be pursued. If the judge disagrees with the defendant, then the case goes to a jury trial.
Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder in the February death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford. Zimmerman pleaded not guilty, saying he acted in self-defense.
All proceedings in Zimmerman's case will be delayed until that court decides whether to hear the appeal.
The lack of an arrest for 44 days led to protests around the nation.
There were other remarks made by the judge that I recall, that were much more personal and prejudicial than what's quoted above. If what's quoted above were the extent of it, I'd agree with the judge, (that Zimmerman not only had an undisclosed $135,000 in donations, but also tried to hide them by transferring the money!) and not consider him biased. But other remarks have been made by the judge.
It's certainly understandable that Zimmerman wants a judge who would rule in his favor. But moving for the judge to be removed --unsuccessfully-- could only piss the judge off and hurt Zimmerman's case.
This was old news. There were some pictures that showed Martin probably got a couple of licks in before Zimmerman killed him. This was prior to Zimmerman being caught flat out lying about donations he had recieved if that helps jog some memories.
I recall that, yeah. I also recall that you tried to write off Martin's assault by saying that Zimmerman's wounds were somehow minor and therefore not relevant. And now you're using a perjury excuse to try and distract from the more elaborate evidence that Zimmerman defended himself.
How do you know it was Martin's assualt? It could have just as easilly been him fighting for his life when some stranger pulled a gun on him in close quarters.
BTW it looks like Zimmerman isn't starving these days... Sorry for getting all TMZ but holy crap he put on a lot of weight fast!
How do you know it was Martin's assualt? It could have just as easilly been him fighting for his life when some stranger pulled a gun on him in close quarters.
We've been over this: if it was Zimmerman's intent to shoot him, he would have done so prior to Martin getting as close as he did.
Way to dispel the stereotype of gay men as being catty and weight obsessed, MEM. GLAAD must be so proud to have you.
-Meh- Me making a catty comment is about as representative of gays as you making one. This is the RKMBs y'know. The original home of the donkey fuckers.
How do you know it was Martin's assualt? It could have just as easilly been him fighting for his life when some stranger pulled a gun on him in close quarters.
We've been over this: if it was Zimmerman's intent to shoot him, he would have done so prior to Martin getting as close as he did.
I don't think Zimmerman's intent was to shoot him from a distance. I do think it's possible he got scared and pulled the gun out before Martin ever touched him and that could have left Martin the one being threatened. That's just my opinion obviously and it will be interesting watching the court case.
Either way, he would have pulled the trigger from a distance. If he was as wound up as you say he was, he wouldn't wait to fire the gun he was already holding after he had gotten thrown to the ground with fists wailing on him.
Your making the assumption that Zimmerman was acting rationally in the encounter. Considering what we know so far I don't think you can make that assumption.
Way to dispel the stereotype of gay men as being catty and weight obsessed, MEM. GLAAD must be so proud to have you.
-Meh- Me making a catty comment is about as representative of gays as you making one. This is the RKMBs y'know. The original home of the donkey fuckers.
The record will reflect that MEM just compared homosexuality to bestiality.
In any event, I'm less concerned about MEM's self-loathing and more about the timing of this photo's release indicating that the prosecutors withheld evidence
Your making the assumption that Zimmerman was acting rationally in the encounter. Considering what we know so far I don't think you can make that assumption.
My question still remains the same. Why the hell was there any confrontation in the first place?
George Zimmerman sues NBC over edited 911 call: George Zimmerman is suing NBC, claiming he was defamed when the network edited his 911 call to police after the shooting of Trayvon Martin to make it sound like he was racist.
Hey, let's edit the tape out of context to make George Zimmerman look like a racist who specifically targeted Trayvon Martin because he was black, instead of him only mentioning Martin's race when the police dispatch SPECIFICALLY ASKED if he was black.
Trayvon Martin's family has reached a settlement in a wrongful death suit they filed against the homeowners association of the sub-division where Martin was killed, the Orlando Sentinel reports.
Martin was shot to death just steps from his father's home on Feb. 26, 2012, by volunteer neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman. The case drew national attention last year as the Sanford Police Department vacillated on whether to file charges against Zimmerman, who indicated that he'd shot Martin only after being attacked. Zimmerman has been charged with second degree murder and is currently awaiting trial.
Portions of the settlement released Friday do not specify how much money Martin's family will receive, but according to the Sentinel, the figure is believed to be in excess of $1 million. The settlement does, however, state that Zimmerman is not part of the agreement. Lawyers for Martin's family have made it clear that they still plan to file a civil claim against Zimmerman at a later point.
One year after her son was arrested for the shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman's mother has penned an open letter to the public thanking the family's supporters and chastising the media for it's treatment of her son's case.
George Zimmerman's brother, Robert Zimmerman, tweeted the two-page letter in which his mother calls today the anniversary of "the day the justice system failed us as Americans."
April 11 2012 will be forever remembered by the Zimmerman family as the day the justice system failedus as Americans, and as a consequence an innocent man was arrested for a crime he did not commit,solely to placate the masses. George was charged with murder. By confusing the public andmanipulating perception in order to sway the “court of public opinion”, Benjamin Crump & co. finally achieved their “first base” victory.
Zimmerman goes on to blame the media for portraying her son as a villain and subjecting him to premature judgment:
The media, with the help of social media made it their prerogative to judge and sentence George beforeand after his arrest. Even members of Congress and self-proclaimed “activists” used and routinely use to this day the term “murderer” when they speak of him–in effect they are re-enforcing the onlyacceptable judicial outcome in their eyes. Many have seen to it that he be judged by the public, the verypublic they were keen on misinforming.
George Zimmerman's family has repeatedly spoken out in his defense. Last month, his brother Robert stirred controversy with racially charged tweets comparing Trayvon Martin to an alleged killer that he later apologized for.
Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder, and is awaiting a trial date set for June 10, 2013.
Over the last year, with the Zimmerman case, and with the push for Amnesty for illegals, these are the first two examples in my lifetime where the government has been intimidated into corrupting the law to appease a mass of angry people. People who have a contempt for the law, and are therefore unworthy of being U.S. citizens.
Over the last year, with the Zimmerman case, and with the push for Amnesty for illegals, these are the first two examples in my lifetime where the government has been intimidated into corrupting the law to appease a mass of angry people.
Apparently you are either younger than you claim or you've forgotten about the Rodney King trials.
Over the last year, with the Zimmerman case, and with the push for Amnesty for illegals, these are the first two examples in my lifetime where the government has been intimidated into corrupting the law to appease a mass of angry people.
Apparently you are either younger than you claim or you've forgotten about the Rodney King trials.
Well, I partly see your point, but not completely.
There were riots and intimidation in 1991, but they were not successful in bending the law.
The four cops who beat up Rodney King were exonerated by a jury. There were riots and pressure, but at that point it did not work. (Unlike the George Zimmerman arrest when there clearly was not evidence to convict, or even to arrest. It was a show-arrest, to appease blacks threatening to riot. And likewise, the amnesty for illegals, where political pressure on Republicans that they will lose all future elections, if they don't cave in and endorse amnesty.)
Rodney King won a 7-figure settlement from the city for his beating, because the police exceeded their authority in beating King.
And the "L.A. Four" who almost killed Reginald Denny were also not given a free pass for almost killing Denny.
So while there was intimidation by blacks to urge bypassing the law, I don't see where that attempted corruption was successful in any of the Rodney King-related events. Is there some detail I didn't mention?
Over the last year, with the Zimmerman case, and with the push for Amnesty for illegals, these are the first two examples in my lifetime where the government has been intimidated into corrupting the law to appease a mass of angry people.
Apparently you are either younger than you claim or you've forgotten about the Rodney King trials.
Well, I partly see your point, but not completely.
There were riots and intimidation in 1991, but they were not successful in bending the law.
The four cops who beat up Rodney King were exonerated by a jury...
I thought that legally, you could try someone in civil court, and that it was a common legal tactic, long before the Rodney King riots.
I heard the double-jeapordy argument raised at the time, but I didn't think it set a new precedent. But I'm not an expert in legal matters.
Trayvon Martin's parents getting a "seven figure settlement" from the condo association could also be seen as a legal exploitation of the race-card. That seems like a rather high settlement. Do you think it could have gone higher without a settlement? Or do you think they settled in a shakedown, to avoid more negative publicity?
It would somehow make sense if it was done to calculatedly set the grounds for a mistrial. But as stupid as that opening statement was, I find it hard to believe it was that calculated.
Dumb way to open but I would be surprised if that resulted in a mistrial.
I tend to agree. The laws of every state vary but in NY that would in no way result in a mistrial. At worst, if Zimmerman were convicted, he might have a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal.
That being said, based on the article, I am assuming that there must be some sort of mechanism in FL wherein a defendant could fire his or her lawyer for cause and get a mistrial if a court finds that ineffective assistance has already occurred.
Bad as that opening "joke" was, it has been somewhat eclipsed by the illiterate, unintelligible, profanity and racial-epithet-laden testimony of the prosecution's star witness.
Jeantel testified Wednesday that her friend's last words were "Get off! Get off!" before the phone went silent. But on Thursday, under cross-examination, she conceded that she hadn't mentioned that in her account of what happened to Martin's mother, Sybrina Fulton.
Not only is this inconsistent with her earlier deposition, but witnesses have testified that it was Trayvon Martin who was on top of Zimmerman pounding away, "mixed martial arts style". Logically, the person on the ground getting their face pounded would be screaming for help, not the one doing the relentless punching.
Quote:
She had left out some details to spare Fulton's feelings, and also because neither Fulton nor the Martin family attorney asked her directly about them, Jeantel said. At one point, West handed her a letter she had written with the help of a friend to Martin's mother explaining what happened. She looked at it but then said she couldn't read cursive handwriting.
Trayvon Martin as the media portrays him. Who apparently stopped growing at age 12, and by the photos the media selects, hasn't been photographed since.
Trayvon Martin, as he portrayed himself on Facebook and Twitter, at roughly the time he initiated the conflict and jumped on Zimmerman's face. Any photo or mention of what Trayvon Martin looked like or thuggishly said at age 17 is, apparently, "racist".
In the George Zimmerman trial on Wednesday, witness Jeannee Manalo testified that she heard “howling” sounds in her living room. Later, she said, she heard cries for help and a struggle, presumably between Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. She saw two people on the ground, she explained, but didn’t know who was on top. She then testified that she thought based on body size that Zimmerman was on top.
On cross-examination, however, she revealed that she based her estimate of body size on media photos which showed Martin as a 12-year-old. In reality, Martin was 17 years old, and in the incident report was listed as 6 feet tall and 160 lbs., as opposed to Zimmerman, who was listed at 5’9”. Manalo admitted that she didn’t know “who’s bigger now.”
I dissagree. Martin's phone friend for example has said all along that Martin was being followed by Zimmerman and Martin was trying to get away. Her testimony contradicts what Zimmerman alleges.
You think she was a credible witness? She only heard the incident. Story changes, disrespect to the court, wild assumptions as to what sounds she heard was.
You think she was a credible witness? She only heard the incident. Story changes, disrespect to the court, wild assumptions as to what sounds she heard was.
And beyond that, you needed subtitles to understand her.
If I was the defense lawyer, I would have asked her at some point if she was high on drugs or mentally challenged, and if not, what explanation she had for her odd behavior on the witness stand.
Oh yeah. SUCH a credible witness! Her defiance of authority, illiteracy (she couldn't even read the letter she allegedly wrote with a friend), unintelligible speech, and the overt racism she revealed Trayvon Martin to have voiced in the very minutes leading up to the shooting, speak volumes about Martin's attitude and character, that he would associate with such a girl. I wonder if Trayvon was hitting it with this cow.
I dissagree. Martin's phone friend for example has said all along that Martin was being followed by Zimmerman and Martin was trying to get away. Her testimony contradicts what Zimmerman alleges.
You found her credible simply because she reinforced your pre-existing viewpoint. You've thought Zimmerman guilty since day one.
And, to be fair, since you're not on the jury, that's your prerogative.
However, it points out the problems with extensive pretrial publicity and the potential to taint a jury pool. It also brings up issues of trying cases in the media and how that can inflame the public if the case doesn't go the way of the expectations created by the press.
You think she was a credible witness? She only heard the incident. Story changes, disrespect to the court, wild assumptions as to what sounds she heard was.
I'm going by how she answered questions and what she said she heard. When she was answering questions about Martin using certain words for example you could tell she didn't want to answer. She could have lied but instead didn't. In fact she could have added some things to make Zimmerman look more guilty. She didn't. Yeah she was hard to understand and looked ugly. She lied about her age and about being in the hospital and even revealed that Martin said some nasty things. I'm not naive to think that doesn't play for the defense but her story of what she heard sounds more real than the one Zimmerman has told so far.
Everyone else's testimony seems to be verifying Zimmerman's claims. These are all prosecution witnesses who are saying that Zimmerman was beat up, that the back of his jacket was wet and had grass on it, and even one guy straight up saying that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, swinging his arms.
Her story, to me, sounds like the defense of a friend. She said that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon, but when pressed had to admit that there was no way for her to know who attacked whom. After saying that Trayvon called Zimmerman a 'cracker' she denied that it was a racial epithet, which it clearly is. I'm not saying that she's evil or doing it on purpose. She just came off as unprepared to face the possibilities of what could have happened that night.
Bingo. This has been a terrible week for the prosecution, imo. Zimmerman will be acquitted and--most likely--wrongful death civil suits will be filed against him.
You think she was a credible witness? She only heard the incident. Story changes, disrespect to the court, wild assumptions as to what sounds she heard was.
I'm going by how she answered questions and what she said she heard. When she was answering questions about Martin using certain words for example you could tell she didn't want to answer. She could have lied but instead didn't. In fact she could have added some things to make Zimmerman look more guilty. She didn't. Yeah she was hard to understand and looked ugly. She lied about her age and about being in the hospital and even revealed that Martin said some nasty things. I'm not naive to think that doesn't play for the defense but her story of what she heard sounds more real than the one Zimmerman has told so far.
What does her looks have to do with it? I'd be saying the same thing if I never saw her. My problems were her assumptions, inconsistent story, and her demeanor.
Bingo. This has been a terrible week for the prosecution, imo. Zimmerman will be acquitted and--most likely--wrongful death civil suits will be filed against him.
You think she was a credible witness? She only heard the incident. Story changes, disrespect to the court, wild assumptions as to what sounds she heard was.
I'm going by how she answered questions and what she said she heard. When she was answering questions about Martin using certain words for example you could tell she didn't want to answer. She could have lied but instead didn't. In fact she could have added some things to make Zimmerman look more guilty. She didn't. Yeah she was hard to understand and looked ugly. She lied about her age and about being in the hospital and even revealed that Martin said some nasty things. I'm not naive to think that doesn't play for the defense but her story of what she heard sounds more real than the one Zimmerman has told so far.
What does her looks have to do with it? I'd be saying the same thing if I never saw her. My problems were her assumptions, inconsistent story, and her demeanor.
I don't completely believe Zimmerman either.
We'll never know what really happened.
What was inconsistent with her story? The defense spent hours and hours trying to get her to waiver on her story but she stuck to what she testified.
As for her looks, I put all that stuff into the same category as her demeanor. It's all in play but it doesn't mean she wasn't telling the truth.
Everyone else's testimony seems to be verifying Zimmerman's claims. These are all prosecution witnesses who are saying that Zimmerman was beat up, that the back of his jacket was wet and had grass on it, and even one guy straight up saying that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, swinging his arms.
...
Several witnesses testified Thursday that the guy wearing red (Zimmerman) was on top. The guy who placed Martin on top also said that person was delivering blows MMA style. Guess who was doing MMA for excercise 3 times a week? Zimmerman.
The guy was describing 'ground and pound', which he fudged the definition of to make it seems like Zimmerman wouldn't be helpless. Ground and pound is a person straddling the person on the ground and just raining down punches. If that's all it takes to be MMA style, half the bullies on the playground were training for MMA as well it seems.
But, my main point being, that you believe the testimony that paints Zimmerman as a cold blooded killer and Martin as a helpless victim. Any testimony that could cast doubt on Zimmerman's guilt or bring up the question of whether Martin could have started the conflict, you seem to want to ignore. When it's all said and done, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty of Murder 2. These testimonies could derail that.
What was inconsistent with her story? The defense spent hours and hours trying to get her to waiver on her story but she stuck to what she testified...
Her testimony contradicted prior written communications, including a letter she wrote earlier in the case.
She gave different accounts of what Martin first said to Zimmerman and vice-versa.
She has a demonstrated record of lying about other matters, including her age. Earlier this year, government lawyers had to acknowledge that she lied under oath when she claimed that the reason she did not attend Martin’s funeral was due to a hospitalization.
None of this means she is, per se, lying right now. However, it certainly allows the trier of fact to find her to be a non-credible witness. As doc pointed out, as a friend (or girlfriend) of Martin she has a motive (conscious or subconscious) to remember things inaccurately about the case.
... But, my main point being, that you believe the testimony that paints Zimmerman as a cold blooded killer and Martin as a helpless victim. Any testimony that could cast doubt on Zimmerman's guilt or bring up the question of whether Martin could have started the conflict, you seem to want to ignore. ...
Originally Posted By: thedoctor
Everyone else's testimony seems to be verifying Zimmerman's claims. ...
On Thursday there were several that gave testimony that placed Zimmerman on top in the fight. I'm aware of the conflicting testimony so I wouldn't make the statement like you did about "Everyone else's testimony". Perhaps you should do a bit more reading?
...When it's all said and done, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty of Murder 2. These testimonies could derail that.
I agree that they haven't done that yet. Not sure what they could have at this point to make that case. This really seems to be a case of manslaughter. I wonder if at this point they could let the jury potentially convict on the smaller charge?
M E M, I'll remind you of Trayvon Martin's autopsy report, that showed only bruising to his knuckles, no other injuries to indicate Zimmerman had landed any punches on him. Zimmerman, on the other hand, had a photographed and treated broken nose and two black eyes, as well as multiple lacerations to the head. Which person, logically from this evidence, was doing the beating, and which was the victim?
And the powder burns that showed the gun was between 1 and 18 inches from Trayvon when the bullett was fired. Indicating they were at very close quarters, when Zimmerman fired in self-defense to end the beating.
This really seems to be a case of manslaughter. I wonder if at this point they could let the jury potentially convict on the smaller charge?
It depends on the laws of each state. However, usually it is up to the defense whether to ask the court to allow the jury to convict on a lesser charge than what was originally indicted.
M E M, I'll remind you of Trayvon Martin's autopsy report, that showed only bruising to his knuckles, no other injuries to indicate Zimmerman had landed any punches on him. Zimmerman, on the other hand, had a photographed and treated broken nose and two black eyes, as well as multiple lacerations to the head. Which person, logically from this evidence, was doing the beating, and which was the victim?
And the powder burns that showed the gun was between 1 and 18 inches from Trayvon when the bullett was fired. Indicating they were at very close quarters, when Zimmerman fired in self-defense to end the beating.
This proves what exactly? We know Zimmerman recieved some minor injuries that didn't require going to a hospital. Martin wasn't the one with a history of attacking people like Zimmerman (assaulting an officer and alleged domestic abuse) As far as we know Martin was fighting for his life trying to keep Zimmerman from firing his gun at him. At best Zimmerman is a fool who killed a kid when he didn't have too.
As far as we know Martin was fighting for his life trying to keep Zimmerman from firing his gun at him.
Anything's possible I suppose. However, as a general rule, people don't fight to stop someone from shooting them. They flee. The people who are shot while fighting tend to be the ones who were the aggressor.
What was inconsistent with her story? The defense spent hours and hours trying to get her to waiver on her story but she stuck to what she testified...
Her testimony contradicted prior written communications, including a letter she wrote earlier in the case.
She gave different accounts of what Martin first said to Zimmerman and vice-versa.
She has a demonstrated record of lying about other matters, including her age. Earlier this year, government lawyers had to acknowledge that she lied under oath when she claimed that the reason she did not attend Martin’s funeral was due to a hospitalization.
None of this means she is, per se, lying right now. However, it certainly allows the trier of fact to find her to be a non-credible witness. As doc pointed out, as a friend (or girlfriend) of Martin she has a motive (conscious or subconscious) to remember things inaccurately about the case.
This is why I also feel she wasn't a credible witness.
As far as we know Martin was fighting for his life trying to keep Zimmerman from firing his gun at him.
Anything's possible I suppose. However, as a general rule, people don't fight to stop someone from shooting them. They flee. The people who are shot while fighting tend to be the ones who were the aggressor.
In this case we know Zimmerman via his call with the police had already in his mind established Martin as one those assholes that always gets away. He than pursues a fleeing Martin. This didn't start with Martin being the aggressor but Zimmerman.
As far as we know Martin was fighting for his life trying to keep Zimmerman from firing his gun at him.
Anything's possible I suppose. However, as a general rule, people don't fight to stop someone from shooting them. They flee. The people who are shot while fighting tend to be the ones who were the aggressor.
In this case we know Zimmerman via his call with the police had already in his mind established Martin as one those assholes that always gets away. He than pursues a fleeing Martin. This didn't start with Martin being the aggressor but Zimmerman.
Two points:
1. The phone call may or may not allow us to infer Zimmerman's intent. It doesn't mean we "know" it.
2. Zimmerman pursuing a fleeing Martin would not result in Martin having bruises on his knuckles. A fleeing person isn't a punching person.
In this case we know Zimmerman via his call with the police had already in his mind established Martin as one those assholes that always gets away.
According to Martin's friend Martin referred to Zimmerman as a “creepy ass cracker”.
I'm not for Martin or Zimmerman. I think they were probably both in the wrong in some ways. I think it's a shame Martin was killed, I just can't say Zimmerman wanted to shoot anybody.
So you changed your mind about Martin's friend's credability? Not to give you a hard time but you did just say she wasn't a credible witness. This goes back to my original thinking as to why she was credible though as she just didn't give a one sided story. Zimmerman however said exactly what he needed to.
You can do anything you want. I found her credible because her testimony obviously had things in it that the defense liked that she could have easilly left out. It just seems not credible to just pick those things out and leave the rest. Why?
As far as we know Martin was fighting for his life trying to keep Zimmerman from firing his gun at him.
Anything's possible I suppose. However, as a general rule, people don't fight to stop someone from shooting them. They flee. The people who are shot while fighting tend to be the ones who were the aggressor.
In this case we know Zimmerman via his call with the police had already in his mind established Martin as one those assholes that always gets away. He than pursues a fleeing Martin. This didn't start with Martin being the aggressor but Zimmerman.
Two points:
1. The phone call may or may not allow us to infer Zimmerman's intent. It doesn't mean we "know" it.
That's being overly technical. As you say anything is possible but the more likely case here is that Zimmerman was saying what he was thinking. It's agressive. Martin is one of those assholes that always gets away.
Quote:
2. Zimmerman pursuing a fleeing Martin would not result in Martin having bruises on his knuckles. A fleeing person isn't a punching person.
True but somebody can try to get away and still end up having to fight. Martin's friend said the last thing she heard was Martin saying "get off, get off"
You can do anything you want. I found her credible because her testimony obviously had things in it that the defense liked that she could have easilly left out...
She didn't realize that "cracker" was a racist term and, therefore, had no reason to believe it would help the defense. Furthermore, after it became evident that quoting Martin's use of the word made Martin, not Zimmerman, look bad, she decided she "couldn't recall" if Martin had used it after all.
I guess we should have him convicted of murder because he laughed at something funny that someone said. Something that the rest of the court room laughed at.
This should have been a manslaughter charge unless the prosecution has some really damning evidence yet to present.
I think that would have been a more accurate charge, which I believe is what I said quite some time ago. The question is if the judge will allow the jury to consider it. I don't see why she wouldn't or even why the prosecution wouldn't ask for it.
I guess we should have him convicted of murder because he laughed at something funny that someone said. Something that the rest of the court room laughed at.
That's a big jump. I just posted it in response to the laughter in manslaughter line.
This should have been a manslaughter charge unless the prosecution has some really damning evidence yet to present.
I think that would have been a more accurate charge, which I believe is what I said quite some time ago. The question is if the judge will allow the jury to consider it. I don't see why she wouldn't or even why the prosecution wouldn't ask for it.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
It depends on the laws of each state. However, usually it is up to the defense whether to ask the court to allow the jury to convict on a lesser charge than what was originally indicted.
You can do anything you want. I found her credible because her testimony obviously had things in it that the defense liked that she could have easilly left out. It just seems not credible to just pick those things out and leave the rest. Why?
Because she's not that bright. She tried to walk it back several times when she knew she gave favorable testimony to Zimmerman's defense. She unwittingly gave truthful testimony for the defense, despite her obvious attempts to lie in favor of Trayvon. The racial hatred of "creepy ass cracker" moved the pointing finger of racial motivation to Trayvon, and away from Zimmerman.
Yeah, your still reading to much into a picture Doc. Try calming down a little bit.
I'm not Doc. I'm just his alt. And there's nothing to read into.
You posted a picture of him smiling and then tried to claim that, by virtue of him smiling, he's been lying the whole time. Then you post a gif from RAW of him laughing.
Interesting analysis of the strength or lack there of of the prosecution's case here.
I tend to think that the author is a little too pro-defense, Which may be understandable given his role as a self defense expert. However the posts do point out that what was once portrayed as a clear-cut case of murder by the media is anything but.
His analysis seems so one sided. He talks about Zimmerman being clinicly obese as being a reason that he couldn't have caught up to Martin. He's gained a bunch of weight since but the night he killed Martin he didn't look overweight at all. So I question how accurate he is too. I do have to agree with him though about the prosecution looking like they over charged. I know you had brought it up way back but I thought the prosecution must have something to back it up. It's hard to see with what they have left how they can justify that charge.
Most of the news media reported what was known at the time btw. There isn't anything wrong that.
Most of the news media reported what was known at the time btw. There isn't anything wrong that.
There is if it inaccurate. For example, NBC editing the tape. Even if that isn't illegal it's still wrong and is part of why this case is where it is today.
Zimmerman still would be on trial for killing Martin and people were upset before somebody at NBC essentially pulled a Breitbart with the editing. We still had a kid who went to the store and ended up shot dead with the killer saying it wasn't his fault.
When the alternative explanation involves the absurd, the evidence at hand becomes empirical. After all, it is that evidence that illustrates the absurdity of the alternatives.
When the alternative explanation involves the absurd, the evidence at hand becomes empirical. After all, it is that evidence that illustrates the absurdity of the alternatives.
The alternative isn't absurd though. Zimmerman could have easilly started the fight and killed Martin.
Except there's absolutely nothing to suggest that aside from your own wishful supposition. If the situation had played out the way you hoped it did, all signs would point to Zimmerman shooting Martin right off the bat. Not give him time to get close and grapple with him.
Originally Posted By: Son of Mxy
MEM, why do you hate George Zimmerman so much?
That's what I want to know. With how much he's going out of his way to overzealously castigate the man, you'd think he raped his both his mother and his father--to say nothing of the dog.
When the alternative explanation involves the absurd, the evidence at hand becomes empirical. After all, it is that evidence that illustrates the absurdity of the alternatives.
The alternative isn't absurd though. Zimmerman could have easilly started the fight and killed Martin.
Way to turn "reasonable doubt" and "presumption on innocence" on their respective heads, there, MEM.
That being said, the prosecution still has the memories of the LA riots going for them. That, and the mainstream media's penchant for publishing personal information about people who don't buy into their racial narratives, could lead a jury into thinking they'd better "do the right thing" to keep their homes from being burned down.
Except there's absolutely nothing to suggest that aside from your own wishful supposition. ...
That simply isn't true. Martin's friend for example who we know was on the phone provided evidence. You may dissmiss her testimony as not credible but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist as well as other evidence that conflicts with Zimmerman's account. May I also remind you that Zimmerman, not Martin is the one who has assaulted a police officer and has an exwife that has accussed him of domestic abuse. We also know he's willing to lie to the court about much smaller things like a second passport and his financial status. Even willing to talk in code with his wife to try to decieve the court. He has no credability. That is a problem when you kill a kid who had no motive to attack you.
When the alternative explanation involves the absurd, the evidence at hand becomes empirical. After all, it is that evidence that illustrates the absurdity of the alternatives.
The alternative isn't absurd though. Zimmerman could have easilly started the fight and killed Martin.
Way to turn "reasonable doubt" and "presumption on innocence" on their respective heads, there, MEM.
Sorry, that doesn't require me to pretend that Zimmerman couldn't ahve easilly started the fight.
Quote:
That being said, the prosecution still has the memories of the LA riots going for them. That, and the mainstream media's penchant for publishing personal information about people who don't buy into their racial narratives, could lead a jury into thinking they'd better "do the right thing" to keep their homes from being burned down.
We're already doing this? Unless the jury can convict on manslaughter I doubt you really need to worry that the killer is going to be found guilty of anything.
That simply isn't true. Martin's friend for example who we know was on the phone provided evidence. You may dissmiss her testimony as not credible but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist
I could provide you testimony from someone who says the moon is made of cheese. By virtue of the fact that it exists, does it somehow come close to compromising physical evidence against it? The testimony had to corroborate the physical evidence that could be accounted for. It didn't.
And you still refuse to acknowledge the fact that, had he been the one to attack Martin, he would have pulled out his gun in the first place before letting things escalate to a grapple.
Quote:
That is a problem when you kill a kid who had no motive to attack you.
Your favorite witness offered a motive when she said he described how he was being spooked by a "creepy ass cracker". Or are you going to be selective with her testimony?
TMay I also remind you that Zimmerman, not Martin is the one who has assaulted a police officer and has an exwife that has accussed him of domestic abuse. We also know he's willing to lie to the court about much smaller things like a second passport and his financial status. Even willing to talk in code with his wife to try to decieve the court.
Treyvon had a history of marijuana use, school suspensions, and fighting.
That being said, the prosecution still has the memories of the LA riots going for them. That, and the mainstream media's penchant for publishing personal information about people who don't buy into their racial narratives, could lead a jury into thinking they'd better "do the right thing" to keep their homes from being burned down.
The racial issues in this case were created by the media, there is absolutely no evidence that Zimmerman judged Martin by race alone.
Yet the media will show no responsibility if this mess erupts into riots.
Many are judging this case by distorted facts broadcast by a sensationalist media.
TMay I also remind you that Zimmerman, not Martin is the one who has assaulted a police officer and has an exwife that has accussed him of domestic abuse. We also know he's willing to lie to the court about much smaller things like a second passport and his financial status. Even willing to talk in code with his wife to try to decieve the court.
Treyvon had a history of marijuana use, school suspensions, and fighting.
All of which the judge excluded. Virtually everything that aids the prosecution was admitted, while virtually everything the defense wanted admitted was excluded. Regardless, the prosecution is losing.
I think this is again a case of court appeasement of the black community, to avoid the slightest possible providing of any ruling to feed the accusation of anti-black racial bias of the court. At the expense of equal justice under the law. But regardless, the prosecution is still losing.
I don't think Zimmerman was completely in the right, but I don't think it's murder.
I'd agree that Zimmerman did act with some belligerence that arguably contributed to the situation. But ultimately, all evidence is that he was following at a distance, and all Trayvon Martin had to do was keep his distance until the police arrived.
It was Trayvon Martin who by the physical evidence initiated the attack and unrelentingly rained blows on Zimmerman. As I've said repeatedly, there were no bruises on Trayvon Martin except on his knuckes, indicating that Martin did all the hitting, and Zimmerman was completely on the receiving end, with a documented and photographed broken nose, two documented and photographed black eyes, and documented and photographed lacerations to the head.
And verified by the closest witness, Martin was identified as the one on top raining blows. Until the fatal shot was fired, it was completely a one-sided fight.
TMay I also remind you that Zimmerman, not Martin is the one who has assaulted a police officer and has an exwife that has accussed him of domestic abuse. We also know he's willing to lie to the court about much smaller things like a second passport and his financial status. Even willing to talk in code with his wife to try to decieve the court.
Treyvon had a history of marijuana use, school suspensions, and fighting.
All of which the judge excluded. Virtually everything that aids the prosecution was admitted, while virtually everything the defense wanted admitted was excluded. Regardless, the prosecution is losing.
I think this is again a case of court appeasement of the black community, to avoid the slightest possible providing of any ruling to feed the accusation of anti-black racial bias of the court. At the expense of equal justice under the law. But regardless, the prosecution is still losing.
This would have gone to court even if Martin had been white. Once they found out Martin was talking to a friend on the phone, Zimmerman lost the advantage of being the only one who could testify as to what happened.
Nope. The one officer (Serenio?) thought he should be arrested and charged with manslaughter I think early on. I could also be mistaken but once they found that Martin had a friend on the phone and what she had to say, Zimmerman was arrested. The stand your ground law was cited by police at the time as being the reason Zimmerman wasn't arrested earlier. Why would you think he was essentially cleared?
From various news accounts at the time, including your own post from approximately 18 months ago:
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
....Chris Serino, the Sanford, Florida investigator, filed an affidavit on the night of crime saying he was unconvinced of Zimmerman’s account. However, the state attorney’s office Norman Wolfinger told Serino not to press charges against Zimmerman after he said there wasn’t enough evidence against him.
Police later accepted Zimmerman’s claim that he shot the 17-year-old Martin out of self-defense.
If the DA says there is insufficient evidence to prosecute and the police say they believe the defendant's claim of self defense, that amounts to being essentially cleared.
The phrasing was that "they accepted" not believed. Considering that the lead investigator felt Zimmerman should have been charged, I also question the phrasing of that sentence.
Plus more evidence did come in after that via Martin's friend who had been on the phone with him. Reguardless of your feellings about her testimony that in itself would call into question Zimmerman's claim of self defense.
The phrasing was that "they accepted" not believed. Considering that the lead investigator felt Zimmerman should have been charged, I also question the phrasing of that sentence.
Look, I'm sorry but I'm calling "20 plus years of traffic court lawyer expertise--both as a prosecutor and as a defense attorney" on this one.
When a defendant isn't charged and the police "accept" his or her story that defendant is essentially cleared.
We can quibble about why law enforcement officials changed their mind. We can disagree on whether they would have given credence to Martin's uneducated, lying, friend but for media pressure.
However, what isn't really in dispute in any commonly accepted legal definition of the term, and given the presumption of innocence, is that the people who counted had originally cleared Zimmerman.
G-man the lead detective on it thought Zimmerman should have been charged. You seem to have a problem with higher ups when it works against Zimmerman but when it does than they're the ones "who count". You might have more legal knowledge but you're not using it impartially. "Essentially cleared" isn't even a legal term but something you just pulled out of your butt.
Btw Zimmerman's willingness to lie about his passport and talking in code to decieve the court also makes him a liar. If he's willing to lie about that than he really has little credability when it comes to how he killed Martin.
G-man the lead detective on it thought Zimmerman should have been charged. You seem to have a problem with higher ups when it works against Zimmerman but when it does than they're the ones "who count"....
As I've told many clients--private and governmental--over the years, there's what you think you know and what you can prove. In a court of law, only the latter counts. In this case, it initially appeared to the police and prosecutors that what could be proven did not warrant charging Zimmerman. Therefore, as a matter of law, he was not guilty and not even subject to arrest or prosecution. If there isn't probable cause to arrest or charge, then someone is essentially "cleared."
It doesn't matter if one officer thinks someone should be charged if the rest of the department and the prosecutor don't. That's just how the law, prosecutors and police agencies work. My awareness of the above does not make me biased just because that fact contradicts your opinion of Zimmerman's guilt or innocence.
It depends on the laws of each state. However, usually it is up to the defense whether to ask the court to allow the jury to convict on a lesser charge than what was originally indicted.
...and, apparently, Florida is one of the states where the prosecution has the right to make the request as well.
Looks like that's what they're doing now, changing the theory of the case at the last minute to make sure they get a conviction.
This prosecutor is a fucking dirt bag. Every half second is an over-dramatized logical fallacy and mocking repetition of Zimmerman's remarks. I hope beyond hope this jury can see how full of shit he is.
This prosecutor is a fucking dirt bag. Every half second is an over-dramatized logical fallacy and mocking repetition of Zimmerman's remarks. I hope beyond hope this jury can see how full of shit he is.
Do closing arguments usually go on this long?
"ARMPITS! ARMPITS!"
That just sounded ridiculous. The prosecutor shouted and made a lot of noise, but his alleged pattern of "lies" from Zimmerman were ultimately just so much speculation and tea-leaf reading. For example, that Zimmerman couldn't remember the name of the street where where Trayvon was, and walked out to look at the street sign to give to police. Later when Zimmerman spoke to police, he was able to list the name of the street. Well, there are streets a block from where I live that I used to know the name of, that I would (after years of not looking at the signs) have to read the sign to identify. And later when he was able to identify the street easily to police, it's because he'd just looked at the sign a few hours prior during his 911 call, and at that point it was fresh in his memory. Not at all illogical or difficult to explain.
Ultimately it comes down to this:
Zimmerman followed Trayvon from a distance to identify him. I've followed people, and been followed, and that is not a crime.
Physical evidence shows Zimmerman was assaulted, had a broken nose, two black eyes, and lacerations to the head, indicating he was assaulted.
Police on the scene immediately after reported Zimmerman's back was wet with grass stains from being on the ground.
A Witness identified Traayvon Martin as on top punching Zimmerman "ground and pound", "MMA" style.
Autopsy of Trayvon Martin showed no bruising signs that Zimmerman had punched him. Only on his knuckles, where he had punched Zimmerman. Evidencing that Trayvon did all the hitting, and Zimmerman did all the defending.
Put together, they overwhelmingly support Zimmerman's account of what happened. That he was taking a heavy beating from Trayvon Martin, and while he may not have been on the edge of death, if he had allowed Martin another 5 or 10 or 20 punches or slams into the sidewalk, he might have lost consciousness and ended up crippled or dead. And under those evidenced circumstances, he acted reasonably to defend himself.
The rest was just the prosecutor's smoke raised to cloud these facts.
It depends on the laws of each state. However, usually it is up to the defense whether to ask the court to allow the jury to convict on a lesser charge than what was originally indicted.
...and, apparently, Florida is one of the states where the prosecution has the right to make the request as well.
Looks like that's what they're doing now, changing the theory of the case at the last minute to make sure they get a conviction.
The prosecution trying to add "child abuse" to the charges today was incredible over-reach, and smacked of desperation. A wet-spaghetti approach to frantically make something --anything-- stick to the wall.
I think some Zimmerman backers forget that just because he said something happened it's not a fact. Zimmerman has been known to lie with less at stake than jail time.
Sorry but a G-man quote doesn't make it true. You don't know how the fight started. The guy armed and who had been training at a mixed martial arts gymn might have just started it. You have a witness that testified that the last words she heard Martin say was "get off, get off" after Martin asked Zimmerman why he was following him.
Sorry but a G-man quote doesn't make it true. You don't know how the fight started. The guy armed and who had been training at a mixed martial arts gymn might have just started it. You have a witness that testified that the last words she heard Martin say was "get off, get off" after Martin asked Zimmerman why he was following him.
I think every witness that testified for either the prosecution or the defense claim that it was their party shouting.
Also, Treyvon Martin was athletic, played sports, and had a history of fighting.
Also Treyvon only had injuries to his hands (other than the fatal gunshot wound.) while Zimmerman had multiple head injuries.
Yes, you could argue Martin made a lot of those injuries to Zimmerman from the bottom, but not the ones to the back of Zimmerman's head.
Sorry but a G-man quote doesn't make it true. You don't know how the fight started. The guy armed and who had been training at a mixed martial arts gymn might have just started it. You have a witness that testified that the last words she heard Martin say was "get off, get off" after Martin asked Zimmerman why he was following him.
I do know that the evidence shows Zimmerman never laid a glove on Martin. No bruising, no evidence that Zimmerman even hit Martin ONCE, and therefore no evidence that Zimmerman initiated the conflict. And abundant evidence that Martin gave Zimmerman a face-pounding that warranted his acting in self-defense by shooting Martin.
And yet he did not violate any law in doing so. People need to realize that there is a difference between what they find immoral and what is illegal. You might find him follwing Martin to be immoral, but he did not violate any law in doing so. You might not like the idea that he had a gun; but not only is it not illegal, Zimmerman had a right to carry it. You may think that Zimmerman initiated the conflict, but there is no evidence that definitively proves such. The case has been decided by people who were, quite frankly, in a better position to make the decision due to their protection from the TV talking heads and access to the evidence, testimony, and the defendant himself.
Zimmerman's lawyers going after NBC news ASAP: now that the trial is over Zimmerman is renewing his lawsuit against the network for deceptively editing audio to make him sound racist
Good. Those lying fuckers helped put Zimmerman through hell and, more importantly, endangered countless people by enflaming racial tensions. Along with Obama, any riots are squarely on their heads.
Zimmerman's lawyers going after NBC news ASAP: now that the trial is over Zimmerman is renewing his lawsuit against the network for deceptively editing audio to make him sound racist
Good. Those lying fuckers helped put Zimmerman through hell and, more importantly, endangered countless people by enflaming racial tensions. Along with Obama, any riots are squarely on their heads.
I loved that line from one of Zimmerman's lawyers, blasting the media for warping public perception of Zimmerman and convicting him pre-emptively in the court of public opinion. He said that Zimmerman's situation was comparable to being on the table of Dr. Frankenstein, and Zimmerman looked on with horror at what the media had transformed him into.
I naively believed that with the verdict --either way-- that with the exception of a few scattered riots and protests, this would be the end of it.
But on the Trayvon Martin family-side, it appears they plan to go on for a civil suit against Zimmerman for wrongful death or some other trumped up charges.
And on the George Zimmerman side, his attorneys are suing NBC and possibly other networks for editing the 911 call to make Zimmerman appear to be calling 911 because Trayvon Martin was black, and not for the actual non-racial reasons he clearly stated. Which arguably ratcheted up the racial division nationwide, and possibly stoked black violence toward whites nationwide, and invoked threats and violence toward the Zimmerman family in particular. Most pointedly, when Spike Lee posted what he believed was the address of Zimmerman's parents, an elderly couple who turned out to be completely unrelated to the Zimmermans, but were so endangered they had to leave their home and move to an undisclosed location. I still can't believe Spike Lee has not paid a legal price for this endangerment.
Zimmerman's legal team also has plans to sue the legal prosecutor for malicious prosecution, where the legal evidence never warranted arrest and trial of Zimmerman. And was a politically motivated public spectacle.
And also the Zimmerman team is pursuing charges against the state prosecution team for witholding vital evidence, that took them 6 months to pry from the prosecution so they could fully defend their client (Zimmerman). And that they said "needlessly cost hundreds of wasted hours" of their time, and "delayed the trial by six months".
What's really scary on this last point is this is probably not the first time the prosecution has witheld evidence, and likely only eventually got the evidence they were legally entitled to because of the national visibility of the case. How many others are in jail for a similar denial of rights to evidence for their defense?
And yet he did not violate any law in doing so. People need to realize that there is a difference between what they find immoral and what is illegal. You might find him follwing Martin to be immoral, but he did not violate any law in doing so. You might not like the idea that he had a gun; but not only is it not illegal, Zimmerman had a right to carry it. You may think that Zimmerman initiated the conflict, but there is no evidence that definitively proves such. The case has been decided by people who were, quite frankly, in a better position to make the decision due to their protection from the TV talking heads and access to the evidence, testimony, and the defendant himself.
I only became aware of this matter watching the news with the verdict.
We were talking about it at home, trying to fathom what had happened from the very limited information which I'm able to find on mainstream news. On the face of it, a black kid got shot by a white guy, who was let off by a jury of his peers. Not a good look.
So, from what I've read on this thread in conjunction with other stuff, did it play out like this?
1. Killer saw victim and followed him, suspecting vistim was participating in a crime. 2. Killer rings 911. 3. Victim assaulted killer by hitting him repeatedly in the head. 4. Killer responded by shooting victim dead.
In most jurisdictions I'm familiar with, that would be manslaughter, with a spent conviction or suspended sentence. My very limited reading of Florida's "stand your ground" laws (first time I'd heard of this was today) suggests you have a right to shoot at an aggressor if in danger. If that's correct, then this verdict must be correct.
If that's all correct, its very very sad that a young man was killed, but it is also sad that a man felt he had to shoot someone dead to protect himself from possible mortal danger.
And yet he did not violate any law in doing so. People need to realize that there is a difference between what they find immoral and what is illegal. You might find him follwing Martin to be immoral, but he did not violate any law in doing so. You might not like the idea that he had a gun; but not only is it not illegal, Zimmerman had a right to carry it. You may think that Zimmerman initiated the conflict, but there is no evidence that definitively proves such. The case has been decided by people who were, quite frankly, in a better position to make the decision due to their protection from the TV talking heads and access to the evidence, testimony, and the defendant himself.
I only became aware of this matter watching the news with the verdict.
We were talking about it at home, trying to fathom what had happened from the very limited information which I'm able to find on mainstream news. On the face of it, a black kid got shot by a white guy, who was let off by a jury of his peers. Not a good look.
So, from what I've read on this thread in conjunction with other stuff, did it play out like this?
1. Killer saw victim and followed him, suspecting vistim was participating in a crime. 2. Killer rings 911. 3. Victim assaulted killer by hitting him repeatedly in the head. 4. Killer responded by shooting victim dead.
In most jurisdictions I'm familiar with, that would be manslaughter, with a spent conviction or suspended sentence. My very limited reading of Florida's "stand your ground" laws (first time I'd heard of this was today) suggests you have a right to shoot at an aggressor if in danger. If that's correct, then this verdict must be correct.
If that's all correct, its very very sad that a young man was killed, but it is also sad that a man felt he had to shoot someone dead to protect himself from possible mortal danger.
You have a couple things wrong; Zimmerman is Hispanic, not white.
Or he is whatever a white-hispanic is, a description created by the media when they found out Zimmerman was Hispanic when the media reported otherwise.
Also Martin (the dead one) appears to be the one who started the physical confrontation. I say this because of the injuries to both parties. Zimmerman his head (back and front) and Martin who only had bruised knuckles.
I'll repeat what Bernard Goldberg said: "I guarantee you, if George Zimmerman were nominated for a Nobel Prize in science, the media would not describe him as "white hispanic".
Dave, you can just read this topic from the beginning. It has links and quotes articles and videos of this case from the beginning, giving both sides.
Zimmerman is dominantly hispanic and identifies himself as hispanic, but also part black, and he has some black relatives. Just yersterday I saw it reported that he even took a black girl to prom. The detectives saw this, and the fact that Zimmerman tutors black kids, and in one detective's own words, instantly dismissed racial motivation as a cause for the shooting. This case has dominated U.S. news for the last year, and especially during the last three weeks during the trial, almost to the exclusion of any other news. I'd say I'm glad it's over, but... it still ain't over.
He wouldn't manipulate Trayvon Martin as a political tool to galvanize the black vote in 2012, would he?
Oh no, not at all!
Just as he did women voters with Sandra Fluke. Just as he did hispanic voters with an executive order giving amnesty to about 600,000 children of illegals. Just as he did rallying gay voters by endorsing gay marriage right before the election.
The Democrat strategy has always been to splinter the nation along race and class lines for their political gain. But never more ruthlessly and blatantly than by Obama. To the division and detriment of the nation.
And yet he did not violate any law in doing so. People need to realize that there is a difference between what they find immoral and what is illegal. You might find him follwing Martin to be immoral, but he did not violate any law in doing so. You might not like the idea that he had a gun; but not only is it not illegal, Zimmerman had a right to carry it. You may think that Zimmerman initiated the conflict, but there is no evidence that definitively proves such. The case has been decided by people who were, quite frankly, in a better position to make the decision due to their protection from the TV talking heads and access to the evidence, testimony, and the defendant himself.
I only became aware of this matter watching the news with the verdict.
We were talking about it at home, trying to fathom what had happened from the very limited information which I'm able to find on mainstream news. On the face of it, a black kid got shot by a white guy, who was let off by a jury of his peers. Not a good look.
So, from what I've read on this thread in conjunction with other stuff, did it play out like this?
1. Killer saw victim and followed him, suspecting vistim was participating in a crime. 2. Killer rings 911. 3. Victim assaulted killer by hitting him repeatedly in the head. 4. Killer responded by shooting victim dead.
In most jurisdictions I'm familiar with, that would be manslaughter, with a spent conviction or suspended sentence. My very limited reading of Florida's "stand your ground" laws (first time I'd heard of this was today) suggests you have a right to shoot at an aggressor if in danger. If that's correct, then this verdict must be correct.
If that's all correct, its very very sad that a young man was killed, but it is also sad that a man felt he had to shoot someone dead to protect himself from possible mortal danger.
Zimmerman got out of his car and ran after the kid. When he was told that he didn't need to chase after Martin he said ok but than says he got out of the car to check an address and see which direction Martin ran. Zimmerman alleges that he was on his way back to his vehicle when Martin jumps out of nonexistant bushes and attacks him. Somehow Zimmerman manages to get his gun out and shoot Martin dead.
It seems that the verdict hinged on Zimmerman's fear of being injured when he shot Martin. While it seems fairly obvious to me that Zimmerman lied and exagerated parts of his story, even I believe that he was afraid of Martin in that instant.
If a civil suit is allowed though instead of reasonable doubt, the threshold for conviction becomes a preponderance of the evidence.
In most jurisdictions I'm familiar with, that would be manslaughter, with a spent conviction or suspended sentence. My very limited reading of Florida's "stand your ground" laws (first time I'd heard of this was today) suggests you have a right to shoot at an aggressor if in danger. If that's correct, then this verdict must be correct.
If that's all correct, its very very sad that a young man was killed, but it is also sad that a man felt he had to shoot someone dead to protect himself from possible mortal danger.
It's less a question of FL 'stand your ground laws' and more a question of standard rules of self defense. I'm assuming from your comment that Australia no longer follows that doctrine?
And yet he did not violate any law in doing so. People need to realize that there is a difference between what they find immoral and what is illegal. You might find him follwing Martin to be immoral, but he did not violate any law in doing so. You might not like the idea that he had a gun; but not only is it not illegal, Zimmerman had a right to carry it. You may think that Zimmerman initiated the conflict, but there is no evidence that definitively proves such. The case has been decided by people who were, quite frankly, in a better position to make the decision due to their protection from the TV talking heads and access to the evidence, testimony, and the defendant himself.
I only became aware of this matter watching the news with the verdict.
We were talking about it at home, trying to fathom what had happened from the very limited information which I'm able to find on mainstream news. On the face of it, a black kid got shot by a white guy, who was let off by a jury of his peers. Not a good look.
So, from what I've read on this thread in conjunction with other stuff, did it play out like this?
1. Killer saw victim and followed him, suspecting vistim was participating in a crime. 2. Killer rings 911. 3. Victim assaulted killer by hitting him repeatedly in the head. 4. Killer responded by shooting victim dead.
In most jurisdictions I'm familiar with, that would be manslaughter, with a spent conviction or suspended sentence. My very limited reading of Florida's "stand your ground" laws (first time I'd heard of this was today) suggests you have a right to shoot at an aggressor if in danger. If that's correct, then this verdict must be correct.
If that's all correct, its very very sad that a young man was killed, but it is also sad that a man felt he had to shoot someone dead to protect himself from possible mortal danger.
Zimmerman got out of his car and ran after the kid. When he was told that he didn't need to chase after Martin he said ok but than says he got out of the car to check an address and see which direction Martin ran. Zimmerman alleges that he was on his way back to his vehicle when Martin jumps out of nonexistant bushes and attacks him. Somehow Zimmerman manages to get his gun out and shoot Martin dead.
It seems that the verdict hinged on Zimmerman's fear of being injured when he shot Martin. While it seems fairly obvious to me that Zimmerman lied and exagerated parts of his story, even I believe that he was afraid of Martin in that instant.
If a civil suit is allowed though instead of reasonable doubt, the threshold for conviction becomes a preponderance of the evidence.
Stephen P. Garvey, a professor at Cornell Law School, said he thinks the jury “got it right.”
Quote:
Unless you think Zimmerman “provoked” the use of force against himself it was pretty easy to find self defense. If you think he did “provoke” the use of force you have a pretty expansive view of provocation. Think about it. Even if Zimmerman did follow Martin, should that mean he loses the right to defend himself when thereafter faced with an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm? Following someone when maybe you shouldn’t shouldn’t make you guilty of murder, or even manslaughter.
Andrew Branca, a Massachusetts lawyer and author of “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition,” went even further. The Zimmerman case, he said, “would make a very nice case study of the justifiable use of deadly force in self-defense for a law school criminal law text book.”
Mr. Branca explained why the most recognizable aspect of the “Stand Your Ground” law didn’t apply in Mr. Zimmerman’s case.
Quote:
“Stand your ground” is a legal release from the traditional duty to retreat, if safely possible, before using force in self-defense. When safe retreat is not possible, however, the duty does not apply. If the duty does not apply, “stand your ground” is not needed to release you from that duty. In this case, at the moment George Zimmerman used deadly force in self-defense his attacker was pinning him to the ground and reaching for his gun. [This is Mr. Zimmerman's version of events.] Under such circumstances no reasonable avenue of self-defense exists, so there is no duty to retreat even absent “stand your ground.”
Hmmm, who to believe. A Cornell professor and an expert on self defense law or MEM and NBC's doctored tapes?
Zimmerman told police that Martin had taken off running. Martin's friend testified that she heard somebody out of breadth ask Martin what he was doing. I'm going by memory but I think it sounded like Zimmerman was in a hurry after he exclaimed "shit he's running".
Zimmerman got out of his car, and from a distance ran after Trayvon Martin. That much you can hear on the recorded 911 call. He said he did not go out to pursue Martin, but to see where Martin went and read the street name on the sign to tell police where to go. After that, Zimmerman said he was walking back toward his truck when Trayvon came out of the darkness. (I've seen several reporters on tv re-trace the neighborhood at night, and whether "from behind bushes" or just hiding in the darkness, it would be very easy to ambush someone the way Martin did Zimmerman.)
And in plain words without legal definitions, I think if a guy is on the ground getting his face pounded (as a witness testified, Martin was on top, pounding away) he has a right to defend himself.
If Martin had hit Zimmerman once or several times and then walked away, I'd say Zimmerman was in the wrong, because the danger would have been over. If Zimmerman shot Martin from 5 or 10 feet away (and not 1 to 18 inches, as the autopsy measured from the powder burns), then I'd say Zimmerman was wrong, and the shooting was unnecessary. But that was not the case.
Witnesses and evidence showed at the time Zimmerman fired, he was being pounded relentlessly. Zimmerman's injuries prove that. And Martin's autopsy showed no injury to him, not even a single punch. By evidence, all provocation was by Martin. Zimmerman did not initiate the fight, and when pounded relentlessly with no end in sight, had a right to defend himself.
In most jurisdictions I'm familiar with, that would be manslaughter, with a spent conviction or suspended sentence. My very limited reading of Florida's "stand your ground" laws (first time I'd heard of this was today) suggests you have a right to shoot at an aggressor if in danger. If that's correct, then this verdict must be correct.
If that's all correct, its very very sad that a young man was killed, but it is also sad that a man felt he had to shoot someone dead to protect himself from possible mortal danger.
It's less a question of FL 'stand your ground laws' and more a question of standard rules of self defense. I'm assuming from your comment that Australia no longer follows that doctrine?
To be honest, I don't have much of an idea about it. We have a low murder rate. My very limited understanding is that there is no principle attached to it: its circumstantial ie. depends on the facts of the case.
Rather than read this entire thread, I went ot Wikipedia - the entry on this is in a state of flux and constantly updated.
There was a comment on the "stand your ground" princple though. The dispatcher recommended to Zimmerman that he not follow Martin. The suggestion is that when Zimmerman did follow Martin, he lost his ability to claim he was acting in self-defence. Sounds iffy to me. As a member of Neighbourhood Watch, part of his job was to deter crime by showing a presence.
There's also some data on Wikipedia which suggests that Zimmerman had been responsible for organising some sort of protest about local cops' treatment of the black community. If that's true, this doesn't sound like he is a bigot to me.
As for Obama, I think the choice of words that Martin's physical appearance would mirror that of the son Obama never had was a very, very misguided effort at an expression of personal sympathy for the family. "Misguided" because it carried with it the significant risk of poisoning a jury (a subconscious conclusion that Zimmerman had killed someone who could have been the President's son). I think that was a very big mistake, albeit one done apparently off-the-cuff and with the best of intentions.
SANFORD, Fla. – Judge Debra Nelson ruled Wednesday against two key pieces of evidence sought by George Zimmerman’s defense team.
Nelson said that text messages from Trayvon Martin’s phone which allegedly showed the slain teen to have a burgeoning penchant for violence will not be allowed into evidence.
Richard Conner, a computer forensics expert hired by the defense, was able to unlock “secret” text messages from the phone number used by Martin.
In those text messages sent from Martin’s phone — which analysts for the state were not able to obtain — Martin was said to have had conversations with friends about getting into fights. Martin’s half-brother allegedly asked Martin, “when you gonna teach me how to fight?”
Martin also sent text messages showing he was looking to obtain a handgun, he said. Those texts were sent in the week before Martin’s February 2012 visit to Sanford.
Nelson had put a decision on Martin’s text messages on hold prior to the trial. Both sides argued late into Tuesday evening over the relevance of the texts. State attorney John Guy argued “we don’t know who typed these messages, we don’t know if they’re connected.”
Nelson agreed, citing the “authenticity issue”.
Nelson also blocked animation created by Daniel Schumaker. The animation relied on witness testimony and statements to re-create the defense’s theory about the altercation between Zimmerman and Martin leading up to Martin’s death.
Schumaker relied on analysis provided by Vincent di Maio, the renowned gunshot expert who testified Tuesday the Zimmerman’s story — that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot — is consistent with the available evidence.
Amazing that the judge wouldn't admit texts where Trayvon recommended the very same face-pounding he gave Zimmerman as the way to beat someone in a fight. It's Trayvon Martin's cel phone, so who else would have sent the messages? The identity of who sent them could be verified with deposition of the person they were sent to.
And the texts messages also have Trayvon talking about buying a gun.
And afterthis was excluded, the Prosecution fired the IT-person who revealed these texts existed to the Defense. Which the Prosecution is obligated to provide to the Defense, but didn't.
And despite these corruptions and witholding of evidence, the jury found Zimmerman not guilty anyway.
Certainly a very iffy call by the judge. Its not evidence of "corrpuption". But it may I guess have caused a mis-trial if Zimmerman had been found guilty.
Barack Obama, community organizer: Work people into a frenzy. Divide them by race, or gender, or religion, or economic status, or whatever it takes. Then pretend to be the calm, reasonable moderator.
People are still falling for it, apparently, or he wouldn’t keep doing it. He just put out a statement on the George Zimmerman verdict, and it’s classic Obama. Let’s examine it piece by piece:
OBAMA: The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America.
Would George Zimmerman’s death have been a tragedy, if he hadn’t defended himself and Trayvon Martin had succeeded in beating him to death? Something tells me Obama wouldn’t have cared. After all, Zimmerman doesn’t look like Obama’s son.
I know this case has elicited strong passions.
Of course. That was the whole point. That was why Obama inserted himself into it in the first place. That’s why, when he was asked about the case, he didn’t just say he couldn’t comment on an ongoing investigation. That’s why he disgraced the office of the President of the United States to divide people by race.
And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son.
It’s pretty funny for Obama to pay lip service to our “nation of laws.” He’s never met a law he’s not willing to ignore if it doesn’t suit him.
And if he really wanted “calm reflection,” why hasn’t he spoken out against all the less-than-calm reflection surrounding this case? Has he ever condemned the smear campaign against Zimmerman? Has he ever said it’s wrong to edit Zimmerman’s 911 call to make him sound racist, and give out his Social Security Number, and tweet what was believed to be his home address, and all the rest of it?
Of course Obama hasn’t said anything about it. That’s what he’s been counting on. That’s what he wants.
And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities. We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis.
Now we’re getting down to it. Gun control. A Hispanic guy shot a black guy who was beating his head against the sidewalk, so let’s grab up all the guns. Let’s keep people from being able to defend their own lives.
Nobody ask Obama about gun violence in gun-controlled Chicago, okay?
We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this.
Sure thing, President Scold. How about teaching our young men not to beat people up, because they might not win? That could stop a “tragedy” or two.
As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin.
You dishonor him by using him as yet another political pawn, Mr. President. I’d say you should be ashamed of yourself, if I thought you were even capable of it.
So there you have it. Let’s hear it, commenters: Tell me why you hate the Hispanic guy who defended his own life and was found not guilty of murder.
And more importantly, tell me why it’s racist to criticize Obama for the things he says and does.
So talk about buying a gun incriminates the dead kid. Martin had no criminal record though, that was the guy who not only bought a gun but used it to kill a kid.
The judge also didn't allow Zimmerman's past of assaulting an officer with violence and his domestic abuse. Out of curiousity is there a rational argument out there to hide Zimmerman's past but not the victims?
Martin’s school suspension record. According to an investigation by the Miami Herald, Martin was suspended twice - once in October of last year for graffiti, and prior to the shooting for possession of a bag with traces of marijuana and a “marijuana pipe.” Martin was also found in possession of some jewelry and what the Herald describes as a “burglary tool,” though these items were not convincingly established as being owned by Martin himself, following an independent investigation by police.
Both offenses, which would fall under the umbrellas of “vandalism” and “possession or use of alcohol and/or controlled substances,” would be sufficient to merit ten day suspensions under district policy. Martin was apparently also suspended at an indeterminate time in the past for tardiness and/or truancy, though the Herald does not specify for how long.
Graffiti, burglary, and marijuana possession. All offenses that would have put him in jail if caught anywhere else but school.
He objected when a friend of his was arrested in a bar, and was arrested for non-violently resisting arrest.
Regarding his wife, there was no evidence of abuse, and Zimmerman said she filed it maliciously based on nothing, and reciprocated by filing a restraining order against her.
The incidents regarding Zimmerman were over 6 years prior and not relevant to the trial. Whereas the ones involving Trayvon Martin demonstrate (1) the criminal behavior Zimmerman cited concern for in his 911 call (including carrying a burglary tool and stolen jewelry), and (2) Martin's propensity for precisely the violence he unleashed on Zimmerman. Right down to breaking an opponent's nose and pounding his face MMA-style.
Even assuming the worst, all those are nonviolent WB. You seem to be ok with Zimmerman's violent acts hushed up. Domestic violence and assaulting an officer with violence!
Even assuming the worst, all those are nonviolent WB. You seem to be ok with Zimmerman's violent acts hushed up. Domestic violence and assaulting an officer with violence!
Really shame on you.
Non violent resisting arrest is "violent"? A restraining order with no photographed or identified injuries (wouldn't the injuries have been cited as evidence if they truly existed?)
Nice try.
As I just said: Trayvon Martin exchanged text messages with his half brother asking him to teach him how to fight. If he was being asked to teach fighting techniques, that indicates considerable experience at fighting.
Regarding Zimmerman's "violent record", from the L.A. Times (which strained to say every negative thing they could about Zimmerman):
Quote:
In July 2005, Zimmerman, then 21, was at a bar near the University of Central Florida when a friend was arrested by state alcohol agents on suspicion of serving underage drinkers, according to an arrest report in the Sentinel. Zimmerman became profane and pushed away an agent who tried to escort him, the report said. Authorities said he was arrested after a short struggle. Charged with resisting arrest without violence, he avoided conviction by entering a pretrial-diversion program, something common for first-time offenders.
A month later, an ex-fiancée filed a petition for an injunction against Zimmerman, citing domestic violence. Zimmerman responded by filing a petition of his own the following day. The fight led to protective injunctions that expired Aug. 24, 2006.
Zimmerman married Shellie Nicole Dean, a licensed cosmetologist, in late 2007.
The next year, he resurfaced in court documents as a credit-card company pursued him. Capital One accused Zimmerman of failing to pay more than $1,000. He settled with the company for $2,135.82, records show, to cover his debts with interest, as well as attorney and court costs.
So Zimmerman went to a gymn for mixed martial arts training. You don't find that incriminating yet a kid asking a brother how to fight is?
Not even a nice try.
Here's what Zimmerman had to say about his assaulting an officer and resisting arrest when applying for the academy...
Quote:
““I was arrested in July of 2005 for assault on a law enforcement officer and resisting arrest with violence. Both charges were immediately dropped to resisting arrest without violence, and then dropped all together.
“I was in an altercation with an undercover officer that was taking part in an ATF sting for underage drinking in UCF. He never told me he was an officer and assaulted me first. Shortly after that, in September 2005, the same unit was conducting a sting at UCF and an officer was killed by an OPD officer because he discharged his weapon and did not identify himself.
“My father is a retired Magistrate Judge for the Supreme Court of Virginia and my mother was a deputy clerk of court for over 20 years. I hold law enforcement officers in the highest regaurd (sic) as I hope to one day become one. I would never have touched a police officer. Prior to and since that I have not been arrested.
Thank you and I hope to join you in January.
George M. Zimmerman.
The altercation sounds familiar doesn't it? It wasn't Zimmerman's fault because the officer (just like Martin) attacked him first. Oh and by the way my dad's a retired judge.
The original charge was changed to assaulting an officer without violence and than went away after he did some course.
“I was in an altercation with an undercover officer that was taking part in an ATF sting for underage drinking in UCF. He never told me he was an officer and assaulted me first. Shortly after that, in September 2005, the same unit was conducting a sting at UCF and an officer was killed by an OPD officer because he discharged his weapon and did not identify himself.
I'd say that part exonerates Zimmerman, and proves the aggresiveness of the ATF officers he had the altercation with.
In the case of Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, witnesses and forensic evidence show the aggression was all Trayvon Martin's, as Zimmerman landed no punches or bruises on Martin's body.
The part where you cited Zimmerman regularly attending a gym is ridiculous. His instructor testified and said that on a scale from 1 to 10, Zimmerman was "a 1", and that despite his attempts, Zimmerman was very inadequate at self-defense.
So it's always somebody elses fault when it comes to Zimmerman. He assaults a cop and it's the cops fault. His girlfriend files a restraining order citing domestic violence and it's really Zimmerman who was the one being abused. It must have been the dead kids fault too. Maybe we can say that the next time Zimmerman kills or assaults somebody it's his fault?
African Americans benefit from Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law at a rate far out of proportion to their presence in the state’s population, despite an assertion by Attorney General Eric Holder that repealing “Stand Your Ground” would help African Americans.
Black Floridians have made about a third of the state’s total “Stand Your Ground” claims in homicide cases, a rate nearly double the black percentage of Florida’s population. The majority of those claims have been successful, a success rate that exceeds that for Florida whites.
Nonetheless, prominent African Americans including Holder and “Ebony and Ivory” singer Stevie Wonder, who has vowed not to perform in the Sunshine State until the law is revoked, have made “Stand Your Ground” a central part of the Trayvon Martin controversy.
Holder, who was pressured by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and other progressive groups to open a civil rights case against acquitted neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman in the 2012 shooting death of 17-year-old Martin, criticized Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law in a speech Tuesday before the NAACP.
The law was not invoked by Zimmerman’s defense team but was included in instructions to the jury.
“We must confront the underlying attitudes, the mistaken beliefs and the unfortunate stereotypes that serve too often as the basis for police action and private judgments. Separate and apart from the case that has drawn the nation’s attention, it’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhood,” Holder said to applause in his speech before the NAACP Tuesday.
“These laws try to fix something that was never broken. There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if — and the ‘if’ is important — if no safe retreat is available. But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common-sense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely. By allowing and perhaps encouraging violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety,” Holder said.
“The list of resulting tragedies is long and, unfortunately, has victimized too many who are innocent. It is our collective obligation; we must stand OUR ground to ensure — (cheers, applause, music) — we must stand our ground to ensure that our laws reduce violence, and take a hard look at laws that contribute to more violence than they prevent,” Holder said.
But approximately one third of Florida “Stand Your Ground” claims in fatal cases have been made by black defendants, and they have used the defense successfully 55 percent of the time, at the same rate as the population at large and at a higher rate than white defendants, according to a Daily Caller analysis of a database maintained by the Tampa Bay Times. Additionally, the majority of victims in Florida “Stand Your Ground” cases have been white.
African Americans used “Stand Your Ground” defenses at nearly twice the rate of their presence in the Florida population, which was listed at 16.6 percent in 2012.
Liberals oppose stand-your-ground, despite that blacks arguably benefit disproportionately from it.
Somehow I missed all those nationally televised trials where black defendants killed white men and got away with it.
Man, I was just reading this little piece on the Juror who spoke out on Anderson Cooper's CNN program (anonymously) and was criticized by 4 of the 5 other jurors (anonymously).
And below is a menu with the article of other topics related to the Zimmerman trial...
Quote:
Catch up on this story:
Star witness 'disappointed, upset, angry' about verdict
Martin family may file civil trial
Justice Department to re-open probe of Trayvon Martin shooting death
Obama calls for calm reflection from Americans
Gun given back to Zimmerman after trial ends
Zimmerman is acquitted in Trayvon Martin killing
Jury finds Zimmerman not guilty on all charges
Jurors ask judge for clarification during final deliberations
Prosecutor depicts Zimmerman as angry vigilante during closing arguments
Defense rests without Zimmerman taking the stand
Expert says evidence jibes with Zimmerman's story
Trayvon Martin's father takes the stand
Prosecution asks judge to block animated reenactment of Zimmerman and Martin's confrontation
Defense attorney's daughter caught in Instagram controversy
For more stories tagged 'George Zimmerman' or 'Trayvon Martin' click here
...that gives some idea how dominant and pervasive this story has become, and how many avenues there are to explore.
Would that the media gave similar pervasive coverage to stories that more directly impact the nation, such as the federal deficit, offshoring of jobs, the failing Obamacare plan, Obama's failed economic policies that threaten to collapse the dollar, the exploding federal debt, Obama's undermining border security, illegal immigration, the bipartisan deceitful push for amnesty, the IRS essentially rigging the 2012 election, NSA surveilance over-reach and loss of freedom, the potential for a second real estate collapse, and other issues that truly impact us and are not manufactured, as Zimmerman's "white hispanic" racist profiling was.
NEW YORK, July 16 (Reuters) - A former employee of Florida State Attorney Angela Corey's office plans to file a whistleblower lawsuit against George Zimmerman's prosecutors, his attorney told Reuters on Tuesday.
The action will put pressure on Corey, who already faces criticism from some legal experts for the unsuccessful prosecution of the case, which led to the acquittal of Zimmerman for shooting unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman's defense has also called for sanctions against her and her prosecution team.
Ben Kruidbos, Corey's former director of information technology, was fired after testifying at a pre-trial hearing on June 6 that prosecutors failed to turn over potentially embarrassing evidence extracted from Martin's cell phone to the defense, as required by evidence-sharing laws.
"We will be filing a whistleblower action in (Florida's Fourth Judicial District) Circuit Court," said Kruidbos' attorney Wesley White, himself a former prosecutor who was hired by Corey but resigned in December because he disagreed with her prosecutorial priorities. He said the suit will be filed within the next 30 days.
Corey and lead prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda declined to comment. A spokeswoman for Corey referred Reuters to Kruidbos' termination letter, previously made public, in which Corey's office accused him of hacking confidential information from state computers.
The six-page letter, dated July 11, charges Kruidbos with "deliberate, willful and unscrupulous actions" that make him untrustworthy and calls his questioning of de la Rionda's actions regarding the cell phone evidence "a shallow, but obvious, attempt to cloak yourself in the protection of the whistleblower law."
BRADY DISPUTE
Zimmerman was acquitted on Saturday following a five-week trial that riveted America and relaunched debates on race and guns. The verdict sparked demonstrations in some cities by those angered by the decision.
On Monday, Corey told Reuters, "Our office adhered to the highest standards of ethical behavior."
Trial law requires prosecutors to share evidence with defense attorneys, especially if it helps exonerate defendants. The requirement is known as the Brady disclosure.
Kruidbos testified last month in a pre-trial hearing that he found photos on Martin's phone that included pictures of a pile of jewelry on a bed, underage nude females, marijuana plants and a hand holding a semi-automatic pistol.
The Martin family lawyer, Benjamin Crump, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Kruidbos had emailed de la Rionda in late January and attached a report containing the text messages and images he had retrieved from Martin's cell phone, his lawyer said.
Zimmerman's chief defense attorney Mark O'Mara has said he didn't receive the material until June, shortly before the murder trial began.
Judge Debra Nelson ruled that pictures and texts from Martin's cell phone were inadmissible, after prosecutors argued that it couldn't be proven Martin actually took the pictures and wrote the texts on his phone.
The judge has yet to rule on whether the prosecution committed any Brady violations by not handing over evidence, as alleged by Zimmerman's defense team. (Editing by Dina Kyriakidou, Martin Howell)
Yet more evidence of political motivation and breaching the rule of law by the prosecution.
Corey knows about personal vendettas. They seem to be her specialty. When Ron Littlepage, a journalist for the Florida Times-Union, wrote a column criticizing her handling of the Christian Fernandez case — in which Corey chose to prosecute a twelve-year-old boy for first-degree murder, who wound up locked in solitary confinement in an adult jail prior to his court date — she “fired off a two-page, single-spaced letter on official state-attorney letterhead hinting at lawsuits for libel.”
And that was moderate. When Corey was appointed to handle the Zimmerman case, Talbot “Sandy” D’Alemberte, a former president of both the American Bar Association and Florida State University, criticized the decision:
“I cannot imagine a worse choice for a prosecutor to serve in the Sanford case. There is nothing in Angela Corey’s background that suits her for the task, and she cannot command the respect of people who care about justice.”
Corey responded by making a public-records request of the university for all e-mails, text messages, and phone messages in which D’Alemberte had mentioned Fernandez. Like Littlepage, D’Alemberte had earlier criticized Corey’s handling of the Fernandez case.
Not many people are willing to cross Corey. A Florida attorney I spoke with declined to go on record because of “concerns about retaliation” — that attorney has pending cases that will require Corey’s cooperation. The attorney mentioned colleagues who have refused to speak to the media for the same reason.
(Alan Dershowitz) says numerous sources — lawyers who had sparred with Corey in the courtroom, lawyers who had worked with and for her, and even multiple judges — informed him that Corey has a history of vigorously attacking any and all who criticize her.
But it’s worse than that: Correspondents told him that Corey has a history of overcharging and withholding evidence....
Kind of undermines your whole thing when you show your willingness to say something nasty about somebody who didn't kill a kid but doesn't agree with you G.
The nastiness coming from both sides isn't right. Both sets of parents are getting death threats. Instead of joining in G-man why not rise above it?
You wanted James O'Keefe raped in prison for undercover videos. Why wouldn't someone wonder, given your complete disregard for the facts and law in this case, if you aren't one of the posters who wants Zimmerman raped now?
And at no time did I "join in" making death threats. My comment towards your rape fantasies was a condemnation of such things, not an endorsement.
Nope. I'm playing by your rules. You have years of going overboard and saying some pretty horrible things that you felt entitled to say. I didn't tweet anything G-man and you knew that. Try aiming a bit higher.
Nope. I'm playing by your rules. You have years of going overboard and saying some pretty horrible things that you felt entitled to say. I didn't tweet anything G-man and you knew that. Try aiming a bit higher.
I think it was pretty clearly sarcasm on G-man's part, clearly making reference to your previous posts, and clearly not literally saying that you personally called for raping Zimmerman. But with humor insinuating that based on your previous posted opinions, you would advocate raping Zimmerman.
I think virtually everyone on these boards has been on the receiving end of similar comments. No harm, no foul.
think it was pretty clearly sarcasm on G-man's part, clearly making reference to your previous posts, and clearly not literally saying that you personally called for raping Zimmerman. But with humor insinuating that based on your previous posted opinions, you would advocate raping Zimmerman.
Standard MEM tactic. When the facts aren't on his side suddenly get butt hurt over an obvious joke, metaphor or sarcastic comment, claim victim status and try to derail the thread.
There was an on topic conversation going on when you started posting your petty little "I hate MEM" remarks. I would prefer it if you could discuss topics minus the petty cattyness g-man.
George Zimmerman trial coverageJuly 16, 2013|By Rene Stutzman, Orlando Sentinel
If Trayvon Martin's parents file a lawsuit against George Zimmerman, they face a huge obstacle: Florida's "stand your ground" law.
That much-debated statute provides immunity not just against criminal charges but also against civil suits.
Benjamin Crump, an attorney for Trayvon's parents, would not say Tuesday what their plans are.
"We're not even thinking about it right now," he said. Parents Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton "are still trying to deal with the tragedy of this verdict."
But on Feb. 22 — months before the criminal trial — Crump attorney Bruce Blackwell told Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson that the family intends to sue. Its lawsuit would most likely be a wrongful-death claim or one alleging negligence.
Central Florida defense attorneys said Tuesday that just because Zimmerman was acquitted, that does not mean he won't be sued, but it does indicate the evidence weighs in his favor.
If Zimmerman is sued in this case, a judge would determine whether "stand your ground" applies. If the judge rules it does, Zimmerman would be released from liability. If the judge rules against that claim, the case would be tried before a jury.
Moments after Zimmerman was found not guilty, defense attorney Mark O'Mara said, "If someone believes it's appropriate to sue George Zimmerman, then we will seek and we will get immunity in a civil hearing, and we will see just how many civil lawsuits will be spawned by this fiasco."
That was a reference to a "stand your ground" hearing, one not yet held in this case.
Although O'Mara said shortly after the shooting that Zimmerman would challenge his criminal prosecution under that statute, defense attorneys ran out of time and opted to simply take the case to a jury.
The statute, enacted in Florida in 2005, provides criminal and civil immunity to anyone who uses deadly force if he has a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury.
O'Mara contends his client did, that he shot Trayvon on Feb. 26, 2012, in Sanford after the Miami Gardens teenager knocked him to the ground with a punch that broke his nose, then climbed on top and began banging his head against a sidewalk.
Zimmerman told Sanford police that he killed Trayvon in self-defense.
There have been no appellate cases in Florida that spell out how civil-trial courts should handle such claims, according to several Central Florida attorneys.
That makes predicting an outcome dicey, they said.
To win a "stand your ground" claim in a criminal or civil case, a defendant must show by a preponderance of evidence — more than 50 percent — that he had a reasonable fear of being killed or gravely injured, said Robert Buonauro, an Orlando attorney who has handled three "stand your ground" criminal cases.
I think it's a harder defense to use in a civil case," he said.
Winter Springs attorney Andrew Chmelir, who has handled but lost one criminal "stand your ground" case, said it's impossible to predict the outcome of such a claim in a Zimmerman civil case.
If a judge concludes that Zimmerman is not credible — prosecutors accused him of creating a "tangled web of lies" — he or she could rule against him and send the case to a jury.
Still, he said of Trayvon's parents, "They're going to have an uphill battle."
Retired Circuit Judge O.H. Eaton Jr., who served in Sanford for 24 years, pointed out that if Trayvon's parents sue then lose a "stand your ground" hearing, they could wind up paying Zimmerman.
The statute provides that anyone who prevails in a civil "stand your ground" hearing may collect attorney fees, court costs, expenses and compensation for lost income.
You missed a lot Dave. I think it started when the media showed pictures of the tattooed, muscular, 6'3"-tall athlete back when he was a 12 year old kid, and made it seem like Zimmerman killed a defenseless little black kid, with an emphasis on black.
Dave, Martin was just barely 17 when he ran away from an armed Zimmerman that he told his friend that he was afraid off. He wasn't doing anything wrong and we only have Zimmerman's word about how the fight started. Zimmerman was found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt but that hardly makes his version of how the fight started true.
Zimmerman was found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
Okay. Stop right there. You don't really need to be criticizing someone else of misrepresenting the facts when you're showing that you don't know them either. Zimmerman was not 'found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'. That's not how the law works. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the burden upon the prosecution to overcome in the jury's minds to get a conviction. Zimmerman was found not guilty because the prosecution didn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt that his act was second degree murder or manslaughter under Florida law. Zimmerman didn't need to prove his innocence or that his version of the event was the right one. The prosecution had to convince the jury that their theory of the crime was what happened.
Dave, Martin was just barely 17 when he ran away from an armed Zimmerman that he told his friend that he was afraid off. He wasn't doing anything wrong and we only have Zimmerman's word about how the fight started. Zimmerman was found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt but that hardly makes his version of how the fight started true.
Why do you insist on painting Treyvon Martin as a child?
Even 5'11 158 is a decent size. Also Martin was an athlete.
He was far from harmless.
I wish Treyvon had lived, but not at Zimmerman's expense.
I missing something here. Martin was smacking Zimmerman's head into a sidewalk? How did Martin end up a martyr?
Originally Posted By: Son of Mxy
You missed a lot Dave. I think it started when the media showed pictures of the tattooed, muscular, 6'3"-tall athlete back when he was a 12 year old kid, and made it seem like Zimmerman killed a defenseless little black kid, with an emphasis on black.
The media was the beast here. They way they rushed to report the story, then rather than correct mistakes the media spun facts to fit their story.
They even tried to not only change Zimmerman's race, they invented a new one.
Speaking at the White House on Friday, President Obama addressed the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial for the killing of Trayvon Martin for the first time since 2012, when he declared that if he had a son, he’d look like Martin. This time, Obama said, “Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.”
Obama added that he had experienced racial profiling personally: "There are very few African-American men who haven't had the experience of being followed in a department store — that includes me."
Finally, Obama went into the racial complexities of the Martin situation: "A lot of African-American boys are painted with a broad brush...If a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different." He did say, "As difficult and as challenging as this whole episode has been, I don't want us to lose sight that things are getting better...We're becoming a more perfect union, not a perfect union, but a more perfect union."
Speaking at the White House on Friday, President Obama addressed the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial for the killing of Trayvon Martin for the first time since 2012, when he declared that if he had a son, he’d look like Martin. This time, Obama said, “Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.”
Obama added that he had experienced racial profiling personally: "There are very few African-American men who haven't had the experience of being followed in a department store — that includes me."
Finally, Obama went into the racial complexities of the Martin situation: "A lot of African-American boys are painted with a broad brush...If a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different." He did say, "As difficult and as challenging as this whole episode has been, I don't want us to lose sight that things are getting better...We're becoming a more perfect union, not a perfect union, but a more perfect union."
Zimmerman was found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
Okay. Stop right there. You don't really need to be criticizing someone else of misrepresenting the facts when you're showing that you don't know them either. Zimmerman was not 'found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'. That's not how the law works. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the burden upon the prosecution to overcome in the jury's minds to get a conviction. Zimmerman was found not guilty because the prosecution didn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt that his act was second degree murder or manslaughter under Florida law. Zimmerman didn't need to prove his innocence or that his version of the event was the right one. The prosecution had to convince the jury that their theory of the crime was what happened.
You seem to be saying the same thing but just adding in your opinion about the prosecution. The jury used reasonable doubt Doctor. If and when there is a civil suit a verdict will be based on a preponderance of the evidence btw. So like OJ there could be a different outcome.
Dave, Martin was just barely 17 when he ran away from an armed Zimmerman that he told his friend that he was afraid off. He wasn't doing anything wrong and we only have Zimmerman's word about how the fight started. Zimmerman was found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt but that hardly makes his version of how the fight started true.
Why do you insist on painting Treyvon Martin as a child?
Even 5'11 158 is a decent size. Also Martin was an athlete.
He was far from harmless.
I wish Treyvon had lived, but not at Zimmerman's expense.
Martin was a kid. Just barely 17 by a couple of weeks when Zimmerman killed him. As for his height, 5'11 and 158lbs makes for a skinny kid. I suspect that's why conservatives sometime lie and make him 6'4 and heavier and even posting pics of some other older black guy. Check out the picture in snopes of Martin and he looks like a kid that just went through a growth spurt. Gangly with thin long arms and legs.
Zimmerman was found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
Okay. Stop right there. You don't really need to be criticizing someone else of misrepresenting the facts when you're showing that you don't know them either. Zimmerman was not 'found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'. That's not how the law works. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the burden upon the prosecution to overcome in the jury's minds to get a conviction. Zimmerman was found not guilty because the prosecution didn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt that his act was second degree murder or manslaughter under Florida law. Zimmerman didn't need to prove his innocence or that his version of the event was the right one. The prosecution had to convince the jury that their theory of the crime was what happened.
You seem to be saying the same thing but just adding in your opinion about the prosecution.
No opinion. It's actually how our legal system is supposed to work. The burden of proof is upon the prosecution to covince the jury that Zimmerman broke the law. I was hoping that you just misused the term. This post shows that you simply don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
The jury used reasonable doubt Doctor.
Yes. They had a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed murder or manslaughter, so the didn't convict and found him 'not guilty'. He was not found 'not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'.
Oh sorry I thought you had made a comment about the prosecution not doing a good job Doctor. (I was reading a couple of things at once) You still seem to agree with me but just saying it in a different way. The jury was instucted to use reasonable doubt in it's delibratations. Yep, it's the prosecutors job to convince a jury that they can render a not guilty verdict but they are the ones deciding if it's beyond a reasonable doubt or not.
At least we can agree it's not right to pretend Martin was taller and heavier than what he was?
I apologize for the inaccurate info. In my defense, I'm asian so anything above 5'2" is a giant and can beat me up, regardless of age.
I actually didn't think you were intentionally making it up. Some parts of the conservative press and blogasphere made that into a "fact". At one point I thought he was a mini-hulk myself.
Yep, it's the prosecutors job to convince a jury that they can render a not guilty verdict but they are the ones deciding if it's beyond a reasonable doubt or not.
No. It's the prosecution's job to convince the jury to render a guilty verdict. In order to do that the jury has to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime as the prosecution stated, an instruction that all juries in a capital criminal case are given the this country. My comment was that the prosecution didn't do a good job considering the not guilty verdict that the jury reached. Jurors don't have to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is innocent.
3.7 PLEA OF NOT GUILTY; REASONABLE DOUBT; AND BURDEN OF PROOF
The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent. The presumption stays with the defendant as to each material allegation in the [information] [indictment] through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt. ...
3.7 PLEA OF NOT GUILTY; REASONABLE DOUBT; AND BURDEN OF PROOF
The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent. The presumption stays with the defendant as to each material allegation in the [information] [indictment] through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt. ...
Exactly as I said and the opposite of what you're saying. The defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt through the evidence presented by the prosecution. Nowhere does it say that the defendant must be found 'not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'.
Dave, Martin was just barely 17 when he ran away from an armed Zimmerman that he told his friend that he was afraid [of]. He wasn't doing anything wrong and we only have Zimmerman's word about how the fight started. Zimmerman was found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt but that hardly makes his version of how the fight started true.
God, M E M. You keep repeating the same selective omissions. Martin called (the then unknown) Zimmerman a "creepy ass cracker", which sounds more an expression of annoyance and contempt than fear. Martin "wasn't doing anything wrong", but neither was Zimmerman. He observed Martin behaving suspiciously, called the police to report and describe the behavior, and observed Martin from a distance. And in this, Zimmerman did nothing wrong.
It was Martin who assaulted Zimmerman, who broke his nose, gave him two black eyes, and lacerations to the back of the head, as observed in a recorded 911 call made by witness John Goode. In the autopsy, powder burns to Martin's body were (according to the forensics expert who WROTE THE TEXTBOOK on powder burns evidence) evidence consistent with Zimmerman's account.
The detective who investigated said on observing the evidence, witnesses and looking for racial motive on Zimmerman's part, found absolutely no evidence of racist motive on Zimmerman's part. The guy had black family members. He tutored black kids, even after the tutoring program had ended! He took a black girl to prom! With all this evidence stacked up, it is pure slander to insinuate that Zimmerman targeted Martin because he was black, or that there is not evidence to back up Zimmerman's story. There absolutely was evidence.
And by the way, while Snopes is partly correct that one Facebook photo was someone other than Martin, as I posted earlier in the topic, Daily Caller posted a whole bunch of OTHER photos where Trayvon Martin --the REAL Trayvon Martin-- posed all ghetto gangster, and posted a number of belligerent gangster-posing comments, under the name "No_Limit_Nigga".
I'm not at all convinced that the "innocent boy" photo of Trayvon was taken "only 7 months" before he was killed, as the Martin family lawyer alleged. Martin is clearly far more developed and muscular. The family took down Trayvon's Facebook and Twitter pages because they KNEW these posts and photos made clear he was not an innocent little boy. They hid the truth!
I've also seen little reporting of the fact that Trayvon Martin was a poor student with disciplinary problems, and had THREE 10-day suspensions in a year, for things that would be arrestable offenses outside school: marijuana possession with a bong pipe, spraying graffiti on a locker, and possessing a bag of women's jewelry with a screwdriver described as "a burglary tool".
In addition --OMITTED FROM COURT EVIDENCE BY THE JUDGE-- Trayvon Martin's phone text messages and photos, talking about him planning to buy a gun, a photo of an anonymous hand (most likely Trayvon's)brandishing a gun. And Trayvon's exchanged texts with his half-brother, asking Trayvon to teach him how to fight, which Trayvon obviously had superior skill at from the texts. And texts where he describes breaking an opponent's nose and pounding him over and over in the face as the recommended way to take them down. PRECISELY the method he used to take down Zimmerman.
It can be under-reported but not hidden, but the evidence that you choose to selectively ignore is no less clear.
And regarding the height-difference, even assuming Trayvon was only 5' 11", he still was 2 inches taller, more muscular --a football player-- and far more skilled at fighting, according to Zimmerman's own personal trainer, who said despite much training, Zimmerman's skill on a scale from 1 to 10, still remained an inept "1".
As I posted earlier, I've seen plenty of mainstream/liberal sources report Trayvon Martin's height as 6' 3"...
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy, 3-27-2012
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Wouldn't the big guy who followed the smaller kid around with the gun be the one who started the fight?
Trayvon Martin: 6 foot 3 George Zimmerman: 5 foot 9
Which would you more wisely describe as the "big guy" and the "smaller kid"?
According to both Zimmerman and 911-phone-in police caller "John" [Goode], Martin initiated the attack, and the bloody nose, head-lacerations and grass stains on Zimmerman's clothes and face back that up.
... and he certainly looks about that in his "last photo with family". I've seen it stated elsewhere that Martin was not measured accurately at the time of his autopsy, and that he actually is 6' 3". Snopes dodges all these issues.
No. It's the prosecution's job to convince the jury to render a guilty verdict
I understand your point. However, even that isn't a prosecutors job.
The job of a public prosecutor is to do justice, not merely convict. If the evidence isn't there, the DA is supposed to drop or reduce the charges.
The prosecution in this case arguably didn't do that. They pursued a vendetta for political reasons.
As such, they failed in their ethical obligations.
And beyond that, like unprofessional babies, the prosecution team denied the verdict in their press conference directly after-the-fact, angrily insisted that Zimmerman is guilty, undermined the justice system and the verdict, and directly contributed to incidents of whites beaten in at least 4 states (so far) where the black mob said "this is for Trayvon".
Here is another photo in virtually the identical pose that is the real Trayvon Martin:
But again, the question is not whether Martin was a thug, but whether he attacked Zimmerman and caused Zimmerman to shoot him in self defense.
And again: the liberal media didn't even report that Trayvon Martin was in Sanford, FL because he was on a 10-day suspension for marijuana possession, or that he had been suspended twice prior in less than a year for spraying graffitti on a locker, and for skipping school, or had assaulted someone as well.
A kid can only be so innocent and well behaved with a user-name like "NO_LIMIT_NIGGA"
or sending tweet messages like this:
Call me strange, but that at least begins to make me think innocent little Trayvon Martin just might be capable of going all-out ghetto gangster and jumping on Zimmerman's face.
But I'll settle for whatever the Florida Justice Department's independent investigation reveals, and not jump to any conclusions on the limited facts and speculation currently released.
3.7 PLEA OF NOT GUILTY; REASONABLE DOUBT; AND BURDEN OF PROOF
The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent. The presumption stays with the defendant as to each material allegation in the [information] [indictment] through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt. ...
Exactly as I said and the opposite of what you're saying. The defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt through the evidence presented by the prosecution. Nowhere does it say that the defendant must be found 'not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'.
Once again using slightly different words... The jurors use reasonable doubt when rendering their verdict. They are instructed by the judge to use that high standard. If they use a different standard than they are not following their instructions.
... And regarding the height-difference, even assuming Trayvon was only 5' 11", he still was 2 inches taller, more muscular --a football player-- and far more skilled at fighting, according to Zimmerman's own personal trainer, who said despite much training, Zimmerman's skill on a scale from 1 to 10, still remained an inept "1".
As I posted earlier, I've seen plenty of mainstream/liberal sources report Trayvon Martin's height as 6' 3"...
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy, 3-27-2012
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Wouldn't the big guy who followed the smaller kid around with the gun be the one who started the fight?
Trayvon Martin: 6 foot 3 George Zimmerman: 5 foot 9
Which would you more wisely describe as the "big guy" and the "smaller kid"?
According to both Zimmerman and 911-phone-in police caller "John" [Goode], Martin initiated the attack, and the bloody nose, head-lacerations and grass stains on Zimmerman's clothes and face back that up.
... and he certainly looks about that in his "last photo with family". I've seen it stated elsewhere that Martin was not measured accurately at the time of his autopsy, and that he actually is 6' 3". Snopes dodges all these issues.
You'll note your article uses the word "described" when discussing weight and height. The autopsy probably was more accurate than the earlier descriptions (guesses). You also misstate that an eyewitness (John) saw who innitiated the attack. That isn't true he saw part of the fight but not how it started or how it ended. I could go on but you get the idea.
You'll note your article uses the word "described" when discussing weight and height. The autopsy probably was more accurate than the earlier descriptions (guesses). You also misstate that an eyewitness (John) saw who innitiated the attack. That isn't true he saw part of the fight but not how it started or how it ended. I could go on but you get the idea.
Geez, M E M.
I posted that in a VERY long post, where I tried to give a comprehensive overview of all the red flags in Trayvon Martin's personal history, red flags that are collectively consistent with Zimmerman's account, and backed by witnesses and forensics. Excuse me if I left one tiny ambiguity that Goode didn't confirm, that is still corroborated by Zimmerman's account and forensic evidence.
Specifically: (1)the witness (John Goode) observed Trayvon Martin on top pounding away on Zimmerman unrelentingly. (2) the autopsy revealed no bruises on Trayvon Martin, so Zimmerman clearly didn't throw the first punch, or ANY punches. (3) the only bruising was on Trayvon Martin's knuckles and nowhere else on his body, showing that he was punching Zimmerman. (4) Trayvon Martin's text messages that detail his fighting ability and personal choice of face-bashing technique, that perfectly matches the technique he used on Zimmerman.
Sorry for just doing the end of your long comprehensive post WB. I still think Zimmerman was the one with an actual history of violence when you compare the two. Assaulting an officer with violence and domestic abuse allegations of slapping his exfiance around. We discussed it and it gets down to you only wanting to use Martin's history. It's incriminating to you that Martin wanted to buy a gun but not so for Zimmerman having one as he followed Martin. It's incriminating for Martin to ask a brother to show him how to fight but it doesn't mean anything to you that Zimmerman was spending a couple of hours a day several days a week at a mixed martial arts gymn. In any case the judge kept out both histories for the most part. Probably a bigger benefit to Zimmerman IMHO. I think there's a good chance that there will be a civil suit if it's allowed and we'll see all this included in a civil trial btw.
As for Zimmerman's injuries, they were minor and even right after killing Martin he didn't think they were bad enough to warrant a trip to the hospital. Now if you look at his description of the fight it doesn't add up that he wouldn't have gone to the hospital. Also consider that he didn't even attempt to block any of those blows. Instead he somehow was able to get his gun out and shoot Martin. An incredible feat if you look over what he said Martin was doing to him and the positions of their bodies.
Irrelevant. The point of self defense is to try and keep someone from inflicting injury. There is no legal requirement that someone wait to get a serious injury and then fight back. Indeed, such a requirement would be absurd, insofar as the injuries could prevent the victim from fighting back.
3.7 PLEA OF NOT GUILTY; REASONABLE DOUBT; AND BURDEN OF PROOF
The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent. The presumption stays with the defendant as to each material allegation in the [information] [indictment] through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt. ...
Exactly as I said and the opposite of what you're saying. The defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt through the evidence presented by the prosecution. Nowhere does it say that the defendant must be found 'not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'.
Once again using slightly different words... The jurors use reasonable doubt when rendering their verdict. They are instructed by the judge to use that high standard. If they use a different standard than they are not following their instructions.
You seem not to understand how it's being used, though. The way you state it, the jury believed beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not guilty. That is not the burden of the defense. I think that you may believe the same thing that I'm saying, but the words that you're typing and posting mean the opposite.
I think there's a good chance that there will be a civil suit if it's allowed and we'll see all this included in a civil trial btw.
Not necessarily. While the laws of every state vary, typically even in a civil suit, "Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait."
I'm pretty much done with this case. At the end of the day, I think the jury handed down the only verdict they could. People on both sides were far too emotionally connected to this case. Libs are bitching and whining because it didn't go their way. Far too many cons seem to be gloating over the verdict for no apparent god damned reason than the guy they felt--notice their emotional attachment too--was not guilty was found not guilty. They'll be disappointed by a case soon enough and, to me, it's that love/hate relationship that both sides have with the justice system and its inability to be a respecter of person, race, religion, or whatever that proves the system works.
And, a quick addendum for MEM (as I believe that he'll be the first to say something about it because of how the case turned out), I didn't say the justice system was perfect. There are some clear deficiencies that we've built into the system. But, the foundation is as strong as ever. Hopefully, this will clear somethings up.
Yeah, all we have to go on are the call to 911 and the second-hand testimony of the girl with whom he was on the phone. Circumstantial, at best IMO, "evidence" that he followed the kid with any intent to do harass, annoy, or alarm him.
Biggest indictment I could think of here is against the media. This case is the cause celebre that the media circus loves most. And, for the most part, it shows. Frankly, I'm astonished I haven't seen articles or postings about something stupid Nancy Grace had to say about this yet.
Like I said, even if I assume Zimmerman was in the wrong here, I don't think there will ever be enough clear facts to bring this to anything but a show trial.
I think that was just about close enough to say I called it.
But, I also hear I got "Nancy Grace saying something stupid" about the case too. Something about Zimmerman being able to hit up the Taco Bell drive-thru for churros.
And, a quick addendum for MEM (as I believe that he'll be the first to say something about it because of how the case turned out), I didn't say the justice system was perfect. There are some clear deficiencies that we've built into the system. But, the foundation is as strong as ever. Hopefully, this will clear somethings up.
You have to keep in mind Iggy that I didn't think see what backed up the second degree murder charge as the trial wound down. I haven't seen the whole trial or even read all of the juror instructions but I can see how they came by there verdict and how they say they had no choice. Even if you thought Zimmerman probably provoked the fight you really don't know it and therefore it falls into a not guilty verdict.
I know I'm in the miniority here but I hope Zimmerman gets the OJ treatment and has to face a civil suit though. If it's allowed than it's a preponderance of the truth and I think he could be found guilty for wrongful death. Martin's parents wouldn't make any money but it would prevent Zimmerman from any potential book or movie deal in the future.
Putting aside the fact that justification is also a defense in a civil suit, couldn't Martin's parents be liable for a countersuit from Zimmerman? In certain circumstances, an adult parent is responsible for the damages inflicted by their minor children.
I don't believe that the shooting was due to racism.
The area had a lot of burglaries, the description of the suspect(s) was black and wearing a hoodie.
As cliche as it sounds Treyvon fit the description.
It was dark, it was raining, and Trayvon Martin was wearing a hoodie.
Zimmerman when he called 911 rattled off a long list of reasons why Martin was suspicious, none of which was race. EVEN WHEN ASKED by 911 if Martin was white, black or hispanic, Zimmerman could not identify the suspect as black.
I'm pretty much done with this case. At the end of the day, I think the jury handed down the only verdict they could. People on both sides were far too emotionally connected to this case. Libs are bitching and whining because it didn't go their way. Far too many cons seem to be gloating over the verdict for no apparent god damned reason than the guy they felt--notice their emotional attachment too--was not guilty was found not guilty. They'll be disappointed by a case soon enough and, to me, it's that love/hate relationship that both sides have with the justice system and its inability to be a respecter of person, race, religion, or whatever that proves the system works.
I don't recall protests across a hundred cities nationwide when O.J. Simpson was found not guilty.
I don't recall mobs of angry whites in at least 4 states beating up blacks and saying "This is for Nicole Simpson."
I don't see that ANYONE is "gloating". They are only responding with a few drops of truth in counterpoint, against an ocean of race-baiting and lies by Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Barack Obama himself, and other race-baiting liberals, including the virtually all the media.
THE TRUTH: Trayvon Martin was not singled out and killed because he was black, it was because he was pounding a guy's face in! If someone was pounding my face and I had a gun, I would likewise at some point, if not at the very start, pull my gun and put a stop to it. I think 100 people out of 100 would do the same.
How gullible are black Americans to buy this excrement? Or are they filled with hatred that they are willing to follow a message like this? Or more likely, black leaders (both Jackson and elected black leaders) just want to change the subject from black America's own culpability by blaming whitey.
From Fox News Sunday (as quoted elsewhere): 93% of black murders are black-on-black.
Perhaps blacks might more appropriately boycott their own communities.
95% of blacks voted for Obama in 2008. 93% of blacks voted for Obama in 2012.
While black umemployment has doubled nationally in that 4 years. Perhaps black America would be better served if they didn't practice such blind loyalty to corrupt black leaders, who would rather race-bait than improve their situation.
George Zimmerman rescues family from truck crash: George Zimmerman, who has not been seen publicly since his acquittal in the murder of Trayvon Martin earlier this month, surfaced to rescue an unidentified family trapped in an overturned vehicle on a Florida highway, police said Monday.
I also saw another Ohio gun group is raising funds to provide Zimmerman with a new gun.
This didn't happen in a vaccuum, the police were prepared to give Zimmerman back his gun, but then the DOJ stepped in and with-held it for largely political reasons, as they attempt to trump up new charges against Zimmerman, despite his acquittal. So he is deprived of his own gun. Even as endless death threats are launched at Zimmerman.
I love the laughable paranoid conspiracy theory in the "OPINION" section of this blog. Oh, yes, white America just wants to exterminate black men!
Never mind that upwards of 90% of black murders are black-on-black. According to U.S. Justice Dept statistics, blacks, who are 13% of the U.S. population, commit 42% of the nation's crime, and 52% of the murders. I get so tired of race-baiters like Tavis Smiley, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who berate the rest of America as having a "contempt" for black men. It is not unwarranted suspicion when black men commit such a disproportionate ratio of America's crime, that even makes Jesse Jackson say he feels fear when black men approach him on a street, and "relief" when he sees whites.
The problem is not white America, the problem is 76% of black men are born to single mothers. The problem is young black men dropping out of high school, and then ironically scapegoating whitey for their lack of opportunity. The problem is young black men committing crimes at a disproportionate rate, without which crimes they could not be imprisoned. The problem is a black rap/hip-hop subculture that glamorizes black criminal and gang behavior, a culture of rage at white America that encourages violence toward whites in the name of justified retribution. That encourages black non-achievement, drop-outs, criminality, and non-assimilation into the mainstream of America. Blacks bemoan that they are racially stereotyped, even as they emulate perfectly the stereotypical clothing, demeanor, and criminal behavior of the thugs who dominate black culture.
The problem is the culture of perpetual victimhood in black America, whipped up by black and white elected liberal politicians, who act like it's still 1964, stoking and perpetuating the spectre of past racism to keep herding blacks into voting Democrat.
Blacks who come to the U.S. from the Caribbean, Africa and other cultures achieve education and success at a much higher rate than than African Americans. But unfortunately their children assimilate into black America, and become part of the victim-culture.
Here is a guy who was trying to do the right thing last year and ended arrested, prosecuted in a show trial and had death threats against himself and his family.
Most of us, after all that, would never stick our neck out again.
This guy stops to help rescue a family from an overturned vehicle.
Here is a guy who was trying to do the right thing last year and ended arrested, prosecuted in a show trial and had death threats against himself and his family.
Most of us, after all that, would never stick our neck out again.
This guy stops to help rescue a family from an overturned vehicle.
Well most people I know would stop and help people in need. Than again most people I know don't have a record that includes assaulting a police officer with violence, slapping a fiance around and killing a teenage kid. Too useless to defend himself from a 150 lb kid that allegedly attacked him for just following him I'm actually skeptical that he was actually much help after gaining over 100lbs with pulling anyone out of anything that would require much effort.
You mean like Martin's friend who said his last words were "get off, get off"? Oh wait, eye witness accounts only matter if they support the guy who likes to slap around women and assault police officers. Your hero apparently.
You mean like Martin's friend who said his last words were "get off, get off"? Oh wait, eye witness accounts only matter if they support the guy who likes to slap around women and assault police officers. Your hero apparently.
Would that be the same witness who also said Martin attacked Zimmerman because he thought Zimmerman was gay?
So now you're defending gay bashers? You really hate yourself , don't you.
I heard her testimony so don't bother trying to lawyer your way with turning what she said into something else. If a woman worries about a guy raping her that doesn't mean defending her being worried is somehow hating hetrosexuals. You present flawed logic just to attempt a little dig at me. It always fails and just diminishes yourself.
I heard her testimony so don't bother trying to lawyer your way with turning what she said into something else. If a woman worries about a guy raping her that doesn't mean defending her being worried is somehow hating hetrosexuals. You present flawed logic just to attempt a little dig at me. It always fails and just diminishes yourself.
You keep resurrecting the same exaggerations and lies:
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
Regarding Zimmerman's "violent record", from the L.A. Times (which strained to say every negative thing they could about Zimmerman):
Quote:
In July 2005, Zimmerman, then 21, was at a bar near the University of Central Florida when a friend was arrested by state alcohol agents on suspicion of serving underage drinkers, according to an arrest report in the Sentinel. Zimmerman became profane and pushed away an agent who tried to escort him, the report said. Authorities said he was arrested after a short struggle. Charged with resisting arrest without violence, he avoided conviction by entering a pretrial-diversion program, something common for first-time offenders.
A month later, an ex-fiancée filed a petition for an injunction against Zimmerman, citing domestic violence. Zimmerman responded by filing a petition of his own the following day. The fight led to protective injunctions that expired Aug. 24, 2006.
Zimmerman married Shellie Nicole Dean, a licensed cosmetologist, in late 2007.
The next year, he resurfaced in court documents as a credit-card company pursued him. Capital One accused Zimmerman of failing to pay more than $1,000. He settled with the company for $2,135.82, records show, to cover his debts with interest, as well as attorney and court costs.
Like I said, Zimmerman said the restraining order filed by his fiance was vindictively filed without cause, and there were no documented or reported injuries by her. And Zimmerman also reciprocated, filing a restraining order on her.
It's really creepy in the last few posts how personal your hatred is for Zimmerman, based on nothing.
After 16 months in the worldwide media-spun court of public opinion, and after a three-week trial in a Florida court, where a governor-appointed special prosecutor (in a case already rejected by initial investigating detectives and the local D.A.) , and a media-servile judge, arrested Zimmerman a second time without sufficient evidence, suppressed evidence, and did everything to convict Zimmerman with insufficient evidence, and even with all that stacked against him to make Zimmerman the political sacrificial lamb to the race-baiters... even with all that stacked against him, Zimmerman was STILL found innocent by a jury. And even an alternate juror says he would have voted Zimmerman not guilty as well.
At every point this has been manipulated by the Left to lynch Zimmerman in the end, no matter what the evidence in his favor.
I heard her testimony so don't bother trying to lawyer your way with turning what she said into something else. If a woman worries about a guy raping her that doesn't mean defending her being worried is somehow hating hetrosexuals. You present flawed logic just to attempt a little dig at me. It always fails and just diminishes yourself.
In any other circumstances,if a man attacked someone simply because he thought that person was gay and was going to rape him (based on nothing more thn Being followed), you would think the attacker (in this case, Martin) was a homophobe and gay basher.
Martins friend, whom you otherwise believe to be credible, has made that allegation. One would think, therefore, you would be less sympathetic to Martin given your typical positions, generally informed by your status as a gay man.
However, you're so caught up in your need to demonize Zimmerman that you're acting/speaking inconsistent with your usual positions.
I heard her testimony so don't bother trying to lawyer your way with turning what she said into something else. If a woman worries about a guy raping her that doesn't mean defending her being worried is somehow hating hetrosexuals. You present flawed logic just to attempt a little dig at me. It always fails and just diminishes yourself.
In any other circumstances,if a man attacked someone simply because he thought that person was gay and was going to rape him (based on nothing more thn Being followed), you would think the attacker (in this case, Martin) was a homophobe and gay basher.
Martins friend, whom you otherwise believe to be credible, has made that allegation. One would think, therefore, you would be less sympathetic to Martin given your typical positions, generally informed by your status as a gay man.
However, you're so caught up in your need to demonize Zimmerman that you're acting/speaking inconsistent with your usual positions.
First your defense of sexual assaults is interesting. I'm assuming this logic/defense of yours is just reserved for this instance. Whatever. You assume Zimmerman didn't do more than just follow Martin. Martin's friend however testified she heard Martin ask Zimmerman why he was following him and than Martin's last words "get off, get off". Of course if you believe the guy who slapped his fiance around and assaulted a police officer with violence, Martin jumped out of nonexistent bushes and other places or out of nowhere attacking Zimmerman.
An aside to WB, Zimmerman was originally charged with assaulting a cop with violence. He admits this in documents when he was trying to become a police officer. Yes the charge was reduced and than went away. Does that mean he than didn't attack a police officer? No and you wouldn't think so normally. So why is this different?
First your defense of sexual assaults is interesting
Misstatement of facts. At no time did I defend sexual assault. I merely pointed out that one of the witnesses you find credible also said that Martin profiled Zimmerman as a homosexual and that this allegedly was one of the bases for why Martin attacked him. I then noted that, under other circumstances, you would have condemned Martin for doing so.
When you change a fear of a friend being raped into somebody potentially trying to hit on, yes you are presenting a defense of sexual assault. You may want to reread her testimony and look at the word rape she used and the absence of the bs you tried to unload. Given the circumstances that her friend was being chased and hunted by some strange guy it wasn't a wild assumption for her to make. I'm not sure what you consider acceptable behavior but that isn't no matter your sexual orientation.
So you're saying that if someone is being followed by a perceived homosexual he can attack and injure the follower on the suspicion that said follower may be a gay rapist? Haven't your just given the green light to every gay basher to claim he thought 'der gay' would rape him?
Last year we started the Trayvon Revenge Counter to keep track of all the attacks inflicted on white people in revenge for the killing of Trayvon. Once Zimmerman went to trial and the dust settled, the attacks counter settled at 8, by our reckoning. Now that Zimmerman has been found Not Guilty, Trayvon Revenge attacks have resumed.
That's in addition to the black-on-white racially motivated attacks that normally occur, at a ratio of 50 times that of the reverse, year after year, according to U.S. Justice Dept statistics.
But to watch the selective coverage of the liberal media, you would think the opposite were occurring, and that the majority of racial attacks were white-on-black. Instead of the truth that they refuse to report.
Take a minute and try to imagine what would happen in this country if the following scenario had taken place:
A report describes how in broad daylight two white teenage boys tried to rob a black Brunswick, Georgia woman at gunpoint as she was peacefully pushing her 13 month old son in his stroller. When she resisted, pleading “I don’t have any money,” they callously shot and killed the baby.
The gun did not “go off by accident.” The white thug meant to shoot the black woman and did just that, hitting her twice, THEN turned the gun on the baby. A white thug calmly walked over to the stroller and shot the innocent black baby in the face.
Putting aside her own pain and fear, the loving black mother desperately tried to save her baby’s life by giving him CPR; but the helpless innocent child, shot in the face by a white assailant, died anyway.
We don’t have to imagine how the media would cover this story because unfortunately, except for the race of the killers and their victims which have been reversed, everything else in this scenario is true and actually happened.
Is there any doubt that if the killers were white, the New York Times would change its masthead to read “WHITES HATE AFRICAN AMERICANS ENOUGH TO KILL THEIR BABIES!” and keep it that way for two weeks? Where is the righteous indignation of the white media in this revolting black adult-on-white baby murder? Where are the stories reminding readers that the New Black Panthers have consistently called for murdering white babies?
Is there any doubt that there would be wide brush accusations about white racial hatred coupled with calls for more affirmative action and slave reparations?
Where are the professionally aggrieved Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?
Don’t hold your breath waiting for Jackson to descend on Brunswick chanting tired slogans about racism and the KKK. Sharpton is too busy making a fool of himself on his talk show to raise a voice in this case – the baby is white, after all. Neither of them has dredged up images of 80-year-old lynchings and beatings while beating his breast crying for “more gun control” to keep blacks safe from whites.
And the media? Its answer is: “We don’t cover black-on-white crime even when the victim is a baby – get over it.”
I don't see much point now in speculating about Zimmerman's guilt or innocence, until the Florida state Justice Dept completes its independent investigation, and releases the as-yet-undisclosed evidence.
I feel like, no matter what the evidence, to the Al Sharptons, Jesse Jacksons, to angry black victim-culture-indoctrinated America, to the posturing Democrat politicians and the partisan liberal media pundits who pump up that anger, that no matter what the evidence disclosed that might corroborate, justify, and exonerate George Zimmerman's actions, these ideologically driven zealots will continue to scream for Zimmerman's blood. No matter what.
I can envision a rush to convict Zimmerman on weak evidence, just to appease the zealots and prevent nationwide riots.
I can envision not having sufficient evidence, but still arresting Zimmerman, and holding him for a period of time before releasing him on insufficient evidence, with authorities saying "well, we tried..." just as a show, to again appease and prevent riots.
Or there might be evidence to at least pursue a trial of Zimmerman, or even convict him.
And I can envision Zimmerman being killed, either in prison or as a free man. No matter what the evidence.
Pretty close to what actually happened over the last 16 months.
You did notice that it links to a CNN story and the killers are recognized for what they are? When Zimmerman killed Martin that didn't recieve huge if any national coverage right away either. Zimmerman not being arrested after killing a kid played a part in the attention it got.
If somebody strange got out of their car at night and ran after one of your daughters, would that be just a guy following them?
I am sure anyone feels differently about a case involving their own family. That is why it is generally a conflict of interest to prosecute, defend or judge cases where a family member is involved. But here we are talking about the law and evidence, not personal emotion.
In addition, here is the actual transcript from CNN’s interview with Jeantel:
MORGAN: But you — but you felt that there was no doubt in your mind from what Trayvon was telling you on the phone about the creepy ass cracka and so on, that he absolutely believed that George Zimmerman, this man, you didn’t know who he was at the time, but this man, was pursuing him?
JEANTEL: Yes.
MORGAN: And he was freaked out by it?
JEANTEL: Yes. Definitely after I say may be a rapist, for every boy, for every man, every — who’s not that kind of way, seeing a grown man following them, would they be creep out? So you have to take it — as a parent, when you tell your child, when you see a grown person following you, run away, and all that.
Would you go stand there? You going to tell your child stand there? If you tell your child stand there, we’re going to see your child on the news for missing person.
Nothing about Zimmerman running.
Similarly, I was unable to find anything in the new coverage of her testimony that indicated she testified that Zimmerman was running after Martin. Instead, it appears she said that Martin ran away from Zimmerman at her urging (in part on the whole theory that Zimmerman was a gaypist).
So, based upon Jeantel’s statements, which you claim to find completely credible, Martin ran away from, and then attacked Zimmerman, in the belief that Zimmerman was a homosexual and possible rapist, simply because he was being followed (not “stalked,” btw).
In any other context, many people would consider that sort of stereotyping and overreaction “gay bashing.” And I’m sure you would have been one of them.
I'm sure it does feel differently when you have some empathy for the victim.
As for Zimmerman chasing Martin, this came up earlier in the thread. Martin's friend testified that she heard a man sounding out of breath before they exchanged questions. You can also hear Zimmerman running on the 911 call. It's after he say's "shit he's (Martin) running!". Even in the interview you posted she doesn't say she was worried about Martin getting hit on but dissapearing. In the trial she uses the word rape.
Even in the interview you posted she doesn't say she was worried about Martin getting hit on but dissapearing. In the trial she uses the word rape.
Yes. Exactly my point. Her testimony indicates that Martin assumed a man chasing him was a gay rapist. He then attacked the man on that assumption.
If anything, that testimony, which you find credible, indicates that Martin profiled Zimmerman as a homosexual "rapist" and attacked him out of homophobia.
Is it really your position that every time a perceived gay man runs it is reasonable to assume that he is out to rape a teenaged boy?
Because that it is the theory you are advancing here.
Even in the interview you posted she doesn't say she was worried about Martin getting hit on but dissapearing. In the trial she uses the word rape.
Yes. Exactly my point. Her testimony indicates that Martin assumed a man chasing him was a gay rapist. He then attacked the man on that assumption.
If anything, that testimony, which you find credible, indicates that Martin profiled Zimmerman as a homosexual "rapist" and attacked him out of homophobia.
Is it really your position that every time a perceived gay man runs it is reasonable to assume that he is out to rape a teenaged boy?
Because that it is the theory you are advancing here.
No you've constructed one of your strawman arguments again. In this instance you put forward that being afraid of being raped by a strange guy who follows you as you try to flee is somehow homophobic. Sorry but that's just dumb. I'll give you some credit and believe that somewhere in your mind you don't actually believe what your posting.
yeah, G-Man! Just because a guy wants to rape another guy doesn't automatically mean that he's gay. Get your mind out of the gutter and stop being so judgemental!
You don't have to assign societal constructs such as gender to people based on what they want to have sex with.
A whole gym full of 'em. I lost 26 pounds this year making use of them.
26 pounds! That's impressive, congratulations.
Hopefully your slim new waistline won't intimidate young black juvenile delinquents into thinking you're trying to gaype them, and result in violence. With great power comes great responsibility.
yeah, G-Man! Just because a guy wants to rape another guy doesn't automatically mean that he's gay. Get your mind out of the gutter and stop being so judgemental!
You don't have to assign societal constructs such as gender to people based on what they want to have sex with.
I can understand their reluctance. Who would want the potential death threats and organized harassment from people like Al Sharpton and Spike Lee? They should've waited in their (overturned) car for the police instead of letting themselves be rescued.
It's understandable that the family would cancel but sad that they have to worry about any percieved blowback. Just something to keep in mind though, the Martins are recieving death threats. There's wackos from both sides that seem to feel a need to "get" the other side.
It's understandable that the family would cancel but sad that they have to worry about any percieved blowback. Just something to keep in mind though, the Martins are recieving death threats. There's wackos from both sides that seem to feel a need to "get" the other side.
Except that no one on the pro-Zimmerman side (i.e., the rule of law!) is making death threats, and actually following through on those threats, in multiple acts of violence nationwide (as I detailed and linked extensively in my last 10 or so posts).
Ironically, Holder's justice dept is trying to circumnavigate the verdict and evidence to pseudo-legally lynch Zimmerman any way they can, and yet deny him and his family any legal protection from the violent rage that Obama and the Democrats' own rhetoric (undermining the rule of law) has stoked!
I've not heard of any threats against Trayvon Martin's parents. And even if there are, I'm sure the liberal media is leaping to find such a threat, while selectively ignoring a thousand times more threats to the Zimmerman family.
George Zimmerman is free from prison but held hostage by fear.
So are his parents and his attorneys, all of whom have received a deluge of death threats after Zimmerman was acquitted of second-degree murder charges in the killing of Trayvon Martin, his parents told Barbara Walters on Monday in their first interview.
“We have had an enormous amount of death threats,” Zimmerman’s father, Robert Zimmerman Sr., said on ABC News. “George’s legal counsel has had death threats, the police chief of Sanford, many people have had death threats. ‘Everyone with Georgie’s DNA should be killed’ – just every kind of horrible thing you can imagine.”
Robert and his wife, Gladys Zimmerman, haven’t even spoken to their son on the telephone since he walked a free man out of the Sanford, Fla., courtroom, they told Walters. The interview comes a day after Zimmerman’s defense attorney, Mark O’Mara, told ABC that Zimmerman can get back the 9mm Kel-Tec pistol he used to kill Trayvon Martin
A 78-year-old Methodist preacher from Volusia County, Fla., named George Zimmermann, was forced to call the police on Saturday when one of several harassing calls he's been getting, since the acquittal of Trayvon Martin's killer, threatened to send him to "a 6 feet hole."
"Hey (expletive) you're the one who killed Trayvon Martin, when your (expletive) get out, you're dead. Wherever you go, you're dead. Wherever you're trying to hide, you're dead," said the anonymous caller in the vitriolic rant noted in a WFTV 9 report.
"Watch your (expletive) move. You think you're free. You're not. You better get ready to dig a 6 feet hole. Cause you know you're fixing to go," the caller added.
Zimmermann, whose surname has two N's, unlike George Zimmerman's one, said his usually quiet life became a nightmare the night the 29-year-old neighborhood watch captain was acquitted of Trayvon Martin's murder.
"The night of the verdict, I had one at 1 in the morning, which woke me up; was pretty nasty. Another at 3 in the morning," said the Methodist preacher.
When asked how he has been treating the harassing calls, Zimmerman said: "I don't say anything to them except, 'Hey, you've got the wrong guy. The name's spelled differently.'"
What's worse, however, is that even when the preacher has clarified the mix-up, no one has ever apologized to the man of God, and he has handled it with grace.
"I guess if it made them feel better to vent, that's fine. I can live with it," said Zimmermann, who is hoping that the calls will end soon.
George Zimmerman Juror Says 'In Our Hearts, We Felt He Was Guilty' July 25, 2013 By ALYSSA NEWCOMB Alyssa Newcomb More from Alyssa »Digital Reporter George Zimmerman Juror: 'In Our Hearts, We Felt He Was Guilty'Next The only minority on the all-female jury that voted to acquit George Zimmerman said today that Zimmerman "got away with murder" for killing Trayvon Martin and feels she owes an apology Martin's parents.
"You can't put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty," said the woman who was identified only as Juror B29 during the trial. "But we had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence."
She said the jury was following Florida law and the evidence, she said, did not prove murder.
The court had sealed the jurors' identities during the trial and still hasn't lifted the order, but Juror B29 edged out of the shadows in an exclusive interview with "Good Morning America" anchor Robin Roberts. She allowed her face to be shown, but -- concerned for her safety -- used only a first name of Maddy.
The nursing assistant and mother of eight children was selected as a juror five months after she had moved to Seminole County, Fla., from Chicago.
All six of the jurors were women and Maddy, 36, who is Puerto Rican, was the only minority to deliberate in the racially charged case. Zimmerman, 29, was a white Hispanic and Martin, 17, was black.
Catch up on all the details from the George Zimmerman murder trial.
Despite the prosecution's claim the Zimmerman profiled Martin because he was black, Maddy said the case was never about race to her, although she didn't want to speak for her fellow jurors.
But her feelings about Zimmerman's actions are clear.
"George Zimmerman got away with murder, but you can't get away from God. And at the end of the day, he's going to have a lot of questions and answers he has to deal with," Maddy said. "[But] the law couldn't prove it."
When the jury of six women—five of them mothers—began deliberations, Maddy said she favored convicting Zimmerman of second degree murder, which could have put him in prison for the rest of his life. The jury was also allowed to consider manslaughter, a lesser charge.
"I was the juror that was going to give them the hung jury. I fought to the end," she said.
However, on the second day of deliberations, after spending nine hours discussing the evidence, Maddy said she realized there wasn't enough proof to convict Zimmerman of murder or manslaughter under Florida law.
Zimmerman concedes he shot and killed Martin in Sanford on Feb. 26, 2012, but maintains he fired in self-defense.
"That's where I felt confused, where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it," Maddy said. "But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty."
When asked by Roberts whether the case should have gone to trial, Maddy said, "I don't think so."
"I felt like this was a publicity stunt. This whole court service thing to me was publicity," she said.
Ben Crump, a lawyer for the Martin family, told ABC News, "We and the parents of Trayvon Martin do agree that the killer of their child got away with murder."
Trayvon Martin's mother Sybrina Fulton said in a statement that it was "devastating for my family to hear the comments from juror B29, comments which we already knew in our hearts to be true. That George Zimmerman literally got away with murder."
"This new information challenges our nation once again to do everything we can to make sure that this never happens to another child. That's why Tracy and I have launched The Trayvon Martin Foundation to try and take something very painful and negative and turn it into something positive as a legacy to our son," Fulton said.
Zimmerman's lawyer, Mark O'Mara, said he wants to see the interview before commenting.
As a mother, Maddy said she has had trouble adjusting to life after the verdict, and has wrestled with whether she made the right decision.
"I felt like I let a lot of people down, and I'm thinking to myself, 'Did I go the right way? Did I go the wrong way?'" she said.
"As much as we were trying to find this man guilty…they give you a booklet that basically tells you the truth, and the truth is that there was nothing that we could do about it," she said. "I feel the verdict was already told."
Maddy said she has sympathy for Martin's parents and believes she, too, would continue the crusade for justice if this had happened to her son.
I saw that juror's interview. She clearly didn't understand the distinction between "killing" and "murder" since she said she wanted to lock him away based solely on the fact that Zimmerman shot him.
But still, she's to be commended for putting her personal bias and reactionary feelings aside for the sake of following the parameters put down by the court.
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
"But we had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence."
on the second day of deliberations, after spending nine hours discussing the evidence, Maddy said she realized there wasn't enough proof to convict Zimmerman of murder or manslaughter under Florida law.
I saw that juror's interview. She clearly didn't understand the distinction between "killing" and "murder" since she said she wanted to lock him away based solely on the fact that Zimmerman shot him.
But still, she's to be commended for putting her personal bias and reactionary feelings aside for the sake of following the parameters put down by the court.
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
"But we had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence."
And they did.
I think she understands the difference but what she ran into was the reasonable doubt standard jurors are instructed to follow. This seems to confuse people from both sides but you can actually think somebody is probably guilty but because of the high standard you really have no choice in your verdict if it doesn't reach that high bar of evidence. OJ was also found not guilty as have many others that probably were guilty but it just couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I feel bad for those jurors because it couldn't have felt good rendering that not guilty verdict.
She said nothing about reasonable doubt. She said that she felt he was guilty on the sole virtue of the fact that he killed Martin. Unfortunately for her feelings, the state still discriminates one kind of killing from another.
I think she understands the difference but what she ran into was the reasonable doubt standard jurors are instructed to follow. This seems to confuse people from both sides but you can actually think somebody is probably guilty but because of the high standard you really have no choice in your verdict if it doesn't reach that high bar of evidence...
As written you seem to be saying that you no longer want to hold the government to the high standard that was and is intended to insure the protection of the innocent from an overreaching police state. Am I correct or am I misreading your post?
Didn't say that. I'm curious where you read into that. I'm just saying reasonable doubt does allow for a juror to feel somebody is probably guilty and still find them not guilty because it doesn't cross that high bar from likely to certain.
Zimmerman’s brother warns: Civil suit ‘might not be very flattering’ for Trayvon Martin’s family By Arturo Garcia Friday, July 26, 2013 20:46 EDTTopics: Robert Zimmerman
5934 • 5934••••• • Robert Zimmerman, whose younger brother George was acquitted for his role in the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, told The Huffington Post on Friday that a civil suit might lead to unpleasant facts coming to light about the Florida teenager’s family.
“A myriad of things that were off-limits in a criminal trial would come into play in a civil case,” Robert Zimmerman said in an email to the Post. “Specifically, things that might not be very flattering to Trayvon or his family.”
That of course goes both ways. Besides Zimmerman's assaulting a cop with violence and domestic abuse allegations there was also a cousin that alleged he was molesting her.
Didn't say that. I'm curious where you read into that. I'm just saying reasonable doubt does allow for a juror to feel somebody is probably guilty and still find them not guilty because it doesn't cross that high bar from likely to certain.
The way you wrote it before I wasn't sure if you meant what I asked about or what you just wrote above. I wanted to clarify before I argued with you about something that you might not have actually believed.
That of course goes both ways. Besides Zimmerman's assaulting a cop with violence and domestic abuse allegations there was also a cousin that alleged he was molesting her.
As I noted before, prior bad acts are not necessarily admissible in a civil trial. That cuts both ways.
However, as noted before, from what I understand, the biggest potential exposure to the Martins is a countersuit from Zimmerman for assault by Trayvon and negligence on their part in failing to adequately supervise their son.
It's possible that Trayvon's past might be admissible in that context to show negligence by the parents in that they had knowledge of his bad character and still let him out at night unsupervised.
But that would not mean Zimmerman's alleged past was fair game as well. Most likely, it would come out there, if at all, on cross examination, in an attempt to show an alleged propensity for falsehoods or putting his own needs above society's. Even then, however, depending on the laws of FL, crimes which did not result in a conviction very well could be inadmissible to impeach.
Zimmerman's past would probably come out before a theoretical countersuit in cross examination wouldn't it? More likely his tendacy to react violently or force himself sexually would be used in a possible wrongful death suit if that is allowed.
Zimmerman's past would probably come out before a theoretical countersuit in cross examination wouldn't it? More likely his tendacy to react violently or force himself sexually would be used in a possible wrongful death suit if that is allowed.
As I said above, it is possible it would come out on cross-examination but depending on the laws of the jurisdiction it is possible that only actual convictions would be allowed:
Quote:
Most likely, it would come out there, if at all, on cross examination, in an attempt to show an alleged propensity for falsehoods or putting his own needs above society's. Even then, however, depending on the laws of FL, crimes which did not result in a conviction very well could be inadmissible to impeach.
If I were a betting man, I'd say the alleged sex abuse wouldn't come out at all since the probative value would be outweighed by the potential prejudice of allowing discussion of an unproven and stale allegation.
Only possible convictions for Zimmerman? Wouldn't that also apply to Martin than also? As for the child molestation allegations, Zimmerman's cousin said it went on for years. The family even confronted "Georgie" with it. It wasn't like it was decades ago either. Is there a legal time limit for when something that would go to character becomes stale when it comes to a civil suit?
Only possible convictions for Zimmerman? Wouldn't that also apply to Martin than also?
It depends on how the information is being used.
As noted above, in a counterclaim against the Martins it is likely that the case theory would be that they were negligent because they allowed their son, whom they knew had a history of bad behavior, out unsupervised. If so, that knowledge would be an element of the case. Therefore, it would be provable...and relevant at trial against the Martins. In fact, Zimmerman might be required to show preexisting knowledge on the part of the Martins.
Conversely, if the counterclaim was against the estate of Trayvon for simple assault then those prior bad acts of Trayvon would be more likely inadmissible as character evidence.
And even if evidence were potentially admissible under relevance, as noted above, it would have to outweigh any undue prejudice.
If something is unfairly prejudicial a court would rule it can't be brought up even under cross examination.
I tend to think evidence of Zimmerman committing assaults would not be considered unduly prejudicial on cross. I tend to think that the sex abuse allegation would be. There's no conviction. It's an old allegation. An accusation of sex abuse is something that tends to enflame the emotions. Therefore, unless there is something more relevant to the case about that allegation than shown in the past, I think it would be suppressed.
And, please, understand: This isn't about liking Zimmerman and not Martin, or vice versa. It's about analyzing the likely theories of each case and how those theories would impact what evidence is or isn't admissible. It's something we do in traffic court.
Pointing out the ridiculous double-standard of the news media, throwing maximum kerosine on the fire regarding the rare white-on-black violent attack.
While virtually if not completely ignoring the far more prevalent (50-to-1) black-on-white attacks. And the 90%-plus ratio of black murders that are black-on-black.
The mother of a 13-month-old boy shot dead in his stroller said she thought the gun being pointed at her was fake.
Sherry West of Brunswick, Ga. recounted the horrifying chain of events that took place Thursday morning when she was pushing Antonio Santiago in his stroller after running an errand. That’s when she said a teenager and a younger boy approached her and demanded money.
“I thought the gun was fake. I didn’t think the gun was real,” West told CNN in an interview punctuated by sobs. “A boy approached me and told me he wanted my money and I told him I didn’t have any money and he said ‘give me your money or I’m gonna kill you and I’m going to shoot your baby.’”
West was shot in the ear, the bullet just grazing her skin, and in the leg above her knee.
“I thought it was a BB gun. It was a small gun, and then all of a sudden he walked over and he shot my baby right in the face,” West said. “He must have died instantly because I screamed for help and a neighbor to call the police, and he ran off — he got scared that I screamed.”
West said she quickly wheeled the stroller away and took the baby out of his harness.
“I tried to perform CPR, I saw his lungs inflating but he was not breathing and there was no pulse,” she said. “By the time the EMTs got there the police, they tried to do CPR also, and we — we lost him.”
De’Marquise Elkins, 17, was arrested and charged as an adult with first-degree murder. Police also arrested a 14-year-old, who has not been identified because he is a minor.
Elkins’ older sister said her brother was not in the area on Thursday and could not have been involved in the shooting.
“My brother wasn’t anywhere near that area as far as we know – not the scene or the shooting,” she told the Associated Press Saturday.
“He couldn’t have done that to a little baby,” she added. “My brother has a good heart.”
This Friday, March 22, 2013 photo provided by the Glynn County Detention Center shows De’Marquise Elkins, 17, one of two teenagers arrested Friday and accused of fatally shooting a 13-month-old baby in the face and wounding his mother during their morning stroll in Brunswick, Ga.. (AP)
West was shown Elkins’ jail mug shot and said she’s sure he’s the one who pulled the trigger.
“That’s definitely him,” she said. “He killed my baby, and he shot me, too.”
Oh yes, such a nice kid! Other reports show his family knew exactly what he did, and helped him conceal the gun and create a fake alibi.
Five months later, still waiting for the media to comment on the obvious racial angle and rage that made this sack of human excrement shoot a 13-month-old white baby in the face. Still waiting for the outrage from Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, the NAACP, and Congressional black Caucus.
Still waiting for President Obama to comment on how brutal and senseless this crime is, that black men while about 3% of the nation's population, commit 42% of the nation's crime. That 90% of black murders are black-on-black, and that racially motivated black-on-white crimes occur at a ratio of 50-to-1 of the reverse, and that this murder is a case example of a huge problem in America.
There's nothing that seems to get a liberal more fired up than acts of racism in America. They will go on television or radio or the Internet and bemoan the state of American society. But as we can clearly see from recent examples, not all racists are created equal, and only certain incidents are worthy of their time. If a white kid is beaten up by a black kid (or kids), you can bet you won't hear a single word of outrage from the left.
So, what exactly does it take to get the left fired up? When Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman and started beating his head into the ground, that was no big deal. But when Zimmerman shot Martin in self defense, then it suddenly became a hate crime. Zimmerman was branded a racist and put on trial in the media before he ever saw a single day in court.
Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, and just about every single so-called "civil rights" leader were claiming that there needed to be "justice for Trayvon."
Next, let's look at the beating that occurred in Florida recently. A 13-year-old white student was on a school bus when three older black students beat him severely. According to reports, the boy was left with two black eyes and a broken arm. And yet, despite this massive violence, there's not one word out of America's civil rights "leaders."
Now, the facts of that incident indicate that one of the black boys tried to sell drugs to the white boy, who then reported the encounter to school officials. The black kids then went on the school bus to get their revenge.
The beating does not appear to be racially motivated at all, but that's not really the point, is it? If three white kids beat a black boy on a school bus, the entire contingent of left-wing spokespeople would be out in force demanding "justice" for the boy. None of the "facts" would matter at all.
Then, there is the story of Raymond Widstrand, a white man who was simply out for a walk in St. Paul, Minnesota when he was beaten to near death by a group of black men. Again... no outrage at all.
Where are the calls by Obama for a "racial dialogue?" Where are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? Are they actual civil rights leaders or just black rights leaders? We all know the answer to that question: It's NEITHER. These men don't care about the rights of the average black man. They simply see incidents like the Trayvon Martin case as opportunities... opportunities for them to get in front of a microphone and remind America that they are famous and they have something to say. It's pathetic.
Finally, we have the "case of the clown." I'm talking about the rodeo clown in Missouri who has now been banned for life. What did he do that was so wrong? What did he do to warrant such a harsh punishment? He dressed up with a Barack Obama mask!
Rodeo clowns are all about entertainment. Just like comedians, their job is to make the audience laugh. Comedians all across the country make fun of the president of the United States. It goes with the territory. But, I guess if you put on a Barack Obama mask, you are suddenly a racist... at least according to the left.
It's time for all this to stop. If Jackson, Obama, Sharpton, and others are truly concerned with racial equality in America, then they need to stop giving black America a pass regarding violence. Basically, what these people are saying is that it's ok for blacks to commit crimes against whites. According to them, it's not racially motivated it's just a byproduct of their history in America. That's just a bunch of bull!
The longer we give ANY group an excuse for their violence, the more the violence will continue.
Sorry there isn't a diplomatic way to put it other than you guys are just being dumb.
Obama sat in Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years, listening to Wright shriek his hate at white America.
Obama was an enthusiatic follower of the writings of Derrick "hate whitey" Bell's lunatic rantings.
On the subject of wife Michelle Obama, his most imtimate soul-mate for over 20 years:
Quote:
In 1985 Miss Robinson received her B.A. in Sociology from Princeton University, where she minored in African American Studies. According to FrontPageMagazine reporter Jacob Laksin, “In a [February 2008] interview with Newsweek, [Michelle] Obama reveals that she got into Princeton … not on the strength of her grades, which she admits were unexceptional, but thanks to her brother Craig, a star athlete and gifted student who preceded her to the school. As a ‘legacy’ candidate and a beneficiary of affirmative action, Michelle Obama was granted an opportunity that others more accomplished were denied.”
During her years at Princeton, Miss Robinson was a board member with a radical campus group known as the Third World Center (TWC), which was established in 1971 to provide "a social, cultural and political environment that reflects the needs and concerns of students of color at the University”; to remedy the fact that “the University’s cultural and social organizations have largely been shaped by students from families nurtured in the Anglo-American and European traditions”; to acknowledge that “it has not always been easy for students from different backgrounds to enter the mainstream of campus life”; and to teach minority students to “become more sensitive to the consequences of a long history of prejudice and discrimination.”
TWC's constitution and founding documents were steeped in anti-American and anti-white rhetoric. TWC's constitution stated:
"The term ‘Third World’ implies[,] for us, those nations who have fallen victim to the oppression and exploitation of the world economic order. This includes the peoples of color of the United States, as they too have been victims of a brutal and racist economic structure which exploited and still exploits the labor of such groups as Asians, Blacks, and Chicanos, and invaded and still occupies the homelands of such groups as the Puerto Ricans, American Indians, and native Hawaiian people. We therefore find it necessary to reeducate ourselves to the various forms of exploitation and oppression. We must strive to understand more than just the basics of human rights. We must seek to understand the historical roots and contemporary ramifications of racism if Third World people are to liberate themselves from the economic and social chains they find themselves in."
A 1976 TWC document titled “Oppression breeds resistance,” stated: “The history of the peoples of the Third World, who have suffered from U.S. Imperialism, and of the oppressed nationalities within the United States—Afro-Americans, Puerto Ricans, Chicanos, Asians, and Native Americans, has been a history of oppression and resistance.” On one occasion in 1973, TWC brought the Puerto Rican Nationalist and Socialist, Manuel Maldonado-Denis to campus as a guest speaker. “I have come from a colonized country, submitted to cultural assimilation and cultural aggression,” he told the students at TWC. He accused the United States of “dominating,” “fleecing” and “exploiting” Puerto Rico, and said “the only solution” to the problem was “the establishment of national liberation and the establishment of socialism.”
In November 1984, during Michelle Robinson's tenure as a TWC board member, that board maintained that nonwhite students should have the right to bar whites from its meetings on campus and from its meetings with school administrators. Of the 19 elected positions on the organization's board, two were reserved exclusively for each of the five ethnic groups TWC claimed to represent: Asian, Black, Chicano, Puerto Rican, and Native American.
TWC played a key role in bringing to Princeton's campus a host of radical speakers, including such notables as Hassan Rahman, the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s deputy observer to the United Nations; David Johnson, affiliated with the terrorist group FMLN; former Jamaican Prime Minister Michael Manley, a committed socialist; William Bowen, the architect of Princeton’s racial preference programs; Roberto Vargas, a pro-Sandinista, pro-Che Guevara poet; Miguel Barnet, a pro-Castro writer and ethnographer; Manning Marable, a renowned black Marxist; and a number of ACORN representatives.
At Princeton, Miss Robinson wrote a senior thesis entitled “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community,” (see complete thesis under the Resources column on the left-hand side of this page). Some excerpts from the thesis include the following:
“Predominately white universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the white students comprising the bulk of their enrollments.” “[My Princeton experiences] “will likely lead to my further integration and/or assimilation into a White cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant.” “I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second.” “Earlier in my college career, there was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the Black community I was somehow obligated to this community and would utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit this community first and foremost.” “In defining the concept of identification or the ability to identify with the black community … I based my definition on the premise that there is a distinctive black culture very different from white culture.” After graduating from Princeton, Miss Robinson went on to attend Harvard Law School, where she was accepted under the aegis of a minority outreach program. As one of her friends would later reflect, Robinson recognized that she had been privileged by affirmative action and was very comfortable with that.
In 1988, during her third and final year at Harvard, Miss Robinson wrote an essay for the Black Law Students Association (BLSA) newsletter, condemning Harvard for its dearth of nonwhite and female law professors, and for not having tried to increase their numbers by hiring new candidates on the basis of skin color and sex rather than their academic credentials:
“The faculty’s decision to distrust and ignore non-traditional qualities in choosing and tenuring law professors merely reinforces racist and sexist stereotypes, which, in turn, serve to legitimize students’ tendencies to distrust certain types of teaching that do not resemble the traditional images.”
Also in the 1988 essay, Miss Robinson derided such books as The Paper Chase and One-L, for promoting the notion that law professors should be “cold, callous, domineering, old, white men who took pleasure in engaging their students in humiliating and often brutal discourse.” She criticized the “traditional model” of law-school instruction, which relied heavily on the Socratic method. She lauded the work of several professors who did not use that method, including such far-leftists as Martha Minow and Charles Ogletree. And she heaped praise upon the concept of critical race theory, which holds that because racism is so deeply ingrained in American institutions, classical liberal ideals such as meritocracy, equal opportunity, and colorblind justice are essentially nothing more than empty slogans.
On May 10, 1988, just a few weeks before Miss Robinson received her Harvard law degree, she and some 50 other BLSA members, carrying signs demanding an “end to racism,” stormed the office of Dean James Vorenberg and occupied it for 24 hours. Specifically, the protesters demanded that Harvard Law School hire (and grant tenure to) 20 female or minority professors over the ensuing four years. They demanded, further, that at least seven of those twenty hires be black — and that at least four of those seven be female. Moreover, they demanded that Harvard grant tenure to Professor Ogletree and a deanship to Professor Derrick Bell, the father of critical race theory.
After law school, Miss Robinson returned to Chicago to work for the law firm Sidley Austin. There she met her future husband, Barack Obama, who was working for the firm as a summer associate. In the summer of 1991 she joined the staff of Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley.
In 1992, as noted earlier, Miss Robinson wed Barack Obama. The marriage ceremony was performed by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, pastor of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC), where the Obamas were members of the congregation. (They would remain members of TUCC until 2008.)
and
Quote:
In a February 2007 appearance with her husband on 60 Minutes, Mrs. Obama implied that America’s allegedly rampant white racism posed a great physical threat to her husband, who had just announced his candidacy for the 2008 presidential race. Said Mrs. Obama: “As a black man, you know, Barack can get shot going to the gas station.” (Mrs. Obama’s implication ignored the fact that the vast majority of violence against black Americans is committed by other blacks. According to the U.S. Justice Department, for instance, between 1976 and 2005, fully 94 percent of black murder victims were killed by black attackers.)
For Barack Obama to live with wife Michelle all those years, he must share that deeply hostile racial ideology.
And Obama's associations with Rev. Wright and Derrick Bell, among others, underscores that racial hostility.
Generally helping people out doesn't get media attention at all. I take it you read the details of his latest exploits.
I saw that Shellie Zimmerman backed down today and admitted that George Zimmerman wasn't reaching for or holding a gun, and dropped the charges (i.e., she admitted she lied)
Apparenly he smashed an ipad that was recording the encounter but the police think they have a good chance of recovering it so that might shed some more light.
There's a question over whether George Zimmerman smashed the ipad, or whether Shellie Zimmerman smashed it by throwing it at him. Neither seems to want to press charges, and Shellie Zimmerman (a convicted perjuror) has already has already withdrawn her allegation that George Z. was carrying or threatening her with a gun.
Florida law allows police officers to arrest someone for domestic violence without the consent of the victim.
When asked if George or Shellie Zimmerman could be charged, Hudson said: "As of right now, it could be either one or it could be no one."
and
Quote:
Mark O'Mara, who represented George Zimmerman in his murder trial, said on Monday that his client did nothing wrong and the dispute was typical for a couple going through a divorce. On Tuesday, O'Mara said he was not going to represent George Zimmerman in this matter.
And
Quote:
George Zimmerman blames his arrest and the trial for the implosion of his marriage, [Zimmerman's defense attorney Mark] O'Mara said, but he needs to be a lot more "circumspect" about what he does.
"Anything he does is going to be hyper-focused on and scrutinized," O'Mara said. "Even though I may get away with a little speeding, he can't. It's unfortunate that this is part of the fallout from a case that never should have been prosecuted and he has to deal with this forever, and certainly right now."
There are so many vindictive people who desperately want to see Zimmeran be guilty of anything, and leap to believe the worst about him at every turn. He still has unpaid legal fees of roughly a million dollars hanging over him, isn't that enough? Not to mention Holder's race-baiting DOJ desperately trying to manufacture a civil suit against Zimmerman.
Would YOU object overly much if this woman wanted to divorce you? I'd say "Well, hey, take care, good luck to you!" and be so glad I wouldn't ever have to see her again.
They were arguing over posssesions being split up, not because he was trying to control her or keep her.
Zimmerman isn't a exactly a model himself either. Considering he has a history of it always being somebody else's fault it's not a surprise she and his lawyer are bailling before he kills again.
Zimmerman isn't a exactly a model himself either. Considering he has a history of it always being somebody else's fault it's not a surprise she and his lawyer are bailling before he kills again.
Zimmerman isn't a exactly a model himself either. Considering he has a history of it always being somebody else's fault it's not a surprise she and his lawyer are bailling before he kills again.
You really want this to be true, huh?
As near as I can tell, his lawyer is "bailing" only to the extent that he doesn't handle matrimonial cases.
I would have guessed it was because Zimmerman already has about 1 million in unpaid bills. But he will still defend Zimmerman if a civil case is brought against him by the DOJ.
Although as you say, O'Mara is quoted that he doesn't handle divorce cases.
Even if/when Zimmerman kills again O'Mara won't be representing him according to this...
Quote:
A spokesman for Mark O'Mara, who succeeded in winning an acquittal for Zimmerman in the racially charged Trayvon Martin murder trial, said O'Mara will not represent Zimmerman in any future litigation including his divorce and any possible charges resulting from the Monday incident involving his wife and father-in-law.
O'Mara will still be Zimmerman's lawyer in a defamation suit pending against NBC and in the remaining motions stemming from the Trayvon Martin trial, including a motion to reimburse Zimmerman's attorneys and a motion to censure the prosecution.
O'Mara appeared to struggle with his anger at his client during Monday's incident in which he went to Zimmerman's house while police were still there. During a press conference later, O'Mara was asked if he had any advice for Zimmerman, and he answered, "Pay me." ...
All of which seems to indicate o'Mara isn't representing him because of a pay dispute, and not because of any fanciful theory from the left that GZ is some sort of serial killer.
Also, MEM, your changed post-title to "Zimmerman now beating up old people and threatening spouse with a gun" was completely debunked 3 days ago.
Shellie Zimmerman admitted that George Zimmerman never reached for or brandished a gun, and basically admitted that she lied, and isn't pressing charges.
Zimmerman has about $1 million in unpaid legal fees. On the one hand, O'Mara will likely make a fortune in new business from the national publicity he got in successfully defending George Zimmerman. But in the short term, he requires some paying business to pay for the months of unpaid legal work he did for Zimmerman.
And Zimmerman has a big lawsuit over the editing of his 911 call, that has a good chance of a settlement that will at the very least pay his cumulative legal bill.
I consider you, G-man and Pariah as all my gay wives and the beatings never stop!
I think she's not pressing charges because he's an abusive loser and pressing charges would have just been more time dealing with Georgie. Note I use the word think, I don't know it but he's got a history of it always being the other guy, fiance or wife that attacked him. He's either very unlucky or more likely the fucker is the one starting it.
Tempers run high on both sides in these political discussions. And I've also defended you when I felt the comments were too abusive or unfair. (As you have for me, and I appreciate that, despite our political disagreements.)
I said the wife-beating thing (which clearly you're not beating your wife, gay or otherwise) just to make the point how easy it is for you to say something about Zimmerman that is demonstrably not true, and for one post-title, turned the tables back on you. There's plenty you can accuse Zimmerman of in the way of poor judgement on a number of occasions. And that his attitude partly led to the escalation between him and Trayvon Martin the night of the shooting. But you (1) make a lot of mean assumptions about Zimmerman beyond the known facts and (2) fail to acknowledge any of the known facts about Trayvon Martin's contribution to his own death, in his criminal behavior, school suspensions, martial arts fighting, and texted preference for the kind of face-beating he gave Zimmerman, his bag of stolen jewelry from a burglary, and posturing gang demeanor and belligerence in his online Facebook and Twitter posts.
As I've said repeatedly, I think both these guys were at fault, and got into a pissing contest that neither of them would back down from, that escalated to the shooting of Trayvon. Both were partly at fault. And I think up to 5 years in jail for manslaughter, or at least some lesser jailtime would have been appropriate, for Zimmerman's shared part in the mutual escalation.
But because Zimmerman was turned into a nationally televised political football and the trumped-up poster-boy for "white hispanic" racism toward blacks, and the nationwide media-push to lynch Zimmerman no matter what the evidence, there was no way he was going to spend less than 35-years-to-life in prison. And that just isn't proportionate to what occurred. And not fair in light of the fact there is a good case that it was in self-defense.
Bottom line regarding Shellie Zimmerman's allegations: She already admitted the part about him threatening her with a gun was a lie. So likely the rest is a lie or at least vast exaggeration as well. This is just the latest example of trying to convict Zimmerman against the evidence without a trial.
Lake Mary, Fla., police chief Steve Bracknell has distanced himself from comments he made in a response to an email from a town resident who was upset that George Zimmerman has not been charged with any crimes following an altercation Monday with his estranged wife and her father.
In a Sept. 10 response to Lake Mary resident Santiago Rodriguez's strongly-worded emails, which called Zimmerman "a ticking time bomb... [and] a Sandy Hook [or] Aurora waiting to happen," Bracknell initially replied "I agree." On Thursday, WTSP reported that the chief walked back his comments about Zimmerman.
"Chief Bracknell distanced himself saying he was 'referring to the fact that [Zimmerman] seems to be involved in incidents' involving firearms," the station reported.
Requests for comment from the chief by The Huffington Post were not immediately returned.
In a 911 call placed Monday, Zimmerman's wife, Shellie, can be heard telling the operator that her estranged husband smashed an iPad and punched her father in the nose.
Neither Shellie Zimmerman nor her father have pressed charges over the incident.
"Florida law does not permit us to make an arrest [if no charges are brought]," Bracknell wrote. "No victim, no crime."
The chief was credited previously with calling Zimmerman a "ticking bomb" that would inevitably explode. But as is made clear in the displayed exchange of e-mails, he was ambiguously responding to someone else who made the remark. Before the chief further walked it back.
I hope Zimmerman gets counseling. It can be argued he had problems before all this went down, and certainly he needs guidance with all he's been through since the shooting.
Tempers run high on both sides in these political discussions. And I've also defended you when I felt the comments were too abusive or unfair. (As you have for me, and I appreciate that, despite our political disagreements.)
I said the wife-beating thing (which clearly you're not beating your wife, gay or otehrwise) just to make the point how easy it is for you to say something about Zimmerman that is demonstrably not true, and for one post-title, turned the tables back on you. There's plenty you can accuse Zimmerman of in the way of poor judgement on a number of occasions. And that his attitude partly led to the escalation between him and Trayvon Martin the night of the shooting. But you (1) make a lot of mean assumptions about Zimmerman beyond the known facts and (2) fail to acknowledge any of the known facts about Trayvon Martin's contribution to his own death, in his criminal behavior, school suspensions, martial arts fighting, and texted preference for the kind of face-beating he gave Zimmerman, his bag of stolen jewelry from a burglary, and posturing gang demeanor and belligerence in his online Facebook and Twitter posts.
As I've said repeatedly, I think both these guys were at fault, and got into a pissing contest that neither of them would back down from, that escalated to the shooting of Trayvon. Both were partly at fault. And I think up to 5 years in jail for manslaughter, or at least some lesser jailtime would have been appropriate, for Zimmerman's shared part in the mutual escalation.
But because Zimmerman was turned into a nationally televised political football and the trumped-up poster-boy for "white hispanic" racism toward blacks, and the nationwide media-push to lynch Zimmerman no matter what the evidence, there was no way he was going to spend less than 35 years to life in prison. And that just isn't proportionate to what occurred. And not fair in light the fact there is a good case that it was in self-defense.
Bottom line regarding Shellie Zimmerman's allegations: She already admitted the part about him threatening her with a gun was a lie. So likely the rest is a lie or at least vast exaggeration as well. This is just the latest example of trying to convict Zimmerman against the evidence without a trial.
From what I've read she thought he had a gun. The girl George was with also said he did have guns in the vehicle and that was where he was at when Shellie called the cops. There is also video showing what looks like Zimmerman dismantling the ipad. His story of his father in law also reminded me of his story of how he was allegedly attacked by Martin. That was also the day his wife moved out.
I thought your post title was actually funny btw. It's a message board on the internet so I don't get to worked up about much aimed at me personally. Hope you don't either.
Well, the "when did you stop beating your wife" bit is a decades-old cliche about political spin and coverage. I think it was pretty clearly a joke and intended with humor, so I'd be surprised if you were truly offended by it.
I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Since neither Shellie or her father pressed charges, and admitted Zimmerman didn't brandish a gun, I don't buy that Zimmerman ever threatened them. I didn't understand the part you said about "Zimmerman dismantling the Ipad". In the article, Zimmerman said it was broken when Shellie threw it at him. I'm also not aware of Zimmerman's story about his father in law, or how that parallels his account of being attacked by Trayvon Martin. And what was "also the day his wife moved out"?
And as I quoted above from Huffington Post (which gives both George Zimmerman and Shellie Zimmerman & the father-in-law's account) there are two sides to the story, and plenty of witnesses.
Also, the police are confident that, after time, they will be able to recover the video inside Shellie's broken Ipad.
A large-scale shooting, and yet it barely made a ripple in the mainstream media.
Even in the video-clip, they go out of their way to avoid mentioning that it is black-on-black crime, and divert to a non-issue of not enough funding given to education and economic development of black neighborhoods. THE ISSUE is that 90%-plus of blacks are murdered in black-on-black crime. And that no matter what is spent (Chicago was in the news recently for having the highest-paid teachers nationally, with the lowest performance, but were still striking for higher wages and benefits), blacks have the highest high-school dropout rate, the highest rate of gang membership, and 72% of blacks are born out of wedlock. Pouring more money in will not make any difference.
But of course, the liberal media doesn't want to discuss that. They'd rather find another George Zimmerman "white hispanic" poster-boy to blame all black America's problems on.
Could cases against Zimmerman being mixed up here? From Oct 23 this story ran...
Quote:
Lake Mary cops: We're not charging George Zimmerman with stealing from his mother-in-law She accused him of stealing a king-sized bed, antique chair and leather furniture.
By Rene Stutzman, Orlando Sentinel
5:46 p.m. EDT, October 23, 2013
Lake Mary police announced Wednesday that they are not going to charge George Zimmerman with stealing a king-sized bed, antique chair and several other pieces of furniture from his mother-in-law's rental house where he lived for several months.
Department spokesman Officer Zach Hudson characterized the matter as "a civil dispute".
Earlier, Hudson described it as a landlord-tenant dispute.
She also accused him of defacing the kitchen cabinets by writing on them, the report said.
Police tried to question Zimmerman but he referred questions to his attorney, Mark O'Mara, the report said. At one point, O'Mara said he'd just pay the estimated loss himself "because his client did not need the extra attention," the report said.
However, that never happened.
Zimmerman and his wife, Shellie, had split up Aug. 13 and a few weeks later – on Sept. 9 – had a very public dispute when she called police, complaining that he was threatening her and her father as they tried to move belongings out of the house.
Lake Mary police investigated but made no arrest.
There was no word Wednesday on whether police had made progress in that case. They were considering having another agency try to retrieve video from Shellie Zimmerman's iPad, which George Zimmerman destroyed after she recorded the confrontation. ...
George Zimmerman arrested, accused of pointing shotgun at girlfriend He was arrested 1 p.m. today.
George Zimmerman's girlfriend calls 911 after dispute. By Rene Stutzman, Orlando Sentinel
5:58 p.m. EST, November 18, 2013
George Zimmerman was arrested on domestic violence charges Monday after pointing a shotgun at his girlfriend, breaking a table and pushing her out of her Seminole County home, deputies said.
Zimmerman is being held without bail at the Seminole County Jail, charged with aggravated assault with a weapon — a felony — domestic violence battery and criminal mischief.
Deputies received a call from 27-year-old Samantha Scheibe around 12:30 p.m. Monday and when they responded to the home three minutes later, Zimmerman was there and was not armed.
Zimmerman was arrested and booked, said Chief Deputy Dennis Lemma of the Seminole County Sheriff's Office. ...
His girlfriend wore a hoodie and had a bag of Skittles.
Now we shouldn't jump to conclusions, Georgie may have felt his life was in danger.
Quote:
... However, Zimmerman tells a different tale. He told police in a separate 911 call that she instigated the incident.
"My girlfriend has ... for lack of a better word, gone crazy on me," said Zimmerman while police knocked on the door trying to speak with him.
"The police is already there and so why are you calling? What happened?" the dispatcher asked.
Zimmerman replied, "I just want everyone to know the truth."
In Zimmerman's 911 call he says his "pregnant" girlfriend instigated the altercation and that no guns were used. Police later noted that his girlfriend was not pregnant.
"I never pulled a firearm. I never displayed it. When I was packing it I'm sure she saw it. I keep it next to the bed," Zimmerman said.
He said he agreed to leave the house to diffuse a tense conversation, and at first she agreed but then became upset.
"When she changed, she just started smashing stuff. Taking stuff that belonged to me. Throwing it outside. Throwing it out of her room. Throwing it all over the house. She broke a glass table," said Zimmerman.
Zimmerman appeared hesitant to speak with officers who were trying to get in the home.
Dispatcher: Is she still outside with the officers now? Zimmerman: I don't know ma'am. I'm inside. Dispatcher: You're inside? And you're still not willing to go out and speak with the officers? Zimmerman: I can talk to one of the officers. But I don't want to go outside.
On the one hand, Zimmerman seems to be something of a dimwit to keep getting in these situations.
But he also seems to be skilled at setting up plausible deniability of his guilt. Two questions:
1) What would be appropriate punishment for his current crime, and recurring brushes with the law? 2) What will be the likely verdict, regardless of his innocence or guilt?
1) I think it would be appropriate for him to either do jail time, or wear an ankle bracelet for a year or so. With giving him anything less than the maximum sentence (dependent on him getting court-appointed counseling) with regular evaluations that determine whether he remains out of jail. And possibly the condition that he has to live with his parents or relatives, to insure he has proper supervision until he has resolved his clear issues.
2) The more likely outcome, he has set up a situation where it is a "he said/she said" that gives him plausible deniability, and this will get him acquitted, or off with a very minor sentence, and his deeper issues will be left unresolved. Meaning we'll see him back in court on another charge in a few months.
If I were Zimmerman, after his acquittal for the Trayvon Martin shooting, I would have moved to Idaho or Alaska or North Dakota, someplace far away from black America, where I wouldn't even need to carry a gun in self defense. Or maybe his native Ecuador, or Europe, someplace where no one knows him, where he could let his notoriety in the U.S. die down for a few years, before coming back with a new and unrecognizable look.
But then, I wouldn't go out looking for punks who always get away with it, or slapping women around, in the first place.
Prosecutor at bail hearing: Zimmerman choked girlfriend days before shotgun threat By David Edwards Tuesday, November 19, 2013 15:33 EST
At a bond hearing on Tuesday, prosecutors in Seminole County alleged that former neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman had choked his girlfriend just days before she called 911 to say he was threatening her with a shotgun.
Zimmerman had been arrested on felony domestic violence and misdemeanor battery charges on Monday after Samantha Scheibe told authorities that he pointed a shotgun at her and pushed her out of the house.
The judge ordered on Tuesday that Zimmerman could be released on $9,000 bond. He was also barred from possessing guns or from coming within 1,500 feet of Scheibe. Zimmerman will have to wear a GPS tracking device until his next court date on Jan. 7.
At the hearing, the prosecution told the judge that the victim was “in fear for her safety.”
“The victim had indicated that there was a prior domestic violence incident that had occurred approximately a week and half ago that involved a choking that she did not report to the police,” the prosecutor said. “He has also has mentioned suicide in the recent past.”
At least two other women, a former wife and a former girlfriend, have also accused Zimmerman of domestic violence in the past. He was acquitted of murder earlier this year after he admitted to killing 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.
Update (3:45 p.m. ET): Zimmerman’s wife, Shellie, reportedly served him divorce papers while he was in jail waiting for Tuesday’s bond hearing. She had been unable to find him to serve the papers prior to the arrest.
... If I were Zimmerman, after his acquittal for the Trayvon Martin shooting, I would have moved to Idaho or Alaska or North Dakota, someplace far away from black America, where I wouldn't even need to carry a gun in self defense. Or maybe his native Ecuador, or Europe, someplace where no one knows him, where he could let his notoriety in the U.S. die down for a few years, before coming back with a new and unrecognizable look.
But then, I wouldn't go out looking for punks who always get away with it, or slapping women around, in the first place.
In his confrontation with Trayvon Martin, no. Trayvon Martin was bashing his face in, Trayvon attacked him, and he defended himself.
In his confrontation with wife Shelley Zimmerman, no.
It is still possible that his last girlfriend is exploiting Zimmerman's notoriety, and was alleging a false version of what happened in her 911 call, but at this point I don't believe Zimmerman's version.
The choking sounds like a tall tale she's using to pad the issue honestly. The domestic dispute is pretty light, so she probably felt compelled to allege abuse.
If she'd even mentioned it when the police arrived, it would have been more credible. But she waited until she had spoken to her attorney, and then, conveniently stacking up evidence for her case retroactively, only mentioned it then.
If there really was a choking incident a week or so before, she would have gotten away from Zimmerman then, and immediately called the cops right after to have them supervise Zimmerman move out of the residence with his possessions. She wouldn't have stuck around waiting for the inevitable next incident.
Zimmerman accused of sending image from homemade sex video to girlfriend’s daughter By Travis Gettys Wednesday, November 20, 2013 15:00 EST Samantha Scheibe
In the days following his acquittal on murder and manslaughter charges, George Zimmerman was alone, depressed and obsessed with guns, his girlfriend said.
Samantha Scheibe told WKMG-TV that she began her relationship with Zimmerman, who fatally shot unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin during a February 2012 encounter, around the same time his wife filed for divorce and accused him of threatening her with a gun.
Scheibe said her relationship with Zimmerman quickly unraveled due to his depression and she began to fear him, although she told the station that she stayed with him because she believed she could help.
She demanded that he seek professional help late last month, and Scheibe said Zimmerman moved all of her furniture, clothes and food from her home.
Scheibe and her mother had conversations with WKMG reporters via text message as they sought interviews with national media, saying they thought the attention would protect Scheibe.
“She’s scared is the bottom line,” Scheibe’s mother, Hope Mason, wrote in a text message. Zimmerman was arrested Monday on domestic violence and misdemeanor battery charges after the 27-year-old Scheibe said he pointed a shotgun at her and pushed her out of the house.
According to prosecutors, Zimmerman had choked his girlfriend earlier this month and had mentioned suicide in the past.
At least two other women, including Zimmerman’s estranged wife, have accused him of domestic violence in the past.
Scheibe said their relationship was volatile, and her mother told WKMG that Zimmerman sent a still image from a sexually explicit video of himself and Scheibe to Scheibe’s daughter.
“He’s now threatened her in writing and even sent a portion of the video to her baby girl,” Mason told WKMG in a text message.
Neither the contents of the image and the girl’s age could be confirmed, but it’s illegal under Florida law to transmit sexually explicit material to minors.
But still Scheibe stayed with Zimmerman and the couple reunited, and Mason was promising an interview with both to national media outlets as recently as last week.
Mason said her daughter first met Zimmerman about 12 years ago, in her late teens, and they dated for a short time before he got married and remained friends.
Scheibe said their recent romance began after Zimmerman’s marriage turned sour, and before he shot and killed Martin in a case that drew national attention after police initially declined to charge him because he’d claimed self-defense.
She said Zimmerman, whom she calls “Georgie,” was a warm and caring man who was always willing to help.
Scheibe said Zimmerman and his wife had gotten into an argument the night he shot Martin, and Shellie Zimmerman had left to spend the night elsewhere.
The couple had already discussed divorce, although they remained married and rented a house from her parents during Zimmerman’s trial that ended in his July acquittal.
Scheibe said Zimmerman began to change after the jury found him not guilty in the teen’s slaying.
She and her mother said Zimmerman sank into a deep depression when the media frenzy died down and doctors prescribed medication, which they said he did not take regularly.
Zimmerman spent days in bed, Scheibe said, and she believes he tried to take an overdose of sleeping pills and stuck a gun into his own mouth when he awoke, although she said she talked him out of shooting himself.
Scheibe said Zimmerman threatened to take his own life on multiple occasions, and she said the threats tended to come when he his name fell out of the headlines.
She thinks Zimmerman enjoyed the media attention he received, although she knew that would prevent him from living a normal life.
Scheibe denied claims made by Zimmerman’s wife about a September domestic dispute, saying Zimmerman had a gun with him but kept it in the trunk of his car.
Police declined to charge him in connection with that case.
Zimmerman was released Tuesday afternoon on bond in connection with his latest domestic violence case.
As a condition of his release, Zimmerman may not possess a gun or come within 1,500 feet of Scheibe, and he must also wear an electronic monitor until his next court appearance on Jan. 7.
I'll grant that the behind-the-scenes of Zimmerman's relationships with girlfriend Samantha Schiebe and wife Shelley Zimmerman is interesting, and her observations of Zimmerman's depression. There's no explanation of why his acquittal would make him MORE depressed. Just wild speculation that he got off on the publicity. Oh yeah, relentless death threats against him and his family, and the threat of spending decades of his life in prison, he must have been thrilled before the acqittal.
There seem to be quite a few lurid embellishments:
Quote:
Scheibe said their relationship was volatile, and her mother told WKMG that Zimmerman sent a still image from a sexually explicit video of himself and Scheibe to Scheibe’s daughter.
“He’s now threatened her in writing and even sent a portion of the video to her baby girl,” Mason told WKMG in a text message.
Neither the contents of the image and the girl’s age could be confirmed, but it’s illegal under Florida law to transmit sexually explicit material to minors.
Oh come on! He sent a pornographic message to Scheibe AND her daughter, and Schiebe didn't keep it as evidence? And it can't be retrieved by police later? Total B.S.
Quote:
She and her mother said Zimmerman sank into a deep depression when the media frenzy died down and doctors prescribed medication, which they said he did not take regularly.
Zimmerman spent days in bed, Scheibe said, and she believes he tried to take an overdose of sleeping pills and stuck a gun into his own mouth when he awoke, although she said she talked him out of shooting himself.
Scheibe said Zimmerman threatened to take his own life on multiple occasions, and she said the threats tended to come when his name fell out of the headlines.
Again, this strains credibility. No police or Emergency Medical/hospital involvement in any of these alleged incidents? Gee, it's almost as if they, y'know, didn't happen!
According to recent reports, I'm Not Mr. Mxypltk's first-born son, Son of Mxy, is in all actuality a really, really sexy guy. The evidence came by way of a mirror that he used to check out his "guns" while striking off a few karate poses and muttering off a few sexy phrases.
"Fuck yeah," said Son of Mxy while doing a karate chop. "that's sexy."
According to recent reports, I'm Not Mr. Mxypltk's first-born son, Son of Mxy, is in all actuality a really, really silly guy. The evidence came by way of a mirror that he used to check out his "guns" while striking off a few karate poses and muttering off a few silly phrases.
"Fuck yeah," said Son of Mxy while doing a karate chop. "that's silly."
Actress Natalie Portman placed a restraining order on SoM and would not comment.
The choking sounds like a tall tale she's using to pad the issue honestly. The domestic dispute is pretty light, so she probably felt compelled to allege abuse.
Zimmerman girlfriend shopping interview for money prior to 911 call: Samantha Scheibe, who called 911 accusing Zimmerman of pointing a gun at her, has been shopping around for a national media interview for weeks, but none of the national media would pay her the money she was seeking.
The choking sounds like a tall tale she's using to pad the issue honestly. The domestic dispute is pretty light, so she probably felt compelled to allege abuse.
Zimmerman girlfriend shopping interview for money prior to 911 call: Samantha Scheibe, who called 911 accusing Zimmerman of pointing a gun at her, has been shopping around for a national media interview for weeks, but none of the national media would pay her the money she was seeking.
Wow.
If there wasn't a question about her motives before...
Spike Lee has been sued by an elderly couple in Florida, whose address he incorrectly identified as the home of Trayvon Martin killer George Zimmerman, according to court documents obtained by the Smoking Gun.
The suit claims the “Do the Right Thing” director tweeted out the Florida address along with George Zimmerman’s name in March 2012 to his 240,000-plus Twitter followers.
“While defendant intended to post the home address of George Zimmerman, he actually posted the address of plaintiffs Elaine McClain and David McClain,” the complaint reads.
“I don’t give a f— what you think kill that Bitch,” Lee wrote. “HERE GO HIS ADDRESS, LET THE HUNGER GAMES BEGIN.”. . .
The attorney representing the Detroit teen accused of being an instigator in the mob attack on a Macomb County man earlier this month said the hate crime charge against his client is inappropriate, calling it a "spur of the moment" situation.
"A hate crime to me is burning a cross on somebody's lawn because of their race or color," lynching someone or painting swastikas on a synagogue, said Attorney Solomon Radner of Southfield following a brief court hearing today.
Radner noted that the teen is sorry about the situation. The teen is charged in the April 2 beating of Steve Utash, 54, of Clinton Township on Detroit's east side. Utash was attacked after he stopped to check on a 10-year-old boy struck by his vehicle as he drove on Morang.
The 16-year-old boy, who turns 17 in May, appeared in the Lincoln Hall of Justice in Detroit before Judge Jerome Cavanagh, who set a trial date of June 23-25 and kept the teen's bail at $400,000.
The teen, who is charged as a juvenile, faces assault with intent to do great bodily harm and ethnic intimidation charges. He is the youngest of the five defendants charged to date and the only one to be charged with a hate crime.
Solomon argued unsuccessfully for a lesser bail, calling the attack that left Utash with head injuries "a spur of the moment reaction to something that took place in his neighborhood." He said the teen would not be able to afford $400,000.
However, Assistant Prosecutor Hervey Jenkins noted that even though Utash appears to be improving, his recovery remains in question.
"This case could very easily have been charged with inciting a riot or insurrection with the events that occurred," Jenkins said.
At a court hearing Saturday, prosecutors said the teen -- whom the Free Press is not naming because he is a juvenile -- was one of the first to throw punches as the mob attacked Utash.
Utash was kept in a medically induced coma until last week, but family members have told the Free Press that despite severe head injuries Utash is now improving slightly every day. More than $179,300 had been raised as of this afternoon through the http://www.gofundme.com page set up for Utash's medical bills.
Four adults -- Bruce Wimbush Jr., Wonzey Saffold, James Davis and Latrez Cummings -- are charged with assault with intent to murder and assault with intent to do great bodily harm in the attack and are scheduled for their preliminary examinations on Monday.
i.e., the exact reverse reaction to the Trayvon Martin story. A racist attack on a white man who actually stopped to help a black kid he accidentally hit, is beaten for purely racial reasons. Not by one lone black person, but by a white-hating black mob.
Completely ignored by Obama's revenge/payback society, ignored by Obama's DOJ and white-hating attorney general Eric Holder. Ignored by the Obama-subservient liberal media, that has absolutely no interest in racially motivated black-on white crime. Despite that black-on-white attacks occur at a ratio of 50-to-1 of the reverse.
The lack of acknowledgement, condemnation, prosecution, or EVEN MENTION by the mainstream media, is a green light for black racism toward whites, and guarantees more such crimes will occur.
Spike Lee has been sued by an elderly couple in Florida, whose address he incorrectly identified as the home of Trayvon Martin killer George Zimmerman, according to court documents obtained by the Smoking Gun.
The suit claims the “Do the Right Thing” director tweeted out the Florida address along with George Zimmerman’s name in March 2012 to his 240,000-plus Twitter followers.
“While defendant intended to post the home address of George Zimmerman, he actually posted the address of plaintiffs Elaine McClain and David McClain,” the complaint reads.
“I don’t give a f— what you think kill that Bitch,” Lee wrote. “HERE GO HIS ADDRESS, LET THE HUNGER GAMES BEGIN.”. . .
I remember years ago when Spike Lee was a guest on the Arsenio Hall show, and on-air scolded Hall for not having an all-black production staff. Not surprisingly, Spike Lee was never invited back on the show.
And Spike Lee's tweeting the address of a couple (who turned out to have NOTHING to do with George Zimmerman) as allegedly being Zimmerman's parents, with the clear intent to incite violence against these people, that drove them from their home when it had the intended effect, should bring a criminal penalty to Spike Lee.
But of course, he's black and of the Left. And thus not held to the same standard.
But y'know, calling him as a "retard" is probably more spot-on.
(DETROIT, Associated Press ) A suburban Detroit man who said he fatally shot an unarmed woman on his porch out of fear prompted by early morning pounding on his doors faces up to life in prison after jurors rejected his claim of self-defense.
Theodore Wafer was convicted Thursday of second-degree murder after a nine-day trial that centered on whether the 55-year-old had a reasonable and honest belief that his safety was in peril.
"I don't know why this was brought to me," Wafer testified this week. "I didn't go out looking for this."
No one knows why Renisha McBride ended up at Wafer's Dearborn Heights home about 4:30 a.m. on Nov. 2, though prosecutors speculated the 19-year-old may have been seeking help. She had been out with a friend hours earlier before crashing her car in Detroit around 1 a.m. and an autopsy found she was extremely drunk.
Wafer opened the front door and shot McBride in the face, firing through a screen door while she stood on the other side. He first suggested to police that it was an accident but later admitted to intentionally pulling the trigger.
"This was a monster that killed her. All he had to do was call 911," instead of shooting, said McBride's aunt, Bernita Spinks.
The jury convicted Wafer of murder, manslaughter and a gun-related charge after deliberating eight hours over two days. He faces up to life in prison when he returns to court on Aug. 25 but would be eligible for parole after serving whatever minimum sentence is ordered.
The judge revoked Wafer's bond and ordered him to jail over the objections of defense attorney Cheryl Carpenter.
"He's not going to go on a rampage. ... He's a quiet, introverted man," Carpenter said.
McBride's mother, Monica McBride, cried and clasped her hands when the verdict was announced. She gave long hugs to prosecutors as the courtroom emptied.
"We learned he was a cold-blooded killer," McBride's father, Walter Simmons, told reporters.
"People have a right to bear their arms and everything else, but you have to do it with reason and responsibility," Simmons said. "Not just murder somebody when it's not justified."
Jurors declined to comment on the verdict. Carpenter, did, too. She had urged jurors to put themselves in Wafer's shoes in the wee hours last fall when he said he heard "unbelievable" pounding at his front and side doors.
"I didn't know it was a teenager. In that split second, I didn't know what's coming next," Wafer testified.
Several trial witnesses called by prosecutors described their encounter with McBride after she crashed her car into a parked car a half-mile from Wafer's home. They suspected she had been drinking, but she walked away before an ambulance arrived to treat her head injury.
Witnesses said she talked about just wanting to go home — a key point repeatedly emphasized by prosecutors as they tried to counter the defense team's portrayal of McBride as a reckless woman.
McBride "is dead, not because she was drunk. Not because she crashed her car," prosecutor Athina Siringas said during closing arguments. "But because she had the misfortune of maybe being confused of where she was. ... He wanted a confrontation. That's what this was all about."
Wafer had told police that he was sensitive to crime, especially after his vehicle was hit with paintballs.
Wafer is white and McBride was black, and some wondered in the aftermath of the shooting whether race may have been a factor, likening it to the shooting of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin. But the race angle was hardly mentioned at trial.
"It's about people with guns who don't use the right judgment before they pick them up," Spinks said.
———
In Zimmerman's case, I think it was clearly self-defense, where Martin was witnessed pounding relentlessly on Zimmerman, and Martin initiated the confrontation.
The 55-yeaqr-old white guy (Theodore Wafer) who shot the black girl (Renisha McBride) was armed, and this was an unarmed girl who was not attacking him. At most he could have fired a warning shot or just injured her. I'm with the jury on this one, that his shooting her was not justified.
Odd how this case got far less coverage than the Zimmerman trial.
George Zimmerman allegedly threatened to kill a man in Florida earlier this week during a road rage incident ... and cops pulled over Zimmerman to grill him about it.
According to the Lake Mary PD, a man named Matthew Apperson called 911 on September 9 and told the operator Zimmerman had pulled up next to him and began yelling, "Why are you pointing your finger at me? I'll f***ing kill you. Do you know who I am?"
Apperson says he drove away to a store where Zimmerman followed him to continue the verbal barrage. Apperson called 911 from inside the store, but according to cops ... Zimmerman was gone when they arrived.
Apperson claims 2 days later, he saw Zimmerman parked outside his work, and called police again. Cops responded and pulled Zimmerman over near the office. After questioning him, police decided not to press charges -- mainly because there was no independent witness.
For what it's worth ... Apperson is white. Also, he was carrying a gun at the time of the alleged run-in, but he has a permit for it.
Aw, George, GEORGE.... what are you doin'?
The number of incidents this guy is involved in is just unbelievable.
To show up at the guy's work 2 days later, either Zimmerman knows the guy, or he traced his license tag somehow. Either way, that's some serious obsession and anger.
As a "white Hispanic", Zimmerman must carry a lot of inner conflict and self-loathing on that issue.
Seriously, this guy comes from a fairly wealthy family, they should urge him to take anger management counseling and get him out of the national spotlight. Because it puts his whole family in the national spotlight, not just Zimmerman. Aside from that, how can a family continue to let their son/brother go on self-destructing like that?
Deconstructing the media portrayal of Trayvon Martin as an "innocent kid".
Especially hard-hitting for me was the interview of Trayvon Martin's friend, asking "Were you surprised" (that Martin got shot)? FRIEND: "Not really..."
While national news media continue to focus on race in Ferguson, Missouri, where a white police officer shot and killed an unarmed black teenager, they apparently don’t think a similar case in Utah with the races reversed is that newsworthy.
Police in Salt Lake City are continuing their probe into an Aug. 11 shooting outside a 7-Eleven convenience store, when a black police officer, whom local media are referring to as “not white,” shot and killed 20-year-old Dillon Taylor, who was unarmed at the time, according to his supporters.
Police Chief Chris Burbank said the entire incident was captured on the body camera of the officer who shot Taylor.
“You will see on camera … the actions of everyone involved, including up to the point where our officer utilizes deadly force and his response thereafter,” Burbank told reporters.
He said the video, along with the officer’s identity, will be released at the “appropriate” time, adding it could be days, weeks or months.
“It would be wholly inappropriate to take the most vital piece of evidence that we have and put it out to the public prior to the officer having some due process,” he said.
The chief indicated he has personally viewed the footage, but would not comment on whether he believed the shooting was justified.
“I do not send officers out to use deadly force. That’s never our intention. In fact, our policy specifically says that is the last resort,” he said. “The officer in this circumstance did not set out to use deadly force. We have an unfortunate incident where Dillon Taylor lost his life.”
Scott Simons speaks through a blow horn during a protest about the police shooting of Dillon Taylor in Salt Lake City, Monday, August 18, 2014. Simons is the father of Kelly Simons who was shot and killed by police in 2013. (courtesy Salt Lake Tribune) Scott Simons speaks through a blow horn during a protest about the police shooting of Dillon Taylor in Salt Lake City, Monday, August 18, 2014. Simons is the father of Kelly Simons who was shot and killed by police in 2013. (courtesy Salt Lake Tribune)
Burbank also refused to say whether Taylor had a gun, but the victim’s family and friends maintain he was unarmed.
“It didn’t make sense to me when I first heard everything, and they tried to say he had a gun,” Taylor’s friend, Aaron Swanenberg, told the Salt Lake Tribune. “I knew Dillon. He never packed a gun.”
The police state is already here. Get your autographed copy of “Police State USA” to discover the Orwellian nightmare.
Police said officers were responding to a report of a man “waving a gun around.”
When officers arrived, they found three men leaving the convenience store, with one, later identified as Taylor, reportedly matching the description of the person reported in a 9-1-1 call.
Witnesses say Taylor was wearing headphones at the time and may have been trying to pull his pants up when he was gunned down.
At the time of his shooting, court documents show Taylor had a $25,000 bench warrant for a probation violation in connection with felony robbery and obstructing justice convictions.
But Marissa Martinez, whose sister used to date Taylor, told the Salt Lake Tribune that Taylor had turned over a new leaf.
“He was trying to do better for himself. And this is what happens to him?” Martinez said. “It was really heartbreaking.”
Regarding the race of the officer, Utah’s Deseret News reported the police chief “saying the officer is not white.” The Salt Lake Tribune noted, “the officer involved was not white.”
The Taylor case was examined Wednesday by talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh, who said, “Note the similarities to the Michael Brown story [in Missouri], except in this case there’s no evidence the victim actually committed a crime.”
He noted Taylor “didn’t resist. He didn’t hit the cop. He didn’t try to flee and yet he was shot dead.”
He also pointed out how most news accounts did not specify the race of the police officer who killed Taylor.
“They are referring to the officer as ‘other-than-white,’ which reminds me of George Zimmerman becoming only the second-known white Hispanic, a title given by the New York Times.”
“They can’t wait to mention the racial aspects in St. Louis,” Limbaugh continued. “They don’t talk about the racial aspects in [the shootings in] Chicago, and there aren’t any racial aspects here in Salt Lake City.”
“There’s a mindset out there, and the way it works in situations like this [is] only people of color can be victims. A white person can never be a victim. It just can’t happen. That’s not permitted, that’s not allowed because it isn’t the case. The whites are the oppressors. They’re the majority. In the liberal worldview, every majority is an oppressor, whether they’re white or whatever. They’re all oppressors. The minority is always the victims, and the victims are with whom we should always sympathize, no matter what. And the victims are permitted to do anything precisely because they’re a minority, and I’m talking about in numbers, not skin color. They’re outnumbered. The evil majority does horrible things to the minority. And so the minorities, be it skin color or numbers … [are] always victims. And so anything they do is justified and we must try to understand the rage.
“But in the current climate in the United States, a black person can never be the oppressor and a white can never be the victim. And that’s how you have a corrupt or perverted news business in Salt Lake City, refusing to identify a black cop who may have shot an innocent person. That destroys the whole picture we’ve been creating here for centuries. That could totally destroy the image that we’ve been trying to concoct. Oh man that could blow it sky high; that’s just not supposed to happen. And so they come up with these things to hide it or to not reference it at all.”
Taylor’s aunt, Gina Thayne, told the Deseret News that police know they “killed an innocent kid.”
“If in fact they actually produce a tape, it will show exactly what happened,” Thayne said. “It will come out eventually. It will never bring Dillon back, though.”
This piece from ConservativeTreehouse is a treasure-trove of images and information. I especially love the doctored photo of 12-year-old Trayvon Martin being fitted for a hoodie in Heaven.
Just in case you forgot, Trayvon was 17 on the night he was shot. Not to make light of Martin's death, only laughing at the absurdly exploitative propaganda-twisting of his 12-year-old photo. jaw-droppingly so.
Also, his conversation on the phone of getting "tea" and "Skittles" can also be slang references to drugs.
Quote:
went to the store for Tea and Skittles.?
From the Washington Times … “And it all stems from Trayvon Martin, he of the walking home from the 7/11 store with Skittles and a can of tea. While wearing a hoodie“…
Where exactly did this “Tea and Skittles” narrative originate? His parents, his attorney(s)? Maybe they read something on his phone about his intention…
But did anyone stop to ask what he was talking about? Tea and Skittles is street lingo for “Marijuana and DXM, somtimes known as ecstasy“. ◾“Tea” is a street term for Marijuana ◾“Skittles” are also known as beans, ecstasy, rolls, E, X, Adam, Stacy, Clarity …………. “Hey dawg how much for 30 skittles”?
So is it more likely innocent childlike 17-year-old angelic Trayvon was coming back from a Snapple and Candy run. Or….
Is it more likely that a troubled teenager without supervision and a history of drug use, while serving a 10 day suspension for taking a baggie of pot and marijuana pipe to school, might have been talking about something else.
I don't know if they ever found actual tea and Skittles on Martin after his confrontation with Zimmerman. I presume the 7-11 video surveillance shows him making the purchase of these items. But interesting coincidence on the slang drug terms.
Delric Miller IV died in a hail of bullets a month ago. When someone fired 37 AK-47 rounds into his Detroit home at 4:30 a.m., he was mortally wounded while dozing on the couch. He was nine months old. No one made the multicolored teething ring he got for Christmas or his toy hammer into a national symbol of random violence.
Last year, Charinez Jefferson, 17, was shot and killed on a Chicago street. “She begged the shooter not to shoot her because she was pregnant,” a pastor explained. The alleged assailant, Timothy Jones, 18, shot her in the head, chest and back after seeing her walking with a rival gang member. New York Times columnist Charles Blow did not write a column about Jefferson’s killing as a symbol of the perils of being a young black woman in America.
Last June, a stray bullet from a confrontation on a Brighton Beach, N.Y., boardwalk killed 16-year-old Tysha Jones as she sat on a bench. A 19-year-old man, out for revenge after an earlier scuffle on the boardwalk, was charged in the shooting. Tysha’s heartbroken mother was not featured on all the national TV shows.
In January, 12-year-old Kade’jah Davis was shot and killed when, allegedly, 19-year-old Joshua Brown showed up at her Detroit house to demand the return of a cellphone from Davis’ mother. When Brown didn’t get the phone, he fired shots through the front door. No one held high-profile street protests to denounce gunplay over such trifles.
Everything about the Trayvon Martin case is a matter of contention. About this, though, there should be no doubt: If Martin had been shot by a black classmate, if he had been caught in a random crossfire, if he had looked at a gang member the wrong way, his death would have been relegated to the back pages of the local newspaper. Not a cause, not even a curiosity: Just another dead young black man. Nothing to see here. Please, move on.
Jesse Jackson is right that “blacks are under attack.” According to a 2005 FBI report, blacks accounted for 13 percent of the population and 49 percent of all homicide victims. In 93 percent of the cases, the killer was black. Half of the victims were ages 17 to 29. That works out to 4,000 murders of young blacks in one year, overwhelmingly at the hands of other blacks. In the communities where these killings occur there is, to put it in Jackson’s inimitable terms, no justice and no peace.
There is no comparable epidemic of half-Hispanic neighborhood-watch volunteers like George Zimmerman shooting young black men. Nor is there an epidemic of cops doing the same. Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute notes that in New York City, there were nine civilian victims of police gunfire last year, whereas there were “several hundred black homicide victims in the city, almost all shot by other blacks or Hispanics, none of them given substantial press coverage.”
An allegedly racially motivated killing, though, gins up the outrage machine in a way the routine murder of young blacks doesn’t. Cable-TV outlets get to host fiery debates. Chin-stroking commentators get to urge more “dialogue.” Black leaders get to relive the glory of a civil-rights cause that won its major victories decades ago when it took real courage to be on the front lines. And everybody gets to evade the intraracial mayhem that blights the country’s inner cities.
An injustice may well have been done in the handling of the Martin shooting, but let’s not fool ourselves. Zimmerman could be arrested, convicted, and hanged tomorrow, and it will have no effect on the lives of young black people in communities beset by social disorder. Whatever happens to Zimmerman, the drip-drip of spilled blood will continue, all but ignored except in the police blotter. In America, the lives of young black people are cheap, unless they happen to fit the right agenda.
______________________________
Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review.
Sean Hannity in one of his programs went through each weekend and gave the numbers of black-on-black shootings. I recall the weekend Trayvon Martin was shot there were 49 black-on-black shootings.
I can't recall the exact numbers, but it was 25-50 each weekend. But only Trayvon Martin's death got national media coverage.
Black shootings don't seem to matter, unless its the rare White-on-black shooting. Oh excuse me: "white Hispanic".
On September 9, 2014, Zimmerman was named by police in a road rage incident in which another driver, later named by police as Matthew Apperson, claimed that Zimmerman followed and threatened him.[61][62] Zimmerman later claimed in testimony that Apperson approached him over a rear tire leaking air, which Zimmerman was already aware of. He had explained this to Apperson before Apperson asked if Zimmerman knew he was "wrong for killing that little black boy". Zimmerman lost Apperson after the two stopped at a gas station and Zimmerman drove off.[63]
On May 11, 2015, Apperson shot at Zimmerman while the two were driving in separate cars on a street in Lake Mary. Zimmerman was grazed by glass and metal shards when the bullet broke through his passenger-side window and was stopped by the metal window frame, causing minor facial injuries from flying glass and debris. Zimmerman flagged down a police officer and was taken to the hospital.[64][65][66] Apperson maintained that Zimmerman was the aggressor and that Apperson acted in self-defense.[67][68] Zimmerman also had a gun with him at the time of the incident, but Zimmerman's attorney said that "George absolutely denies having shown it, waved, displayed, pointed it." A Lake Mary police spokesperson stated that "the investigation has proven that George Zimmerman was not the shooter."[67]
On May 15, 2015, Apperson was jailed in Sanford, Florida with a bond of $35,000.[69] While free on bond, Apperson was accused, convicted and jailed for disorderly conduct [he apparently had a confrontation with a neighbor, and urinated on the neighbor's front door], which revoked his bond.[70] Lake Mary PD "learned that Apperson has exhibited unusual behaviors in which he had recently been admitted to a mental institution. It appears that Apperson has a fixation on Zimmerman and has displayed some signs of paranoia, anxiety, and bipolar disorder."[71]
On September 22, 2015, a judge ruled Apperson would stand trial for second-degree attempted murder along with one count of aggravated assault and one count of shooting into an occupied vehicle.[63][70][72] Apperson was convicted of attempted murder and aggravated assault with a firearm on September 16, 2016.[73] On October 17, 2016, Apperson was sentenced to 20 years in prison on the charge of attempted 2nd-degree murder. He was also given a 15-year concurrent sentence for aggravated assault stemming from the same incident.[74][75]
Man, like flies on a cow-turd... Zimmerman is a magnet for confrontation.
In May 2018, Zimmerman was charged with stalking against a private investigator who had been working with Michael Gasparro and Jay-Z on the documentary series Rest in Power: The Trayvon Martin Story. According to the investigator, in December 2017, Zimmerman contacted him with 21 phone calls, 38 text messages and 7 voice mails in two and a half hours.[76][77][78]
In 2018, Zimmerman was kicked off the dating app Bumble because he violated a rule about shirtless pictures. The second time because he tried to return without permission.[79][80] In April 2019, Zimmerman was banned from the dating app Tinder for violation of Community Guidelines and Terms of Use. Tinder did not release the specific nature of the ban, however a week before the ban, a news outlet in Florida showed Zimmerman using a fake account on Tinder calling himself "Carter" and "looking for carefree, fun!".[81][79]
That's a heck of a lot of incidents, on top of what was cited here before. Zimmerman can't seem to go more than a year or two without getting into trouble again.
It's a lesson in not responding to road rage. You never know if it's a George Zimmerman-type who could escalate things. Just let it go.
Or a case example of the crazy psychos you could meet on a dating app/site.
In late August 2015, controversy centering on Zimmerman arose when his Twitter profile picture of a Confederate flag "backed by an American flag" (in his words) became better-known. Frequently criticized posts of his from August included one in which Zimmerman called Obama an "ignorant baboon";[63] one in which he posted an image of Vester Lee Flanagan, an African-American former news reporter who shot and killed two ex-coworkers during a live broadcast, and wrote, "If Obama had a son...";[citation needed] and another in which Zimmerman typed, in response to people who wanted him killed, that the United States understands "how it ended for the last moron that hit me" (in reference to Trayvon Martin).[64]
In September 2015, Zimmerman retweeted a photo of Martin's slain body posted by another Twitter user, who had the caption: "Z-Man is a one man army". Several days later, Zimmerman posted a letter saying that the photo in the original tweet was marked as "sensitive" and was blocked, so he retweeted it because of the text message without seeing the photo.[65][66]
In December 2015, Zimmerman tweeted two photos of a topless woman he claimed was his ex-girlfriend, and accused her of cheating and of the theft of his firearm and money. He included her phone number and e-mail address on his tweet. Less than two hours later, Zimmerman's Twitter account was suspended by the administration of the resource, according to their policy against posting another person's private and confidential information, including e-mail addresses, phone numbers and familiar photos.[67][68] Zimmerman's tweet included a statement against Muslims.[69]
Zimmerman sure knows how to poke the angry bear with a sharp stick.
Is the mainstream media deliberately fabricating a myth of white racism in America in order to cover up an epidemic of black-on-white violence? While most Americans are aware of the Trayvon Martin shooting in Sanford, Florida on February 26, 2012, very few know about the thousands of whites who have been brutally murdered, raped, beaten and robbed by blacks as the media keeps regurgitating lies about the Martin case. Are the lives of these innocent white Americans not important enough to report on, or is the media purposely inciting racial tensions for a reason?
Anyone who has paid attention to the Martin shooting knows that key information about the case has been distorted and fabricated. Evidence now shows that George Zimmerman had a broken nose, black eyes and lacerations to the back of his head. The police report stated that Zimmerman’s back was wet and covered with grass clippings. On the other hand, Martin’s autopsy revealed that Martin’s knuckles were scraped. Even eyewitnesses saw the six-foot-three-inch Martin viciously pummeling the five-foot-nine-inch Zimmerman in the face while he had him on the ground.
While this dog-and-pony show is going on, however, the mainstream media has been totally silent on atrocious crimes that have been committed by blacks on whites since the Martin shooting. Here are a few—from among dozens of incidents—that this newspaper has confirmed.
On February 27, the day after the Martin shooting, two black males in Detroit abducted and killed a white couple. The victims were found bound, shot and burned beyond recognition in an alley. Police are calling it a random “thrill killing.”
On February 28, in Kansas City, Missouri, two black teens attacked a 13-year-old white boy on his front porch as he was returning from school. They poured gasoline on him and set him on fire for no apparent reason, saying “You get what you deserve white boy!”
On March 14, a 20-year-old black man broke into the home of Bob and Nancy Straight in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He raped the 85-year-old Mrs. Straight and then beat her to death. Then he shot 90-year-old Mr. Straight in the face with a pellet gun and broke his jaw and ribs. He died several days later. The thug stole $200, a TV set and their Dodge Neon, which he drove to a nearby house where he went to hide. The police spotted the stolen car in front of the house and arrested him.
On April 1, in Jackson, Mississippi, a 31-year-old black man broke into a house to rob it and found a white woman inside. He forced her to lie on the floor with a blanket over her head as he shot her in the back of the head, execution-style.
On April 5, in Tunica, Mississippi, a 34-year-old black man checked into a hotel with his pregnant 25-year-old white girlfriend and their one-year-old child. The next day the woman was found dead on the floor brutally mutilated and covered with blood, as was the one-year-old child. The knife was in the room.
On April 15, in Las Vegas, a 22-year-old black man raped a 38-year-old white woman and her 10-year-old daughter. He then killed them by smashing their skulls with a hammer.
On top of all these brutal murders there have been a number of “flash mob” attacks across the country where anywhere from half a dozen to as many as a hundred blacks gang up on innocent people and beat them senseless. In at least 12 of these cases documented by this writer, the blacks have cited revenge for the shooting of Martin as the motive for the savageries, although in many cases the victims were also robbed.
One of these attacks occurred in Norfolk, Virginia, where more than 30 blacks brutally beat a white couple as another 70 blacks watched and cheered them on, a typical phenomenon in these black-on-white “flash mob” attacks. Martin’s name came up as the excuse for the brutality. The couple actually worked for the main newspaper in town, The Virginian Pilot, which has direct political ties to the Obama administration. That publication could not even be bothered to report on the attack of its own employees for two weeks—and even then it was only as an opinion piece written by a friend of the couple.
The couple said the police officer who responded acted strangely. After having been viciously beaten, kicked in the face and dragged by her hair, the battered woman was told by the officer to “shut up and get in the car.” He did not record any names of witnesses and said the attackers were “probably juveniles anyway. What are we going to do? Find their parents and tell them?” Pointing to public housing in the area, he said large groups of “teenagers” look for trouble on the weekends. “It’s what they do,” he told the couple.
This was published shortly after the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman incident and trial. I would imagine with all the liberal media and Democrat and Black Lives Matter in recent years that these kind of incidents have increased. The rhetoric directed at blacks incites this kind of violence and rationalizes it as some kind of payback at white America.
A similar account of black crime is in Pat Buchanan's 2002 book DEATH OF THE WEST, pages 65-71,. In a subsection titled "Hate Crimes", Buchanan cites several widely reported liberal media news reports a about attacks where blacks and gays are the victims, and the media's complete reluctance to report incidents when whites are the victims of brutal crimes by other minorities, even when those are the facts. Buchanan also cites that despite blacks being just 13% of the population, blacks commit 42% of the nation's crime, and 52% of the murders.
In another article by conservative black columnist Larry Elder, he further cites that it's not black women who are committing these crimes, it's not black children or black elderly, its black males between the ages of 15 and 45. And as violent black criminals have been released prematurely from jail over the last year due to Covid-19 and other pressures, we've seen an instant skyrocketing of violent crime, to a level not seen since the 1960's. So as Elder reports it, it's not the entire 13% of U.S. population that is black committing all that crime, when you consider it's just the 3% of U.S. population that is black males between 15-45, that this concentration of criminals in one demographic becomes even more astronomical. That racially motivated violent incidents by blacks against whites occur at a ratio of 50 incidents for every one of the reverse. And those are U.S. Justice Department statistics that go back for 4 decades.
And that the ratio of black murders is about 91% black-on-black murders. Not by the alleged narrative of a "war on blacks" by police. As I quoted Bill O'Reilly a few years ago, around the time of the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, in that statistical year there were about 8 million arrests, and of all those arrests, there were only about 600 people killed by police while being arrested, most of them infinitely justifiable. And of those 600, only about 150 were black. In the most recent statistical year I looked at, less than 50 police shootings of blacks, way down, despite that black violence, particularly black violence against police, has vastly escalated. Several reports I've seen have cited that a police officer is statistically 19 times more likely to be murdered while arresting a black suspect, than the suspect is likely to be killed by police.
The incident last year with Rayshard Brooks in the Atlanta area a year ago demonstrates this. Brooks fell asleep at the wheel of his car in the drive-through line at a Wendy's restaurant, and police were called because he was blocking the takeout line. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Rayshard_Brooks#Reactions He was high on something and knew he was breaking parole, and if arrested would be back in prison, previously imprisoned for beating both his girlfriend and his own children, among other offenses, so he attacked the TWO officers trying to arrest him to try and get away, tased one of the officers with his own taser... and anyone is shocked or outraged that Brooks was shot by the other officer (who was also beaten almost unconscious by Brooks) ? And yet black mobs in the city of Atlanta and elsewhere rioted and looted, burned the Wendy's to the ground, blocked highways, and unleashed their BLM-stoked violent payback on the rest of America. Among many other violent racial incidents where black mobs burned and looted at least 275 cities nationwide.
And all but a few news outlets are afraid to tell the truth: that it's black crime and violence, not not white racism or racist cops that cause police to arrest these thugs, and with rare exception, the police are just trying to do their job when, as in the Rayshard Brooks case, or the Kenosha case, and so many others, police are forced to defend themselves from suspects attacking them.
The Obama administration weaponized the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case, to create a racially divisive narrative, to splinter the country along racial lines, just to rally the black base for Barack Obama and get him re-elected in 2012. We kind of already knew this all along from the beginning. But here is a journalist who tracked down the evidence that the Obama adminstration not only exploited the situation, but manufactured and stoked it from the very start.
Can we believe ANYTHING the Democrat-Bolshevik party tells us? That's a rhetorical question, the answer is no. They are truly evil, the lying narratives and orchestrated destruction of the country they are inflicting, on all of us, just to leverage themselves into power. And their stated goal is one-party "socialist" (in truth Marxist) rule. Their STATED desire to put Republicans in gulags. Robert Reich, former Clinton cabinet official, said in a televised news broadcast: We need to force Trump officials to give televised public confessions of their alleged crimes , in a way reminiscent of Salinist or Maoist purges.
And (as videotaped by Project Veritas, multiple Democrat campaign officials, of multiple Democrat leaders, but especially virtually all senior Bernie Sanders officials and volunteers) Democrat staffers openly talk about wanting to put Republicans in gulags, or many even to exterminate Republicans. Democrats want to (Project Veritas again, from a videotaped high-level PBS lawyer) have HHS take away the children of Republicans and raise them with liberal foster parents, to indoctrinate them away from their parents' values, and into the "right" way of thinking. Jennifer Rubin of the New York Times: "We need to destroy the Republican party so completely, it can never come back."
These are not low-level people at the fringes, these are the Democrat campaign elite, the liberal media elite, cabinet members of the Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden administrations. There are multiple Biden nominees who want to weaponize government, use the FCC to take all conservative news stations off of cable, use the federal reserve and federal control of the U.S. financial system to annihilate the oil, coal and natural gas industries.
The Democrat leadership is evil, pure and simple. From their own self-incriminating videotaped words. And this manufacturing and stoking of racial division over the Trayvon Martin case in 2012, just to get Obama re-elected on a platform of hate, is just yet another example of just how evil they are.
... the latest Trayvon Martin-ized, weaponized stoking of racial tensions by Democrat/Leftist activists. Never mind that the guy didn't stop when police tried to pull him over, that he had a gun in the car and fired at police (firing of the gun captured on dash-cam of the police car chasing him, and shell casing recovered on the ground where it occurred, and appeared to be reaching into his waistband for a gun when fired on by police, instead of just followign police instructions and being arrested and cuffed).
Despite the evidence that this 25 year old black male had fired on police, refused to pull over and led them in a car chase, and then fled on foot when trapped after shooting at police. Far from being an innocent victim of police brutality initially portrayed in the media In a pattern of false media narrative just like Trayvon Martin, just like Michael Brown in Ferguson Missouri, sainted in a false "Hands-up, Don't shoot" narrative, later proven false. Just like the "I can't breathe" narrative guy Eric Garner, whose health problems caused him to die during his Staten Island arrest, while selling illegal cigarettes, reported to police by neighboring black store owners.
Just like the sainted Jesus-portrayed George Floyd on painted murals nationwide, who was in truth guilty of decades of violent crimes and home invasions for drug money, who in reality was a drug addict dying of a Fentanyl overdose before police even arrived to arrest him in May 2020. https://www.foxnews.com/us/medical-examiner-george-floyd-fentanyl-system Spun into a "racist police / war on blacks" narrative that led to Black Lives Matter riots burning 600 cities nationwide in 2020. All these and many more black arrest incidents exploited and deliberately misrepresented by BLM, the liberal media, and the Democrat/Left.
No matter how thoroughly disproven the allegations against police, this George Floyd guy will forever remain a martyr in the pantheon of the Black Lives Matter / Jesse Jackson / Al Sharpton crowd and the liberal media. Stoking more black violence, based on alleged crimes that never occurred.
Likewise, 10 years prior, the Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson, who was **EXONERATED** even by investigators of then-attorney general Eric Holder's black racist DOJ and FBI, despite that they tried like hell to find him guilty of any pretense to prop up their white-racist-cops narrative. Even so, Darren Wilson was still not permitted to remain a police officer, at the Ferguson Police department, or anywhere else.
And so many others. Because liberal racial-victim narrative apparently rules, over proven facts of police acting appropriately. And destroys innocent lives in the process, even of those exonerated and their families. And destroys other random white individuals nationwide, attacked by blacks as a result of those false narratives, just because blacks violently lash out at them, for alleged acts of "white supremacist racism" that never actually occurred.
Could just say you're an unrepentant racist and move on, Cultist Turd.
The exploitation of race and racial segregation, and stoking racial hatred, is all on the Democrat side, as any number of historians, black leaders and conservatives have pointed out, for the last 50 years.
" I'll have niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years" --The enlightened friend of black America, President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964, boasting to aides about his cynical motive for pushing through passage of civil rights legislation, for purposes other than benefit to black America. As argued by many, this legislation actually hurt black America, and kept them on the "Democrat plantation" loyally voting 90% Democrat for the last 55 years, despite that it was Democrats in all those decades who exploited and kept them in poverty.
...opinion...you want to lynch Zimmerman just to forward your partisan liberal agenda, to paint white conservatives as all racists...Democrat.....And is not white....he also has black family members... 
