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.
Last edited by Matter-eater Man; 2012-04-075:16 PM.
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.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
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.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
