# Zimmerman Injury Report



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

"A medical report compiled by the family physician of Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Martin during an alleged altercation. "

George Zimmerman Medical Report Sheds Light on Injuries After Trayvon Martin Shooting - ABC News

I also found a blurb about Trayvon having skinned knuckles consistent with striking someone, but lost it and haven't found it since, so no factual back up for that one.

So it seems he WAS defending himself and all that is left now is to prove how the altercation began, was he in the wrong, and who threw the first punch. Sounds like Trayvon was beating him pretty badly, IMHO.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Prolly won't matter. 
Death to crackers & all...


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

beccachow said:


> "A medical report compiled by the family physician of Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Martin during an alleged altercation. "
> 
> George Zimmerman Medical Report Sheds Light on Injuries After Trayvon Martin Shooting - ABC News
> 
> ...


I don't think anyone doubts that there was an altercation and that Zimmerman got hurt from it. The questions are the same as what you posted, how did the altercation start? Who did what and when did they do it?


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Surprisingly, a lot of people doubted his injuries. They don't compute with the innocent young teen walking down the street holding skittles and iced tea shot for no reason by a big, bad "white" guy.

Now that the report is out, things look a bit different.

Still, the questions remain; who and why?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> I don't think anyone doubts that there was an altercation and that Zimmerman got hurt from it. The questions are the same as what you posted, how did the altercation start? Who did what and when did they do it?


And these questions are why the state will not get a conviction which will stand up on appeal.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

Let me ask this question. Even if Zimmerman started the fight he didn&#8217;t have his gun out, suppose he was getting the crap kicked out of him, should he die because of this, or can he defend himself? It isn&#8217;t murder to me. &#8220;The rules of a fight are: there are no rules. Jesse Stone&#8221; if I think I am going to die I will shoot regardless of who started the fight.


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

Are those injuries consistent with being beaten with a bag of Skittles? Seems to be a might severe.

.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

davel745 said:


> Let me ask this question. Even if Zimmerman started the fight he didnât have his gun out, suppose he was getting the crap kicked out of him, should he die because of this, or can he defend himself? It isnât murder to me. âThe rules of a fight are: there are no rules. Jesse Stoneâ if I think I am going to die I will shoot regardless of who started the fight.


If he started the fight, then he willingly took the risk that the person he was fighting may beat the snot out of him.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

ninny said:


> Are those injuries consistent with being beaten with a bag of Skittles? Seems to be a might severe.
> 
> .


Who said anything about being beaten with a bag of Skittles????


----------



## demeter (Jul 15, 2010)

I honestly figure it will all be tossed out. My sympathies go especially out to the parent's of both.

Deneter


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

demeter said:


> I honestly figure it will all be tossed out. My sympathies go especially out to the parent's of both.
> 
> Deneter


I agree. The parents are the real losers in this situation.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

beccachow said:


> Surprisingly, a lot of people doubted his injuries. They don't compute with the innocent young teen walking down the street holding skittles and iced tea shot for no reason by a big, bad "white" guy.
> 
> Now that the report is out, things look a bit different.
> 
> Still, the questions remain; who and why?


It probably didn't help that the "media" kept showing Martin's 4th grade picture and an old mugshot of Zimmerman


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

davel745 said:


> Let me ask this question. Even if Zimmerman started the fight he didnât have his gun out, suppose he was getting the crap kicked out of him, should he die because of this, or can he defend himself? It isnât murder to me. âThe rules of a fight are: there are no rules. Jesse Stoneâ if I think I am going to die I will shoot regardless of who started the fight.


Exactly


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Sonshine said:


> I agree. The parents are the real losers in this situation.


While they lost their son, some of the Martin family seem to have hit a jackpot of sorts. So far the Crump strategy is paying off. I'm not sure if Trayvon's mother has made anything from trying to trademark her son's name.

"Last month, Commissioners Bruno Barreiro, Jose âPepeâ Diaz and Barbara Jordan put forth a measure allowing county employees to donate vacation time to Fulton, who makes $68,768 a year. Employees donated a total of 34 paid weeks off â worth $40,825. Evans (Trayvon's aunt) separately collected nearly nine weeks from fellow county employees."

Trayvon Martin&#x2019;s mother thanks Miami-Dade commissioners, county colleagues for support - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Sonshine said:


> Who said anything about being beaten with a bag of Skittles????


Pretty sure it was tongue in cheek. Seems more like he was beaten with the bottle of ice tea. :huh:


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> It probably didn't help that the "media" kept showing Martin's 4th grade picture and an old mugshot of Zimmerman


That was the Crump strategy. Once that was released to one media source, the others copycatted and then embellished some of it on their own.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Darren said:


> While they lost their son, some of the Martin family seem to have hit a jackpot of sorts. So far the Crump strategy is paying off. I'm not sure if Trayvon's mother has made anything from trying to trademark her son's name.
> 
> "Last month, Commissioners Bruno Barreiro, Jose âPepeâ Diaz and Barbara Jordan put forth a measure allowing county employees to donate vacation time to Fulton, who makes $68,768 a year. Employees donated a total of 34 paid weeks off â worth $40,825. Evans (Trayvon's aunt) separately collected nearly nine weeks from fellow county employees."
> 
> Trayvon Martin&#x2019;s mother thanks Miami-Dade commissioners, county colleagues for support - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com


I don't know if you have ever lost a child, but I have lost four of them. I can't imagine any Mother that has lost a child would not be suffering from that loss. As for the whole trademarking her son's name, I don't blame her. At least she should be able to have some control over whether someone profits from her loss or not. Money doesn't replace a dead child.


----------



## Ann-NWIowa (Sep 28, 2002)

I have no opinion on who was right or who was wrong. However, just because Martin is dead doesn't automatically make him right. Just because Martin is Black doesn't automatically make him right. If you reverse that to Zimmerman is automatically guilty because he's not Black and the victim was Black = bigotry. The Martin family and the various Black groups have raved about wanting justice but it appears to me they are only interested in vengence. Demanding an arrest before the investigation was complete isn't seeking justice. Justice is letting the police investigate and the prosecutors file appropriate charges related to the incident.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

Sonshine said:


> If he started the fight, then he willingly took the risk that the person he was fighting may beat the snot out of him.


Beating the snot out of someone is different than trying to kill someone. what happens if you are knocked out can you trust the person beating you to stop?


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

The gun didnt come out till he got scared.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Sonshine said:


> I don't know if you have ever lost a child, but I have lost four of them. I can't imagine any Mother that has lost a child would not be suffering from that loss. As for the whole trademarking her son's name, I don't blame her. At least she should be able to have some control over whether someone profits from her loss or not. Money doesn't replace a dead child.


Sonshine, ((((((((((((((((((((((((HUGS)))))))))))))))))))))))

I think these things must hit you on a level most of us will never understand. God bless you and comfort you.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

davel745 said:


> The gun didnt come out till he got scared.


Or behind :smack


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

davel745 said:


> Beating the snot out of someone is different than trying to kill someone. what happens if you are knocked out can you trust the person beating you to stop?


Again, it would depend on who started the fight. If Martin started it, then he should have taken into consideration that he may lose, which he did. If Zimmerman started it, he should have taken into consideration that Martin may be able to over power him. It's all going to boil down to what the evidence shows and what the courts decide based on the evidence.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

beccachow said:


> Sonshine, ((((((((((((((((((((((((HUGS)))))))))))))))))))))))
> 
> I think these things must hit you on a level most of us will never understand. God bless you and comfort you.


I'm ok, but thank you. I just get frustrated when people try to smear the Mother. I went through some back of the hand whispering about me when my first two kids died from people who had no clue what had happened, but believed rumors and gossip.


----------



## Hollowdweller (Jul 13, 2011)

I think this will help his case.

Even if he was the one pursuing the guy the fact that he was badly injured may bolster his need to use deadly force.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

The things I don't understand focus on the parenting of Trayvon. He was sent with his father to the fiancee's house as a sort of punishment due to the ten day suspension from school. I wonder if the school administrators have thought about their part in Trayvon's death. Of course it wasn't their decision to send him to a gated community that had experienced crime committed by young Black adults.

It doesn't appear that his parents took his problems in school seriously. I can't sympathize since in my day kids didn't do things that got them suspended from school. If anything they were given detention. I know that if my kids had been suspended, there would have been a drastic suspension of privileges. That means no taking a walk, no cell phone, no computer meaning no connection with the outside world while they contemplated their error.

The father apparently didn't see a need to supervise Trayvon since he either left him alone or left him with his little brother depending on which verson of the skittles and tea story you believe. The father wasn't going to let Trayvon get in the way of an evening out with his fiancee.

So far I have to give Trayvon's parents an F in parenting if I'm going to have any sympathy for Trayvon.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> It probably didn't help that the "media" kept showing Martin's 4th grade picture and an old mugshot of Zimmerman


Right! Pulled me into it, alright! The shot of Zim was way up close, who besides me was amazed when we saw him in the courtroom, a small guy!?


----------



## HOTW (Jul 3, 2007)

Cornhusker said:


> It probably didn't help that the "media" kept showing Martin's 4th grade picture and an old mugshot of Zimmerman


Totally agree, the pic I saw of Trayvon had a mouth of gold in it, and not so innocent looking he sure looked older than he was! I am glad this stuff is coming out but it really should have been released in the first place!


----------



## HOTW (Jul 3, 2007)

davel745 said:


> Let me ask this question. Even if Zimmerman started the fight he didnât have his gun out, suppose he was getting the crap kicked out of him, should he die because of this, or can he defend himself? It isnât murder to me. âThe rules of a fight are: there are no rules. Jesse Stoneâ if I think I am going to die I will shoot regardless of who started the fight.


According to the report Zimmerman only pulled his gun when Trayvon went for his belt after the clip.


----------



## Home Harvest (Oct 10, 2006)

Seems we are falling in to two camps:

1) Those who hold Zimmerman accountable if he started the fight.

2) Those who don't care who started it, and believe that he was justified in using deadly force because he was losing.

I'm in camp #1, and I admit to having a problem with camp #2. It just seems too easy to take advantage of that interpretation of "self-defense". You are literally saying that anyone can start a fight with anyone, and whoever is losing can pull a gun and kill the other guy, and no repercussions? Sorry, but I'm all for personal rights and freedom, but along with those rights come personal responsibility. I believe Zimmerman should be held responsible for his decisions and actions. He wasn't an innocent bystander. He was an active participant in whatever lead up to the shooting.

He may be guilty...he may be innocent. Without a trial we would never know.


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

beccachow said:


> Pretty sure it was tongue in cheek. Seems more like he was beaten with the bottle of ice tea. :huh:



:thumb:

.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

HH, very interesting and accurate take on the camps.

However, a "fight" is to me punching each other and then stopping before someone gets hurt with the victor being the one who doesn't cry "uncle" in some way. Bashing someone's head into the pavement seems a bit over the top, you have to know you can KILL someone this way. Therefore, if Trayvon was THIS set on brutalizing Martin to this degree, and Zimmerman couldn't get away, and then Trayvon *reportedly* reached for his gun, Zimmerman was legitimately in fear for his life. It's not like Trayvon threw him down, kicked him a few times and walked away; Trayvon *appears* to have lost his ability to STOP.

IF Zimmerman is to be believed, he turned around and was making his way back to his car after the dispatcher told him to cool it, then Trayvon *allegedly* aproached HIM, making HIM the first aggressor.

Hoping that the facts come out and put the whole thing to rest, one way or the other. I suspect Zimmerman will get some jail time, manslaughter perhaps?

Manslaugther is used in some cases such as this: Per Wikipedia:

"Imperfect self-defense: Allowed only in a limited number of jurisdictions in the United States, self-defense is a complete defense to murder However, a person who acted in self defense with an honest but unreasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to do so could still be convicted of voluntary manslaughter or deliberate homicide committed without criminal malice. Malice is found if a person killed intentionally and without legal excuse or mitigation."


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

beccachow said:


> HH, very interesting and accurate take on the camps.
> 
> However, a "fight" is to me punching each other and then stopping before someone gets hurt with the victor being the one who doesn't cry "uncle" in some way. Bashing someone's head into the pavement seems a bit over the top, you have to know you can KILL someone this way. Therefore, if Trayvon was THIS set on brutalizing Martin to this degree, and Zimmerman couldn't get away, and then Trayvon *reportedly* reached for his gun, Zimmerman was legitimately in fear for his life. It's not like Trayvon threw him down, kicked him a few times and walked away; Trayvon *appears* to have lost his ability to STOP.
> 
> ...


Yep so this should tell anyone to forget a neighbor hood watch . If i see someone toting stuff from the neighbors i should go hide . Now here it takes the cops from 1 hour to 3 days to get here


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Yup. I truly believe Zimmerman, in the light of various criminal activities going on in the neighborhood, thought Trayvon was up to no good. Per his statement, Trayvon wasn't "walking down the street holding a bag of Skittles," it appears he was being somewhat furtive in his movements. Enough to get his attention. Right or wrong, Zimmerman was doing his Neighborhood Watch duty in the beginning. Where it went from there is a sad tragedy.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Home Harvest said:


> Seems we are falling in to two camps:
> 
> 1) Those who hold Zimmerman accountable if he started the fight.
> 
> ...


It's interesting the way you've defined the choices. Losing a fight doesn't cover the aspect of being unable to defend yourself, calling for help and having bystanders walk away. When Trayvon, for whatever reason, continued beating Zimmerman when he had the man on the ground, he was doing something that was inexcuseable. Did it merit death? I don't know what went through Zimmerman's mind. Nor do we know if Martin had threatened to kill him. 

Zimmerman apparently felt he had no choice. If the one neighbor had intervened instead of going to call 911, Martin would probably still be alive but charged with assault and battery.

I wonder how many more people have decided not to intervene in the future because of the Zimmerman case. We're accepting a much more uncivil society when we don't look after our neighbor.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

beccachow said:


> HH, very interesting and accurate take on the camps.
> 
> However, a "fight" is to me punching each other and then stopping before someone gets hurt with the victor being the one who doesn't cry "uncle" in some way. Bashing someone's head into the pavement seems a bit over the top, you have to know you can KILL someone this way. Therefore, if Trayvon was THIS set on brutalizing Martin to this degree, and Zimmerman couldn't get away, and then Trayvon *reportedly* reached for his gun, Zimmerman was legitimately in fear for his life. It's not like Trayvon threw him down, kicked him a few times and walked away; Trayvon *appears* to have lost his ability to STOP.
> 
> ...


The way kids fight today is vastly different than when I was a kid. It use to be that they would walk away once the person was beat down, but today we see all sorts of news stories of just how far kids will go. Not knowing how this all started I am still withholding judgement on either Zimmerman or Martin.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Yep so this should tell anyone to forget a neighbor hood watch . If i see someone toting stuff from the neighbors i should go hide . Now here it takes the cops from 1 hour to 3 days to get here


I haven't read anywhere that Martin was toting stuff from the neighbors. Did I miss that?:huh:


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

ninny said:


> Are those injuries consistent with being beaten with a bag of Skittles? Seems to be a might severe.
> 
> .


Amen. If the idiot had stayed in his stupid truck and left the kid alone, nobody would have been hurt or murdered. It is his own fault. And he belongs in prison for murder. Is it so hard to simply follow the directions given by the police? He caused this whole mess himself, and he deserves to pay for it. He murdered a child. It doesn't matter what color the kid was. It doesn't matter if the shooter had a broken nose. He shouldn't have been carrying a gun as a neighborhood watch person. And he shouldn't have followed the kid trying to just cause trouble.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

mekasmom said:


> Amen. If the idiot had stayed in his stupid truck and left the kid alone, nobody would have been hurt or murdered. It is his own fault. And he belongs in prison for murder. Is it so hard to simply follow the directions given by the police? He caused this whole mess himself, and he deserves to pay for it. He murdered a child. It doesn't matter what color the kid was. It doesn't matter if the shooter had a broken nose. He shouldn't have been carrying a gun as a neighborhood watch person. And he shouldn't have followed the kid trying to just cause trouble.


1. The police did not give Zimmerman orders nor did the dispatcher.

2. The mess was caused by Crump and Associates which hired a publicist to provide a false story to the media.

3. Zimmerman, after being told by the police he needed to get a gun, complied with Florida law and was legally carrying.

4. There was no evidence that Zimmerman was on watch at that time. It was reported he was returning to the neighborhood when he spotted Martin acting suspiciously.

5. I certainly hope my neighbors don't ignore someone strange in the area.

6. If we're going to assign blame, I have to say that Trayvon's parents should have done a better job raising him. The kid had issues at school.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mekasmom said:


> Amen. If the idiot had stayed in his stupid truck and left the kid alone, nobody would have been hurt or murdered. It is his own fault. And he belongs in prison for murder. Is it so hard to simply follow the directions given by the police? He caused this whole mess himself, and he deserves to pay for it. He murdered a child. It doesn't matter what color the kid was. It doesn't matter if the shooter had a broken nose. He shouldn't have been carrying a gun as a neighborhood watch person. And he shouldn't have followed the kid trying to just cause trouble.


And if all the neighbors stay in their homes then the criminals will have free rein.

But you need to read up on the case. According to the police tapes Zimmerman did do what the police told him.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You are literally saying that anyone can start a fight with anyone, and whoever is losing can pull a gun and kill the other guy, and no repercussions?


No one has said that, and there is *NO evidence* Zimmerman "started a fight"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *If the idiot had stayed in his stupid truck* and left the kid alone, nobody would have been hurt or murdered. It is his own fault. And he belongs in prison for murder. Is it so hard to simply follow the *directions given by the police*?


Zimmerman was ALREADY out of his truck when the DISPATCHER (not a Police Officer) said he didn't need to follow Martin.

After all these weeks of discussion, it seems everyone should have the *details* figured out by now, since they have been repeated often enough


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one has said that, and there is *NO evidence* Zimmerman "started a fight"


I am curious about what people think 'starting a fight' consists of? 

Following someone? Talking/questioning to someone? 

Or does there have to be physical contact? If so, what extent of physical contact?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

It doesn't matter who started it
The instant he got his bashed into the sidewalk, a deadly weapon was introduced.
He defended himself from a younger, larger and stronger opponent.
The racists put out a picture of a 10 year old to fool the stupid and sway public opinion.
So far, at least until the "election", you can't legally hang on public opinion.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

And still there wasn't any skittles or drink found at the scene.
If a person was coming from a store with skittles and a drink in his hand they should be somewhere near the scene.
They weren't.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Really? Now THAT I didn't know.


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

pancho said:


> And still there wasn't any skittles or drink found at the scene.
> If a person was coming from a store with skittles and a drink in his hand they should be somewhere near the scene.
> They weren't.





beccachow said:


> Really? Now THAT I didn't know.


Maybe one of the bystanders got hungry. You never know these days.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Sonshine said:


> I haven't read anywhere that Martin was toting stuff from the neighbors. Did I miss that?:huh:


I don't remember but they had been having problems in the neighborhood thought i read he had things on his person not considered his. 

My point was in this day and time why stick my neck out if someone is toting things out of the neighbors house fifteen minuets after he leaves for work .

I have seen how bullies act when they think they can get over on you lots here are on drugs too . Wonder what his test came back . 

Next i'm old i don't take chances with kids if you can call 17 a kid . So i'll stay home and MYOB gate locked and video camera on dog on the bed pistol at hand .:awh:


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

mekasmom said:


> Amen. If the idiot had stayed in his stupid truck and left the kid alone, nobody would have been hurt or murdered. It is his own fault. And he belongs in prison for murder. Is it so hard to simply follow the directions given by the police? He caused this whole mess himself, and he deserves to pay for it. He murdered a child. It doesn't matter what color the kid was. It doesn't matter if the shooter had a broken nose. He shouldn't have been carrying a gun as a neighborhood watch person. And he shouldn't have followed the kid trying to just cause trouble.


This is proof positive that people are going to believe what they want to believe, regardless of any information or evidence that proves that what they believe is incorrect. You have zero understanding of the term 'murder'.

The more information becomes public, the more Zimmerman's story checks out.

Under Florida law, even IF Zimmerman *confronted* Martin first, but was then walking away when Martin *attacked* him, Zimmerman had every right to defend his life. _Confronting_ someone is _*not*_ the same thing as _attacking_ them.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Sawmill Jim said:


> I don't remember but they had been having problems in the neighborhood thought i read he had things on his person not considered his.
> 
> My point was in this day and time why stick my neck out if someone is toting things out of the neighbors house fifteen minuets after he leaves for work .
> 
> ...


The reports I have seen stated that there had been problems with break ins and that two men had been arrested for them. I haven't seen anything that states Martin was toting around anything that didn't belong to him.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Sonshine said:


> The reports I have seen stated that there had been problems with break ins and that two men had been arrested for them. I haven't seen anything that states Martin was toting around anything that didn't belong to him.


I can't find it now :smack I did find the reason he was sent to dads house was for operating a business on school property with out a proper license :smack Here they put them in jail for that :awh:


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Sawmill Jim said:


> I can't find it now :smack I did find the reason he was sent to dads house was for operating a business on school property with out a proper license :smack Here they put them in jail for that :awh:


That may be true, but didn't have anything to do with the altercation in this case.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Sonshine said:


> That may be true, but didn't have anything to do with the altercation in this case.


That we know about at present .But i bet somewhere there is a blood test and if i were a betting person you know where my money is .

Drugs make some into a real superman . I know one guy soaked up 13 9mm's before going down :duel:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

FeralFemale said:


> I am curious about what people think 'starting a fight' consists of?
> 
> Following someone? Talking/questioning to someone?
> 
> Or does there have to be physical contact? If so, what extent of physical contact?


There has to be a "physical assault" to be considered a "fight"

Talking, following and questioning don't fit that criteria


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mekasmom said:


> Amen. If the idiot had stayed in his stupid truck and left the kid alone, nobody would have been hurt or murdered. It is his own fault. And he belongs in prison for murder. Is it so hard to simply follow the directions given by the police? He caused this whole mess himself, and he deserves to pay for it. He murdered a child. It doesn't matter what color the kid was. It doesn't matter if the shooter had a broken nose. He shouldn't have been carrying a gun as a neighborhood watch person. And he shouldn't have followed the kid trying to just cause trouble.


Wow, what a leap.
The 'idiot' was the neighborhood 'watch' person. There had been several break-ins. Or did you read any of the accounts? Did I miss where the police said STAY in your truck? Did I miss where he struck/acousted the kid 1st?


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

davel745 said:


> Let me ask this question. Even if Zimmerman started the fight he didnât have his gun out, suppose he was getting the crap kicked out of him, should he die because of this, or can he defend himself? It isnât murder to me. âThe rules of a fight are: there are no rules. Jesse Stoneâ if I think I am going to die I will shoot regardless of who started the fight.


Hey we can't have Latino's Marching and asking for Justice!!!

big rockpile


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

Sonshine said:


> The way kids fight today is vastly different than when I was a kid. It use to be that they would walk away once the person was beat down, but today we see all sorts of news stories of just how far kids will go. Not knowing how this all started I am still withholding judgement on either Zimmerman or Martin.


I use to be that way when I was younger.I hit a Guy put him down figured it was over went to walk away and he stabbed me in the Back.After that if I put someone down I made sure they were down.

big rockpile


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

I should be easy for just about anyone to see Martin was working the list on his way to prison at the least.
He had already marked off theft and robbery.
He had already marked off drugs.
He had already marked off assault.
He was working his way up to murder but was stopped.
It was likely he would have marked another one off the list if he hadn't been stopped.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

_Florida teenager Trayvon Martin died from a single gunshot wound to the chest fired from âintermediate range,â according to an autopsy report reviewed Wednesday by NBC News._
U.S. News - Trayvon Martin killed by single gunshot fired from 'intermediate range,' autopsy shows

That's going to hurt him, since it shows that he was not engaged in a fight when he shot.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I wouldn't stake your hopes on that. I'm still waiting for the test results on the KelTec.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

What is their definition of intermediate range:duel: Mine is 50 yards :smack


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> _Florida teenager Trayvon Martin died from a single gunshot wound to the chest fired from âintermediate range,â according to an autopsy report reviewed Wednesday by NBC News._
> U.S. News - Trayvon Martin killed by single gunshot fired from 'intermediate range,' autopsy shows
> 
> That's going to hurt him, since it shows that he was not engaged in a fight when he shot.


Guess it matters what they call intermediate range.
Martin has powder burns on his chest.
You don't get powder burns unless you are very close.
They might need to put a distance in inches to intermediate range.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Where did you read that Martin had powder burns on his chest? I haven't seen that factually reported.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

beccachow said:


> Yup. I truly believe Zimmerman, in the light of various criminal activities going on in the neighborhood, thought Trayvon was up to no good. Per his statement, Trayvon wasn't "walking down the street holding a bag of Skittles," it appears he was being somewhat furtive in his movements. Enough to get his attention. Right or wrong, Zimmerman was doing his Neighborhood Watch duty in the beginning. Where it went from there is a sad tragedy.


I had heard that he was not doing the watch at the time. If he had been, he may have problems with carrying because unless I'm mistaken the neighborhood watch by-laws forbid the carrying of a weapon while on watch.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Darren said:


> Where did you read that Martin had poder burns on his chest? I haven't seen that factually reported.


Read it on one autopsy report and heard it on the news.
For some reason the news have had stories on the case in the last couple of days.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Zimmerman was ALREADY out of his truck when the DISPATCHER (not a Police Officer) said he didn't need to follow Martin.
> 
> After all these weeks of discussion, it seems everyone should have the *details* figured out by now, since they have been repeated often enough


You keep saying that the dispatcher, not a police officer said he didn't need to follow, but the dispatcher works for the police department and if I'm not mistaken are considered police, just not patrol.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> And still there wasn't any skittles or drink found at the scene.
> If a person was coming from a store with skittles and a drink in his hand they should be somewhere near the scene.
> They weren't.


Where did you hear there were not skittles or drink on the scene? I had not heard that. But even if that's true, I'm not sure it really makes much difference in the case.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Sawmill Jim said:


> That we know about at present .But i bet somewhere there is a blood test and if i were a betting person you know where my money is .
> 
> Drugs make some into a real superman . I know one guy soaked up 13 9mm's before going down :duel:


At this point it would be purely speculation to suggest he was on some type of drug at the time of the event.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> Where did you hear there were not skittles or drink on the scene? I had not heard that. But even if that's true, I'm not sure it really makes much difference in the case.


I first heard it from another web site.
Did some research and found out it was true.
Some people suggested Martin had already gone home and returned to the scene.
That would change everything completely.
I can imagine how it would be covered up.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Tricky Grama said:


> Wow, what a leap.
> The 'idiot' was the neighborhood 'watch' person. There had been several break-ins. Or did you read any of the accounts? Did I miss where the police said STAY in your truck? Did I miss where he struck/acousted the kid 1st?


He was not on duty as neighborhood watch the night of the event. There had already been an arrest of two black men in regards to the break ins, not sure if they were still having problems after the arrest. The dispatcher told him not to follow Trayvon, not sure if he said to go back to his truck or not though. We don't know who threw the first blow or why it was thrown.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> I should be easy for just about anyone to see Martin was working the list on his way to prison at the least.
> He had already marked off theft and robbery.
> He had already marked off drugs.
> He had already marked off assault.
> ...


You may be right, but none of that has to do with what happened that night unless you can prove he was robbing people in the neighborhood, selling drugs or threw the first punch.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> He was not on duty as neighborhood watch the night of the event. There had already been an arrest of two black men in regards to the break ins, not sure if they were still having problems after the arrest. The dispatcher told him not to follow Trayvon, not sure if he said to go back to his truck or not though. We don't know who threw the first blow or why it was thrown.


According to the transcript of Zimmerman's call to police he said OK when the dispatcher told him to stop following Martin.
Zimmerman told the dispatcher he would meet the police at the mail boxes.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Nevada said:


> _Florida teenager Trayvon Martin died from a single gunshot wound to the chest fired from âintermediate range,â according to an autopsy report reviewed Wednesday by NBC News._
> U.S. News - Trayvon Martin killed by single gunshot fired from 'intermediate range,' autopsy shows
> 
> That's going to hurt him, since it shows that he was not engaged in a fight when he shot.


Wonder what the "intermediate range" translates into actual feet or inches. Also, the article mentioned surveilance cameras, where were the cameras and how much did they pick up?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> You may be right, but none of that has to do with what happened that night unless you can prove he was robbing people in the neighborhood, selling drugs or threw the first punch.


With the lacking of the skittles and drink at the scene many think he was casing places, went home, and came back to either rob some place or ambush Zimmerman.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Sawmill Jim said:


> What is their definition of intermediate range:duel: Mine is 50 yards :smack


At 50 yards you can't still be in a physical altercation, unless they had arms that were unnaturally long.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> Guess it matters what they call intermediate range.
> Martin has powder burns on his chest.
> You don't get powder burns unless you are very close.
> They might need to put a distance in inches to intermediate range.


I agree, that really tells us nothing.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Darren said:


> Where did you read that Martin had poder burns on his chest? I haven't seen that factually reported.


Me either.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Autopsy of Trayvon Martin reportedly shows fatal bullet fired from &#39;intermediate range&#39; | Fox News

A leaked autopsy reportedly shows that the bullet that killed Florida teen Trayvon Martin was fired from "intermediate range," which one forensics expert said means anywhere from one to 18 inches away.

Read more: Autopsy of Trayvon Martin reportedly shows fatal bullet fired from &#39;intermediate range&#39; | Fox News


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> I first heard it from another web site.
> Did some research and found out it was true.
> Some people suggested Martin had already gone home and returned to the scene.
> That would change everything completely.
> I can imagine how it would be covered up.


I've been looking but can't find any thing that says he didn't have the skittles and ice tea.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Report: Single gunshot killed Trayvon Martin | HLNtv.com

During Zimmerman&#8217;s bond hearing on April 20, Investigator Dale Gilbreath testified that Martin was shot in the chest at close range, because investigators found gunpowder burns on the clothes of both men.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> According to the transcript of Zimmerman's call to police he said OK when the dispatcher told him to stop following Martin.
> Zimmerman told the dispatcher he would meet the police at the mail boxes.


Yes, I read the transcript where he told them ok, but that doesn't mean he actually did go back to his truck. Where was his truck in relation to the place of the altercation?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Sonshine said:


> You keep saying that the dispatcher, not a police officer said he didn't need to follow, but the dispatcher works for the police department and if I'm not mistaken are considered police, just not patrol.


Dispatchers are not law enforcement. They are also not on the scene and possibly not aware of all of the circumstance. For that reason dispatchers work under strict guidelines covering what they can and cannot do. Neither they nor their agency want to be sued.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Sonshine said:


> At this point it would be purely speculation to suggest he was on some type of drug at the time of the event.


 Yea Dr Phil says past behavior is a sign of future behavior :smack
That and to many cops in my family :awh:
Then getting tossed out of school for what selling boy scout cookies :awh:

I'm sure he was just helping Zim up after he slipped and fell .

That young man got a record long as your arm .


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> I've been looking but can't find any thing that says he didn't have the skittles and ice tea.


Have you found anything that said he did have them?


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Nevada, my dear friend, how do you figure? It is exactly what I would expect in a fight; guy on the bottom pulls gun and fires, a chest shot would be pretty much compatible with this, I would think.

If he was going to just SHOOT Trayvon, it certainly wouldn't have been at that close range? More of an arm's distance with a "personal space" component? And where exactly in the chest was he shot, that will answer these questions as well. Dead center, perhaps not during a fight when both were struggling on the ground. To the side on which the gun was kept, very indicative of a shot fired during a fight. Trajectory as well, if he was shot with a sideways trajectory, that would indicate pulling the gun up and firing randomly vs. straight on trajectory which would mean aim.

Just my humble opinion, and not worth very much at this stage of the game.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> _Florida teenager Trayvon Martin died from a single gunshot wound to the chest fired from âintermediate range,â according to an autopsy report reviewed Wednesday by NBC News._
> U.S. News - Trayvon Martin killed by single gunshot fired from 'intermediate range,' autopsy shows
> 
> That's going to hurt him, since it shows that he was not engaged in a fight when he shot.


Ok, I give up what is âintermediate rangeâ? Does that mean it was not a contact wound? Is is more than a foot but less than a mile? Does it mean there was no powering or only just a small amount?

Using a term like that in a news story w/o defining it nothing more than hype.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> You keep saying that the dispatcher, not a police officer said he didn't need to follow, but the dispatcher works for the police department and if I'm not mistaken are considered police, just not patrol.


I don't think you are correct. Dispatchers are not certified LEOs and as such do not have 'police power'.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Sonshine said:


> Autopsy of Trayvon Martin reportedly shows fatal bullet fired from 'intermediate range' | Fox News
> 
> A leaked autopsy reportedly shows that the bullet that killed Florida teen Trayvon Martin was fired from "intermediate range," which one forensics expert said means anywhere from one to 18 inches away.
> 
> Read more: Autopsy of Trayvon Martin reportedly shows fatal bullet fired from 'intermediate range' | Fox News


A few minutes ago I heard Mark Furhman say "intermediate range" is 36 inches. I wonder who is right?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Darren said:


> Dispatchers are not law enforcement. They are also not on the scene and possibly not aware of all of the circumstance. For that reason dispatchers work under strict guidelines covering what they can and cannot do. Neither they nor their agency want to be sued.


At the time of the call no one was on the scene or aware of all the circumstances. I didn't realize though that they did not recieve the same training as the officers, but when researching it I found you are correct.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Yea Dr Phil says past behavior is a sign of future behavior :smack
> That and to many cops in my family :awh:
> Then getting tossed out of school for what selling boy scout cookies :awh:
> 
> ...


I understand what you're saying, but you aren't getting what I'm trying to say. Zimmerman had no knowledge of Martin's past, therefore in regards to what happened it's irrelevant.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Yea Dr Phil says past behavior is a sign of future behavior :smack
> That and to many cops in my family :awh:
> Then getting tossed out of school for what selling boy scout cookies :awh:
> 
> ...


Also, it is still pure speculation at this point as to whether Martin was under the influence at the time. I have seen nothing that states he was. I figure it would have shown up during the autopsy.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> Have you found anything that said he did have them?


Every news story I've seen has mentioned them. Where else would the whole idea have come from? In fact Skittles and Arizona tea have made public statements because of all the media attention about it.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

watcher said:


> I don't think you are correct. Dispatchers are not certified LEOs and as such do not have 'police power'.


You're right. I looked it up after someone else said something about it. However, they still work for the police department and their authority shouldn't have been questioned when they requested that Zimmerman stop following Martin.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

gapeach said:


> A few minutes ago I heard Mark Furhman say "intermediate range" is 36 inches. I wonder who is right?


I don't know, guess that's one of the things the courts will decide.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Sonshine said:


> At the time of the call no one was on the scene or aware of all the circumstances. I didn't realize though that they did not recieve the same training as the officers, but when researching it I found you are correct.


I know several of the dispatchers for this area and my better half is an ex-dispatcher. I've also been in classes with dispatchers during which some of their restrictions were discussed. Everything the dispatcher did that night during Zimmerman's call was SOP. The only thing that could have been done differently is that they could have stayed on line with Zimmerman until the police got there. Since Zimmerman lost track of Martin and agreed to stop looking for him, I understand why the call was terminated.

A lot of things could have prevented Martin's death.

1. If his mother hadn't sent him with his father, he would still be alive.

2. If his father hadn't left him alone that night he would still be alive.

3. If he had gone straight home as his girlfriend supposedly suggested, he would still be alive.

4. If the dispatcher had kept Zimmerman on the line until the police had arrived, that may have deterred the confrontation which resulted in Martin's death.

5. If Martin hadn't continued beating Zimmerman when he was on the ground he might still be alive.

6. If the neighbor that saw Martin on top of Zimmerman had intervened, Martin might still be alive.

Looking back, you could say Martin was destined to die that night. He should have never punched Zimmerman and knocked him down. He should have never continued beating Zimmerman. I wonder in his final moments if he understood why he was going to die. Or did he go out without any contemplation of the events that lead him to his death.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Darren said:


> I know several of the dispatchers for this area and my better half is an ex-dispatcher. I've also been in classes with dispatchers during which some of their restrictions were discussed. Everything the dispatcher did that night during Zimmerman's call was SOP. The only thing that could have been done differently is that they could have stayed on line with Zimmerman until the police got there. Since Zimmerman lost track of Martin and agreed to stop looking for him, I understand why the call was terminated.
> 
> A lot of things could have prevented Martin's death.
> 
> ...


Hindsight is 20/20. It's a shame, because no one had to die that night and now the lives of two families has been affected, not to mention what this one episode has done to our country. I've seen posters here on HT that stated they weren't racists until this event happened. This has caused more race division in our country than I have seen in many years. So sad.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Sonshine said:


> I've seen posters here on HT that stated they weren't racists until this event happened.


I've seen that, too. I'm not convinced of the second half. I think they're using this as an excuse to be racist.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

You're right. That's why I hope Crump and associates are ultimately held liable for any injuries or deaths that result from their actions.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

ryanthomas said:


> I've seen that, too. I'm not convinced of the second half. I think they're using this as an excuse to be racist.


I am one of the people she is talking about.
Look back at my record on this forum.
I have stated and shown many times I was not prejudice.
I have defended many minorities on here.
I have always been for the underdog.
Maybe I haven't changed so much. 
The underdog has changed.
What was a minority is now a majority.
Guess I am still defending the minorities, just now I am one.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> I've seen that, too. I'm not convinced of the second half. I think they're using this as an excuse to be racist.


I do think it would take a lot to convince me to become a racist if I wasn't already one, but it's not my place to judge the hearts of man.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Darren said:


> You're right. That's why I hope Crump and associates are ultimately held liable for any injuries or deaths that result from their actions.


Who will hold the media accountable, or the Black Caucus, or the President. The list is long.


----------



## Rocktown Gal (Feb 19, 2008)

Sonshine said:


> Also, it is still pure speculation at this point as to whether Martin was under the influence at the time. I have seen nothing that states he was. I figure it would have shown up during the autopsy.


Trayvon Martin, the 17-year-old who was shot and killed by a neighborhood watch volunteer, had the drug THC in his system the night of this death, according to new information obtained by ABC News.

Trayvon Martin Documents Released in Shooting by George Zimmerman - ABC News


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> _Florida teenager Trayvon Martin died from a single gunshot wound to the chest fired from âintermediate range,â according to an autopsy report reviewed Wednesday by NBC News._
> U.S. News - Trayvon Martin killed by single gunshot fired from 'intermediate range,' autopsy shows
> 
> That's going to hurt him, since it shows that he was not engaged in a fight when he shot.


LOL

Don't hang your hopes on a SUBJECTIVE term like "intermediate"

The report I heard said there was a 2" diameter POWDER BURN, which would make "intermediate" a matter of INCHES, not feet.



> The autopsy also shows that Zimmerman shot Martin from a distance of *between 1 inch and 18 inches* away,


http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-ma...orge-zimmerman/story?id=16371852#.T7VtVEX8vJY


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> However, they still work for the police department and *their authority* shouldn't have been questioned when they requested that Zimmerman* stop following* Martin


They have no "authority" and he DID stop following according to ALL the evidence

I don't know why this keeps being repeaed when it's been covere about 50 times at least


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Rocktown Gal said:


> Trayvon Martin, the 17-year-old who was shot and killed by a neighborhood watch volunteer, had the drug THC in his system the night of this death, according to new information obtained by ABC News.
> 
> Trayvon Martin Documents Released in Shooting by George Zimmerman - ABC News


Thanks. I had not heard of that yet. What is THC?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Rocktown Gal said:


> Trayvon Martin, the 17-year-old who was shot and killed by a neighborhood watch volunteer, had the drug THC in his system the night of this death, according to new information obtained by ABC News.
> 
> Trayvon Martin Documents Released in Shooting by George Zimmerman - ABC News


Disregard my last post. THC is basically pot.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They have no "authority" and he DID stop following according to ALL the evidence
> 
> I don't know why this keeps being repeaed when it's been covere about 50 times at least


Have you seen any reports that states how far from Zimmerman's vehicle the incident happened?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> Have you seen any reports that states how far from Zimmerman's vehicle the incident happened?


 
All that was posted weeks ago. with photos of the scene:



> George Zimmerman parked near the intersection of a pedestrian walkway and Twin Trees Lane. He was roughly thirty yards from his car when he fired the fatal shot.


JustOneMinute: Last Map Of The Retreat At Twin Lakes


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> All that was posted weeks ago. with photos of the scene:
> 
> 
> JustOneMinute: Last Map Of The Retreat At Twin Lakes


I missed them, so thanks for re-posting.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

If the roles were reversed this would been in the back of second rate 50 cent paper like the thousands of others killed since the above altercation :flameproofundies:


And the cops aren't going to tell all to the people .:awh:


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> You're right. I looked it up after someone else said something about it. However, they still work for the police department and their authority shouldn't have been questioned when they requested that Zimmerman stop following Martin.


Perhaps it is the same to you, but "they requested that Zimmerman stop following Martin" is different than, " Ah, you don't need to follow him."


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Sawmill Jim said:


> If the roles were reversed this would been in the back of second rate 50 cent paper like the thousands of others killed since the above altercation :flameproofundies:
> 
> 
> And the cops aren't going to tell all to the people .:awh:


You're right, which is how it should have been handled. News media are no longer objective reporters but put their own biased spin on things which creates the kind of havok we are seeing now.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

haypoint said:


> Perhaps it is the same to you, but "they requested that Zimmerman stop following Martin" is different than, " Ah, you don't need to follow him."


What's the difference? They let him know that they really didn't want him following him either way, at least that's what I would have taken from the comment.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Darren said:


> I know several of the dispatchers for this area and my better half is an ex-dispatcher. I've also been in classes with dispatchers during which some of their restrictions were discussed. Everything the dispatcher did that night during Zimmerman's call was SOP. The only thing that could have been done differently is that they could have stayed on line with Zimmerman until the police got there. Since Zimmerman lost track of Martin and agreed to stop looking for him, I understand why the call was terminated.
> 
> A lot of things could have prevented Martin's death.
> 
> ...


My Grandpa used to say, âIf âIFâs and âBUTâs were candy and nuts, weâd all have a Merry Christmas. 
A lot of things could have prevented Martin's death.
1. Mom sent him there because he was out of control. Happens all the time. If sheâd kept him with her, heâd be breaking into a different set of Condos. Walking around as an angry teenager gets lots of people hurt or killed.
2. Ever try to watch a thug 24/7? Maybe if Dad had forced him to stay in the house, he wouldnât have been checking out the Condos, that night, but he was a train wreck waiting to happen. Would it have been better if heâd stayed home that night and a week later beat up someone else and then a week after that killed someone? I guess prison is better than dead?
3. Again just a matter of time.
4. Then the dispatcher could make a statement that she couldnât tell who was screaming. Thatâs better?
5. Yup, and if Zimmerman hadnât been armed, Martin would be alive, too. 

6. Never know. If Martin could have knocked Zimmerman out, grabbed the gun and shot the witness, Martin would be alive, too. 

If criminals were reflective about their actions, no one would commit capital offenses. He may have simply thought, " Hey, cool, a bullet scar would look great, a real Gangster Badge of Honor."


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

haypoint said:


> My Grandpa used to say, âIf âIFâs and âBUTâs were candy and nuts, weâd all have a Merry Christmas.
> A lot of things could have prevented Martin's death.
> 1. Mom sent him there because he was out of control. Happens all the time. If sheâd kept him with her, heâd be breaking into a different set of Condos. Walking around as an angry teenager gets lots of people hurt or killed.
> 2. Ever try to watch a thug 24/7? Maybe if Dad had forced him to stay in the house, he wouldnât have been checking out the Condos, that night, but he was a train wreck waiting to happen. Would it have been better if heâd stayed home that night and a week later beat up someone else and then a week after that killed someone? I guess prison is better than dead?
> ...


I had not heard anything about him breaking into the condos there. Do you have a link on that?


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

crime scene pics on cnn.com show a can of iced tea at the scene...in case anyone cares...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> I do think it would take a lot to convince me to become a racist if I wasn't already one, but it's not my place to judge the hearts of man.


Maybe many yrs of incidents...things have happened to me, outright hatred when I've shown no hatred; enuf of these things & you can reach the 'straw that broke the camel's back'.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> I've seen that, too. I'm not convinced of the second half. I think they're using this as an excuse to be racist.


The fact that some of us refused to accept the original story as complete fact and jump on Martin's bandwagon doesn't mean we are racists. Some of us actually want to know ALL the facts before we come (as opposed to JUMP) to conclusions. It's called INFORMED decisions.

Some of us also know what Florida's SYG law actually says, and even if Zimmerman *confronted* Martin first, it doesn't mean he *attacked* him first. There is a tremendous difference in the definitions of the words.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Sonshine said:


> Who will hold the media accountable, or the Black Caucus, or the President. The list is long.


There's a chain of events already posted on the internet leading back to Crump. Some of the media due to outright manipulation of the facts is liable. The firings are an admission in themselves. We don't know whether someone working for Crump or the media manipulated Zimmerman's photo. I don't think Reuters did it, so that provides a comparison. It makes more sense that someone did it to support the storyline that Crump released.

I suspect there's a group of people with very deep pockets that are praying Zimmerman gets convicted. If he doesn't get convicted, he'll have lawyers knocking on his door to help him in the next stage.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

FeralFemale said:


> crime scene pics on cnn.com show a can of iced tea at the scene...in case anyone cares...


Martin did buy the stuff at the 711. There's several videos of him from the store. Here's one showing him buy the tea and candy. Is it my imagination or does he seem a bit confused in the store? He starts to go back into one of the aisles but at that time he couldn't buy anything else because all he had left was ten cents. 

I wonder if the way he walks may have caught Zimmerman's attention. Watching how people walk can be interesting. Some people walk directly to where they want to do something and then walk directly to another location. 


[YOUTUBE]oqLOeuBwJOI[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> Every news story I've seen has mentioned them. Where else would the whole idea have come from? In fact Skittles and Arizona tea have made public statements because of all the media attention about it.


Just saw on the news that the tea and skittles were found on Martin's body.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Tricky Grama said:


> Maybe many yrs of incidents...things have happened to me, outright hatred when I've shown no hatred; enuf of these things & you can reach the 'straw that broke the camel's back'.


I still don't think it would change me. I had Christians treat me pretty badly before I became one, even now that I'm a Christian, I still getting treated badly by some. That's why it's so important to judge each man by his character. MLK had it right.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

tyusclan said:


> The fact that some of us refused to accept the original story as complete fact and jump on Martin's bandwagon doesn't mean we are racists. Some of us actually want to know ALL the facts before we come (as opposed to JUMP) to conclusions. It's called INFORMED decisions.
> 
> Some of us also know what Florida's SYG law actually says, and even if Zimmerman *confronted* Martin first, it doesn't mean he *attacked* him first. There is a tremendous difference in the definitions of the words.


And some have actually come out and said they have become racist over this incident, which is what I was referring to.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Sonshine said:


> And some have actually come out and said they have become racist over this incident, which is what I was referring to.


I won't lower myself to hate anyone, regardless of what occurs, but it is very frustrating to see the double standard. There are many times more black on black crime and black on white crime than there is white on black, but one incident of a 'white-hispanic' (a brand new term btw) on black, and it's automatically 'racially motivated'.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are the two most racist individuals in the country. They do everything the can to KEEP racism alive and well, otherwise they'd have to get real jobs.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

tyusclan said:


> I won't lower myself to hate anyone, regardless of what occurs, but it is very frustrating to see the double standard. There are many times more black on black crime and black on white crime than there is white on black, but one incident of a 'white-hispanic' (a brand new term btw) on black, and it's automatically 'racially motivated'.
> 
> Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are the two most racist individuals in the country. They do everything the can to KEEP racism alive and well, otherwise they'd have to get real jobs.


Being prejudice and hating someone is not the same thing.
I am prejudice but I don't hate anyone. I reserve hate for special individuals.
I don't hate any group, only individuals. There are some groups I don't like. There are some groups that I do not want to be around. There are some groups that I do not trust.

I would imagine everyone has people they do not like, trust, or want to be around. I have never met a person who was not prejudice. I don't really think there is such a person.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

tyusclan said:


> The fact that some of us refused to accept the original story as complete fact and jump on Martin's bandwagon doesn't mean we are racists. Some of us actually want to know ALL the facts before we come (as opposed to JUMP) to conclusions. It's called INFORMED decisions.
> 
> Some of us also know what Florida's SYG law actually says, and even if Zimmerman *confronted* Martin first, it doesn't mean he *attacked* him first. There is a tremendous difference in the definitions of the words.


And I never said YOU are a racist. I fit into the exact same description as what you posted.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

pancho said:


> Being prejudice and hating someone is not the same thing.
> I am prejudice but I don't hate anyone. I reserve hate for special individuals.
> I don't hate any group, only individuals. There are some groups I don't like. There are some groups that I do not want to be around. There are some groups that I do not trust.
> 
> I would imagine everyone has people they do not like, trust, or want to be around. I have never met a person who was not prejudice. I don't really think there is such a person.


I have to admit that makes a lot of sense.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Or behind :smack


I think he was behind and got scared probably had his bell ring and needed to stop the beating. By the looks of the pictures he is the one who got beat.


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

pancho said:


> Being prejudice and hating someone is not the same thing.
> I am prejudice but I don't hate anyone. I reserve hate for special individuals.
> I don't hate any group, only individuals. There are some groups I don't like. There are some groups that I do not want to be around. There are some groups that I do not trust.
> 
> I would imagine everyone has people they do not like, trust, or want to be around. I have never met a person who was not prejudice. I don't really think there is such a person.


Excellent post Pancho...:thumb:

.


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

CBS is reporting that the autopsy on TM showed he had marijuana in his system. Maybe that wasn't a bag of skittles that he was carrying...

.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

ninny said:


> CBS is reporting that the autopsy on TM showed he had marijuana in his system. Maybe that wasn't a bag of skittles that he was carrying...
> 
> .


Um, they have video of him buying the skittles and the tea. Yes, they are now reporting that he had trace amounts of pot in his system, but I seriously doubt that would affect him very much. After all, most that I have seen posting on HT say that pot is completely safe and no worse than drinking a beer. Now, if they had found traces of crack or something similar, that may be a factor in all this, as it is, I don't think traces of pot in his system really has anything to do with what happened.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Looking at the clips of Martin in the store makes me believe he was acting strange.
He was acting strange in the store.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

True, weed probably had nothing to do with the attack, since it tends to make people less violent. It only shows he wasn't a model citizen.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> True, weed probably had nothing to do with the attack, since it tends to make people less violent. It only shows he wasn't a model citizen.


Which we already knew because of the activities that got him sent to his Dad's in Florida to start with. That's why the whole bit about trace amounts of pot in his system is even a factor or being talked about. I use to be married to a pot head so I'm well aware of how they act, and you're right, they have less tendencies to violence.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> Which we already knew because of the activities that got him sent to his Dad's in Florida to start with. That's why the whole bit about trace amounts of pot in his system is even a factor or being talked about. I use to be married to a pot head so I'm well aware of how they act, and you're right, they have less tendencies to violence.


My experience with boozers and pot heads is it depends. Some get mellow while others get hyper and even violent. But in all cases they tend to not act all that rational.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

watcher said:


> My experience with boozers and pot heads is it depends. Some get mellow while others get hyper and even violent. But in all cases they tend to not act all that rational.


I'm a Lover :kiss:

big rockpile


----------



## fishinshawn (Nov 8, 2010)

watcher said:


> My experience with boozers and pot heads is it depends. Some get mellow while others get hyper and even violent. But in all cases they tend to not act all that rational.


As a former leo I'd much rather deal with a pot head then a drunk. FYI Marijuana can stay in your system for over a month depending on how big of a user you are. So I very much doubt the kid was high, on marijuana, when the fight took place. From the research I have done I think there is a very subtle effort going on to clear zimmerman. It seems like people in very high places are going out of their way to pull some strings to get zimmerman off.....


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

fishinshawn said:


> As a former leo I'd much rather deal with a pot head then a drunk. FYI Marijuana can stay in your system for over a month depending on how big of a user you are. So I very much doubt the kid was high, on marijuana, when the fight took place. From the research I have done I think there is a very subtle effort going on to clear zimmerman. It seems like people in very high places are going out of their way to pull some strings to get zimmerman off.....


I don't think the people in so-called high places give a rat's azz about Zimmerman. What we're seeing is that the latest info released does not support the prosecutor's outlandish murder 2 charge.


----------



## fishinshawn (Nov 8, 2010)

Darren said:


> I don't think the people in so-called high places give a rat's azz about Zimmerman. What we're seeing is that the latest info released does not support the prosecutor's outlandish murder 2 charge.


Zimmerman committed homicide. He killed that teen, it is up to a jury to decide if the homicide is justifiable or not. IMO all homicides need to go before a jury.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

fishinshawn said:


> Zimmerman committed homicide. He killed that teen, it is up to a jury to decide if the homicide is justifiable or not. IMO all homicides need to go before a jury.


Prosecutors all over the country review killings from self defense to determine if they are justifiable homicides. There's no need for a jury. A lot of times the case is dropped. Until Crump and his publicity team ginned by a news release that created racial discord acroos the country, the Zimmerman-Martin case was going no where. What happened was a well planned and executed intimidation by media scheme. When Obama got in the act, they hit gold.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

fishinshawn said:


> As a former leo I'd much rather deal with a pot head then a drunk. FYI Marijuana can stay in your system for over a month depending on how big of a user you are. So I very much doubt the kid was high, on marijuana, when the fight took place. From the research I have done I think there is a very subtle effort going on to clear zimmerman. It seems like people in very high places are going out of their way to pull some strings to get zimmerman off.....


They don't have to try to get Zimmerman off.
The court should do the job for them.
He should have never been charged in the first place.

Take a look at the clip showing Martin in the store. He was either high on something or he is a very uncordinated and stupid individual.


----------



## fishinshawn (Nov 8, 2010)

Darren said:


> Prosecutors all over the country review killings from self defense to determine if they are justifiable homicides. There's no need for a jury. A lot of times the case is dropped. Until Crump and his publicity team ginned by a news release that created racial discord acroos the country, the Zimmerman-Martin case was going no where. What happened was a well planned and executed intimidation by media scheme. When Obama got in the act, they hit gold.


I know how it works. The last few years on the force I was a major crimes investigator. Prosecutors often review cases, and about half the time a grand jury reviews the cases to see if just cause exists for an indictment. 

What I said is I felt like all homicide cases need to go before a jury. A DA is a political position and should not be the person to decide if a case goes to trial. I have personally seen to many cases of justice not being used appropriately by a DA.


----------



## fishinshawn (Nov 8, 2010)

pancho said:


> Take a look at the clip showing Martin in the store. He was either high on something or he is a very uncordinated and stupid individual.


Just because some maybe "high" doesn't mean they are going to be violent.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

fishinshawn said:


> As a former leo I'd much rather deal with a pot head then a drunk. FYI Marijuana can stay in your system for over a month depending on how big of a user you are. So I very much doubt the kid was high, on marijuana, when the fight took place. From the research I have done I think there is a very subtle effort going on to clear zimmerman. It seems like people in very high places are going out of their way to pull some strings to get zimmerman off.....


From what I've read I don't think pot had much to do with it.

Also from what I've read there's no need for any one to "pull some stings" to get him off. There's not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed any crime.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

fishinshawn said:


> Just because some maybe "high" doesn't mean they are going to be violent.


Depends on the person.
Drugs act different ways on different people.

The evidence shows he did become violent.
Maybe he was just too high to be good at it.


----------



## fishinshawn (Nov 8, 2010)

pancho said:


> Depends on the person.
> Drugs act different ways on different people.
> 
> The evidence shows he did become violent.
> Maybe he was just too high to be good at it.


Or maybe he was fighting for his life? Isn't the point here that we don't know? There must have been a grand jury indictment which means a group of his peers felt like there was enough doubt of his innocence to need a trial.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

fishinshawn said:


> Or maybe he was fighting for his life? Isn't the point here that we don't know? There must have been a grand jury indictment which means a group of his peers felt like there was enough doubt of his innocence to need a trial.


There was no gj indictment. The state brought the charges. You don't need a gj indictment in FL unless it is a capital offense.


----------



## fishinshawn (Nov 8, 2010)

FeralFemale said:


> There was no gj indictment. The state brought the charges. You don't need a gj indictment in FL unless it is a capital offense.


Thanks, I wasn't aware of that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> There must have been a grand jury indictment which means a group of his peers felt like there was enough doubt of his innocence to need a trial.


Grand Juries indict everyone since they only hear evidence from ONE SIDE.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

fishinshawn said:


> Or maybe he was fighting for his life? Isn't the point here that we don't know? There must have been a grand jury indictment which means a group of his peers felt like there was enough doubt of his innocence to need a trial.


No, there was a mob demanded he be charged.
You must not have read anything about what really happened.
Just to get you up to date.
A bunch of colored people demanded he be charged.
To satisfy them he was charged even though the charge was a joke.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

fishinshawn said:


> As a former leo I'd much rather deal with a pot head then a drunk. FYI Marijuana can stay in your system for over a month depending on how big of a user you are. So I very much doubt the kid was high, on marijuana, when the fight took place. From the research I have done I think there is a very subtle effort going on to clear zimmerman. It seems like people in very high places are going out of their way to pull some strings to get zimmerman off.....


Some detective on Fox news said the results showed that he probably had not used pot for a couple of weeks.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> Depends on the person.
> Drugs act different ways on different people.
> 
> The evidence shows he did become violent.
> Maybe he was just too high to be good at it.


They only found trace amounts in his system and according to at least one detective that showed that he had not done drugs for at least two weeks.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Darren said:


> Prosecutors all over the country review killings from self defense to determine if they are justifiable homicides. There's no need for a jury. A lot of times the case is dropped. Until Crump and his publicity team ginned by a news release that created racial discord acroos the country, the Zimmerman-Martin case was going no where. What happened was a well planned and executed intimidation by media scheme. When Obama got in the act, they hit gold.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> They only found trace amounts in his system and according to at least one detective that showed that he had not done drugs for at least two weeks.


There is no way to show when someone used pot, only if they did. Just because there is THC in the system does not mean they were high at the time. Also, just because there were only 'trace' levels doesn't mean that they weren't. It is not like a BAC.

The closest you can come to showing when a person used pot is doing a series of tests over time. If the series of tests show the levels continually going down after the first test was taken that is strong evidence that they have not used since the first test. If the levels ever go back up, it is clear evidence that they have used since the first test. But, again, you cannot show exactly when they used or when they were high.

We do drug testing at work and often must defend their findings, so I know way more about this stuff than I would like.

ETA: my point is that detective was talking out of his behind. you cannot tell when a person used pot based on their levels.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Grand Juries indict everyone since they only hear evidence from ONE SIDE.


Right off the top of my head I can think of two cases where the grand jury did not indict the "accused". One case was a killing.... and the grand jury ruled it as "defense of self and others". The accused had emptied his sks into a fellow who was drunk and had shot a couple of people who were attempting to disarm him. The other case was when I was "accused" of theft and the grand jurys voted to not indict me. I appeared before two separate grand juries in my own defense before that mess was over.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

Sonshine said:


> Also, it is still pure speculation at this point as to whether Martin was under the influence at the time. I have seen nothing that states he was. I figure it would have shown up during the autopsy.


if they found thc then he was under the influence. How much that is the question.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Right off the top of my head I can think of two cases where the grand jury did not indict the "accused". One case was a killing.... and the grand jury ruled it as "defense of self and others". The accused had emptied his sks into a fellow who was drunk and had shot a couple of people who were attempting to disarm him. The other case was when I was "accused" of theft and the grand jurys voted to not indict me. I appeared before two separate grand juries in my own defense before that mess was over.


Maybe you should stick to tractors. LOL Glad to hear you werenât prosecuted.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> *Some detective on Fox news said* the results showed that he probably had not used pot for a couple of weeks.


LOL

You should know better than to *believe* stuff like that.


----------



## fishinshawn (Nov 8, 2010)

davel745 said:


> if they found thc then he was under the influence. How much that is the question.


That is completely incorrect.


----------



## fishinshawn (Nov 8, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Grand Juries indict everyone since they only hear evidence from ONE SIDE.


That is also very inaccurate. Grand jurys decline to indite all the time, sometimes they say more evidence is needed and sometimes they say there isn't a crime.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

fishinshawn said:


> That is completely incorrect.


I guess I donât understand. If they find THC in a persons blood they arenât under the influence? That is what you are saying.


----------



## fishinshawn (Nov 8, 2010)

davel745 said:


> I guess I donât understand. If they find THC in a persons blood they arenât under the influence? That is what you are saying.


THC is stored in the body's fat cells. A couple of hours after smoking it most people are no longer under the influence, your brains serotonin functions go back to normal. As the body burns fat cells over the next month or two the THC gets cleansed out through the urinary track. It doesn't get sent back to the brain.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

I truly doubt the pot had anything to do with this, unless it was laced with something else which I don't think, since it never showed up in autopsy. Generally, pot will not cause violence in the user.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Doesn't really matter
Martin attacked Zimmerman, beat his head on a sidewalk (deadly weapon) and was shot.
People think he was still the 10 year old the media shows pictures of, but he wasn't.
All they need to determine is if Zimmerman was in fear of his life or extensive bodily harm.
The rest is just political and racist theater staged by those who would profit from a bad situation.


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

Darren said:


> It's interesting the way you've defined the choices. Losing a fight doesn't cover the aspect of being unable to defend yourself, calling for help and having bystanders walk away. When Trayvon, for whatever reason, continued beating Zimmerman when he had the man on the ground, he was doing something that was inexcuseable. Did it merit death? I don't know what went through Zimmerman's mind. Nor do we know if Martin had threatened to kill him.
> 
> Zimmerman apparently felt he had no choice. If the one neighbor had intervened instead of going to call 911, Martin would probably still be alive but charged with assault and battery.
> 
> I wonder how many more people have decided not to intervene in the future because of the Zimmerman case. We're accepting a much more uncivil society when we don't look after our neighbor.



If one is going to engage in a conflict in progress where one has not seen the start of it, there is a real risk of legal liability if one takes action. That is one of the things one learns in a concealed carry firearms class. Just because it is physically possible for one to come to the aid of someone does not mean one should, especially if one is armed. It is based on the circumstances. A stranger coming up on Martin and Zimmerman might have thought that Zimmerman just murdered someone when he killed Martin. Would someone then kill Zimmerman under the belief that Zimmerman was an armed criminal?

Given what evidence I have heard and seen so far, even if Zimmerman could have used the Stand Your Ground legal defense, under the circumstances it sounds like he created the situation that lead up to killing Martin. As I do not have access to all of the evidence the prosecutor and the police have at this time, I am going with what I currently know. Zimmerman's past personal history of questionable behavior may not work in his favor regardless of his injuries in this case.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> 
> You should know better than to *believe* stuff like that.


Mark Furhman is a very respected detective.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

davel745 said:


> I guess I donât understand. If they find THC in a persons blood they arenât under the influence? That is what you are saying.


How Long Does Marijuana Stay in the Body?

The effects of smoking marijuana fade quickly, but the drug, known affectionately as "weed," can be detected in the body for weeks and sometimes longer. How long it remains in the system depends on how often or how much marijuana the user has been smoking

How long does marijuana stay in your system

Marijuana itself does not "stay" in your system, but the main chemical in marijuana, THC, does. In fact, it may stay in your system forever because it is stored in fatty tissues of various organs.

Despite being stored in body fat, THC is only detectable for a certain amount of time. There are many variables that determine how long THC will remain detectable in your system, including height, weight, age, metabolism, amount smoked/ingested, and methods to clean. Many drug tests, including urine tests, look for 9-carboxy-THC which is the by-product of your body metabolizing the THC in your fat.


How Long Does Marijuana Stay In Your System? | Home Health Testing


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> Mark Furhman is a very respected detective.


Isn't he the one who got in trouble in the OJ case?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> Isn't he the one who got in trouble in the OJ case?


Mark Fuhrman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He served as a police officer for 20 years, earning more than 55 commendations before his retirement in 1995.

He was involved in the OJ case, but IMO that doesn't speak to his success as a detective.

Also, I was remarking on his statement regarding the autopsy report and how long THC stays in your body. I've posted a few links regarding the validity of what he said.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Sonshine said:


> Mark Furhman is a very respected detective.


By some...... others view him as being a bit of a racist. I have very little respect for the man.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> By some...... others view him as being a bit of a racist. I have very little respect for the man.


Doesn't take away from the statement he made about the pot in the system.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> Mark Furhman is a very respected* detective*.


"Detective"

NOT a *Dr *or a *scientist*



> There are *many variables* that determine how long THC will remain detectable in your system, including height, weight, age, metabolism, amount smoked/ingested, and methods to clean.


There's no way he can or* SHOULD* be making claims about how long it had been since Trayvon got high


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Detective"
> 
> NOT a *Dr *or a *scientist*
> 
> ...


That's why I posted links regarding it. There were many others but they all seem to agree that it's detected in the blood stream long after the affects wear off.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Sonshine said:


> That's why I posted links regarding it. There were many others but they all seem to agree that *it's detected in the blood stream long after the affects wear off.*


That is completely true, but there is no way *he* could know how long it had been by looking at the levels. The fact that is *detected* for a long time, doesn't mean it had *been* a long time.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Sonshine said:


> Doesn't take away from the statement he made about the pot in the system.


I am not very clear on what statements he made on the subject. I think its pretty much common knowledge that pot can remain in the system in trace amounts for weeks after its been used.... but that does not mean that it has been weeks. My issue with him is his credibility.... for well over twenty years he was known to cheat... lie under oath... and even plant evidence if it would strengthen a case..... not what I would consider an honorable police detective. His word means nothing to me.


----------



## HOTW (Jul 3, 2007)

Body hair is more reliant on time cycles for detecting drugs in the system. When DH got hired for a Gov't jib they took body hair samples as well as urine and blood.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Big news today. Four witnesses have changed their stories.

U.S. News - Newspaper: 4 witnesses change stories in Trayvon Martin shooting


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Big news today. Four witnesses have changed their stories.
> 
> U.S. News - Newspaper: 4 witnesses change stories in Trayvon Martin shooting


You already have him convicted in your mind don't you?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> You already have him convicted in your mind don't you?


I'll keep an open mind. If the jury finds him not guilty I'm ok with that. Would you be ok with a guilty verdict?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> *I'll keep an open mind*. If the jury finds him not guilty I'm ok with that. Would you be ok with a guilty verdict?


LOL

That's funny


> *
> Witness 2: A young woman from the Retreat at Twin Lakes community, where Martin, 17, was shot Feb. 26, first told investigators she saw two men running and a fist fight. She later said she only saw one person running and couldnât distinguish much because she had removed her contact lenses.
> *





*So she didn't see anything that really matters* 

*



Witness 12: A young mother in the townhome community first said she saw two men on the ground but wasnât sure who was on top; she later said Zimmerman was on top because she recognized his size based on news reports.

Click to expand...

Reality is their size was nearly identical, so her assumption means nothing, and proves she didn't REALLY "see" much at all


**Witness 13:* A male neighbor first said Zimmerman, with a bloodied head, told him he had to shoot Martin because âhe was beating up on me,â and to please call Zimmermanâs wife. He later went into detail and described *Zimmermanâs tone* right after the shooting as casual, like the shooting was ânothing.â


> *Meaningless*
> 
> *Witness 6: A male neighbor, whose story change was initially reported Friday, first told police Martin was on top of Zimmerman and throwing down punches mixed martial arts style. He also first said Zimmerman was calling for help. The man later said he wasnât sure who was yelling for help, and that Martin may have merely pinned Zimmerman to the ground. He was still sure, however, that Martin was on top.
> *


*

Martin was on top, and was beating Zimmerman.

That part didn't change

"Calling for help" changes NOTHING about that, which happens to be the critical detail that JUSTIFIES using deadly force.

*


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> I'll keep an open mind. If the jury finds him not guilty I'm ok with that. Would you be ok with a guilty verdict?


As long as he gets a fair trial, but thanks to the media, racists and your idiot king, that's not likely to happen
This is what your Obama brings this country, unrest and division
I hope you are proud of him, he's your fault.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Big news today. Four witnesses have changed their stories.
> 
> U.S. News - Newspaper: 4 witnesses change stories in Trayvon Martin shooting


Witness #2 Her story change doesnât affect anything.
Witness #12 Zimmerman isnât much bigger and Martin had on a baggy hoody.
Witness#13 A calm attitude could also be a stunned attitude after a broken nose and cracked skull and a fatal shooting. Not everyone acts like the folks on Jerry Springer.
Witness#6 Martial Arts punches aside, Martin was on Zimmerman punching.
Memories fade sith time. That is why investigations are done right away. But none of these minor changes make a bit of difference.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Besides what has already been said, witnesses that have changed their stories will certainly not help the prosecution.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> As long as he gets a fair trial, but thanks to the media, racists and your idiot king, that's not likely to happen
> This is what your Obama brings this country, unrest and division
> I hope you are proud of him, he's your fault.


*Translation:* _You've already made up your mind, so you won't be happy with anything except a not-guilty verdict._

Unfortunately that's not justice.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Unfortunately that's not justice


Neither is charging him based on public opinion.

There is no evidence to support a murder charge


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> *Translation:* _You've already made up your mind, so you won't be happy with anything except a not-guilty verdict._
> 
> Unfortunately that's not justice.


You've already decided he was guilty
You fell for the 5th grade pictures, you fell for the racists who tried to make this a mean ol white guy kills little black boy, and despite any evidence to the contrary, you will proclaim his guilt no matter what,
All I said was I want him to get a fair trial, and you and the other bigots don't even want that.
All you want is Zimmerman's blood because Obama and Jackson said he was a mean white guy. (which he's no more white than your idiot king)
You bigots will have him murdered even if he's found not guilty
Obama, Sharpton and Jackson as well as the black panther racist club declared him guilty and ordered the death sentence.
Too bad he's not illegal, you'd be willing to give him a fair trial.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Neither is charging him based on public opinion.
> 
> There is no evidence to support a murder charge


The judge believed there was sufficient evidence to bind Zimmerman over for trial. I'll go along with that. I also agree that murder might be a little heavy handed, since manslaughter might fit this case better. But I'll reserve judgment until I hear what the prosecutor has.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> You've already decided he was guilty


When did I do that?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> The judge believed there was sufficient evidence to bind Zimmerman over for trial. I'll go along with that. I also agree that murder might be a little heavy handed, since manslaughter might fit this case better. But I'll reserve judgment until I hear what the prosecutor has.


And being you, you refuse to think maybe self defense as an option?
Obama has you well trained


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> The judge believed there was sufficient evidence to bind Zimmerman over for trial. I'll go along with that. I also agree that murder might be a little heavy handed, since manslaughter might fit this case better. But I'll reserve judgment until I hear what the prosecutor has.


I am pretty sure that there would have been no charges if it hadnt become a race issue created by a select few antagonists. As a result of all the needless turmoil charges had to be brought in order to prevent much larger scale violence throughout our country. Its all about appeasement, and I predict there will be an acquittal, followed up by small uprisings here and there. I am also quite sure that the prosecution is well aware that they are fighting a losing battle here.... they are merely following a course of action they believe will offer the least damage in the long term.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

I wonder how much they were paid.
This isn't going to end well.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> When did I do that?


You don't even entertain the idea he shot in self defense, you just blindly follow the leftist lynch mob


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

I don't see this hurting the defense at all.

I can see the witness on cross being asked if he said X and having to say yes. Being if he later said Y and having to say yes. Then being asked if he had seen/heard/read anything about the case between the time he said X and the time he said Y. To which the odds are he'll say yes. Then he will be asked if he thinks he was wrong the first time right after witnessing what makes him think he isn't wrong after time has passed AND he had heard/seen/read things which could have influenced his memory? Now you have put reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury about this new memory.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> And being you, you refuse to think maybe self defense as an option?
> Obama has you well trained


Zimmerman has every right to assert self defense, which I'm sure he will. They jury will either buy it or they won't. I wish Zimmerman all the luck in the world on that.

But regardless of how the jury goes I don't see how Obama can change anything. This is a state crime being tried in a state court.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

Is it common for four witnesses to change their story? One, I can understand. Maybe more if there are a large number of witnesses to begin with...but I find it strange that so many are all of a sudden and at the same time changing their statements.

Have they been threatened? Were they influenced by the media?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman has every right to assert self defense, which I'm sure he will. They jury will either buy it or they won't. I wish Zimmerman all the luck in the world on that.
> 
> But regardless of how the jury goes I don't see how Obama can change anything. This is a state crime being tried in a state court.


Like always, he stuck his idiot nose in where it doesn't belong and rallied the stupid troops and bigots
You follow a racist


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

FeralFemale said:


> Is it common for four witnesses to change their story? One, I can understand. Maybe more if there are a large number of witnesses to begin with...but I find it strange that so many are all of a sudden and at the same time changing their statements.
> 
> Have they been threatened? Were they influenced by the media?


I don't know if they have actually been threatened, but I wouldn't doubt that they feel threatened. I don't know if I would want to get up and testify in court with the whole country watching, so they would know who they were. The racial tensions are so high they may be afraid that some would harm them if their testimony doesn't get the results that others wish.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> You've already decided he was guilty
> You fell for the 5th grade pictures, you fell for the racists who tried to make this a mean ol white guy kills little black boy, and despite any evidence to the contrary, you will proclaim his guilt no matter what,
> All I said was I want him to get a fair trial, and you and the other bigots don't even want that.
> All you want is Zimmerman's blood because Obama and Jackson said he was a mean white guy. (which he's no more white than your idiot king)
> ...


I 'fell' for all that too, partially, but wanted more info, got the 'more info' and made an informed opinion. Too bad there's so many racists who did not listen to the facts.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> I 'fell' for all that too, partially, but wanted more info, got the 'more info' and made an informed opinion. Too bad there's so many racists who did not listen to the facts.


The leftist bigots don't care about facts
Our idiot president and his cronies are fanning a race war
Some leader huh?
Time for the idiot king to go.


----------



## Wanderer0101 (Jul 18, 2007)

FeralFemale said:


> Is it common for four witnesses to change their story? One, I can understand. Maybe more if there are a large number of witnesses to begin with...but I find it strange that so many are all of a sudden and at the same time changing their statements.
> 
> Have they been threatened? Were they influenced by the media?


They were influenced by the Mob.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

If you've seen the video of Martin appearing somewhat confused and disoriented in the 7 Eleven video prior to appearing suspicious to Zimmerman, this may shed some light. The article looks at Trayvon's postings and examines why he was trying to find a source of codeine. Watermelon tea and skittles? Now we may know why things turned violent. Contrary to being mellowed out on weed, Martin may have had something else in his fuel tank. The question is did the toxicology tests look for DMX?

Update #26 Part 2 â Trayvon Martin Shooting â A year of drug use culminates in predictable violenceâ¦ | The Last Refuge


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Sonshine said:


> I don't know if they have actually been threatened, but I wouldn't doubt that they feel threatened. I don't know if I would want to get up and testify in court with the whole country watching, so they would know who they were. The racial tensions are so high they may be afraid that some would harm them if their testimony doesn't get the results that others wish.


Isn't that what they count on?
They bully, bribe and threaten, it's the Obama way.
Obama needs this to go down as "Evil, white, legal gun owner shoots 10 year old black kid" so they have an excuse to disarm legal gun owners.
As we've seen, Obama will stop at nothing to get his way. these people remember it his way or else.
"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Darren said:


> If you've seen the video of Martin appearing somewhat confused and disoriented in the 7 Eleven video prior to appearing suspicious to Zimmerman, this may shed some light. The article looks at Trayvon's postings and examines why he was trying to find a source of codeine. Watermelon tea and skittles? Now we may know why things turned violent. Contrary to being mellowed out on weed, Martin may have had something else in his fuel tank. The question is did the toxicology tests look for DMX?
> 
> Update #26 Part 2 â Trayvon Martin Shooting â A year of drug use culminates in predictable violenceâ¦ | The Last Refuge


That explains quite a few questions I had.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

pancho said:


> That explains quite a few questions I had.


I wonder why his parents didn't spot the kid's problems. There were certainly plenty of signs. In the video he's walking around like an old man. I understand why Crump tried to get his school records sealed. Crump may not get the big payoff he expects.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Darren said:


> I wonder why his parents didn't spot the kid's problems. There were certainly plenty of signs. I understand why Crump tried to get his school records sealed. Crump may not get the big payoff he expects.


Just from what I have read his parents didn't much care what he did.
You would think after being thrown out of school so many times they would have noticed things were not right. Sort of hard to miss, unless you don't really care.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There has to be a "physical assault" to be considered a "fight"
> 
> Talking, following and questioning don't fit that criteria


However, talking, following, and questioning can be and in many states are, considered harassment, stalking, or threatening.
In many states, just the fact of being "threatened" with bodily injury or harm is sufficient provocation.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Darren said:


> I wonder why his parents didn't spot the kid's problems. There were certainly plenty of signs. In the video he's walking around like an old man. I understand why Crump tried to get his school records sealed. Crump may not get the big payoff he expects.


I know this will fire some up but whether people accept it or not there is different cultures in this country .They may be spaced around but they are to a degree birds of a feather :clap:

Some parents just say he's a little wild but he'll grow out of it some see nothing wrong with smoking pot their life style and dress is not one i would choose . Some has the notion the world owes them and say their view is right .And a few will survive .

Even near here small no where USA the town has a town in a town they have the Hill where if you arn't in that life style it is best to not even go there after dark and well armed in the day then good luck ,


I mean small town last week's drug bust was 105 warrants they found 50 of them .The good thing most are gathered in town because rental houses in the country are near gone :clap::clap:


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

thequeensblessing said:


> However, talking, following, and questioning can be and in many states are, considered harassment, stalking, or threatening.
> In many states, just the fact of being "threatened" with bodily injury or harm is sufficient provocation.


Now that we have the drug connection, it's obvious that Zimmerman had no idea the man he spotted walking aimlessly was a ticking bomb. If Zimmerman didn't have his gun that night, he would probably have died.

The really interesting information at the link is the potentially psychotic behavior of a DXM addict. The Trayvon support group has focused on the watermellon tea and skittles as a sign of innocence when in fact they're ingredients used to make "lean." Martin's Facebook posts verify his usage.

That was an amazing bit of research. Unless you understand the slang, the conversation makes little sense. I read Martin's posts before and didn't see any connection to anything stronger than marijuana. After learning what the slang means, it's obvious. Who knew Robitussin or similar cough syrups had that potential?


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

I think most any drug given time can be abused some have nothing else to do but figure ways to get high . They want today what it took others years to get and when it don't happen they turn to feel good drugs . Some day water will be prescription only :fussin:


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

More information on Zimmerman as a racist.

Tape Showed Zimmerman's Anger Over Black Man's Beating - Cincinnati News Story - WLWT Cincinnati


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> Like always, he stuck his idiot nose in where it doesn't belong and rallied the stupid troops and bigots
> You follow a racist


 Go off the deep end much? News flash, all the evil in this nation is NOT due to Obama.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Looks like Zimmerman wasn't such a nice guy either...

Co-worker: Zimmerman bullied me with racist taunts | The Raw Story


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

I have been able to follow the whole case only very peripheral. Glancing through some of the posts brought up some questions I had not given any thought before.

This was a gated Community. That means not just everybody goes in there who has no business? 
He was not cute and innocent looking after all, but looked like a gangsta? And he had repeated problems in school and was suspended at the time?
Okay, I had read someplace that he was only 70 yards from home. I assumed he was living there. 
He really was not living there? He was visiting his father? How long had he been there? Did he just come that day or had he been there several weeks? Was his father living there or was he staying with his girlfriend? Was this gated community integrated? If so, what is the percentage of blacks to whites? What I mean, would a young black look normal, like he belongs there? 
I have walked many times in the dark and in the rain when I was young. We had no car. Normally under the circumstances, you try to get from point A to Point B as quick as you can because it is not that pleasant. Was it raining slightly? Like drizzle? Or really raining? I read he was walking not on the main road but walking in the back of houses. Can't really picture that. Was that a short cut? Is it common for people walking in that neighborhood to do that? Is there an alley or something behind the buildings? 
I can understand that M. had his head covered with a hoody in bad weather. I would have carried an umbrella. 
I think it needs to be addressed if this was an integrated neighborhood, in which a young black with a hoody is nothing out of the ordinary, or if it was a mostly non black area, in which he would stick out like a sore thumb, especially after a series of break ins. How big is the neighborhood? Do people pretty much know each other, at least by sight? Did M have friends in the neighborhood, or was he a stranger? How often did he visit his father? did he stay on a regular basis? A seventeen year old does not need to be babysitted. I can not blame his Dad for going out with his girlfriend. Maybe he should have been home when M was a bit younger. 
I am sure there are some more questions to be considered that do not occur to me right now. 
Did Z. who after all was in his late twenties and a married man, have a history of picking fights? How many fights was he involved with? 
What I am getting at, was Z unreasonable, hasty and possibly racist? Under certain circumstances, would it be prudent to keep an eye on an unknown young man? Or was it a case of someone being a wanna be guy with authority. Nothing to be done I guess than to wait and see how things come out. 
.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Tabitha said:


> I have been able to follow the whole case only very peripheral. Glancing through some of the posts brought up some questions I had not given any thought before.
> 
> This was a gated Community. That means not just everybody goes in there who has no business?
> He was not cute and innocent looking after all, but looked like a gangsta? And he had repeated problems in school and was suspended at the time?
> ...


In florida, certain times of the year it rains every day, so it would be hard to not walk in the rain. Many of the gated communities the gates are open in the daytime and close down at a certain time. The apartments had sidewalks in the back of them, which is why he was walking behind the houses.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

greg273 said:


> Go off the deep end much? News flash, all the evil in this nation is NOT due to Obama.


Not all, but a lot of it is.
Glad you agree the way they treated Zimmerman was evil though.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Darren said:


> More information on Zimmerman as a racist.
> 
> Tape Showed Zimmerman's Anger Over Black Man's Beating - Cincinnati News Story - WLWT Cincinnati


They played the race card a little too soon on this didn't they/
Not the leftist lynch mob and the bigots look pretty stupid.
Well, they usually do...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Looks like Zimmerman wasn't such a nice guy either...
> 
> Co-worker: Zimmerman bullied me with racist taunts | The Raw Story


 
Sounds like they are desperate, since this is not "evidence" pertaining to the INCIDENT, and doesn't prove Zimmerman is "racist".


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

greg273 said:


> Looks like Zimmerman wasn't such a nice guy either...
> 
> Co-worker: Zimmerman bullied me with racist taunts | The Raw Story


I love Achmed the terrorist. It is done by that ventriloquist guy.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Sounds like they are desperate, since this is not "evidence" pertaining to the INCIDENT, and doesn't prove Zimmerman is "racist".


 Thank you for pointing out the obvious, that it is not evidence. But then again, neither is much of what has been posted on this long-winded thread.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

I'm guessing Trayvon was a racist who didn't like White Hispanics.
That's why he jumped him, pounded his head on the cement and punched him in the face.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Thank you for pointing out the obvious, that* it is not evidence*. But then again, neither is much of what has been posted on this long-winded thread.


 
YOU posted the source that CALLED it "evidence".



> Provocative new *evidence* has been released by the prosecution in the investigation and upcoming trial of George Zimmerman, who shot teenager Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida earlier this year.


Are you now saying your source is basically worthless hype?
If so, then we are in agreement


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

No less hype than many of the other links that were posted here... like the one with the prominent graphic of Iced Tea , Skittles, AND some cough medicine. The clear implication being of course that Trayvon was carrying ALL those items.... think thats a little hyped up also Bearfoot? 

Before you waste your time and mine replying, just know I could not care less about this story. I am just amazed at the many posters who want to be judge and jury in this case,without knowing the facts, all the while hollering about the media doing the exact same thing.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Greg, I've yet to see anyone here invent evidence unlike the media. A few took the media reports at face value, but since that's been discredited I haven't read of anyone sticking up for the media.

I never saw any evidence or reports that Martin had codeine in his possession even though his posts that have been archived and saved clearly show that he was looking for a source. Whether he was substituting watermelon tea and skittles for sprite and jolly ranchers in the formula is conjecture. We don't know whether DXM is part of the routine blood tests. I've never seen information on that.

It is a known that people who drink "lean" can become disoriented, agitated and aggressive. Whether Martin was under the influence when he visited the 7 Eleven isn't known. He did appear to be disoriented or distracted in the video. If he appeared the same walking through the neighborhood, it's understandable why he looked suspicious to Zimmerman.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Darren said:


> Greg, I've yet to see anyone here invent evidence unlike the media. A few took the media reports at face value, but since that's been discredited I haven't read of anyone sticking up for the media.
> 
> I never saw any evidence or reports that Martin had codeine in his possession even though his posts that have been archived and saved clearly show that he was looking for a source. Whether he was substituting watermelon tea and skittles for sprite and jolly ranchers in the formula is conjecture. We don't know whether DXM is part of the routine blood tests. I've never seen information on that.
> 
> It is a known that people who drink "lean" can become disoriented, agitated and aggressive. Whether Martin was under the influence when he visited the 7 Eleven isn't known. He did appear to be disoriented or distracted in the video. If he appeared the same walking through the neighborhood, it's understandable why he looked suspicious to Zimmerman.


Although I haven't seen anyone come right out and state things not in evidence, there have been many that have hinted at other things, such as the whole codiene bit, or that Martin was robbing the apartments, or that Martin was stoned at the time. Although Martin may have been, I don't think that has been determined one way or another yet. Many on here are jumping to conclusions and taking information that may be true, but expanding on it. So yes, I do believe that some are inventing evidence here.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Sonshine said:


> Although I haven't seen anyone come right out and state things not in evidence, there have been many that have hinted at other things, such as the whole codiene bit, or that Martin was robbing the apartments, or that Martin was stoned at the time. Although Martin may have been, I don't think that has been determined one way or another yet. Many on here are jumping to conclusions and taking information that may be true, but expanding on it. So yes, I do believe that some are inventing evidence here.


The codeine and marijuana references are from Martin's posts. The marijuana usage was confirmed by the blood tests. We don't know if the blood tests covered DXM. The video evidence does show Martin acting distracted or disoriented which may or may not be indicative of drug use. Much of his autopsy findings were described as unremarkable which means normal. There was a comment about the condition of his liver which may have been due to other causes than drug use or drinking.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Darren said:


> The codeine and marijuana references are from Martin's posts. The marijuana usage was confirmed by the blood tests. We don't know if the blood tests covered DXM. The video evidence does show Martin acting distracted or disoriented which may or may not be indicative of drug use. Much of his autopsy findings were described as unremarkable which means normal. There was a comment about the condition of his liver which may have been due to other causes than drug use or drinking.


I'm not saying he didn't use codiene that night, just that I have not seen anything that says he did. He may have in the past, but that shouldn't have anything to do with that night.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> I'm not saying he didn't use codiene that night, just that I have not seen anything that says he did. He may have in the past, but that shouldn't have anything to do with that night.


CORRECT!
All the research into Martins life prior to the moment he punched Zimmerman shouldn't have anything to do with that night. Just as nothing we've learned about Zimmerman changes the basic facts. Martin exchanged words in a public place. Martin punched Zimmerman. Zimmerman felt threatened and shot Martin.

Lots of couldas and shouldas. But they don't have anything to do with those few basic facts.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

haypoint said:


> CORRECT!
> All the research into Martins life prior to the moment he punched Zimmerman shouldn't have anything to do with that night. Just as nothing we've learned about Zimmerman changes the basic facts. Martin exchanged words in a public place. Martin punched Zimmerman. Zimmerman felt threatened and shot Martin.
> 
> Lots of couldas and shouldas. But they don't have anything to do with those few basic facts.


It's gonna snow here in MD, I agree with you!! :lookout:


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

haypoint said:


> CORRECT!
> All the research into Martins life prior to the moment he punched Zimmerman shouldn't have anything to do with that night. Just as nothing we've learned about Zimmerman changes the basic facts. Martin exchanged words in a public place. Martin punched Zimmerman. Zimmerman felt threatened and shot Martin.
> 
> Lots of couldas and shouldas. But they don't have anything to do with those few basic facts.


Except we have no evidence of who threw the first punch. So far it's been speculation on who initiated what.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> Except we have no evidence of who threw the first punch. So far it's been speculation on who initiated what.


Just like in any court of law, we take the survivors' witness statments.
If you want to try circumstantial evidence, people with guns seldom start fist fights.

History of war is written by the survivors.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> Except we have no evidence of who threw the first punch. So far it's been speculation on who initiated what.


 
There's no evidence Martin was "punched" at all


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

There was something on the radio earlier that his bail had been revoked for fibbing to the judge??


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Wanda said:


> There was something on the radio earlier that his bail had been revoked for fibbing to the judge??


Yup. Zimmerman asked for a low bail based on the fact that he's broke. Come to find out, he's got a bunch of cash in a PayPal account. Plus, he applied for a second passport. That paints him as a possible flight risk.

I haven't heard his side of it, yet.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Wanda said:


> There was something on the radio earlier that his bail had been revoked for fibbing to the judge??


I saw that on the news earlier today. This is why I don't think it's wise to jump to conclusions regarding this case. None of us has all the information and making judgements based on anything short of seeing all the evidence, IMO is no better than trying to be the judge and the jury. I'll be glad when this goes to court so we can see what both sides have to present, although I don't believe those who think Zimmerman is innocent of all charges would believe anything negative that comes out about him.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Deceiving the judge about assets during a bail hearing is not a smart move. I suspect Zimmerman will have bail reset at a higher amount, and he will probably even be released on that higher bail, but he is certainly starting-out on the wrong foot with this judge.

This is all part of Zimmerman's repeating pattern of poor judgment. That's a serious problem for Zimmerman, since his chances for prevailing in this case will depend almost entirely on his ability to convince a jury that he showed good judgment in his decision to shoot Martin. Displaying a pattern of poor judgment is not the way to go about establishing that.

Zimmerman needs to get smart real fast.


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

I guess I just don't understand how getting into a fist fight with someone, constitutes shooting and killing them. Many, many people would be dead if this were the ending to most fist fights.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Deceiving the judge about assets during a bail hearing is not a smart move. I suspect Zimmerman will have bail reset at a higher amount, and he will probably even be released on that higher bail, but he is certainly starting-out on the wrong foot with this judge.
> 
> This is all part of Zimmerman's repeating pattern of poor judgment. That's a serious problem for Zimmerman, since his chances for prevailing in this case will depend almost entirely on his ability to convince a jury that he showed good judgment in his decision to shoot Martin. Displaying a pattern of poor judgment is not the way to go about establishing that.
> 
> Zimmerman needs to get smart real fast.


If he gets a real jury and not a dozen Obamabats, all he has to prove is that he was in fear of his life or serious bodily harm
The bigots have already decided he's guilty so I doubt he gets a fair trial, especially since Holder is involved.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

suzfromWi said:


> I guess I just don't understand how getting into a fist fight with someone, constitutes shooting and killing them. Many, many people would be dead if this were the ending to most fist fights.


I think when the sidewalk was making contact with his head, he was afraid of being killed or seriously injured.
It wouldn't be the first time a doper beat someone until they were dead or seriously brain damaged


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

suzfromWi said:


> I guess I just don't understand how getting into a fist fight with someone, constitutes shooting and killing them. Many, many people would be dead if this were the ending to most fist fights.


Do you see any difference between a fist fight and someone sitting on you bashing your head into the sidewalk, as was this case?
Since you think a guy should just "take it" when attacked, do you think a rape victim should just "take it" or protect yourself with a gun?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

haypoint said:


> Do you see any difference between a fist fight and someone sitting on you bashing your head into the sidewalk, as was this case?
> Since you think a guy should just "take it" when attacked, do you think a rape victim should just "take it" or protect yourself with a gun?


The main difference between right and left in my opinion (as far as gun issues) is the right believes in the right to self defense and the left believes in the rights of the bad guys to safely rape, kill, beat and rob the innocent with no danger to themselves.
The lefties always side with the bad guys.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> The main difference between right and left in my opinion (as far as gun issues) is the right believes in the right to self defense and the left believes in the rights of the bad guys to safely rape, kill, beat and rob the innocent with no danger to themselves.
> The lefties always side with the bad guys.


Is that because their cousins are in prison?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wanda said:


> There was something on the radio earlier that his bail had been revoked for fibbing to the judge??


I don't get that. The only legal reason for bail is to make sure the accused shows up for trial therefore the only legal reason, as I see it, to revoke it is if the judge suddenly sees him as a flight risk. Seeing as how Zimmerman has done nothing to make them think he is going to run revoking his bail seems nothing but vindictive. I'd think his lawyer would appeal.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> If he gets a real jury and not a dozen Obamabats, all he has to prove is that he was in fear of his life or serious bodily harm


There is no way to prove fear. It all comes down to Zimmerman's judgment. If Zimmerman comes-off as having reasonably good judgment, then the jury will accept his assessment that he was in danger. If he doesn't, then the jury isn't going to buy it.

That's not unreasonable either. This case is about whether the use of deadly force was reasonable in the situation Zimmerman was in. Zimmerman needs to convince the jury that he is being truthful about the facts surrounding the shooting, and also that he applied good judgment in the decision to shoot. If he can't do that then he's in serious trouble.

I believe that the repeated pattern of poor judgment is the biggest factor working against Zimmerman right now. It could even get him convicted.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

watcher said:


> I don't get that. The only legal reason for bail is to make sure the accused shows up for trial therefore the only legal reason, as I see it, to revoke it is if the judge suddenly sees him as a flight risk. Seeing as how Zimmerman has done nothing to make them think he is going to run revoking his bail seems nothing but vindictive. I'd think his lawyer would appeal.


I think someone posted that he was getting an update on his passport. That could have made the judge believe he might be a flight risk.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/01/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html

In court documents, State Attorney Angela B. Corey also said that Zimmerman had two passports, and the passport that he surrendered to the court at the April hearing was one that Zimmerman had reported stolen on March 8, 2004. That passport was valid until May 2012, Corey said.

Zimmerman was issued a second passport on March 26, 2004, and that one is valid until 2014, she said.

The prosecutor asked the court that Zimmerman be ordered to surrender the second passport to authorities.

But Lester appeared to accept the explanation from Zimmerman's lawyer that his client had given him the second passport, and the lawyer simply forgot to hand it over to authorities until Friday.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Sonshine said:


> I think someone posted that he was getting an update on his passport. That could have made the judge believe he might be a flight risk.
> 
> Judge revokes Zimmerman's bond - CNN.com
> 
> ...


I thought the second passport was shady, but only because an earlier story said he filed for it after the shooting...turns out that was completely wrong. I can see how he may not have been aware of how much money had been donated to him. If he didn't know, then he didn't lie about it. Besides, he had plenty of time to flee the country if he wanted to and never did. That's a good indicator that he probably won't.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> I thought the second passport was shady, but only because an earlier story said he filed for it after the shooting...turns out that was completely wrong. I can see how he may not have been aware of how much money had been donated to him. If he didn't know, then he didn't lie about it. Besides, he had plenty of time to flee the country if he wanted to and never did. That's a good indicator that he probably won't.


I think the problem came in when him and his wife were talking while he was in jail. They were talking in code to hide the amount of money they were getting and then when she testified in court she lied about the amount. If they had been honest it may not have been that big of an issue.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Sonshine said:


> I think the problem came in when him and his wife were talking while he was in jail. They were talking in code to hide the amount of money they were getting and then when she testified in court she lied about the amount. If they had been honest it may not have been that big of an issue.


 I think if they fibbed to the court a jury will have a very hard time with what he has told the police as the facts on what happened before the shot was fired!


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Sonshine said:


> I think the problem came in when him and his wife were talking while he was in jail. They were talking in code to hide the amount of money they were getting and then when she testified in court she lied about the amount. If they had been honest it may not have been that big of an issue.


I heard about that too, but I'd have to hear their conversation where they were "talking in code" to be convinced about it. It certainly sounds shady, but after all the misinformation put out so far, I don't trust anything that comes out unless I can see/hear the evidence myself.

ETA: I read some of the transcripts. It doesn't sound like they're speaking in code at all, but it does sound a little shady. I am reading only the quotes the prosecutor used, so maybe it's out of context. When she testified in court, she said she didn't know how much was donated. That's hardly a blatant lie, but she probably should have tried to give an estimate.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

ryanthomas said:


> I heard about that too, but I'd have to hear their conversation where they were "talking in code" to be convinced about it. It certainly sounds shady, but after all the misinformation put out so far, I don't trust anything that comes out unless I can see/hear the evidence myself.
> 
> ETA: I read some of the transcripts. It doesn't sound like they're speaking in code at all, but it does sound a little shady. I am reading only the quotes the prosecutor used, so maybe it's out of context. When she testified in court, she said she didn't know how much was donated. That's hardly a blatant lie, but she probably should have tried to give an estimate.


From what I understand it's wasn't much of a code. Evidently they just left off the word "thousand", so $100,000 would be pronounced "one hundred".


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Nevada said:


> From what I understand it's wasn't much of a code. Evidently they just left off the word "thousand", so $100,000 would be pronounced "one hundred".


Yeah, more just shortening it...unless they actually said "one hundred dollars" to mean $100,000. That wasn't clear from the transcripts. Either way, it didn't take much to crack that "code." Supposedly, George didn't know the money donated for his legal defense actually belonged to him, but from his wife's words it seems that she knew.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

ryanthomas said:


> Supposedly, George didn't know the money donated for his legal defense actually belonged to him


He's going to have a difficult time getting the judge to believe that. Besides, I can think of better excuses than stupidity.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> He's going to have a difficult time getting the judge to believe that. Besides, I can think of better excuses than stupidity.


Ignorance isn't stupidity.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Ignorance isn't stupidity.


True, but he can't really claim ignorance. He knew the money existed.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Nevada said:


> True, but he can't really claim ignorance. He knew the money existed.


I know lots of things exist that aren't mine...knowing something exists is not the same as knowing it belongs to you. I'm not really convinced that he didn't know it was his money, but it's possible.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

ryanthomas said:


> I know lots of things exist that aren't mine...knowing something exists is not the same as knowing it belongs to you. I'm not really convinced that he didn't know it was his money, but it's possible.


He put up the website and he collected the money, but he thought it wasn't his? Now that's stupidity! LOL


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> I heard about that too, but I'd have to hear their conversation where they were "talking in code" to be convinced about it. It certainly sounds shady, but after all the misinformation put out so far, I don't trust anything that comes out unless I can see/hear the evidence myself.
> 
> ETA: I read some of the transcripts. It doesn't sound like they're speaking in code at all, but it does sound a little shady. I am reading only the quotes the prosecutor used, so maybe it's out of context. When she testified in court, she said she didn't know how much was donated. That's hardly a blatant lie, but she probably should have tried to give an estimate.


Evidently it sounded shady enough for the judge to have him come back in. I'm pretty sure the judge would have heard the recordings of their phone conversations.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Plus, he applied for a second passport. That paints him as a possible flight risk.


He didn't "apply for a second passport"

He already had 2, and only turned in one.

Supposedly he had lost one, applied for a duplicate, and then found the old one.

The judge didn't think it was worth mentioning

The whole bail thing is just more politics.

Bond shouldn't be set on "ability to pay", but on *flight risk*, and the actual case.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> There is no way to prove fear.


There's a legal standard about what a "reasonable person" would consider a "threat"

He meets the criteria by all the evidence

Also, Zimmerman has NO burden of proof.

The State has top prove their case, not Zimmerman his



> I believe that the *repeated pattern of poor judgment* is the biggest factor working against Zimmerman right now


You do realize that is just YOUR highly biased *opinion*, and not necessarily a fact?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Wanda said:


> I think if they fibbed to the court a jury will have a very hard time with what he has told the police as the facts on what happened before the shot was fired!


The forensic evidence supports his version


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> True, but he can't really claim ignorance. He knew the money existed.


Knowing it "existed" and NOT knowing whether or not he could *spend* it are two different things.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He didn't "apply for a second passport"
> 
> He already had 2, and only turned in one.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure he was brought back because they didn't think he had paid enough but because they purjured themselves by not claiming what they had.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Knowing it "existed" and NOT knowing whether or not he could *spend* it are two different things.


True, but then why would they talk in code instead of just coming right out and say how much money was coming in. Also, why lie about it?


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Nevada said:


> He put up the website and he collected the money, but he thought it wasn't his? Now that's stupidity! LOL


There are a lot of laws about donations to charities...maybe he thought they applied to his situation. I wouldn't have known that the money was mine to do whatever I want with it. I would wait to ask my lawyer what exactly it could be used for.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Sonshine said:


> True, but then why would they talk in code instead of just coming right out and say how much money was coming in. Also, why lie about it?


There really wasn't much of a code. Track down the transcripts and read them. It appears that they just leave off the word "thousand." I do that all the time when I'm talking on the phone to my financial adviser. I do think it seems his wife may have been intentionally deceptive, but she did not lie.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Sonshine said:


> Evidently it sounded shady enough for the judge to have him come back in. I'm pretty sure the judge would have heard the recordings of their phone conversations.


No offense to any judges out there, but I don't tend to simply trust that some random judge in Florida has good judgment. I don't know him or his motivations, but judges are people too. Maybe he was right. But I don't form my opinions on that basis.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Knowing it "existed" and NOT knowing whether or not he could *spend* it are two different things.


Then why wasn't he upfront about the money in court?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Is it normal court procedings to ask each person how much money they have before setting bail?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> Is it normal court procedings to ask each person how much money they have before setting bail?


Oh sure. The judge wants to set bail in an amount that is meaningful to the defendant to assure he will appear, yet an amount that the defendant can probably produce. If you set bail too low, the defendant will simply forfeit bail and not show-up. If the bail is too high, the defendant has to sit in jail.

So yes, asking how much money the defendant has is an essential part of bail proceedings.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

It is very hard to communicate in court. Listen to the whole ordeal Zimmerman went through when he apologized to Martin's family. He was questioned why he waited so long to express his sympathy. He said the thought he told a police officer or Investigator he felt bad it happened. Then Zimmerman was grilled as to who he told it to, when he said it and exactly what did he say. That, of course had Zimmerman stammering with things he couldn't answer. Would be better to just keep silent sometimes. 

If a person has to put up everything they have to make 10% of the Bail, they aren't likely to leave. But if they have $150,000 that they can lay their hands on, there is a higher chance they could run.

Seems if the Judge would have looked at where the money came from, he would have been more reasonable. 

After the Oklahoma bombing of the Federal Building, Investigators went to Deckerville, MI and went over Terry Nichols farm. They found he had tons of Ammonium Sulfate (nitrogen fertilizer) and fuel oil (diseal fuel for his tractors) and called it bomb making paraphernalia. Then they cross checked the amount of Navy beans he had in his grain bin, compared to what he told IRS he had and found the amounts were off. They called that money laundering. He had made a 2 litre pop bottle bomb once. Therefore he was a skilled bomb maker. I think he got life in prison. 

If justice prevails, Zimmerman will sit in jail for a year before the trial, cop a plea to illegally discharging a firearm, get jail credit for the time he served, add a couple years probation and send him on his way.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> I'm not sure he was brought back because *they didn't think he had paid enough* but because they purjured themselves by not claiming what they had.


 
The whole issue was the "amount" of bail, according to the judge's comments.

The whole thing is theatrics by the prosecution because they know their case is WEAK



> True, but then why would they* talk in code* instead of just coming right out and say how much money was coming in. Also, *why lie about it*?


We don't *know* they did either of those things.
We just know that's what the prosecution claims.



> Then why wasn't he upfront about the money in court?


No one has said HE lied about anything.
They say his WIFE did.

The amount of money he had should STILL have no bearing on the bail amount


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> He put up the website and *he collected the money, but he thought it wasn't his?* Now that's stupidity! LOL


How much of it counts as "income"
How much tax has to be paid?

If YOU don't know off the top of your head, why assume HE would know how much was REALLY his?

Why do you hate the man so much?


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The whole issue was the "amount" of bail, according to the judge's comments.
> 
> The whole thing is theatrics by the prosecution because they know their case is WEAK
> 
> ...



Post #268 indicates the amount of money does have bearing on the bail amount!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Wanda said:


> *Post #268* indicates the amount of money does have bearing on the bail amount!


LOL

Now YOU'RE confusing Nevada's OPINION with fact.

I thought HE was the only one who did that


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> 
> Now YOU'RE confusing Nevada's OPINION with fact.
> 
> I thought HE was the only one who did that


 Please feel free to show me your facts to dispute his claim.

Last time I checked your OPINION not fact, was worth no more than any other poster on the forum!


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

Just another miscarriage of our justice system. I do not believe a person can get a fair trial in this country


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

davel745 said:


> Just another miscarriage of our justice system. I do not believe a person can get a fair trial in this country


Especially when they courts put so much power in the hands of the black panthers, Sharpton, Jackson, and mobs of supposedly minorities.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Wanda said:


> Please feel free to show me your facts to dispute his claim.
> 
> Last time I checked your OPINION not fact, was worth no more than any other poster on the forum!


Show me some to prove it's true
You can't "dispute" an OPINION, but don't pretend it's FACT 

Bail is mostly *up to the Judge*, and there are no provisions as to making it "fit" the accused's financial status.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Bail is mostly *up to the Judge*, and there are no provisions as to making it "fit" the accused's financial status.


It shouldn't. Financial status is only one consideration. The judge also considers the seriousness of the crime, danger to the public, flight risk, previous criminal record, and more.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It shouldn't. Financial status is only one consideration. The judge also considers the seriousness of the crime, *danger to the public, flight risk, previous criminal record*, and more.


Then Zimmerman's bond was* more than enough* already.
They are bowing to public pressure again because they know their case is weak


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then Zimmerman's bond was* more than enough* already.
> They are bowing to public pressure again because they know their case is weak


The reason this is big news is because it goes to credibility. When the trial starts Zimmerman is going to need all the credibility he can get. Squandering his credibility in a bail hearing is not a smart move.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The reason this is big news is because it goes to credibility. When the trial starts Zimmerman is going to need all the credibility he can get. Squandering his credibility in a bail hearing is not a smart move.


If there is a real trial it should be a very short one. The only evidence they have supports Zimmerman's story. There is no evidence against him.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> If there is a real trial it should be a very short one. The only evidence they have supports Zimmerman's story. There is no evidence against him.


"But Judge Pancho, don't you want to hear the evidence before rendering a decision?"


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> "But Judge Pancho, don't you want to hear the evidence before rendering a decision?"


We have already seen all of the evidence.
There wasn't even really enough to charge Zimmerman with anything.

What possible evidence could they have to convict him of murder?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> We have already seen all of the evidence.
> There wasn't even really enough to charge Zimmerman with anything.
> 
> What possible evidence could they have to convict him of murder?


You have tried him solely with information from the press.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Zimmerman is going back to jail because of the news media.

Imagine, being a fly on the wall in the Judge's Chamber as the Lawyer takes the mole hill and spins a mountain. But the final tipping point has to be, " but with the whole nation watching this case, how foolish will the Judge look if Zimmerman disappears?" No Judge wants to take that risk, no matter how unlikely.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You have tried him solely with information from the press.


So have you. Even the prosecutor said they didn't have any evidence that contradicted Zimmerman.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The reason this is big news is because it goes to* credibility*. When the trial starts Zimmerman is going to need all the credibility he can get. Squandering his credibility in a bail hearing is not a smart move.


The* forensic* evidence is credible, and it all backs Zimmerman, as do the eyewitnesses that ACTUALLY saw the struggle.

Zimmerman doesn't have to prove anything.
Proof is up to the State, and we KNOW they aren't too credible either


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> "But Judge Pancho, *don't you want to hear the evidence* before rendering a decision?"


Most of the evidence is well known

You decided LONG ago he needs to be "punished", even when it means IGNORING all the real evidence.

You keep harping on his "credibility" and "poor judgement", when those aren't crimes



Nevada said:


> You have tried him solely with information* from the press*.


LOL

You've CONVICTED him based on hype and emotion while ignoring all the true evidence


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

This removes any doubt. Zimmerman's own lawyer says Zimmerman knew the judge was misinformed about his finances.

U.S. News - Lawyer says George Zimmerman knew judge was misinformed about his finances


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> This removes any doubt. Zimmerman's own lawyer says Zimmerman knew the judge was misinformed about his finances.
> 
> U.S. News - Lawyer says George Zimmerman knew judge was misinformed about his finances


Which changes *nothing* about the actual event

The public was "misinformed" as to why Trayvon wasn't in school, and about his CRIMINAL history


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Show me some to prove it's true
> You can't "dispute" an OPINION, but don't pretend it's FACT
> 
> Bail is mostly *up to the Judge*, and there are no provisions as to making it "fit" the accused's financial status.


I know a person that was arrested.PA asked his wife if he could afford $75K? No,so that is what was set.Later Judge lowerd it to $25K he posted it but was held illegally for two more weeks.

big rockpile


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Which changes *nothing* about the actual event
> 
> The public was "misinformed" as to why Trayvon wasn't in school, and about his CRIMINAL history


Trayvon isn't the one who will be on trial, nor is he the one who lied in court.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

I am going to send George $10.00. I wish it could have been more but we are broke.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> Trayvon isn't the one who will be on trial, nor is he the one who lied in court.


Zimmerman isn't charged with lying.
He is charged with something the prosecutor came up with to satisfy the colored people.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> Zimmerman isn't charged with lying.
> He is charged with something the prosecutor came up with to satisfy the colored people.


What Zimmerman is really charged with is having poor judgment, and his judgment doesn't seem to be improving.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> What Zimmerman is really charged with is having poor judgment, and his judgment doesn't seem to be improving.


There isn't any law against bad judgement.
He is charged with murder.
All of the rest of the circus is just to satisfy the colored people.
Some actually believe he will be convicted.
It is going to surprise them quite a bit when he isn't.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> Zimmerman isn't charged with lying.
> He is charged with something the prosecutor came up with to satisfy the colored people.


No, he isn't charged with lying, but most of the details on this case comes from his testimony. If he lied about finances, how much more would he lie regarding what happened that night?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> Zimmerman isn't charged with lying.
> He is charged with something the prosecutor came up with to satisfy the colored people.


Besides, all people are "colored people". I've yet to meet an invisible person.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> There isn't any law against bad judgement.
> He is charged with murder.
> All of the rest of the circus is just to satisfy the colored people.
> Some actually believe he will be convicted.
> It is going to surprise them quite a bit when he isn't.


There are laws against purjury.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> There isn't any law against bad judgement.
> He is charged with murder.
> All of the rest of the circus is just to satisfy the colored people.
> Some actually believe he will be convicted.
> It is going to surprise them quite a bit when he isn't.


This case will come down to whether the jury believes Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin. In other words, they will determine if Zimmerman showed good judgment in his decision to use deadly force. If the jury believes he showed good judgment, he will be found not-guilty. If the jury believes he showed poor judgment, he will be found guilty.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Sonshine said:


> There are laws against purjury.


Yes, and his wife could be in trouble, but Martin didn't do the lying himself. He just sat by and let it happen.

The significant thing about Zimmerman deceiving the judge about his financial condition is that it shows the pattern of poor judgment continuing. When faced with a situation, any situation, Zimmerman acts impulsively. If that doesn't improve it will get Zimmerman convicted.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> Trayvon isn't the one who will be on trial, nor is he the one who lied in court.


His family lied about many things.

The ONLY evidence at the trial *should* pertain to the actual event.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> What Zimmerman is really charged with is having *poor judgment*, and his judgment doesn't seem to be improving.


You STILL keep confusing your *OPINION* with reality.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> Besides, all people are "colored people". I've yet to meet an invisible person.


But only one color of people have an association dedicated to the advancement of a certain color of people.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> This case will come down to whether the jury believes Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin. In other words, they will determine if Zimmerman showed good judgment in his decision to use deadly force. If the jury believes he showed good judgment, he will be found not-guilty. If the jury believes he showed poor judgment, he will be found guilty.


No, it will come down to whether the prosecutor can prove Zimmerman murdered Martin.
That is what he is charged with.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> His family lied about many things.
> 
> The ONLY evidence at the trial *should* pertain to the actual event.


This isn't about Trayvon's parents. As for whether they lied or not, I don't remember hearing them lie in court.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Yes, and his wife could be in trouble, but Martin didn't do the lying himself. He just sat by and let it happen.
> 
> The significant thing about Zimmerman deceiving the judge about his financial condition is that it shows the pattern of poor judgment continuing. When faced with a situation, any situation, Zimmerman acts impulsively. If that doesn't improve it will get Zimmerman convicted.


Sounds like he was not acting impulsively. He sat there and let things happen. Much like what he did when Martin attacked him.
That should help prove he is innocent of the charge.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> But only one color of people have an association dedicated to the advancement of a certain color of people.


How do you figure that? You have the KKK that are dedicated to the advancement of whites. There are Native American advocates that are dedicated to the advancement of their people.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> How do you figure that? You have the KKK that are dedicated to the advancement of whites. There are Native American advocates that are dedicated to the advancement of their people.


Just look at the names.
What does KKK stand for?
What does NAACP stand for?
Right there in their name, the CP stands for colored people.

If you do some research on the KKK you will see they were not only against the colored people. They were against any low life person.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> Sounds like he was not acting impulsively. He sat there and let things happen. Much like what he did when Martin attacked him.
> That should help prove he is innocent of the charge.


The tapes of Zimmerman's jail conversations make it pretty clear that he took an active role in deceiving the judge.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The tapes of Zimmerman's jail conversations make it pretty clear that he took an active role in deceiving the judge.


I didn't hear about the part where Zimmerman called the judge from Jail.
Please tell me a little more about it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> I didn't hear about the part where Zimmerman called the judge from Jail.
> Please tell me a little more about it.


If Zimmerman was taking a passive role then he wouldn't have had so much interest in amounts.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> If Zimmerman was taking a passive role then he wouldn't have had so much interest in amounts.


You haven't told me a single thing about Zimmerman calling the judge from jail.
Why not tell me about that?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> You haven't told me a single thing about Zimmerman calling the judge from jail.
> Why not tell me about that?


Who said Zimmerman called the judge from jail?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> This case will come down to whether the jury believes Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin. In other words, they will determine if Zimmerman showed good judgment in his decision to use deadly force. If the jury believes he showed good judgment, he will be found not-guilty. If the jury believes he showed poor judgment, he will be found guilty.


And if they do find him guilty I think the odds are it would be overturned on appeal where a judge, or panel of judges, look at only the evidence and don't (usually) let their emotions effect their rulings.

After all what evidence is there to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's action rise to the level of murder? The thing to remember is Zimmerman doesn't have to prove anything, the state must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence that Zimmerman was attacked and lack of defensive (as far as we know) on Martin should be enough to put reasonable doubt in the minds of the people in the jury box.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Who said Zimmerman called the judge from jail?


The tapes of Zimmerman's jail conversations make it pretty clear that he took an active role in deceiving the judge

This is your post. How is it Zimmerman took an active role when he never talked to the judge?


----------



## Mike in Ohio (Oct 29, 2002)

You all keep on tossing around the word "murder". What Zimmerman was charged with is 2nd degree murder:

second degree murder n. a non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility. Second degree murder is different from First Degree Murder which is a premeditated, intentional killing, or results from a vicious crime such as arson, rape, or armed robbery. Exact distinctions on degree vary by state.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

At the Bond Hearing, Zimmerman made a brief apology to Martin's family.
Then he was cross examined, trying to trip him up with every statement. To me, that's a good lesson to just shut up.
The main stream media didn't run this part over and over like the rest of the Hearing.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-JmtCXzs38]George Zimmerman Testifies During His Bond Hearing. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> Just look at the names.
> What does KKK stand for?
> What does NAACP stand for?
> Right there in their name, the CP stands for colored people.
> ...


I am very aware of the history of the KKK and have seen them at work in some cases. So you don't need to school me in their history. And no one said anything about the NAACP but you. Still, I've never seen a person who had no color.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

watcher said:


> And if they do find him guilty I think the odds are it would be overturned on appeal where a judge, or panel of judges, look at only the evidence and don't (usually) let their emotions effect their rulings.
> 
> After all what evidence is there to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's action rise to the level of murder? The thing to remember is Zimmerman doesn't have to prove anything, the state must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence that Zimmerman was attacked and lack of defensive (as far as we know) on Martin should be enough to put reasonable doubt in the minds of the people in the jury box.


I don't know why everyone can't just wait to see what evidence is brought out in court rather than depending on whatever they have gotten off the news or internet.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> And if they do find him guilty I think the odds are it would be overturned on appeal where a judge, or panel of judges, look at only the evidence and don't (usually) let their emotions effect their rulings.


Just so nobody gets the wrong idea, an appeal isn't necessarily going to give Zimmerman a second trial. A second trial could be ordered by an appellate court, but it won't be heard by the appellate court. If the case is appealed, the appellate court will review the particulars of the case, including evidence & testimony, but the purpose of an appeal isn't to hold a trial and rehear the case. The purpose of an appeal is to question things like procedural defects, constitutionality issues, misconduct of a judge or lawyer, and the introduction of newly discovered evidence not produced at trial.

Appellate courts don't like it when they get the impression that they are hearing a case just because one side or the other didn't like the decision. While it happens all the time in practice, the appealing party still needs to come up with legitimate grounds for an appeal.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Sonshine said:


> I don't know why everyone can't just wait to see what evidence is brought out in court rather than depending on whatever they have gotten off the news or internet.


Because evidence won't hang him, they need public opinion and the jury believing he's guilty
It's not about justice, it's about division and race war


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Cornhusker said:


> Because evidence won't hang him, they need public opinion and the jury believing he's guilty
> It's not about justice, it's about division and race war


I'll wait and see what evidence is presented in court to agree or disagree with you. I hate to seem like I'm siding with our left leaning friends, because I'm far from being on the left, but the responses on this case puzzles me. Maybe I put too much stock in our justice system and don't like that so much information has been leaked before a case goes to trial. Seems like most of those that believe in Zimmerman's innocence are those who lean to the right, but something just doesn't seem right about his story to me. That's why I've taken more of a wait and see what happens in court approach.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Sonshine said:


> How do you figure that? You have the KKK that are dedicated to the advancement of whites.
> 
> 
> *If that's true, then they are failing miserably at their "goal". From what I've seen and heard of the KKK, their goal seems to be more oriented toward putting all the other ethnic groups down.*
> ...


Years ago, the Cajuns in Louisiana started talking about trying to get minority status. The most vocal opposition came from the African-Americans.:shocked:


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

FourDeuce said:


> Years ago, the Cajuns in Louisiana started talking about trying to get minority status. The most vocal opposition came from the African-Americans.:shocked:


In the words of my hero Forest Racist is as racist does.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Because evidence won't hang him, they need public opinion and the jury believing he's guilty


The most difficult piece of evidence Zimmerman will have to face is the fact that Martin was unarmed. He has to convince the jury that the shooting was justified. The jury will have sympathy for the victim, and they will need to know the details of how it happened. He's in a tighter spot than you apparently recognize.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The most difficult piece of evidence Zimmerman will have to face is the fact that Martin was unarmed. He has to convince the jury that the shooting was justified. The jury will have sympathy for the victim, and they will need to know the details of how it happened. He's in a tighter spot than you apparently recognize.


Ah, yes. A 6 foot 3 young man sitting on you punching you to near unconsciousness and now you need to convince a jury that you felt threatened? 
If you can sell the idea that Zimmerman couldnât have felt threatened, you should be an Amway Representative. âCause that some sales job.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

*"If you can sell the idea that Zimmerman couldnât have felt threatened, you should be an Amway Representative. âCause that some sales job."* Indeed!


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Mike in Ohio said:


> You all keep on tossing around the word "murder". What Zimmerman was charged with is 2nd degree murder:
> 
> second degree murder n. a non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility. Second degree murder is different from First Degree Murder which is a premeditated, intentional killing, or results from a vicious crime such as arson, rape, or armed robbery. Exact distinctions on degree vary by state.


Here's how FL defines it:
The crime of Second Degree Murder occurs when a person commits either:

* Murder with a Depraved Mind or
* Accomplice Felony Murder

Murder with a Depraved Mind occurs when a person is killed, without any premeditated design, by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life.

The primary distinction between Premeditated First Degree Murder and Second Degree Murder with a Depraved Mind is that First Degree Murder requires a specific and premeditated intent to kill.

According to what I've found

To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Victim) is dead.

2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).

3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.

About the definition of "depraved mindâ found is this:

"depraved mindâ â is further defined by Floridaâs jury instructions. Three elements must be present:

* A âperson of ordinary judgmentâ would know the act, or series of acts, âis reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to anotherâ;
* The act is âdone from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intentâ; and
* The act is âof such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.â


I see the state having a MAJOR problem proving its case based on they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin's death was cause by a criminal act. This means Zimmerman does not have to prove self defense, the state must prove it was NOT.

If by some chance they do prove that I see them having another major problem proving Zimmerman killed him because of "ill will, hatred, spite, or evil intent".

As I have said if the state manages to get a jury to convict I don't think the conviction would stand up under appeal.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The most difficult piece of evidence Zimmerman will have to face is the fact that Martin was unarmed. He has to convince the jury that the shooting was justified. The jury will have sympathy for the victim, and they will need to know the details of how it happened. He's in a tighter spot than you apparently recognize.


Not from my reading of what the FL law says. Note what I posted in another msg the state is going to have to prove there was a criminal act.

With a bit more digging I found this:

_Defenses to Second Degree Murder

In addition to the pretrial defenses and trial defenses that can be raised in any criminal case, specific defenses to the crime of Second Degree Murder are:
Excusable Homicide

The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:

* When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or
* When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or
* When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.
_

You will have to admit having someone sitting on your chest pounding your head into a concrete sidewalk might just be "sufficient provocation". 

Seems to me all Zimmerman's lawyer has to do is ask each witness if they thought having your head pounded into the sidewalk was to them "sufficient provocation".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> *This isn't about Trayvon's parents*. As for whether they lied or not, I don't remember hearing them lie in court.


It's about "credibility"

They lied to the MEDIA.

There really isn't much they can testify to about the actual incident since they weren't there.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I don't know why everyone can't just wait to see *what evidence* is brought out in court rather than depending on whatever they have gotten off the news or internet


Much of it is what has been released by the State.

There is very little that hasn't been released already, which is why there was no arrest in the beginning.

The whole incident only lasted a few minutes


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The most difficult piece of evidence Zimmerman will have to face is the fact that* Martin was unarmed*
> .
> *He has to convince the jury that the shooting was justified*
> 
> ...


That makes no difference given the fact he was BEATING Zimmerman at the time

He doesn't have to convince a jury of anything.

The* evidence* shows it was justifiable

The STATE has to PROVE it was "murder"

Read *the wording* of FL's 2nd Degreee Murder Statute, and you'll wonder WHY prosecutor thinks there is a case at all


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's about "credibility"
> 
> They lied to the MEDIA.
> 
> There really isn't much they can testify to about the actual incident since they weren't there.


Due to the reasons you just gave, their credibility isn't a factor in the trial. Zimmerman's is.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Much of it is what has been released by the State.
> 
> There is very little that hasn't been released already, which is why there was no arrest in the beginning.
> 
> The whole incident only lasted a few minutes


How do you know what hasn't been released, since it hasn't been released?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> His family lied about many things.
> 
> The ONLY evidence at the trial *should* pertain to the actual event.


I agree, so why was the fact that Martin's parents lied brought up. Has no bearing on the actual events.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Zimmerman isn't going to get a bond hearing until June 29.

Judge grants Zimmerman another bond hearing - U.S. News


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> How do you know what hasn't been released, since it hasn't been released?


The prosecutor said under oath they didn't have any other evidence.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> The prosecutor said under oath they didn't have any other evidence.


Witnesses changing their stories is new.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Witnesses changing their stories is new.


The "changes" in their stories are so insignificant and change nothing, I don't see why you even bring it up. Within those changes, what do you see that tips the scales against Zimmerman?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Witnesses changing their stories is new.


Not really, it happens quite often. Anyone involved in LE will tell you eye witnesses are one of the least reliable sources of evidence.

BTW, did you see my post on 2nd murder in FL and how the state is going to have a difficult time proving it.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Witnesses changing their stories is new.


It isn't unusual for an eye witness to change their story over time.
Usually just gets the whole story thrown out.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> BTW, did you see my post on 2nd murder in FL and how the state is going to have a difficult time proving it.


I've thought all along that Murder2 was going to be difficult to prove. I was surprised when he wasn't charged with some degree of manslaughter.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Nevada said:


> The most difficult piece of evidence Zimmerman will have to face is the fact that Martin was unarmed.


He was not unarmed. He was literally using his arms as weapons.



Nevada said:


> Witnesses changing their stories is new.


Witnesses changing their stories will not help the prosecution, especially if their original stories were more favorable to the defendant. The fact that there are multiple versions provides perfectly for reasonable doubt.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I've thought all along that Murder2 was going to be difficult to prove. I was surprised when he wasn't charged with some degree of manslaughter.


That would not have satisfied the mob.
Had to be some type of murder.
Didn't matter if they could prove it or not.
They were well aware of the lack of any type of evidence.
Just putting it off for as long as possible.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

I know a man who was charged with murder.
He choked, stabbed, shot, and finally run over the victim with his car.
He was asked while on the stand why he ran over the man.
His answer, he was still alive and moving.
He was found not guilty.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> How do you know what hasn't been released, since it hasn't been released?


FL State law says evidence is public record.

There is nothing that hasn't been released that can change the facts that HAVE been released.

*Forensics and eyewitnesses* say Martin beat Zimmerman, causing injury, and any REASONABLE person would have been in fear of MORE injury.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Witnesses changing their stories is new.


 
Are they, or was it just POOR reporting in the beginning (or now)

Nothing changed enough to matter, if in fact it really "changed" at all


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> I know a man who was charged with murder.
> He choked, stabbed, shot, and finally run over the victim with his car.
> He was asked while on the stand why he ran over the man.
> His answer, he was still alive and moving.
> He was found not guilty.


Let me guess -- there's more to the story than you're telling us.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Let me guess -- there's more to the story than you're telling us.


Not a bit more.
The man killed him because he didn't like him.
It was a jury trial.
The jury decided he was not guilty.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I've thought all along that Murder2 was going to be difficult to prove. I was surprised when he wasn't charged with some degree of manslaughter.


But they didn't therefore they are going to have to prove M2 and I don't think they can do it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> But they didn't therefore they are going to have to prove M2 and I don't think they can do it.


I don't know what they've got.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I don't know what they've got.


They already SAID they have* nothing* that disputes Zimmerman

Why don't you believe what they testified to under oath?


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They already SAID they have* nothing* that disputes Zimmerman
> 
> Why don't you believe what they testified to under oath?


I think that the testimony will get changed around before the trial and the original will get lost or something like that. Just like the testimony of the witnesses has changed I am not sure for the worse but it has changed.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

pancho said:


> Not a bit more.
> The man killed him because he didn't like him.
> It was a jury trial.
> The jury decided he was not guilty.


We've had similar events here. I don't recall a jury here ever convicting a person of murder in modern times.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I think that the *testimony will get changed around* before the trial and the original will get lost or something like that


No witnesses have TESTIFED in court

The comment about "no evidence" came from one of the investigators


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I don't know what they've got.


I don't know everything they have but from what I do know they are going to have to have something really big (something like video of Zimmerman shooting Martin then his body knocking Zimmerman to the ground and driving his head into the sidewalk) to even begin to reach the legal proof needed to convict for M2.

As I pointed out the first problem is the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt _the death was caused by the criminal act_. This means it has to prove that Zimmerman's shooting was NOT in self defense. 

The second problem is the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt _the act is âdone from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intentâ_. 

I still have to wonder if the state, i.e. politicians, is/are trying to have its cake and eat it too. They are trying to pacify those who demand Zimmerman's hide by arresting him but to pacify those who want him set free by charging him with something they know they can't convict him of.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

It doesn't help the state's case that Corey has proven herself to be a nutcase of sorts by threatening to sue for slander and libel in the past and in conjunction with the current case. She went off the cliff when she called Harvard and complained about Dershowitz. Now the 2nd degree murder charge makes sense. Not from the point of view of what Zimmerman did but in light of the prosecutor's past outrageous and continued behavior.

The legal action will put the prosecutor's inane actions on trial as much or more than Zimmerman's. The woman is looney tunes. What she has instead of real evidence against Zimmerman is an out of control ego or something worse.

"Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He is, uh, rather well known.

Earlier this week, he wrote a perspective piece for Newsmax.com describing a "40-minute rant, during which she [Corey] threatened to sue Harvard Law School, to try to get me disbarred by the Bar Association and to file charges against me for libel and slander.

What set her off and led to the telephone call to Harvard? Derschowitz criticized how Corey filed the charges against Zimmerman."

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blo...n-littlepage-angela-coreys-hissy-fits-threats


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No witnesses have TESTIFED in court
> 
> The comment about "no evidence" came from one of the investigators




You are talking about people that testified in your post #353 are the goal posts moving again?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Wanda said:


> You are talking about people that testified in your post #353 are the goal posts moving again?


Maybe you should spend a little more time reading what is really happening instead of thinking about posting here.
The prosecutors testified in court under oath that they didn't have anything that contradicted Zimmerman's statement.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Wanda said:


> You are talking about people that testified in your post #353 are the goal posts moving again?


Wanda, nothing has been revealed that contradicts Zimmerman's original claim of self defense. Instead we now know that the prosecuting attorney has issues that explain the greatly exaggerated murder 2 charge.

The goal post are still where they were when Zimmerman who could not retreat from Martin, shot and killed, not murdered, the thug.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> The prosecutors testified in court under oath that they didn't have anything that contradicted Zimmerman's statement.


But we know that Martin's girlfriend contradicts part of Zimmerman's story.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> But we know that Martin's girlfriend contradicts part of Zimmerman's story.


And you are one to believe a person not even in the city where it happened, a person who has a reason to lie, and a person who would not contact the police until they found her.
You contradict Zimmerman's story. Why put anymore value on her story than some of the ones you make up?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> The prosecutors testified in court under oath that they didn't have anything that contradicted Zimmerman's statement.


_"Corey said the public doesn't know everything prosecutors know just yet."_
George Zimmerman prosecutor: Wait for all the evidence

That kind of flies in the face of your contention.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> _"Corey said the public doesn't know everything prosecutors know just yet."_
> George Zimmerman prosecutor: Wait for all the evidence
> 
> That kind of flies in the face of your contention.


But one statement was made under oath and another just as BS.
Which do you think is right?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> But one statement was made under oath and another just as BS.
> Which do you think is right?


I think we'll learn more after the trial starts.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Wanda said:


> You are talking about people that testified in your post #353 *are the goal posts moving again*?


 
If you'd READ what I post instead of trying to throw barbs, you'd see I said an INVESTIGATOR testified, and NOT a WITNESS.

It's simple English
Pay attention 

No witnesses have "testified" in any hearings


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> But we know that Martin's girlfriend contradicts part of Zimmerman's story.


*Her story changed*, and her "statement" was first given by Martin's LAWYER, so probably wasn't exactly truthful to begin with.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> But we know that Martin's girlfriend contradicts part of Zimmerman's story.


You're wrong, Nevada. Martin didn't have a girlfriend. You've swallowed Crump's media manipulations hook, line and sinker. You and the rest of this country were played for suckers.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> _"Corey said the public doesn't know everything prosecutors know just yet."_
> George Zimmerman prosecutor: Wait for all the evidence
> 
> That kind of flies in the face of your contention.


Under Florida law, the prosecutor has to disclose all of the facts in the affadivit. Didn't you wonder for one second why Dershowitz and Corey have gone head to head. Dershowitz going public was extraordinary. Haven't you wondered why a renown liberal Harvard law professor called Corey out?

The other blatant fact you've ignored were the efforts by the media to get the evidence released. Why hasn't the media discovered anything which incriminates Zimmerman?

As the lead investigator testified under oath, there isn't anything that contradicts Zimmerman's statement to the police. There isn't anything to be disclosed.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Before trial begins the prosecutor will try to plea bargain to a lesser crime.
Something that will call for time served.
If Zimmerman has a good lawyer he will want a trial.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you'd READ what I post instead of trying to throw barbs, you'd see I said an INVESTIGATOR testified, and NOT a WITNESS.
> 
> It's simple English
> Pay attention
> ...





If they testify under oath what are they called if not a witness to some fact in the case?:shrug:

By the way I will concede that you are much better at nitpicking.:whistlin:


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Wanda said:


> If they testify under oath what are they called if not a witness to some fact in the case?:shrug:
> 
> By the way I will concede that you are much better at nitpicking.:whistlin:


No one except Zimmerman and the prosecutor has testified under oath.
The witnesses have not testified yet.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> You're wrong, Nevada. Martin didn't have a girlfriend. You've swallowed Crump's media manipulations hook, line and sinker. You and the rest of this country were played for suckers.


Who was Martin talking to on the phone then?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

He was talking to Daisha Brianne Mitchell who was not his girlfirend. The girlfriend ruse was made up by Crump and his media team. Turns out Daisha or DeeCee as she's referred to was not on the phone all day long as given to the media. Although there was an effort to scrub both her and Trayvon's social network posts, the cleaners didn't have access to cache material. The twitter posts tell a different story. They've been archived on numerous sites.

Daisha was not overcome by grief as portrayed by Crump. she didn't go to the funeral simply because she had better things to do. There was a brief exchange about "that boy go shot." but no expression of grief or condolances or change in anyone's plans.

You were played like millions of others, Nevada.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> He was talking to Daisha Brianne Mitchell who was not his girlfirend. The girlfriend ruse was made up by Crump and his media team. Turns out Daisha or DeeCee as she's referred to was not on the phone all day long as given to the media. Although there was an effort to scrub both her and Trayvon's social network posts, the cleaners didn't have access to cache material. The twitter posts tell a different story. They've been archived on numerous sites.
> 
> Daisha was not overcome by grief as portrayed by Crump. she didn't go to the funeral simply because she had better things to do. There was a brief exchange about "that boy go shot." but no expression of grief or condolances or change in anyone's plans.
> 
> You were played like millions of others, Nevada.


Why does this matter? Are you suggesting that her testimony is invalid because she wasn't close enough to Martin?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Her testimony was "managed" by Crump. When you read her twitters it's obvious they weren't beyond being aquaintances. All of the grief she suffered from Trayvon's death which was supposedly why she didn't go to the funeral was a product of Crump's imagination. As was the day long conversation she and Trayvon had.

That's one of the reasons her "testimony" or story changed. It's obvious from her twitters that the media was played. It wasn't until Reuters started digging that Crump's BS started coming apart. Sad to say, most of the media wasn't interested enough to do their own research unlike Reuters.

Instead most of the media embellished the story on their own when the actual facts about Zimmerman didn't fit the storyline.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> Her testimony was "managed" by Crump. When you read her twitters it's obvious they weren't beyond being aquaintances.


I still don't get it. She heard part of the conversation, just moments before Martin was shot. That's important evidence regardless of how close she was to Martin.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Wanda said:


> If they testify under oath *what are they called if not a witness* to some fact in the case?:shrug:
> 
> By the way I will concede that you are much better at *nitpicking*.:whistlin:


They weren't a witness to the INCIDENT.

You can call it "nitpicking"
I call it sticking to the truth and keeping it in CONTEXT

You waste too much effort trying to make snide comments rather than *paying attention* to what's stated and sticking to the conversation


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I still don't get it. *She heard part of the conversation*, just moments before Martin was shot.
> That important evidence regardless of how close she was to Martin.


Actually Martin's lawyers SAYS she heard it.

Who knows what she REALLY heard?
She's *not credible*, and her story changed 

You can call it "important evidence" but it still changes nothing about Martin BEATING Zimmerman


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Actually Martin's lawyers SAYS she heard it.
> 
> Who knows what she REALLY heard?
> She's *not credible*, and her story changed
> ...


So there's evidence that refutes Zimmerman's story, it's just that you don't like it.

You honestly don't see how you're fitting the facts around the version of the story you like?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

That is why I'd like to see Ms. Mitchell subjected to a lie detector test. Her testimony sort of fits with what Zimmerman gave the police. The other aspect is that none of Trayvon "trash" talk similar to his social media posts was referenced. I suspect the version that Ms. Mitchell gave was massaged to avoid direct lies.

When she stated Trayvon said someone was following him and she told Trayvon he should run home and he said he wasn't running, I suspect there was something else said which would account for Zimmerman being surprised by Trayvon when he started to return to his truck.

Something triggered my BS meter especially after reading her twitters the next day. There was no sense of anger at a travesty or grief. She could not have cared less. Only after Crump got involved did things take a different direction. If I heard something on the phone like a confrontation between Trayvon and Zimmerman and I was as chatty as Ms. Mitchell I would have talked to my friends.

There was nothing from her. Nothing, nada, zip other than that kid got shot. That is not a normal reaction to overhearing something like that.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> Her testimony sort of fits with what Zimmerman gave the police.


The significant difference between her story and Zimmerman's is that she says Zimmerman started the conversation by asking Martin what he was doing there. In Zimmerman's version, Martin approached him and asked if he had a problem. That's a huge discrepancy, and knowing what Zimmerman's concerns were from his phone call to police I think her version is believable.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I believe that Ms. Mitchell was coached by Crump. You have to wonder why she wasn't blabbering to her "friends" after the confrontation which she supposedly heard and her knowing that he was shot and killed. Her reaction to the killing and her lack of a phone call to the parents is beyond strange unless she didn't hear much. 

The little bit she supposedly heard sort of fits in with actual events without going too overboard with truly outrageous lies. However Crump absolutely did lie about her being so upset she couldn't go to the funeral. That is a huge red flag. Trayvon's death was about as interesting to her as the Wall Street Journal.

I'm wondering if she really heard much of anything at all. Folks I've seen addicted to phones don't stop when they walk into a store. Trayvon was not using the phone when he was in the 7-eleven. So now we're supposed to believe he walked out into the rain and immediately called Daisha again? why would he do that and wander around in the rain? The store wasnt that far from where he was staying. 

We also know the story about a younger kid waiting for him to come back was also a lie. If that was the case the father would have known something was wrong when he got home. 

I wouldn't hang much hope on her testimony. We have proof Crump lied. We don't know for sure how much he has lied. We know he manipulated the press with a bogus PR package. Unfortunately for Crump, the powers that be in Florida assigned an egomaniac prosecutor to the case.

When a liberal legal expert like Dershowitz criticizes her, that tells you there's a huge problem with the prosecution's case.


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

Nevada said:


> The significant difference between her story and Zimmerman's is that she says Zimmerman started the conversation by asking Martin what he was doing there. In Zimmerman's version, Martin approached him and asked if he had a problem. That's a huge discrepancy, and knowing what Zimmerman's concerns were from his phone call to police I think her version is believable.


In her first version of the conversation she overheard, she _did_ say that Martin spoke first.

It was in her _second_ (and subsequent) version (s) that she said that Zimmerman spoke first.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Narshalla said:


> It was in her _second_ (and subsequent) version (s) that she said that Zimmerman spoke first.


That's the only version I heard.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada, now that we know that Crump used a PR person to put together the media release, you have to wonder why he would lie about Trayvon talking to his girl friend. Why would Crump lie about something like that? Obviously a girlfriend would be a better source. Why would Crump lie about the girl friend being too upset to attend the funeral? The probable reason is that Crump had to backfit the facts. The funeral was over and done before Crump got involved. That means he needed a reason for why Mitchell didn't attend the funeral so the known facts would fit. If the twitters hadn't been cached, he and his team would have gotten away with it. 

Why didn't Mitchell show any concern about Trayvon in her twitters? Why did Crump's team try to seal Trayvon's school records? Why did they eliminate Trayvon's accounts? Why did they only release photos of a much younger Trayvon?

At this time Mitchell's statement is the only thing that remotely contradict's Zimmerman.

Everything Crump put together was a setup that was created after Trayon was buried. Crump had to try to massage the information to fit the story line as much as possible. It was surprisingly successful because most American's don't know the difference between Crump's story line and the facts.

Like you, many have hung their hat on Mitchell's statements. It's much easier to take things at face value than look for the loose strings that don't fit the story. You and many others were suckered, Nevada.

What we have is most likely an orchestrated public lynching.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> So there's evidence that refutes Zimmerman's story, it's just that you don't like it.
> 
> You honestly don't see how *you're fitting the facts around the version of the story you like*?


Don't you see how YOU are ignoring any facts you don't "like"?

It doesn't refute the only CRITICAL part of the incident, which is* Martin BEATING Zimmerman.*

It's not really *credible* enough to "refute" anything since there is no way to corroborate anything. 

Crump could have made up the whole thing, which is why THEIR credibility matters too. 
We know *they lied* to the media before

The only thing we know for SURE is they were on the phone at that time


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That's the only version I heard.


You read BOTH versions in the original Zimmerman thread weeks ago, and it was discussed at length:

You even said you had seen both versions:

Post #1473

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ge...arries-out-death-sentence-48.html#post5822277



> *Both versions* include Zimmerman asking what Martin was doing there. That seems like a reasonable question for Zimmerman to have asked. Zimmerman didn't include that in his statement. I don't believe it.


 
You just tend to forget things when convenient


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It doesn't refute the only CRITICAL part of the incident, which is* Martin BEATING Zimmerman.*


Witnesses are no longer so sure about that.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

The witnesses that saw Martin whaling on Zimmerman identified the two by size and clothing. That hasn't changed. How else do you explain Zimmerman's two black eyes, broken nose, scalp lacerations and injured back?

Are you going to address Crump's proven lies? You bought into the lie that Trayvon had a girlfriend.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Witnesses are no longer so sure about that.


Next thing you will be telling us is Zimmerman beat his own head against the sidewalk. They he skinned Martin's knuckles.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> The witnesses that saw Martin whaling on Zimmerman identified the two by size and clothing. That hasn't changed.


Yes, I'm afraid it has. One witness said that he didn't actually see any blows thrown, and the other said he wasn't sure who was on top when he saw it.



Darren said:


> How else do you explain Zimmerman's two black eyes, broken nose, scalp lacerations and injured back?


Nobody questions that there was a physical altercation. I suspect that Zimmerman was losing the fight, which made him angry, then shot Martin in anger. The evidence supports that alternate theory.

Even though there was a fist fight I find it difficult to believe that Zimmerman really believed his life was in danger. Tempers flare in fist fights and I this fight was no exception. If Zimmerman shot Martin because he was angry, or simply because he was losing the fight, then the shooting was unjustified. It's very unusual for a fist fight to end with a fatality, and Zimmerman knew that. But he can't settle a fistfight with a gun and get away with it. I think that's what probably happened here.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Yes, I'm afraid it has. One witness said that he didn't actually see any blows thrown, and the other said he wasn't sure who was on top when he saw it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Pretty good imigination.
You make up a story that you like and try to change the facts to prove that story.
When you are on the ground, a person beating your head against the sidewalk, after breaking your nose, I would imagine a couple of things cross your mind. Anger would probably be one of them. Fright would probably be another.

Are you going to try to tell us that if you were in the same position you would just lay there thinking happy thoughts?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> Pretty good imigination.
> You make up a story that you like and try to change the facts to prove that story.
> When you are on the ground, a person beating your head against the sidewalk, after breaking your nose, I would imagine a couple of things cross your mind. Anger would probably be one of them. Fright would probably be another.


Keepin mind that Zimmerman is saying anything he has to to save his hide. At the same time, Martin didn't really have an obvious motivation to kill Zimmerman with his bare hands. You are asking me to believe that Martin attacked Zimmerman with no provocation, then that Zimmerman believed that Martin was going to kill him with his bare hands. It's easier to believe that the fight started for some logical reason, and that Zimmerman shot because he was losing the fight.



pancho said:


> Are you going to try to tell us that if you were in the same position you would just lay there thinking happy thoughts?


We can't allow people to resolve fist fights with guns. If we did that this country would become a much more dangerous place to be. That's not a good thing.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Keepin mind that Zimmerman is saying anything he has to to save his hide. At the same time, Martin didn't really have an obvious motivation to kill Zimmerman with his bare hands. You are asking me to believe that Martin attacked Zimmerman with no provocation, then that Zimmerman believed that Martin was going to kill him with his bare hands. It's easier to believe that the fight started for some logical reason, and that Zimmerman shot because he was losing the fight.
> 
> 
> 
> We can't allow people to resolve fist fights with guns. If we did that this country would become a much more dangerous place to be. That's not a good thing.


You seem to be real good at deciding what a person believed and what motivates people who you have never seen or talked to.
How do you know what Martin's intentions were, Martin probably didn't even know. Do you think Martin was counting the times he slammed Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk and had decided on a number that would not kill him?
Do you think Zimmerman was counting the times either and knew how many he could live through?

When people are high on drugs they do not think logically. Look at the video of Martin in the store and tell me he was thinking straight.

We should encourage people to protect themselves from being attacked. If they have a gun and use it to protect themselves that is even better.
Maybe the criminals will think about that before they attack a person, unless it is another one high on drugs, then it won't matter.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> You seem to be real good at deciding what a person believed and what motivates people who you have never seen or talked to.


Aren't you doing the same for Zimmerman? Why?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Yes, I'm afraid it has. One witness said that he didn't actually see any blows thrown, and the other said he wasn't sure who was on top *when he saw it*.


If he "wasn't sure" , then he didn't REALLY "see" anything.
There's no doubt who "threw blows" since we KNOW who had *injuries*.

You can twist and spin things all you like, but the TRUTH remains the same


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You are asking me to believe that Martin attacked Zimmerman with no provocation, then that Zimmerman *believed that Martin was going to kill him* with his bare hands


"Kill" is YOUR term
You don't are trying to narrow the requirements to suit your agenda

All that is *required* to justify deadly force is a FEAR of "great bodily harm"

He had that

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html



> Chapter 776 was amended by the Legislature in 2005. The changes that took effect on October 1, 2005, extended the provisions of what is known as the &#8220;Castle Doctrine,&#8221; declaring that a person has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force if that force is necessary to prevent death, *great bodily harm *or the commission of a forcible felony


.

Martin was also committing a "forcible felony" by *continuing* the beating once Zimmerman was down


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Aren't you doing the same for Zimmerman? *Why*?


The EVIDENCE backs Zimmerman.
All you have is theories and suppositions


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The EVIDENCE backs Zimmerman.
> All you have is theories and suppositions


What is the evidence that establishes that Martin attacked Zimmerman unprovoked? What evidence establishes that Zimmerman didn't try to interrogate or detain Martin?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> What is the evidence that establishes that Martin attacked Zimmerman* unprovoked*?
> 
> What evidence establishes that Zimmerman didn't try to *interrogate or detain* Martin?


What establishes he DID?

We've had this conversation already

Interrogation and detention aren't illegal, and don't justify a *PHYSICAL* attack.

Martin had no injuries besides the gunshot, so Zimmerman didn't *assault* him first


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

*Nevada, do you believe that if someone asks you what you are doing if you are someplace where you are not known or even touch you to get your attention, you're justified in knocking them down and beating them?*

Questioning someone is a common attribute of human interactions. The most common form is a clerk asking you if you need help when you walk into a store. Actually, acknowledging a person who has walked into a store by speaking to them is a proactive form of letting a person you know they are in the store and you're watching them. It's a common anti-shoplifting tactic.

While some may reactive negatively to that, escalating something from a normal interaction to a knockdown and battery is beyond the pale of ordinary human interaction. Zimmerman was battered beyond anything that could be justified. 

What makes you think that Martin had the right to continue to beat Zimmerman when he was on his back?

Have you seen the fight club video with Martin fighting with another kid?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Aren't you doing the same for Zimmerman? Why?


Really doesn't have anything to do with Zimmerman.
I believe any person has the right to protect themselves.
They get to decide how far they have to go to protect themselves when they are attacked.
I do know I would have done the same thing as Zimmerman.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> What is the evidence that establishes that Martin attacked Zimmerman unprovoked? What evidence establishes that Zimmerman didn't try to interrogate or detain Martin?


Zimmerman and his lawyer do not have to prove he did or didn't do something.
It is the prosecutor's job to prove Zimmerman murdered Martin.
The prosecutor chose the charge, now they need to prove it.
Not likely.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Interrogation and detention aren't illegal, and don't justify a *PHYSICAL* attack.


I think Martin had an absolute right to defend himself against being unlawfully detained. Martin had every right to fear for his life if it happened.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> *Nevada, do you believe that if someone asks you what you are doing if you are someplace where you are not known or even touch you to get your attention, you're justified in knocking them down and beating them?*


No. Of course not. My problem is that I don't know for sure that's what happened. Since it doesn't make sense, I have to question the story.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> No. Of course not. My problem is that I don't know for sure that's what happened. Since it doesn't make sense, I have to question the story.


Nevada, how much do you have in common with a wanna be gansta high on drugs?
The things people do while under the influence of drugs usually don't make sense.
You have to think like Martin did.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> Nevada, how much do you have in common with a wanna be gansta high on drugs?
> The things people do while under the influence of drugs usually don't make sense.
> You have to think like Martin did.


I would prefer to consider explanations that make sense.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I would prefer to consider explanations that make sense.


You don't have much experience with drug use or been around people who abused drugs.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> I would prefer to consider explanations that make sense.


That's hard to believe.

1. Martin was caught on school grounds with an empty marijuana baggie.

2. Martin's autopsy revealed marijuana usage.

3. His twitters showed references in street lingo to dealing weed.

4. The jewelry found in his backpack was never explained.

5. He was suspended from school, the last time, for ten days.

6. He was asking for a source for codeine from acquaintances to make lean which has the side effect of turning people violent.

7. He was participating in fight club like activities.

8. There was one exchange with his brother where his brother expressed disbelief that Martin had swung at a bus driver. That seems to have been part of Martin's braggadocio as a gangsta wannabe.

All the factual information shows a troubled youth who was in the process of becoming a thug.

9. The video of Martin before the encounter with Zimmerman shows a person that is not behaving normally. He didn't walk normally. Nor did he seem to be fully aware. He seemed confused.

Some drug abusers when they turn violent will not stop attacking. That is what happened that night. *There was no logical reason for Martin to continue beating Zimmerman when he was down even if Zimmerman tried to detain him.* Lean is known for causing psychotic episodes.

*I don't know of any reasonable excuse you can imagine that would justify that.*

10. Crump absolutely lied in the information that was given to the press to conceal Martin's problems.

If anyone was treated unfairly, it was Zimmerman. 

Nevada, what would you do if someone you didn't know sucker punched you, knocked you down and then continued beating you and bashing your head on a concrete sidewalk.

That comes across as attempted murder to me. Yet you think Martin was justified and Zimmerman who obviously had to defend himself should be locked up.

From the facts so far, I think Zimmerman may have done the world a favor. Obviously the people that have donated over $200,000 for his defense believe so to.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> Nevada, what would you do if someone you didn't know sucker punched you, knocked you down and then continued beating you and bashing your head on a concrete sidewalk.


I'm just not convinced that it happened that way. What was the reason for the sucker punch?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> I'm just not convinced that it happened that way. What was the reason for the sucker punch?


For the past few years there doesn't have to be a reason. Are you familar with the knockout game?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> For the past few years there doesn't have to be a reason. Are you familar with the knockout game?


Is that your theory of what happened?


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Is that your theory of what happened?


It's more reasonable than any of _your_ theories, though it's not supported by any evidence, which is what it has in common with your theories, too.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Narshalla said:


> It's more reasonable than any of _your_ theories, though it's not supported by any evidence, which is what it has in common with your theories, too.


Zimmerman was concerned that Martin was going to get away. He said so himself in his phone conversation with police. Why is it such a stretch to believe that Zimmerman might have tried to detain Martin?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Darren said:


> *Nevada, do you believe that if someone asks you what you are doing if you are someplace where you are not known or even touch you to get your attention, you're justified in knocking them down and beating them?*
> 
> Questioning someone is a common attribute of human interactions. The most common form is a clerk asking you if you need help when you walk into a store. Actually, acknowledging a person who has walked into a store by speaking to them is a proactive form of letting a person you know they are in the store and you're watching them. It's a common anti-shoplifting tactic.
> 
> ...


No one was privvy to the initial confrontation, so we don't know what Zimmerman may have said or done. All we have is his word for it.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> Nevada, how much do you have in common with a wanna be gansta high on drugs?
> The things people do while under the influence of drugs usually don't make sense.
> You have to think like Martin did.


You keep saying Martin was high on drugs, so far I haven't seen any evidence that supports that. He may have had some pot in his system, but as many here have stated on other threads, pot's no worse than alcohol.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Darren said:


> That's hard to believe.
> 
> 1. Martin was caught on school grounds with an empty marijuana baggie.
> 
> ...


Do you have any links that show Martin had any drugs in his system other than pot?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman was concerned that Martin was going to get away. He said so himself in his phone conversation with police. Why is it such a stretch to believe that Zimmerman might have tried to detain Martin?


Whether or not Zimmerman tried to detain Martin was no reason for Martin to try to kill Zimmerman.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> You keep saying Martin was high on drugs, so far I haven't seen any evidence that supports that. He may have had some pot in his system, but as many here have stated on other threads, pot's no worse than alcohol.


Did you see the video of him in the store?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Darren said:


> Whether or not Zimmerman tried to detain Martin was no reason for Martin to try to kill Zimmerman.


Unless Martin was high on lean and didn't want the cops called.
Lots of crooks have a dim view of people calling the cops on them.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

The problem is that gun owners without any sense will use this incident to justify killing people they are angry with. As an example, here's the video tape of an incident where a guy shot 3 neighbors, killing one.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48YIcVGcq_A]Firefighter Shoots, Kills Neighbor Over Loud Music - YouTube[/ame]

Here's a news article about it.

Video 'shows firefighter who gunned down neighbour over his loud music acted in self defense' | Mail Online

The shooter is charged with murder. You can tell that he doesn't really believe his life is in danger, but instead thinks he is laying a legal foundation to shoot some people he is angry at.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> Unless Martin was high on lean and didn't want the cops called.
> Lots of crooks have a dim view of people calling the cops on them.


A black man in central Florida isn't going to let himself be detained by a white man without a fight. He would be crazy to let that happen.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> A black man in central Florida isn't going to let himself be detained by a white man without a fight. He would be crazy to let that happen.


So you believe Martin was making a statement by attacking Zimmerman?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> So you believe Martin was making a statement by attacking Zimmerman?


Making a statement? I don't understand. What kind of statement?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The problem is that gun owners without any sense will use this incident to justify killing people they are angry with. As an example, here's the video tape of an incident where a guy shot 3 neighbors, killing one.


That case has NOTHING to do with this, and your "logic" is ludicrous.

You're being ridiculous


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> A black man in central Florida isn't going to let himself be detained by a white man without a fight. He would be crazy to let that happen.


Show us your* evidence* of this "detention"

(And stop trying to *pretend* it's a racial issue)


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That case has NOTHING to do with this, and your "logic" is ludicrous.
> 
> You're being ridiculous


How do you know? We don't have a video clip of the Martin shooting, but it could have been just as absurd.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> How do you know? We don't have a video clip of the Martin shooting, but it could have been just as absurd.


I know if you think this will lead to more shootings you're just spreading fertilizer.

There is NO EVIDENCE to even suggest any of your fantasy scenarios

The only thing "absurd" is these latest theories you're coming up with


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> (And stop trying to *pretend* it's a racial issue)


The shooting isn't a racial issue, but there are racial tensions in central Florida. Having lived there, I can attest to the fact that central Florida is a creepy place from a racial standpoint. Even the local police department has ongoing racial allegations.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> there are racial tensions in central Florida


That has NOTHING to do with THIS case, unless of course you can PROVE it.
(Which you can't)

It's just one more of your fantasy versions of what happened , to make Zimmerman guilty of SOMETHING


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> A black man in central Florida isn't going to let himself be detained by a white man without a fight. He would be crazy to let that happen.


Just because Martin was black it gave him the right to attack Zimmerman?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The shooting isn't a racial issue, but there are racial tensions in central Florida. Having lived there, I can attest to the fact that central Florida is a creepy place from a racial standpoint. Even the local police department has ongoing racial allegations.


You can say that about every city in the U.S.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> > A black man in central Florida isn't going to let himself be detained by a white man without a fight. He would be crazy to let that happen.
> ...


If Zimmerman was trying to detain him, Martin would have been completely justified in resisting being detained.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> Did you see the video of him in the store?


Yes, but that doesn't prove anything. The autopsy report didn't say anything about any drugs except the possibility of pot.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> *If Zimmerman was trying to detain him*, Martin would have been completely *justified in resisting* being detained.


You have NO EVIDENCE of any "detention".

If he was afraid of being "detained, he could have* kept going* since he was only about 100 yds from his destination.

It's obvious *he stopped and at least waited*, if he didn't turn around and return to confront Zimmerman.

His pretend "girlfriend" said he asked Zimmerman why he was following.

Prior to that, he had outrun Zimmerman, so it's only logical to assume he WANTED contact or he would have* continued* to run


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You have NO EVIDENCE of any "detention".


You have NO EVIDENCE that Martin attacked Zimmerman without provocation.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada, if as you theorize, Zimmerman tried to detain Martin, did that justify Martin slamming Zimmerman's head into a sidewalk, breaking his nose, blacking both eyes, and injuring his back. When do you think Martin should have stopped beating Zimmerman? When Zimmerman was unconscious? When he was dead?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> Nevada, if as you theorize, Zimmerman tried to detain Martin, did that justify Martin slamming Zimmerman's head into a sidewalk, breaking his nose, blacking both eyes, and injuring his back. When do you think Martin should have stopped beating Zimmerman? When Zimmerman was unconscious? When he was dead?


Martin would have had the right to use the force necessary to get away from Zimmerman. If it escalated into a full fistfight it's difficult to say what injuries might have occurred in his attempt to escape.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> *Martin would have had the right to use the force necessary to get away from Zimmerman.* If it escalated into a full fistfight it's difficult to say what injuries might have occurred in his attempt to escape.


Does that mean any level of injury was acceptible as long as Martin escaped being detained.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You have NO EVIDENCE of any "detention".
> 
> If he was afraid of being "detained, he could have* kept going* since he was only about 100 yds from his destination.
> 
> ...


This is where I have questions, if Zimmerman did not try to detain him, what possible reason would he have had to hit Zimmerman? It's not logical to just walk up to someone and start hitting them. Where was the provocation?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Darren said:


> Nevada, if as you theorize, Zimmerman tried to detain Martin, did that justify Martin slamming Zimmerman's head into a sidewalk, breaking his nose, blacking both eyes, and injuring his back. When do you think Martin should have stopped beating Zimmerman? When Zimmerman was unconscious? When he was dead?


Since everyone is theorizing, I'll add my own theory. What's to say that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin, Martin started fighting back and realized Zimmerman had a gun and Martin feared for his own life. IMO, that's the only scenario that makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> Does that mean any level of injury was acceptible as long as Martin escaped being detained.


Of course. We're talking about illegal abduction here.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Of course. We're talking about illegal abduction here.


By abduction do you mean kidnapping?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> By abduction do you mean kidnapping?


Absolutely. Unless Zimmerman witnessed Martin during the commission of a crime he had no authority to detain him. Martin would have every reason to believe that an unlawful abduction in central Florida could cost him his life.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Are you saying Zimmerman planned to murder Martin?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> Are you saying Zimmerman planned to murder Martin?


No, I doubt that Zimmerman planned it.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You have NO EVIDENCE that Martin attacked Zimmerman without provocation.


Ok, this is getting stupid. There IS evidence b/c Martin's knuckles showed that he'd hit someone w/force. I guess it coulda been someone other than Zimm. I'd imagine DNA will tell.

In what state is it legal to beat someone into the concrete if they ask what you're doing? Or try to get you to wait? Just need an answer to that.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Of course. We're talking about illegal abduction here.


BWHahaha!
Hon, you're digging yourself in toooo deep. Trying to prove once again your judgement stinks.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Ok, this is getting stupid. There IS evidence b/c Martin's knuckles showed that he'd hit someone w/force. I guess it coulda been someone other than Zimm. I'd imagine DNA will tell.


Those could have been defensive.



Tricky Grama said:


> In what state is it legal to beat someone into the concrete if they ask what you're doing? Or try to get you to wait? Just need an answer to that.


Not for asking, but for attempting to detain.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> Yes, but that doesn't prove anything. The autopsy report didn't say anything about any drugs except the possibility of pot.


It kind of looks like some people demand proof when they talk about one person but are very satisfied with rumors and wild ideas when they talk about the other.
Why do people ask for proof for one person but are satisfied with rumors for the other?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada has gone off the deep end here just as he did with Bush.
It doesn't matter to him what happened. In his mind Zimmerman stalked, kidnapped, and killed a little colored boy and should be in jail for the rest of his life.
People can show him where the proof shows a different story but, like he was sure Bush was going to take over the U.S., he will not believe it.
In his mind there is only one thing that happened.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> It kind of looks like some people demand proof when they talk about one person but are very satisfied with rumors and wild ideas when they talk about the other.
> Why do people ask for proof for one person but are satisfied with rumors for the other?


If he was on something stronger than pot, why wasn't it mentioned in the autopsy report? Maybe I missed it, but the autopsy report that someone posted in this thread only showed signs of pot. Why do you demand proof to fit your synopsis on what happened, yet won't answer an honest question regarding an accusation you keep making?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> Nevada has gone off the deep end here just as he did with Bush.
> It doesn't matter to him what happened. In his mind Zimmerman stalked, kidnapped, and killed a little colored boy and should be in jail for the rest of his life.
> People can show him where the proof shows a different story but, like he was sure Bush was going to take over the U.S., he will not believe it.
> In his mind there is only one thing that happened.


Maybe this conversations would be more productive if it was aimed at the issues instead of other members.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Sonshine said:


> If he was on something stronger than pot, why wasn't it mentioned in the autopsy report? Maybe I missed it, but the autopsy report that someone posted in this thread only showed signs of pot. Why do you demand proof to fit your synopsis on what happened, yet won't answer an honest question regarding an accusation you keep making?


As they used to say, that's the $64,000 question. I'm not sure the drug used to make lean would show up on a normal screen. If Zimmerman's attorney is sharp, he'll request any tests necessary to determine if Martin was using something else. Martin wanted to get high using something that had less of a chance of getting him "roped" as he put it. That means caught for the rest of us not familiar with street lingo.

Martin claimed he had already used the stuff. Whether he found a regular source for codeine that he was looking for remains to be answered.

I'm not sure what was going on with Martin, but the 7-eleven video showed a young man that appeared to be under the influence of something. He wasn't staggering like a drunk but something was wrong. If I had been in the store, I would have asked him if he was OK. Someone more familiar with body language mentioned that the clerk that waited on Martin showed signs of apprehension. That could have been due to Martin being taller, Black and concealing his face with the hoodie so the cameras couldn't see his face.

I don't know if there is a thug walk or swagger. That may be another possibility. Young people sometimes go to a ridiculous extent to emulate their heroes. If I encountered someone behaving like Martin did in that video, I'd pay close attention to them.

Martin's shuffling, staggering, swaggering walk would have attracted anyone's attention that night. It was not a normal gait. People going places usually walk with an evident determination. That wasn't Martin on that night.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> If Zimmerman's attorney is sharp, he'll request any tests necessary to determine if Martin was using something else.


One thing I'm confident of, and that's that Zimmerman's lawyer isn't going to go after Martin. I think you can forget about Zimmerman using that as a defense.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> One thing I'm confident of, and that's that Zimmerman's lawyer isn't going to go after Martin. I think you can forget about Zimmerman using that as a defense.


I have no idea where you get that. From the eye witness reports of what happened to Zimmerman and the resulting injuries, it points to an extreme reaction or rage on Martin's part. The saying, which I'm sure you're familiar with, Nevada is "You don't kick a man when he's down."

Martin apparently wasn't going to stop beating Zimmerman until he was unconscious and possibly dead. That kind of rage can't be justified in a civil society. 

Martin paid the price with his life.

His parents paid the price due to inadequate parenting.

Now society will pay the price because of the unethical actions of a lawyer, Crump, who lied. Given the price that society and its members will pay because of the unnecessary escalation in racial tension, I think he should be disbarred.

So far Zimmerman's attorney has made all of the smart moves. The hiring of an attorney with special experience was one..


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> I have no idea where you get that. From the eye witness reports of what happened to Zimmerman and the resulting injuries, it points to an extreme reaction or rage on Martin's part. The saying, which I'm sure you're familiar with, Nevada is "You don't kick a man when he's down."
> 
> Martin apparently wasn't wasn't going to stop beating Zimmerman until he was unconscious and possibly dead. That kind of rage can't be justified in a civil society.
> 
> ...


Zimmerman's lawyer can assert a claim of self defense without attacking the character of Martin or his family. That's what I think we can expect.

I suspect that Zimmerman's defense will center around his contention that he had no way of knowing if Martin was armed.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Sonshine said:


> This is where I have questions, if Zimmerman did not try to detain him, what possible reason would he have had to hit Zimmerman? It's not logical to just walk up to someone and start hitting them. Where was the provocation?


In what world do we expect teenage boys to act logically?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> In what world do we expect teenage boys to act logically?


I've never seen anyone just walk up to someone and punch them with no provocation.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman's lawyer can assert a claim of self defense without attacking the character of Martin or his family. That's what I think we can expect.
> 
> I suspect that Zimmerman's defense will center around his contention that he had no way of knowing if Martin was armed.


Zimmerman has already been attacked, by many more than Martin.
Why should his lawyer not bring up the fact of Martin's character and that of his family? If he doesn't Zimmerman should look for another attorney.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> I've never seen anyone just walk up to someone and punch them with no provocation.


You should get out more. No, probably better that you don't. There is a cruel world out there and some people are not able to take it. People who are not suspecting such a thing are the ideal victim.
It isn't unusual for that to happen especially by some wanna be gangsta.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Those could have been defensive.
> 
> 
> 
> Not for asking, but for *attempting to detain*.


The REST of the evidence says they were OFFENSIVE

Again, you make a claim with* NOTHING* to back it up.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> Why should his lawyer not bring up the fact of Martin's character and that of his family? If he doesn't Zimmerman should look for another attorney.


There will be sympathy for Martin. Going after Martin at this point will make Zimmerman look bad. At best, going after Martin would be a risky strategy. His best bet is to contend that this was a sad incident where Zimmerman honestly didn't know if Martin was armed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You have NO EVIDENCE that Martin attacked Zimmerman without provocation.


You haven't let "no evidence" stop all your *fantasies*

"Provocation" is pretty ambiguous and subjective

"Provocation" is NOT grounds for a *PHYSICAL* attack

Reality is MARTIN had to have initiated the contact, since he had* already gotten away *while Zimmerman was still on the phone


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> There will be sympathy for Martin. Going after Martin at this point will make Zimmerman look bad. At best, going after Martin would be a risky strategy. His best bet is to contend that this was a sad incident where Zimmerman honestly didn't know if Martin was armed.


That is your opinion.
His lawyer could also use Martin's past to show drug use, theft, assault, and a few other crimes. If he doesn't he is not doing his job.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> Since everyone is theorizing, I'll add my own theory. What's to say that *Zimmerman tried to detain Martin*, Martin started fighting back and realized Zimmerman had a gun and Martin feared for his own life. IMO, that's the only scenario that makes a lot of sense.


There is no evidence to support any of that at all

Zimmerman ASKED Martin what he was doing.

That is not "detaining" and is NOT justification for Martin to attack


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> You should get out more. No, probably better that you don't. There is a cruel world out there and some people are not able to take it. People who are not suspecting such a thing are the ideal victim.
> It isn't unusual for that to happen especially by some wanna be gangsta.


LOL, I think it's hilarious when people presume to know me or anything about me. I've lived all over the United States and been overseas. So I've gotten out quite a bit in my life. Also, I'm well aware of how cruel the world is, since I've ministered to some kids who have lived every day of their life in homes where the families had substance abuse and some who were sexually molested from an early age.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Of course. We're talking about *illegal abduction* here.


 
LOL

No we are NOT

Why go to such silly extremes to make Zimmerman look guilty when ALL the evidence says he's not?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is no evidence to support any of that at all
> 
> Zimmerman ASKED Martin what he was doing.
> 
> That is not "detaining" and is NOT justification for Martin to attack


According to Zimmerman. There is no evidence to support either version. The detention scenario makes more sense to me.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Maybe this conversations would be more productive if it was aimed at the issues instead of other members.


Sticking to FACTS would help a great deal also


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> *According to Zimmerman*. There is no evidence to support either version. The detention scenario makes more sense to me.


No just "according to Zimmerman.
According to Martin's "girlfriend too.

*ALL* the evidence says *Martin ATTACKED Zimmerman*, causing serious injury.
THAT is justification to use deadly force.

I think Martin was MAD because he was being followed, and wanted to get Zimmerman for it.

He had already eluded him, and could have simply* kept going* towards the house, but he didn't


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> I've never seen anyone just walk up to someone and punch them with no provocation.


 I have.

And now it's become a "game" for gangbangers:




> The game is as cruel and ignorant as it sounds. The only rule is to pick a victim and try to knock them out. The group of black teens in Decatur discussed playing the game, before going out and finding a random victim for their unprovoked attack. They called it the "point 'em out, knock 'em out" game.


Read more: Articles: A Violent Racist Game Claims More Victims
​ 
Articles: A Violent Racist Game Claims More Victims


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> LOL, I think it's hilarious when people presume to know me or anything about me. I've lived all over the United States and been overseas. So I've gotten out quite a bit in my life. Also, I'm well aware of how cruel the world is, since I've ministered to some kids who have lived every day of their life in homes where the families had substance abuse and some who were sexually molested from an early age.


But you haven't ever heard of a person hitting another for no reason?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> There will be sympathy for Martin. Going after Martin at this point will make Zimmerman look bad. At best, going after Martin would be a risky strategy. His best bet is to contend that this was a sad incident where Zimmerman honestly didn't know if Martin was armed.


There's no questions about Zimmerman's injuries. The kind of rage that produced those injuries is absolutely unacceptable in our society. AFAIK, Martin's previous infractions can't be introduced. Neither can any of Zimmerman's previous history. Crump with his media campaign contaminated the jury pool by portraying Martin as his much younger self before he went gangsta.

Unfortunately for Crump, the internet is today's equalizer. Literally millions can dig for information and post it. That's why Crump's attempt to suppress Martin's previous history and his social media posts failed. By the time Crump got involved, that horse had already left the barn. With that info Zimmerman's attorney should understand the need for additional blood test especially since Martin's publicly available posts chronicle drug use. The THC showing up is more of a reason to pursue further evidence to explain Martin's rage.

As much as his parents and Crump are now trying to portary Martin as a typical youth with a bright future, the reality is much darker.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> That is your opinion.
> His lawyer could also use Martin's past to show drug use, theft, assault, and a few other crimes. If he doesn't he is not doing his job.


Yes, it's my opinion, but I really believe that going after Martin's character for his past is a risky strategy. Zimmerman needs the jury to be sympathetic to his contention of feeling that his life was threatened. The jury won't be as sympathetic if Zimmerman's defense is attacking Martin's character.

Moreover, Martin's past is not relevant to Zimmerman feeling threatened, since Zimmerman knew nothing about Martin's past at the time. I don't see how attacking Martin's character will help convince the jury that Zimmerman acted in self defense.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Yes, it's my opinion, but I really believe that going after Martin's character for his past is a risky strategy. Zimmerman needs the jury to be sympathetic to his contention of feeling that his life was threatened. The jury won't be as sympathetic if Zimmerman's defense is attacking Martin's character.
> 
> Moreover, Martin's past is not relevant to Zimmerman feeling threatened, since Zimmerman knew nothing about Martin's past at the time. I don't see how attacking Martin's character will help convince the jury that Zimmerman acted in self defense.


You call it attacking, I don't.
I call it showing a pattern, a pattern of drug use, theft, assault, vandalism, and a few other crimes. It would tend to make it easier to believe that Martin did attack Zimmerman.

Now we are getting somewhere. Zimmerman didn't know anything about Martin. Didn't even know what color he was. He couldn't be accused of being racist.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No just "according to Zimmerman.
> According to Martin's "girlfriend too.
> 
> *ALL* the evidence says *Martin ATTACKED Zimmerman*, causing serious injury.
> ...


Now she's his girlfriend again? I thought everyone thought she was a liar and kept changing her story and that they were just aquaintances.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I have.
> 
> And now it's become a "game" for gangbangers:
> 
> ...


The key to this is "gangs" They don't do it when they're alone because there's no one there to impress.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> Now she's his girlfriend again? I thought everyone thought she was a liar and kept changing her story and that they were just aquaintances.


She is called that just so the people who insist on making up their own version of the incident will know who we are talking about.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> But you haven't ever heard of a person hitting another for no reason?


Not without some type of provocation. Of course, you have the post that was talking about gangs doing this, but I didn't see any incidents where it was a lone person doing it.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Sonshine said:


> I've never seen anyone just walk up to someone and punch them with no provocation.


I think I have...depends on your definition of provocation.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> Not without some type of provocation. Of course, you have the post that was talking about gangs doing this, but I didn't see any incidents where it was a lone person doing it.


Many times the provocation can be just because the person getting hit is there. People don't need a reason to hit other people.
I am sure you have heard of drive by shootings. Many times the person getting shot did nothing to provocate the shooter, they were just there.

It happens daily in Jackson, just 15 miles north of me. Happened 3 times last night. It is so common that the news barely report it. The news don't even report the number of people getting hit.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

ryanthomas said:


> I think I have...depends on your definition of provocation.


I remember getting hit in the back of the head one time.
Not sure what I did to provocate that person.
Before it was over I gave him several reasons not to do it again.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Sonshine said:


> The key to this is "gangs" They don't do it when they're alone because there's no one there to impress.


Unless they happen to be talking on the phone with a young lady they want to impress. Wouldn't confronting a stalker demonstrate his courage and fearlessness to live up to his no_limit_nigga self assumed nickname? 

If any of my kids had used a nickname like that, there would have been hell to pay. That screams an attitude that's destined to cause trouble. Flying into a rage and trying to beat Zimmerman senseless wasn;t a giant leap given Martin's previous fights.

I think the girl heard a lot more than what she's told. She probably knows Martin instigated the confrontation and didn't want to get involved. That and the fact that she wasn't his girlfriend explains why she didn't call the parents or contact the police. That is one of the loose strings that has never been satisfactorily explained. Crump's attempt to hang Zimmerman with the "girlfriend's" account is one of the weak points in his public relations campaign.


----------



## wes917 (Sep 26, 2011)

Sonshine said:


> Not without some type of provocation. Of course, you have the post that was talking about gangs doing this, but I didn't see any incidents where it was a lone person doing it.


Almost happend to me two days ago on my jog. I was approaching a "young" man, I moved to the other side of the side walk, he moved, I moved back he moved back. Just happened we crossed paths while crossing a side street, he sorta lunged toward me and said "f*cking white b*tch". I just kept going, he must have decided I wasnt going to be an easy target because I wasnt breathing heavy and didnt flinch. I just kept my eyes and ears peeled in case he decided to run up behind me. I live in a 55/45 black/white town. What exactly was his provocation? Just wanting to fight? Its ridiculous to think human beings act that way towards others. Just glad I am able to defend myself and cant wait to move out of here.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> Now we are getting somewhere. Zimmerman didn't know anything about Martin. Didn't even know what color he was. He couldn't be accused of being racist.


Now you have departed from the facts. The fact that Martin was black was the one thing Zimmerman knew, since he told the 911 dispatcher that the suspect was black before the altercation.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> I've never seen anyone just walk up to someone and punch them with no provocation.


I've only seen it on tape, well once when I was a teen but that was 2 guys who knew each other.
DH was "suckerpunched" like that when he was in basic training.
I DOES happen.
Martian could've been upset that he kept seeing Zimm & figured he was being followed & didn't like it.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No just "according to Zimmerman.
> According to Martin's "girlfriend too.
> 
> *ALL* the evidence says *Martin ATTACKED Zimmerman*, causing serious injury.
> ...


Shoulda read this b/4 I responded.
"Great Minds..."


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Now you have departed from the facts. The fact that Martin was black was the one thing Zimmerman knew, since he told the 911 dispatcher that the suspect was black before the altercation.


Again you are taking the words you want to hear and leaving out the ones that don't agree with your story.
Go back and listen to the tapes again.
This time listen to all of the words, not just the ones you want to hear.
I can see why you get so many wild ideas. You are not seeing or hearing all of the words.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

pancho said:


> You call it attacking, I don't.
> I call it showing a pattern, a pattern of drug use, theft, assault, vandalism, and a few other crimes. It would tend to make it easier to believe that Martin did attack Zimmerman.
> 
> Now we are getting somewhere. Zimmerman didn't know anything about Martin. Didn't even know what color he was. He couldn't be accused of being racist.


Lessee, someone was trying to prove a pattern in Zimmer of '...poor judgement..."


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> > Now you have departed from the facts. The fact that Martin was black was the one thing Zimmerman knew, since he told the 911 dispatcher that the suspect was black before the altercation.
> ...


*Dispatcher:*_ OK, and this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic?
_*Zimmerman:*_ He looks black._
Transcript of George Zimmerman's Call to the Police


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> *Dispatcher:*_ OK, and this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic?
> _*Zimmerman:*_ He looks black._
> Transcript of George Zimmerman's Call to the Police


Seems like you don't quite understand what he is saying.
He looks black. If he knew for sure he would say He is black.
He didn't know for sure, that is why he answered that way.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> Seems like you don't quite understand what he is saying.
> He looks black. If he knew for sure he would say He is black.
> He didn't know for sure, that is why he answered that way.


Yeah, I had a feeling you were going to backpedal off of that one.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Yeah, I had a feeling you were going to backpedal off of that one.


No backpedaling.
You just didn't see the word LOOKS.
What do you think I was talking about?
That is what I meant when I posted you don't see all of the words.
You still don't see the word LOOKS or you don't know the meaning.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

Nevada said:


> If Zimmerman was trying to detain him, Martin would have been completely justified in resisting being detained.


And conversely if Martin was beating the crap out of Zimmerman, then Zimmerman would have been completely justified in resisting being beaten.

I wonder what the witnesses are going to say?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Looks like Corey's alligator mouth got her chicken azz in a bind. Dershowitz has challenged her to a debate for falsifying the affidavit. Corey concealed facts from the judge. 

"The quarrel began with Dershowitz&#8217;s comments on Fox News&#8217; Huckabee, in which he said Corey told &#8220;half-truths&#8221; to the court when she submitted an affidavit saying that there was a struggle in the shooting without disclosing that Zimmerman had also been injured."

What's the penalty for prosecutorial misconduct?

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz now challenges Angela Corey to debate | jacksonville.com


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

davel745 said:


> And conversely if Martin was beating the crap out of Zimmerman, then Zimmerman would have been completely justified in resisting being beaten.


Yes, I agree with both.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> *Now you have departed from the facts*. The fact that Martin was black was the one thing Zimmerman knew, since he told the 911 dispatcher that the suspect was black before the altercation.


LOL

That's funny coming from you , considering all your THEORIES with no basis in fact



> Moreover,* Martin's past is not relevant to Zimmerman feeling threatened*, since Zimmerman knew nothing about Martin's past at the time.
> 
> I don't see how attacking Martin's character will help convince the jury that Zimmerman acted in self defense.


Being *BEATEN* is all that is needed to "feel threatened"

Martin's past matters because it shows he's NOT the "innocent schoolboy" the media trys to portray. 
It shows he's* likely* to have attacked Zimmerman, (which we already KNOW he did)

You said yourself black man won't let a white man "detain" him
Evidently that applies to *questioning* too

Maybe that is all the "provocation" needed to set Martin off on his violent rampage


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Now you have departed from the facts. The fact that Martin was black was the one thing Zimmerman knew, since he told the 911 dispatcher that the suspect was black before the altercation.


He said "He LOOKS black"
You need to keep in mind it was dark and raining that night

The media said Zimmerman was "white" and we know that's wrong, although you keep repeating it


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He said "He LOOKS black"


Good luck getting the jury to see a difference between "black" and "looks black."


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada, from what I'm reading, you seem to be the only one that doesn't understand the difference. Have you looked at the 7-Eleven video that showed Martin? In certain positions with the hoodie, you can't tell. Looks Black would have been a reasonable statement by someone who wasn't 100% sure meaning Zimmerman caught a glimpse during the early evening hour and wasn't sure enough to say he's Black. Generally someone responding with a description will describe the race. Zimmerman didn't. The way he responded and the fact that the dispatcher had to prompt him strongly suggests Zimmerman wasn't sure.

That probably isn't acceptable to anyone that wants to make the incident about race. That was certainly Crump's goal.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Good luck getting the jury to see a difference between "black" and "looks black."


 
It really doesn't matter since it has nothing to do with the *beating *nor shootiing

You're the one trying to make an issue of it, in an attempt to make Zimmerman look racist


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Now you have departed from the facts. The fact that Martin was black was the one thing Zimmerman knew, since he told the 911 dispatcher that the suspect was black before the altercation.


Really? When asked he said "I THINK he's black"....


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Really? When asked he said "I THINK he's black"....


I agree.
Plus, if race would have been a factor to Zimmerman, when he called 911, he would have said, "There is a black man walking behind the Condos." Zimmerman gave the info that he thought was important, the guy's color wasn't mentioned. The 911 Operator asked. This gave another chance for a racist to exclaim, "Black, yup, we got ourselves a black man looking suspicous." But Zimmerman didn't, he wasn't sure and was careful to tell just the facts. 

All the evidence to this case has been made public. We know all the facts about this case and a whole lot of junk that doesn't pertain to this case.

Prove that Zimmerman didn't feel threatened. That's it, in a nutshell. Nothing else matters.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Yes, I'm afraid it has. One witness said that he didn't actually see any blows thrown, and the other said he wasn't sure who was on top when he saw it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It may 'support' that "alternate theory" but there's not going to be enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. How do you prove Zimmerman was angry when he fired? How can you prove that there was a fist fight much less Zimmerman started it? There are just too many unanswerable questions and things which support Zimmerman's story.

And as I have posed a couple of times I don't see anyway the state can prove the things it needs to in order to get a M2 conviction.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman was concerned that Martin was going to get away. He said so himself in his phone conversation with police. Why is it such a stretch to believe that Zimmerman might have tried to detain Martin?


Didn't Zimmerman tell 911 he was heading back to his vehicle before the attack?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> A black man in central Florida isn't going to let himself be detained by a white man without a fight. He would be crazy to let that happen.


Using that logic could you not think that a "black man in central Florida" might attack a white man without warning out of irrational fear of whites?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Martin would have had the right to use the force necessary to get away from Zimmerman. If it escalated into a full fistfight it's difficult to say what injuries might have occurred in his attempt to escape.


Is there ANY evidence of a "full fistfight"? IOW, is there anything showing injury to Zimmerman's hands? Was there any bruising on Martin showing where he was struck? If not you are doing nothing but making up a story to fit what you want to have happened.

Only Zimmerman knows or will ever know what really happened. But what really happened doesn't matter in a court of law. All that matters is what can the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The facts are such that there is no way the state can prove murder 2 as is required by the letter of the law beyond a reasonable doubt.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> This is where I have questions, if Zimmerman did not try to detain him, what possible reason would he have had to hit Zimmerman? It's not logical to just walk up to someone and start hitting them. Where was the provocation?


Who knows. Maybe Zimmerman told Martin he was going to call the cops and Martin knew or thought he dad would be upset? Maybe Zimmerman called him a bad name? Maybe Martin had an irrational fear of short, chubby white men?

The problem is there is zero evidence, as far as we know, to support the view that Zimmerman ever placed hands on Martin offensively.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're the one trying to make an issue of it, in an attempt to make Zimmerman look racist


I am? I don't happen to believe that the incident was racially motivated. I don't know where you got the idea that I thought otherwise.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman's lawyer can assert a claim of self defense without attacking the character of Martin or his family. That's what I think we can expect.
> 
> I suspect that Zimmerman's defense will center around his contention that he had no way of knowing if Martin was armed.


There is no need for him to do so. Unless there's a major piece of evidence I can see the judge tossing the case after the state rest because the state had not provided evidence to support its charge (I can't remember the legal term).


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> I've never seen anyone just walk up to someone and punch them with no provocation.


You have never hung around with with a bad crowd. I've seen several people sucker punched after they turn to walk away from a confrontation. 

I'm sure a few minutes on any of the video websites will give you several examples.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Yes, it's my opinion, but I really believe that going after Martin's character for his past is a risky strategy. Zimmerman needs the jury to be sympathetic to his contention of feeling that his life was threatened. The jury won't be as sympathetic if Zimmerman's defense is attacking Martin's character.
> 
> Moreover, Martin's past is not relevant to Zimmerman feeling threatened, since Zimmerman knew nothing about Martin's past at the time. I don't see how attacking Martin's character will help convince the jury that Zimmerman acted in self defense.


If Zimmerman does do a defense it would be stupid NOT to bring in Martin's past to show he was not a choir boy on his way to his weekly 'nonviolence in action' meeting.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Using that logic could you not think that a "black man in central Florida" might attack a white man without warning out of irrational fear of whites?


Why do you call the fear "irrational?" Knowing the history of that region it seems perfectly rational to me.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> *Dispatcher:*_ OK, and this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic?
> _*Zimmerman:*_ He looks black._
> Transcript of George Zimmerman's Call to the Police


Let's put our 'reasonable man' hat. Zimmerman said he "looks" black? If a police person asked you what kind of car that was parked on the street. Which of the following do you, as a reasonable man, think would lead to the response of "It *looks* like a Toyoda".

#1 You know its a Toyoda
#2 You think its a Toyoda but are not sure.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> There is no need for him to do so. Unless there's a major piece of evidence I can see the judge tossing the case after the state rest because the state had not provided evidence to support its charge (I can't remember the legal term).


There is plenty of evidence to establish that someone was shot and that Zimmerman was the shooter. However, there is a legitimate question about whether that shooting might have been justified. But the case will need to be heard to make a ruling about that. Since Zimmerman's assertion of self defense needs to be heard, there is no chance that this case will be dismissed for lack of evidence.

Moreover, we are already past the point in the trial where a judge might dismiss the case for lack of evidence. The probable cause hearing was the time when that would have normally happened, but that has already occurred. The judge ruled that probable cause exists.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Why do you call the fear "irrational?" Knowing the history of that region it seems perfectly rational to me.


Simple. Is it rational for every young black man in the area to think every white man is going to attack them? If not then such a fear is irrational.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> There is plenty of evidence to establish that someone was shot and that Zimmerman was the shooter. However, there is a legitimate question about whether that shooting might have been justified. But the case will need to be heard to make a ruling about that. Since Zimmerman's assertion of self defense needs to be heard, there is no chance that this case will be dismissed for lack of evidence.
> 
> Moreover, we are already past the point in the trial where a judge might dismiss the case for lack of evidence. The probable cause hearing was the time when that would have normally happened, but that has already occurred. The judge ruled that probable cause exists.


I have posted the legal requirements the state MUST prove for a M2 conviction. From the evidence we know there is no way it can do that.

I'll post two problems again. It must prove:

1) There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.

2) The act is âdone from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intentâ

This means the state must prove Zimmerman didn't act in self defense AND he killed Martin because because he had ill will toward him, hated him, was spiteful toward him or had other evil intent toward him.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> If Zimmerman does do a defense it would be stupid NOT to bring in Martin's past to show he was not a choir boy on his way to his weekly 'nonviolence in action' meeting.




I don't see how showing that Martin was not a choir boy would help Zimmerman establish his claim that he felt threatened. Martin's past was not at issue, only the level of threat during the struggle.
Attacking the character of the victim carries the risk of alienating the jury. The jury will want to see some regret that things turned out the way they did. After all, a 17 year-old boy was shot and killed. Going after Martin's character will give the jury the impression that Zimmerman thinks the eliminating Martin might have been a good thing.
Zimmerman would be better served to adopt the attitude that it was an unfortunate incident where he had no way of knowing if Martin was armed.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

Nevada said:


> I don't see how showing that Martin was not a choir boy would help Zimmerman establish his claim that he felt threatened. Martin's past was not at issue, only the level of threat during the struggle.
> Attacking the character of the victim carries the risk of alienating the jury. The jury will want to see some regret that things turned out the way they did. After all, a 17 year-old boy was shot and killed. Going after Martin's character will give the jury the impression that Zimmerman thinks the eliminating Martin might have been a good thing.
> Zimmerman would be better served to adopt the attitude that it was an unfortunate incident where he had no way of knowing if Martin was armed.


I contend that Zimmerman will be better served By saying that he was afraid for his life as Martin was banging his head on the concrete and wasnât letting up. Again I wouldnât trust someone who was banging my head on the sidewalk to stop just because I was knocked unconscious. I believe if I had a gun I would try to draw it and shoot whoever was banging my head on the concrete before I passed out. This is the only reasonable course of action that could be taken, based on the witnessesâ first account. I would try to save myself. Of course politics and other things have crept in to change the outcome of this travesty.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

davel745 said:


> I contend that Zimmerman will be better served By saying that he was afraid for his life as Martin was banging his head on the concrete and wasn&#8217;t letting up.


I'm not sure that the fistfight alone is going to be seen by the jury as justification for the shooting. Taking a lead from Zimmerman's bail hearing, he asserted that he had regrets that he didn't know Martin was unarmed. That seems to point to an admission that he probably wouldn't have used deadly force if he knew that Martin was unarmed, regardless of the severity of the fistfight. He can't really change his story about that now.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> I don't see how showing that Martin was not a choir boy would help Zimmerman establish his claim that he felt threatened. Martin's past was not at issue, only the level of threat during the struggle.
> Attacking the character of the victim carries the risk of alienating the jury. The jury will want to see some regret that things turned out the way they did. After all, a 17 year-old boy was shot and killed. Going after Martin's character will give the jury the impression that Zimmerman thinks the eliminating Martin might have been a good thing.
> Zimmerman would be better served to adopt the attitude that it was an unfortunate incident where he had no way of knowing if Martin was armed.


1. If, and that's a big if, O'mara can use Martin's past history to show that he was a thug and had a predisposition to violence, it offers a rational for the rage he showed as he continued to beat Zimmerman after he knocked him down and was defenseless on his back. If rage was not involved then you have a cold premeditation on Martin's part. If you're not enraged and you continue to beat someone when they're down, that takes a cold heartedness that may indicate a sociopath.

2. Time went fast for Zimmerman that night. While it may have seemed like he was being beaten for an eternity, Zimmerman didn't have time to think, "Gee! This guy is a danger to society. I better shoot him to make society a better place."

You keep forgetting that Zimmerman fired one and only one shot. If there had been rage on Zimmerman's part he would have shot Martin several times. Since he took a firearms class, I'm sure the instructor told the class the procedure for ensuring an assailant is stopped. It isn't firing one and only one shot.

I have no doubt that Zimmerman thought he was going to die that night when Martin started bashing his head into the concrete.

Given everything that's been exposed about Martin's life, my guess is that Martin was out to prove to a young lady that he was the epitome of his nickname and he truly had no limits.

Fortunately for Zimmerman he was able to stop Martin's attack before he passed out.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> I have no doubt that Zimmerman thought he was going to die that night when Martin started bashing his head into the concrete.


I'm not convinced of that. He still has to sell it to the jury.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I am? I don't happen to believe that the incident was racially motivated. I don't know where you got the idea that I thought otherwise.


 
Because YOU keep bringing up "race" as if it matters.

You also keep ignoring all *relevant* FACTS to make Zimmerman appear both racist, and guilty of some crime.

The "illegal abduction" theory was really a hoot, since EVERYONE calls the police to come just BEFORE they "kidnap" someone


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Why do you call the fear "irrational?" Knowing the history of that region it seems perfectly rational to me.


So now you're saying Martin had *motivation to attack* Zimmerman.
You may actually be correct with THIS theory


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The "illegal abduction" theory was really a hoot, since EVERYONE calls the police to come just BEFORE they "kidnap" someone


I don't understand. If Martin was concerned with a racially motivated abduction, how would he have known that Zimmerman called the police?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So now you're saying Martin had *motivation to attack* Zimmerman.
> You may actually be correct with THIS theory


In the context of defending himself from abduction, yes.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I'm not sure that the *fistfight* alone is going to be seen by the jury as justification for the shooting.


There was no "fistfight"
That's another of your fantasies with *no evidence* to back it up

There WAS an assault, causing serious bodiy injury
That is all the "justification" needed, and there is LOTS of evidence to back that up


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> In the context of defending himself from abduction, yes.


How do you explain the rage that Martin showed or do you believe it wasn't rage but he was cold-hearted enough to keep beating a man when he was down?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I don't understand. If *Martin was concerned* with a racially motivated abduction, how would he have known that Zimmerman called the police?


A more important question is, if Martin was in "fear", WHY didn't he continue running after he had already gotten away?

He could have been safe at home in 20 more seconds


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Moreover, we are already *past the point in the trial* where a judge might dismiss the case for lack of evidence.


LOL The *TRIAL* hasn't even begun

Do you know how this process works?
It doesn't seem that you do


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> There is plenty of evidence to establish that someone was shot and that Zimmerman was the shooter. However, there is a legitimate question about whether that shooting might have been justified. But the case will need to be heard to make a ruling about that.


But not the entire case, only the state's side. See below.




Nevada said:


> Since Zimmerman's assertion of self defense needs to be heard, there is no chance that this case will be dismissed for lack of evidence.


Wrong. You will note according to the FL law Zimmerman does NOT have to prove he shot in self defense. The state must prove that he did not. The state has the burden to prove a crime was committed (if Zimmerman shot in self defense there was no crime). Not only that it must prove that that act was committed with, to put it simply, evil intent. IOW, they have to prove that Zimmerman shot Martin simply because he wanted to kill him.




Nevada said:


> Moreover, we are already past the point in the trial where a judge might dismiss the case for lack of evidence. The probable cause hearing was the time when that would have normally happened, but that has already occurred. The judge ruled that probable cause exists.


You are talking about the state providing probable cause that a crime was committed which means a trial should be held and the person the state is accusing committed it. I'm talking about a different critter. 

As we all know the entire burden of proof is on the state. The first thing it must prove is that a crime might have taken place. Then it must prove that its evidence is adequate to prove the crime it is charging might be true. Then it must prove the person they are charging is the one which committed the crime.

Every lawyer worth his bill will ask the judge to dismiss the case after the state rest because the state has not met the burden of proof required by the law therefore the charges should be dismissed. There's a legal term for this, I'll do some googling. I think the term is "motion of demurrer". This very rarely done but it does get done from time to time and I think this might be one of those rare cases. 

The state over reached with the M2 charge and its going to come back to bite them. As I have pointed out unless the state has some major piece of evidence I don't see them being able to prove that they have proved all the necessary points they must prove to show that the crime of second degree murder took place. 

Again I ask you what evidence do you know that the state has which it can use to prove that the shooting was a crime and not legal under the state's self defense laws? What evidence do you know of which can show that Zimmerman shot Martian because of "ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intentâ? If the state has not proven these by the time they rest their case the judge must throw their case out because the state has not reached its burden of proof. IIRC, if this happens the case is dismissed 'with prejudice' which means the state can not retry Zimmerman for the shooting.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> In the context of defending himself from abduction, yes.


Wouldn't the best thing for a person who thought they might get abducted would be to continue staying far from whomever they were afraid of?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

We're missing something here. After the state made the evidence public, in part, due to the media filings, the media has shut up about what happened that night. No one in the media nor their experts has found anything to implicate Zimmerman. the best they can do now is harp on the bond situation.

Obviously the judge made a mistake because Zimmerman is still essentially penniless since he has no control over the money.


----------



## FreeRanger (Jul 20, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> A more important question is, if Martin was in "fear", WHY didn't he continue running after he had already gotten away?
> 
> He could have been safe at home in 20 more seconds


Now are you are making things up? Where have you read that Martin was running? Or that he had "gotten away?" Why would Martin want to "get away? Oh yeah, crazy man with gun is following him around town......Martin was a tall athletic, Zimmerman short fat, would take much to increase your walking stride to "get away."

I still read Zimmerman got out of vehicle and "chased" or I like to say stalked Martin. Even after he "lost sight" of Martin, Zimmerman continued to "look" for him, hence the murder 2 charge. Looking for trouble, found it, started loosing fist fight, pulled gun and killed young man.

I know you like to only look at the short time when Zimmerman and Martin are within arms reach of each other. But the jury is going to look at the event from the time Zimmerman started following Martin, while Martin was in a public place (the store) and then followed him on to private property (the gated community) where Martin had just as much right to be as Zimmerman, and no man has to provide an ID to walk on sidewalks in front or behind the homes.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

They're conducting hearings in FL over the law.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

FreeRanger said:


> Now are you are making things up? Where have you read that Martin was running? Or that he had "gotten away?" Why would Martin want to "get away? Oh yeah, crazy man with gun is following him around town......Martin was a tall athletic, Zimmerman short fat, would take much to increase your walking stride to "get away."
> 
> I still read Zimmerman got out of vehicle and "chased" or I like to say stalked Martin. Even after he "lost sight" of Martin, Zimmerman continued to "look" for him, hence the murder 2 charge. Looking for trouble, found it, started loosing fist fight, pulled gun and killed young man.
> 
> I know you like to only look at the short time when Zimmerman and Martin are within arms reach of each other. But the jury is going to look at the event from the time Zimmerman started following Martin, while Martin was in a public place (the store) and then followed him on to private property (the gated community) where Martin had just as much right to be as Zimmerman, and no man has to provide an ID to walk on sidewalks in front or behind the homes.


You haven't read a bit of the police records. Try reading them and they will answer a few things you seem not to know.
Right now you are so out of touch with what happened you don't even know where it began or ended.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

FreeRanger said:


> Now are you are making things up? Where have you read that Martin was running? Or that he had "gotten away?" Why would Martin want to "get away? Oh yeah, crazy man with gun is following him around town......Martin was a tall athletic, Zimmerman short fat, would take much to increase your walking stride to "get away."
> 
> I still read Zimmerman got out of vehicle and "chased" or I like to say stalked Martin. Even after he "lost sight" of Martin, Zimmerman continued to "look" for him, hence the murder 2 charge. Looking for trouble, found it, started loosing fist fight, pulled gun and killed young man.
> 
> I know you like to only look at the short time when Zimmerman and Martin are within arms reach of each other. But the jury is going to look at the event from the time Zimmerman started following Martin, while Martin was in a public place (the store) and then followed him on to private property (the gated community) where Martin had just as much right to be as Zimmerman, and no man has to provide an ID to walk on sidewalks in front or behind the homes.


Have you looked at the video of Martin in the 7-Eleven that night? Are you aware of the home invasion and the burglaries in the gated community where Zimmerman lived? I don't know about you, but if I see someone strange in this area, I talk to them. That lets them know I've seen them, if they're planning on doing something they shouldn't, then they know there's a witness that can ID them and if they're lost or looking for someone, I can help.

It's basic human nature to protect yourself, your family and extend that protectiveness to your neighbors.

When Martin turned the corner into the commons area behind the townhouses, Zimmerman lost sight of him. If you check the layout, you can see why. Martin could have very easily made it to the place where he was staying. Instead it looks like Martin decided to confront Zimmerman to impress a young woman he was talking to on the phone.

Nevada's belief in an attempted abduction by Zimmerman is about as realistic as aliens abducting Earthlings because they have some weird anal fixation.

P.S. After Zimmerman agreed with the dispatcher's _SUGGESTION_ that he stop looking for Martin, there's no evidence that indicates he wasn't returning to his truck before Martin confronted him.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> How do you explain the rage that Martin showed or do you believe it wasn't rage but he was cold-hearted enough to keep beating a man when he was down?


We're taking Zimmerman's word for that.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> We're taking Zimmerman's word for that.


How else can you explain Martin continuing to beat Zimmerman when he was down? At that point he was pretty much beating the hell out of the man. That kind of violent action doesn't jive with a young man trying to escape someone who is pursuing him when he could have simply gone home after Zimmeramn lost sight of him. BTW, you never answered my quesion about viewing the 7-Eleven video of Martin.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I'm not convinced of that. He still has to sell it to the jury.


Really? How about you and I (or a 17 year old, 6 foot 3 Gang Member) meet up on that open field off the Vegas Strip, behind the block wall, towards BlueGreen Resort, towards the Airport after dark. You let me break your nose, sit on you and start slamming your head into the sidewalk. How long do you think it would take for you to develop the emotion called "fear"?
If you say "never", that's what makes you different from most of us posting on this topic. In that situation, I'd feel great fear and willing to use what force available to me to save my life. I think Zimmerman felt fearful for his life.

In Court, Zimmerman doesn't have to prove he is innocent. The Prosecution has to prove he is guilty. Big difference.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> BTW, you never answered my quesion about viewing the 7-Eleven video of Martin.


You asked me to watch it and I did. I don't recall a question.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

Zimmerman's wiife was just arrested for perjury. It is on a banner on the msn.com.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...artin-killer-arrested-on-perjury-charge?lite/


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

watcher said:


> Who knows. Maybe Zimmerman told Martin he was going to call the cops and Martin knew or thought he dad would be upset? Maybe Zimmerman called him a bad name? Maybe Martin had an irrational fear of short, chubby white men?
> 
> The problem is there is zero evidence, as far as we know, to support the view that Zimmerman ever placed hands on Martin offensively.


And zero evidence that he didn't place hands on him. Just saying...... All we have to go be with the initial confrontation is Zimmerman's word. Of course he's not going to say something that will make him look guilty of any wrong doing.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

watcher said:


> You have never hung around with with a bad crowd. I've seen several people sucker punched *after they turn to walk away from a confrontation*.
> 
> I'm sure a few minutes on any of the video websites will give you several examples.


Yes, I've seen it happen AFTER a confrontation.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

TheMartianChick said:


> Zimmerman's wiife was just arrested for perjury. It is on a banner on the msn.com.
> 
> Shellie Zimmerman, wife of Trayvon Martin killer, arrested on perjury charge - U.S. News


It will interesting to read Dershowitz's reaction. For a liberal, he's been very adament about calling Corey out for misconduct.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> You asked me to watch it and I did. I don't recall a question.


Did you notice how Martin was shuffling around and seemed disoriented?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> They're conducting hearings in FL over the law.


Over a law which, as I understand it, doesn't apply. IMO, its just another attempt to pull back self protection laws by anti gun groups.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> And zero evidence that he didn't place hands on him. Just saying...... All we have to go be with the initial confrontation is Zimmerman's word. Of course he's not going to say something that will make him look guilty of any wrong doing.


Say all you want but w/o evidence it can't be brought into court. You can think and feel all you want but that means nothing in court. Any prosecutor who tried to bring up the view that Zimmerman tried to 'detain' Martian would get slapped by the judge in a heart beat.

As I have pointed out time and time again is the entire burden of proof is on the state. To get to trial the state has to prove there was a crime, the state must prove, with admissible evidence, that there is a good chance Zimmerman might have committed that crime. Once they get to trial they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Zimmerman did commit that crime. As I have pointed out to Nevada there is a VERY specific standard they must meet before he can be convicted of second degree murder. And they are going to have major problems meeting these standards with the evidence we know of.

Read the law and you see the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not shoot Martin in self defense. They also must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooting did not happen because of "upon any sudden and sufficient provocation". If there is reasonable doubt then they have not met their burden in proving a crime was committed. At that point Zimmerman walks.

They also have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman shot Martian because of "ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intentâ. If there is doubt of this the state has failed to met the burden of proof and again Zimmerman walks.

AAMOF, if they don't prove this when they rest their case the judge can rule the state has failed to meet its burden of proof and dismiss the case w/o it ever going to the jury. Its my opinion based on the evidence as we know it there is a very good chance of this happening because the state just doesn't have enough evidence to prove these thing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> We're taking* Zimmerman's word* for that.


Only if you* ignore* forensics and eyewitnesses


----------



## FreeRanger (Jul 20, 2005)

Darren said:


> Have you looked at the video of Martin in the 7-Eleven that night? *No, I have seen people of all types enter a 7-Eleven, didn't know you can profile a customer of a convience store? I guess I could/would if I was looking for trouble.* Are you aware of the home invasion and the burglaries in the gated community where Zimmerman lived? *Yes, again how did Zimmerman know it was a man with a hoodie doing the invasions and burglaries? He didn't know, chances are Zimmerman could have been the perp watching when people aren't home and then stealing from them.* I don't know about you, but if I see someone strange in this area, I talk to them. That lets them know I've seen them, if they're planning on doing something they shouldn't, then they know there's a witness that can ID them and if they're lost or looking for someone, I can help. * I see a young man walking around talking on a phone, I think to myself, that man wants privacy to have a talk with his girlfriend (or whoever). He's not going back "home" because he wants more time to "talk" with the other person on the phone. That's what goes thru my head...maybe because I am a parent?*
> It's basic human nature to protect yourself, your family and extend that protectiveness to your neighbors.
> 
> When Martin turned the corner into the commons area behind the townhouses, Zimmerman lost sight of him. If you check the layout, you can see why. Martin could have very easily made it to the place where he was staying. Instead it looks like Martin decided to confront Zimmerman to impress a young woman he was talking to on the phone. *No, it looks like I said, Martin wanted more time in private to talk with girlfriend, that's what it looks like to me, the parent.*
> ...


 *Say what? I read Zimmerman got out of truck AFTER being told not to follow.... your timeline doesn't match what I read.*

I only used *Bold* to make this readable....I can't respond to Pancho:shrug:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Now are you are making things up? Where have you read that Martin was running? Or that he had "gotten away?


Right here:
George Zimmerman's 911 call transcribed - National unsolved cases | Examiner.com

*



Heâs running. [2:08]

911 dispatcher:
Heâs running? Which way is he running?

Zimmerman:
Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood. [2:14]

911 dispatcher:
OK, which entrance is that heâs headed towards?

Zimmerman:
The back entrance.

Click to expand...





911 dispatcher:
OK, whatâs your apartment number?

Zimmerman:
Itâs a home. Itâs 1950 â oh, crap, I donât want to give it out â I donât know where this kid is [inaudible] [3:40]

Click to expand...

*If you'd research the FACTS instead of expending so much energy trying to argue with ME, you wouldn't look so ignorant



> But the jury is going to look at the event from the time Zimmerman *started following Martin, while Martin was in a public place (the store)*


You REALLY don't know *anything *about what happened that night, do you?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

FreeRanger said:


> *Say what? I read Zimmerman got out of truck AFTER being told not to follow.... your timeline doesn't match what I read.*
> 
> I only used *Bold* to make this readable....I can't respond to Pancho:shrug:


 
Then post your source, since it's obvously incorrect.
You've already SEEN the *call transcript* that proves you're wrong


----------



## FreeRanger (Jul 20, 2005)

watcher said:


> Say all you want but w/o evidence it can't be brought into court. You can think and feel all you want but that means nothing in court. Any prosecutor who tried to bring up the view that Zimmerman tried to 'detain' Martian would get slapped by the judge in a heart beat.
> 
> As I have pointed out time and time again is the entire burden of proof is on the state. To get to trial the state has to prove there was a crime, the state must prove, with admissible evidence, that there is a good chance Zimmerman might have committed that crime. Once they get to trial they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Zimmerman did commit that crime. As I have pointed out to Nevada there is a VERY specific standard they must meet before he can be convicted of second degree murder. And they are going to have major problems meeting these standards with the evidence we know of.
> 
> ...


I think you have it backwards...there is no proof/evidence that Martin committed a crime. Yes it appears there was a physically fight. As I have stated, if a man was stalking my son and then confronted him by grabbing his person in anyway, then by Zimmerman supporters logic, Martin was justified in selfdefense (and according to the Zimmerman supporters/logic, that self defense can be deadly, like pounding the stalkers head against the pavement or on the other side shooting a person). There is a dead person showing that Zimmerman killed a man, that is a crime. The Zimmerman needs to prove it was justified, the state doesn't need to prove anything, they have a dead man shot and confessed by Zimmerman.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

FreeRanger said:


> I think you have it backwards...there is no proof/evidence that Martin committed a crime. Yes it appears there was a physically fight. As I have stated, if a man was stalking my son and then confronted him by grabbing his person in anyway, then by Zimmerman supporters logic, Martin was justified in selfdefense (and according to the Zimmerman supporters/logic, that self defense can be deadly, like pounding the stalkers head against the pavement or on the other side shooting a person). There is a dead person showing that Zimmerman killed a man, that is a crime. The Zimmerman needs to prove it was justified, the state doesn't need to prove anything, they have a dead man shot and confessed by Zimmerman.


How do you know Zimmerman grabbed Martin?


----------



## FreeRanger (Jul 20, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Right here:
> George Zimmerman's 911 call transcribed - National unsolved cases | Examiner.com
> 
> *
> ...


Since when have statements by a killer have been considered good evidence? I said he was running away so I killed him... I said I was already heading back to my truck and then I killed him....hmmm...He looked ugly at the store, so I killed him.....he didn't bow down and kiss my feet so I killed him...

Zimmerman seems to have all the answers....worked out his story before finding his victim...sounds like premeditated murder to me, I go back the DA should have charged him with Murder 1 not 2.

Name calling are we now? Because my opinion doesn't match yours, I know NOTHING, yet you who started this thread saying YOU (and everyone else) knew nothing are now the expert at hand?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> Nevada's belief in an attempted abduction by Zimmerman is about as realistic as aliens abducting Earthlings because they have some weird anal fixation.


I DID NOT suggest that Zimmerman may have attempted to abduct Martin. That's a bald-faced lie that I'll thank you to refrain from repeating.


----------



## FreeRanger (Jul 20, 2005)

davel745 said:


> How do you know Zimmerman grabbed Martin?


I don't know, I have opinions just like everyone else that writes a comment here.


----------



## FreeRanger (Jul 20, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I DID NOT suggest that Zimmerman may have attempted to abduct Martin. That's a bald-faced lie that I'll thank you to refrain from repeating.


I am not afraid to say it. Zimmerman appears to me to be attempting to abduct Martin, There I said it....now tell me I am an ignorant fool again. Oh wait, the moderators say I am baiting you...can't write my opinions if they differ from the "acceptable" (whatever that is) opinion.

Actually, I said Zimmmerman was stalking people in the area, not abducting, but who knows for sure? Like I said, in my opinion, it appears Zimmerman was looking to burglrize the homes, watch when people come and go.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

Free Ranger how about we meet and you let me pound your head on the pavement? I guarantee it will only take two tries and you will be gone. That is the real question that needs to be asked was Zimmerman afraid for his life. The worst it can be is manslaughter. 

What I have learned from all this is I am not going to let anybody get near me. I will scream and shoot.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

FreeRanger said:


> *Say what? I read Zimmerman got out of truck AFTER being told not to follow.... your timeline doesn't match what I read.*
> 
> I only used *Bold* to make this readable....I can't respond to Pancho:shrug:


Nope. Never was told not to follow. He was told he didn't have to follow. Big difference.:nono:
His girlfriend has said that Martin had gone inside one of the buildings/homes. Martin's dad wasn't home, so rather than loiter around behind the Condos in the rain, he could have gone home, and put on some dry socks and visit on his cell phone all he wanted, if, as you claim, Martin wanted privacy.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

FreeRanger said:


> I am not afraid to say it. Zimmerman appears to me to be attempting to abduct Martin, There I said it....now tell me I am an ignorant fool again. Oh wait, the moderators say I am baiting you...can't write my opinions if they differ from the "acceptable" (whatever that is) opinion.
> 
> Actually, I said Zimmmerman was stalking people in the area, not abducting, but who knows for sure? Like I said, in my opinion, it appears Zimmerman was looking to burglrize the homes, watch when people come and go.


I suggested that Martin may have had legitimate fears of abduction, which is an unfortunate reality for blacks in the deep south.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

TheMartianChick said:


> Zimmerman's wiife was just arrested for perjury. It is on a banner on the msn.com.
> 
> Shellie Zimmerman, wife of Trayvon Martin killer, arrested on perjury charge - U.S. News


Did you see the judge's statement at the bottom of that article, which was taken from the bond revocation order?
_
"There are several factors that weigh against his release ... Most importantly, though, is the fact that he has now demonstrated that he does not properly respect the law or the integrity of the judicial process."_

Ouch!


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

FreeRanger said:


> *Say what? I read Zimmerman got out of truck AFTER being told not to follow.... your timeline doesn't match what I read.*
> 
> I only used *Bold* to make this readable....I can't respond to Pancho:shrug:


You still haven't read the evidence available. If you had it would have made several of your statements look foolish.
Some time people will be in a rush to post and not do any research on what they are posting about.
It sure would help you to become familiar with the facts before trying to argue what happened.

Nevada don't see some words. That makes it easier for people to understand his posts. They, many times, do not make much sense since he can't see some owrds. He does miss out on some of the facts.
I sure hope you aren't another Nevada.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I suggested that Martin may have had legitimate fears of abduction, which is an unfortunate reality for blacks in the deep south.


You still haven't explained why he would come back after getting away from his abductor.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

FreeRanger said:


> I think you have it backwards...there is no proof/evidence that Martin committed a crime. Yes it appears there was a physically fight. As I have stated, if a man was stalking my son and then confronted him by grabbing his person in anyway, then by Zimmerman supporters logic, Martin was justified in selfdefense (and according to the Zimmerman supporters/logic, that self defense can be deadly, like pounding the stalkers head against the pavement or on the other side shooting a person). There is a dead person showing that Zimmerman killed a man, that is a crime. The Zimmerman needs to prove it was justified, the state doesn't need to prove anything, they have a dead man shot and confessed by Zimmerman.


You sure don't have a very good understanding about laws or courts. Zimmerman does not have to prove a single thing. It is up to the people who filed the charge to prove it.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I DID NOT suggest that Zimmerman may have attempted to abduct Martin. That's a bald-faced lie that I'll thank you to refrain from repeating.


Look back through your posts. What have you been talking about?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> You still haven't explained why he would come back after getting away from his abductor.


I don't know that he did come back. We just don't know enough about the minutes leading up to the shooting to know for sure.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> Look back through your posts. What have you been talking about?


What I said was that Martin may have had legitimate fears of being abducted.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> What I said was that Martin may have had legitimate fears of being abducted.


Take a good look at Martin then take a good look at Zimmerman.
Do you actually think something like that even crossed Martin's mind?
Don't know about you but I don't worry about someone older, smaller, and weaker abducting me.

After watching the video of Martin in the store I would have to say there probably wasn't much on his mind. Looked a little crispy to me.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> Do you actually think something like that even crossed Martin's mind?
> Don't know about you but I don't worry about someone older, smaller, and weaker abducting me.


A black man in the deep south is ALWAYS going to have concerns about being abducted. He would have to be a fool not to have it cross his mind. That's why the girlfriend was encouraging him to run, since that was no doubt on her mind too.

Maybe you should spend an evening watching the film Mississippi Burning. Check out this trailer, you'll get the idea.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmAqrMtB-Qg[/ame]


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> A black man in the deep south is ALWAYS going to have concerns about being abducted. He would have to be a fool not to have it cross his mind. That's why the girlfriend was encouraging him to run, since that was no doubt on her mind too.
> 
> Maybe you should spend an evening watching the film Mississippi Burning. Check out this trailer, you'll get the idea.
> 
> Mississippi Burning - YouTube


I live in Mississippi.
You have been reading too many stories.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> I live in Mississippi.
> You have been reading too many stories.


Don't give me that nonsense. I lived in Florida, just one town north of Sanford. I saw what went on the the deep south with my own eyes all the way back to the 1950s, riding back & forth from Florida to Ohio.

Of course things have improved over the decades, but not to the point where a young black man in central Florida can stop looking over his shoulder while walking at night.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Don't give me that nonsense. I lived in Florida, just one town north of Sanford. I saw what went on the the deep south with my own eyes all the way back to the 1950s, riding back & forth from Florida to Ohio.
> 
> Of course things have improved over the decades, but not to the point where a young black man in central Florida can stop looking over his shoulder while walking at night.


You do realize when this incident happened?
You are talking about over 60 years ago.
Now young black men look at a white person like a cat looks at a mouse. 
Do you think you would be safe enough from young black men to walk down a street in Jackson Ms. after dark?
Over half of the city the police will not even go to and they are armed in cars.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

To think that the emotions of Martin in some small way mirror those of the young black mem of the south 50 years ago is insane. When I was growing up, I saw the stark contrast in additude between the northern urban black youth and that of the black youth of the rural south. Do in large measure to the Civil Rights Movement, those fears have subsided. Sadly the violent, lawless ways of the urban young black men have filled in replacing the respect for the law and the fear of whites once common in rural pockets of the south.
The Black Community is still mad, even though none were slaves and the white that are alive today didn't profit from slavery. Yet, unlike all other races that have found themselves in this great land, many Blacks continue to play the race card. If slavery was so profitable, MS, AL, Georgia would be wealthy states and NY, PA, OH, IN, MI, IL, WI would be poor.
That sething anger, just below the boiling point exists. Most whites don't see it. Blacks kill blacks every day. Senseless violence. Silence. But any chance that a white might have shot a black person. Get the rope, we're stringing this one up right now!

Since you had a video clip suggestion, I'd like you to watch this:

Reparations Hilarious Humorous Funny Video


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haypoint said:


> To think that the emotions of Martin in some small way mirror those of the young black mem of the south 50 years ago is insane.http://rulesdontapply.com/reparations.htm


You would have thought so, but then the local papers started referring to the shooter as "Zimmerman", his surname, while referring to the victim as Trayvon, his first name. That removed all doubt.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

FreeRanger said:


> I think you have it backwards...there is no proof/evidence that Martin committed a crime. Yes it appears there was a physically fight. As I have stated, if a man was stalking my son and then confronted him by grabbing his person in anyway, then by Zimmerman supporters logic, Martin was justified in selfdefense (and according to the Zimmerman supporters/logic, that self defense can be deadly, like pounding the stalkers head against the pavement or on the other side shooting a person). There is a dead person showing that Zimmerman killed a man, that is a crime. The Zimmerman needs to prove it was justified, the state doesn't need to prove anything, they have a dead man shot and confessed by Zimmerman.


Its clear you have no idea how things work. You really need to do some research on the American judicial system and what the FL law says about second degree murder. After you do get back to me.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I suggested that Martin may have had legitimate fears of abduction, which is an unfortunate reality for blacks in the deep south.


Really? I have never met a black man who is afraid of being abducted since the late 70s. Many of them are afraid of being shot but they are afraid of being shot by other blacks not whites.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Did you see the judge's statement at the bottom of that article, which was taken from the bond revocation order?
> _
> "There are several factors that weigh against his release ... Most importantly, though, is the fact that he has now demonstrated that he does not properly respect the law or the integrity of the judicial process."_
> 
> Ouch!


Hum. . .I didn't know bail was to give a person a proper respect for the law. I thought it was to assure that the defendant would appear at the proper place and at the proper time for the trial. That means the only reason for not setting a reasonable bail was if the defendant was a flight risk or a possible danger.

Sounds to me like the judge is abusing his power.


----------



## FreeRanger (Jul 20, 2005)

davel745 said:


> Free Ranger how about we meet and you let me pound your head on the pavement? I guarantee it will only take two tries and you will be gone. That is the real question that needs to be asked was Zimmerman afraid for his life. The worst it can be is manslaughter.
> 
> What I have learned from all this is I am not going to let anybody get near me. I will scream and shoot.


Now you are threatening me? Don't like to hear the other side of picture?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> A black man in the deep south is ALWAYS going to have concerns about being abducted. He would have to be a fool not to have it cross his mind. That's why the girlfriend was encouraging him to run, since that was no doubt on her mind too.
> 
> Maybe you should spend an evening watching the film Mississippi Burning. Check out this trailer, you'll get the idea.
> 
> Mississippi Burning - YouTube


Dude, are you trying to tell us you haven't lived in the south since the 60s? That's the only way you'd think this way. I'm willing to bet if you questioned 100 black men in the south you wouldn't find 5 who say they are afraid of being abducted.


----------



## FreeRanger (Jul 20, 2005)

pancho said:


> Take a good look at Martin then take a good look at Zimmerman.
> Do you actually think something like that even crossed Martin's mind?
> Don't know about you but I don't worry about someone older, smaller, and weaker abducting me.
> 
> After watching the video of Martin in the store I would have to say there probably wasn't much on his mind. Looked a little crispy to me.


So now you are a mind reader?


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

Some black people fear a lot of things relating to interactions with whites. From my own personal interactions with relatives:

While we were vacationing in Florida in the late 1990's - early 2000's, relatives (Florida natives) on both sides of the family warned us to be careful when driving through the touristy areas (Treasure Island & Delray Beach). They seemed to think that we would be hassled by the police and beaten or killed by white cops. We thought that they were being paranoid. In all of the years that we've vacationed in Florida we've never had a problem.

While traveling to North Carolina for a funeral we stopped for gas at 1 or 2 in the morning in West Virginia. We were traveling in two cars. The first gas station was closed, so we decided to stretch our legs for a moment and grab bottled water from the cooler in the trunk. We had to leave when our older relatives (late 70's & early 80's) became frightened that we would be hassled or beaten by white cops or the KKK or something. We were afraid that the old folks would have heart attacks or something, so we left. We found an open gas station topped off the tanks, used the restrooms and bought a few snacks...The worker in the 24 hour gas station called the cops on us. We were all neatly dressed and three members of our party were 60 years of age or older.

Many times, the fears are steeped in ancient history. Other times, there are modern reminders that let us know that times haven't changed as much as we might think.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Dude, are you trying to tell us you haven't lived in the south since the 60s?


Actually, I lived in Florida for a time during the 1990s.

Where do you think all the racists in the south went?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You would have thought so, but then the local papers started referring to the shooter as "Zimmerman", his surname, while referring to the victim as Trayvon, his first name. That removed all doubt.


LOL

That's just media hype to personalize the "victim" and dehumanize the "evil white guy", and you are falling for it, and even promoting it


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by *FreeRanger*
> _I think you have it backwards...there is no proof/evidence that Martin committed a crime. Yes it appears there was a physically fight. As I have stated,* if a man was stalking my son and then confronted him by grabbing his person* in anyway, then by Zimmerman supporters logic, Martin was justified in selfdefense (and according to the Zimmerman supporters/logic, that self defense can be deadly, like pounding the stalkers head against the pavement or on the other side shooting a person). There is a dead person showing that Zimmerman killed a man, that is a crime. The *Zimmerman needs to prove it was justified, the state doesn't need to prove anything,* they have a dead man shot and confessed by Zimmerman._


All you have is *fantasies*, and it's obvious you really know nothing about the incident, or how the Criminal Justice system works.

Why not quit now rather than continue to show it?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

FreeRanger said:


> Since when have statements by a killer have been considered good evidence? I said he was running away so I killed him... I said I was already heading back to my truck and then I killed him....hmmm...He looked ugly at the store, so I killed him.....he didn't bow down and kiss my feet so I killed him...
> 
> Zimmerman seems to have all the answers....worked out his story before finding his victim...sounds like premeditated murder to me, I go back the DA should have charged him with Murder 1 not 2.
> 
> *Name calling are we now?* Because my opinion doesn't match yours, I know NOTHING, yet you who started this thread saying YOU (and everyone else) knew nothing are now the expert at hand?


Saying you are "ignorant" isn't "name calling"

It's just *the truth*, and you prove it more with every post
Why not* READ* the facts of the case and cure that problem?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I DID NOT suggest that Zimmerman may have attempted to abduct Martin. That's a bald-faced lie that I'll thank you to refrain from repeating.


 
LMAO

You most certainly IMPLIED he did, and wove a whole history around it, and even posted movie links

Is this similar to your Star Trek theories?

(Or was it Star Wars?)

Either way, it's pretty spaced out


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I wish, I wish. I wish I could see it the other way.
Martin, goes out in the rain to buy Skittles, just to be nice to his brother. Growing so fast and only 17, he shuffles around the store, not yet regained his coordination, not paying attention to anything, except that Algebra test next Monday. That gives him a blank stare. He pays for his Skittles and Ice Tea and thanks the Clerk.
The rain is cold, but with his hood up, he thinks to himself, &#8220; I&#8217;m so thankful my dad bought me this cool hoody two sizes too big, it keeps all the rain off me. Facing the long wide well lit sidewalks of the Gated Community, sends chills up his back. He&#8217;s heard the stories around school how 6 foot 4 young Black children are abducted and either traded into slavery in remote reaches of Mississippi or forced to drink Malt Liquor until every bit of ambition is drained from them. So, he is forced to sneak home in the back yards of this racially integrated complex.
He calls his fiancÃ©e on his cell phone. But then he sees a truck pull up. It is an orange Chevy Lowrider, with a Confederate Flag back window decal. A suspicious looking white guy steps out and begins walking towards him. He whispers to his girlfriend, she replies, &#8220;Run, Martin, Run!&#8221; Martin hears the stalker say, &#8220;He looks Black.&#8221; 
As Martin rounds the corner of the building, there he is, a White guy with a crazed look in his eyes. Martin too afraid to speak, nearly drops his Skittles. Zimmerman barks, &#8220;Boy, you got a purdy mouth.&#8221; Having watched Deliverance in his Diversity Class in 6th grade, Martin knew he was in for the fight of his life, stuttered, &#8220; Wha,wha, what are you going do to me, sir?&#8221; Zimmerman replied, &#8220;I&#8217;m going to rape you and then drag you through downtown Sanford. I was jes&#8217; callin&#8217; the cops and they&#8217;ll be cheering me as I drive by the Station, later they&#8217;ll be buying me a beer. Give me what you got in your pocket.&#8221; Martin, nervously grabbed the ice tea and quickly held it out to Zimmerman. But Martin had forgotten that his arms had grown 6 inches since last summer and accidently caught Zimmerman under the nose, knocking him back onto the sidewalk. As Martin stepped forward to help Zimmerman get up, Zimmerman shot Martin like a dog in the street. Unconfirmed reports say that they heard shots come from a book repository across the way.
Abraham, Martin, John and now Trayvon.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

haypoint said:


> I wish, I wish. I wish I could see it the other way.
> Martin, goes out in the rain to buy Skittles, just to be nice to his brother. Growing so fast and only 17, he shuffles around the store, not yet regained his coordination, not paying attention to anything, except that Algebra test next Monday. That gives him a blank stare. He pays for his Skittles and Ice Tea and thanks the Clerk.
> The rain is cold, but with his hood up, he thinks to himself, â Iâm so thankful my dad bought me this cool hoody two sizes too big, it keeps all the rain off me. Facing the long wide well lit sidewalks of the Gated Community, sends chills up his back. Heâs heard the stories around school how 6 foot 4 young Black children are abducted and either traded into slavery in remote reaches of Mississippi or forced to drink Malt Liquor until every bit of ambition is drained from them. So, he is forced to sneak home in the back yards of this racially integrated complex.
> He calls his fiancÃ©e on his cell phone. But then he sees a truck pull up. It is an orange Chevy Lowrider, with a Confederate Flag back window decal. A suspicious looking white guy steps out and begins walking towards him. He whispers to his girlfriend, she replies, âRun, Martin, Run!â Martin hears the stalker say, âHe looks Black.â
> ...


Please delete this before Nevada sees it.
He already has today mixed up with 1950.
He will have websites along with movies confirming the story.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> 
> That's just media hype to personalize the "victim" and dehumanize the "evil white guy", and you are falling for it, and even promoting it


You're 100% correct about the dehumanization of Zimmerman. Not exactly a Hispanic name is it? You can bet your donkey the media thought they had a home run with a white guy named Zimmerman murdering a preadolescent Black kid. Unfortunately Zimmerman turned out to be technicolor with white, Hispanic and Black in his genealogy. Whoops!

The media not only publicly shot themselves in the foot, they cut their leg off with a chainsaw.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

TheMartianChick said:


> Some black people fear a lot of things relating to interactions with whites. From my own personal interactions with relatives:
> 
> While we were vacationing in Florida in the late 1990's - early 2000's, relatives (Florida natives) on both sides of the family warned us to be careful when driving through the touristy areas (Treasure Island & Delray Beach). They seemed to think that we would be hassled by the police and beaten or killed by white cops. We thought that they were being paranoid. In all of the years that we've vacationed in Florida we've never had a problem.
> 
> ...


I have no doubt that happened. There are places in WV, I won't go. Rest assured that the locals only kill other locals. Usually it's because of a woman, a family argument or the usual bar confrontation. Those incidents are referred to in the news as the WV gun and knife club. WV is so backward we don't have serial killers, mass shootings in schools and only rarely what passes for a driveby shooting.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> We're taking Zimmerman's word for that.


No. We're taking the report's word for it: Beaten head, broken nose, bruises. AND abraisions on Martian's knuckles, none on Zimm's. Even IF M was afraid of 'abduction' there's NO RIGHT to beat someone after they're down.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

pancho said:


> You do realize when this incident happened?
> You are talking about over 60 years ago.
> Now young black men look at a white person like a cat looks at a mouse.
> Do you think you would be safe enough from young black men to walk down a street in Jackson Ms. after dark?
> Over half of the city the police will not even go to and they are armed in cars.


I don't live in MS but I'm fairly sure...from trying to find black abductions by whites...that the fear may be just the opposite! Perhaps someone 70 yrs old may remember & fear but now days??? Too many youths fear nothin'.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You would have thought so, but then the local papers started referring to the shooter as "Zimmerman", his surname, while referring to the victim as Trayvon, his first name. That removed all doubt.


And you cannot see that this was an attempt by the lamestream media to show the country that a MAN had murdered a BOY!?!? 

This was indeed another 'slip' like NBC editing the 911 tape, which they should've been severely punished for doing. 
Instead many have no idea they did anything.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

TheMartianChick said:


> Some black people fear a lot of things relating to interactions with whites. From my own personal interactions with relatives:
> 
> While we were vacationing in Florida in the late 1990's - early 2000's, relatives (Florida natives) on both sides of the family warned us to be careful when driving through the touristy areas (Treasure Island & Delray Beach). They seemed to think that we would be hassled by the police and beaten or killed by white cops. We thought that they were being paranoid. In all of the years that we've vacationed in Florida we've never had a problem.
> 
> ...


I know you are telling it like it is. I've seen bigotry everywhere.
However, you're speaking of the OLDER relatives...they know what USED TO BE & lots of horrific stuff that happened...may still happen. Have to challenge you to find young black youths who are afraid to streatch their legs in public...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Darren said:


> You're 100% correct about the dehumanization of Zimmerman. Not exactly a Hispanic name is it? You can bet your donkey the media thought they had a home run with a white guy named Zimmerman murdering a preadolescent Black kid. Unfortunately Zimmerman turned out to be technicolor with white, Hispanic and Black in his genealogy. Whoops!
> 
> The media not only publicly shot themselves in the foot, they cut their leg off with a chainsaw.


And w/name of Zimmerman, they prolly thought he was jewish...double whammy!


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

TheMartianChick said:


> Some black people fear a lot of things relating to interactions with whites. From my own personal interactions with relatives:
> 
> While we were vacationing in Florida in the late 1990's - early 2000's, relatives (Florida natives) on both sides of the family warned us to be careful when driving through the touristy areas (Treasure Island & Delray Beach). They seemed to think that we would be hassled by the police and beaten or killed by white cops. We thought that they were being paranoid. In all of the years that we've vacationed in Florida we've never had a problem.
> 
> ...


I believe you. But I have had situations that because I am White, I see it differently than a Black person might. 
We donât know anything about that Gas Station, that community or the Attendant. If I would have been there with a group of my family, two car loads, and the Attendant called the cops, I would have thought that this big group in the middle of the night was alarming to the Atendant. Race wouldnât have crossed my mind.
I worked at a prison in the 70s. One day, I was talking to one of the guards that hired in when I did. He mentioned how much harder it was for him because the Supervisors didnât like him because he was black. Iâd had very little contact from my Supervisors, so was surprised he felt that way. In our conversation he explained that they wanted him to fail, so didnât give him instructions that had enough details to do a good job. I had experienced the same thing, but assumed that they were busy and expected me to figure it out on my own. 
Then he said it was harder for him, being black, than it was for me to get a job at a prison. That really got me interested. Iâd seen the big push for Affirmative Action put me at the bottom of hiring lists at General Motors and other big employers. I knew that my Civil Service test scores had to be high to just get an interview, whereas minorities just needed to be above the âfailâ level to get interviewed. He assumed that I knew other prison employees and they had helped guide me to this job. I was part of the âGood Ol Boyâs Clubâ in his mind. We talked about this for a while. Seems that he expected difficulties due to racism and every setback was steeped in racism. If he bought a car that was a lemon, they took advantage of him because he was black. If they forgot to put napkins in his Big Mac Meal, it was because they hated Blacks. He saw racism everywhere. At work, because he expected the White guards didnât like him, he never made any friends. Staff ignored him. He saw that as racism, too. If someone held the door for him, he figured they did it to be nice to his face. If they didnât hold the door for him, he thought them rude because he was black.
Iâve talked to many Black people that believe that Whites, today, have more money than Blacks because of the wealth of our Slave-owning ancestors. That is the basis of Reparations. Being born poor and having worked for everything I have, being put at the end of the line for jobs due to Affirmative Action, I canât see that logic. Affirmative Action is right. We needed to un-do past inequities. Just all the catching up came while I was trying to earn a living. 
But, if you learn that people hate you because you are black, it becomes the way you see the world. There are far too many instances of racism. But in my experiences, expected racism, where none exists, is a greater problem. It keeps racial tensions hot, near the boiling point. Then, when a real injustice crops up, instead of increased tensions, it pushes things over the boiling point. 
After a lifetime of retelling myths and folklore about the White Devil going to murder Black children, Zimmerman was thought to be the thread of truth that all the other fictional accounts could hang from.
By the way, know what the most popular religion in prisons was in the â70s, â80s and â90s? Hint: They read the Koran. Why? Because they hate Jews and White Americans. After 9-11, they have quieted down a bit as has Louis Farhacon.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> And you cannot see that this was an attempt by the lamestream media to show the country that a MAN had murdered a BOY!?!?


It's an age-old racial tactic to keep blacks in "their place." The tactic was spotlighted in the film _Heat of the Night_ during the "They call me Mr. Tibbs" exchange.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada, it might be a good idea to stop watching so many old movies and look at what is happening in the world outside of your house.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Let's cut with the urban myths and abduction excuses. Here is a slice of reality that you can chew on for a bit. Study it and then talk to me about Whites putting Blacks in their place. That's MLK propiganda talk.

Detroit, MI Crime Map - Showing Crimes in Detroit - Crime Statistics, Alerts and Reports - Crime Stops Here


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> Nevada, it might be a good idea to stop watching so many old movies and look at what is happening in the world outside of your house.


We don't have that problem around here. Las Vegas has good & bad neighborhoods, but they are economic divides instead of racial or ethnic. Anyone of any race can live anywhere he wants in Las Vegas.

Quite frankly, that was one of the reasons I moved west. The kind of racism I observed back east doesn't exist in the west. There are still bigoted people in the west, but their bigotry ends with ethnic jokes in private. It's not nearly so open as it is back east, and in the south in particular.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> We don't have that problem around here. Las Vegas has good & bad neighborhoods, but they are economic divides instead of racial or ethnic. Anyone of any race can live anywhere he wants in Las Vegas.
> 
> Quite frankly, that was one of the reasons I moved west. The kind of racism I observed back east doesn't exist in the west. There are still bigoted people in the west, but their bigotry ends with ethnic jokes in private. It's not nearly so open as it is back east, and in the south in particular.


If you get a chance to get away from comparing apples to oranges, see if you can back up your claims. If crimes are "segragated" by incomes not ethnics, see if you can get the stats from your own police department on who is commiting the violent crimes in Las Vegas. I wonder if violent crimes committed by black men between 17 and 23 years of age is off the chart there as it is nearly everywhere else? The Black population in Las Vegas is what percentage?

Are your policemen arresting higher numbers of young black men because they commit violent crimes or are they just racist and picking on this downtrodden minority?

May come as a suprise to you, but I've lived "back east" my whole life, yet never attended a lynching. Come to think of it I never met anyone that did, either. Not even a cross burning.

There have been a few churches catch fire in Michigan. Mostly from lightening or bad wiring. Never heard of one getting torched due to the color of the congregation.

I believe what you thought you saw back east and what you think you see in Las Vegas is based on what you want to believe.

Las Vegas, NV Crime Map - Showing Crimes in Las Vegas - Crime Statistics, Alerts and Reports - Crime Stops Here


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It's an age-old racial tactic to keep blacks in "their place." The tactic was spotlighted in the film _Heat of the Night_ during the "They call me Mr. Tibbs" exchange.


And that is a current movie? Have you heard about Brown vs KS board of EDU? Bet that had a role here...
If you'll remember correctly, the black community that was outraged over this incident spoke of "Trayvon" all the time. NO last name. And talked of Zimmerman. NO 1st name.
None so blind as those who will not see...


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

haypoint said:


> There have been a few churches catch fire in Michigan. Mostly from lightening or bad wiring. Never heard of one getting torched due to the color of the congregation.
> 
> 
> 
> Las Vegas, NV Crime Map - Showing Crimes in Las Vegas - Crime Statistics, Alerts and Reports - Crime Stops Here


A while back there were several churches burned around here. All were black churches. When they caught the people who were burning them, black men.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

haypoint said:


> I believe you. But I have had situations that because I am White, I see it differently than a Black person might.
> We don&#8217;t know anything about that Gas Station, that community or the Attendant. If I would have been there with a group of my family, two car loads, and the Attendant called the cops, I would have thought that this big group in the middle of the night was alarming to the Atendant. Race wouldn&#8217;t have crossed my mind.
> 
> *I suppose that I might have considered that it was the size of our group that was alarming if I felt that 8 or 9 folks showing up in two vehicles to get gas at the same time was something unusual. Since the gas station was right off the main highway and the station was open 24 hours per day, I'd imagine that they get quite a bit of business from travelers during the night time/early morning hours. Three of the folks were elderly and I was the youngest at around 37 or 38.*
> ...


My answers are in bold above.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

TheMartianChick wrote:
That is true of some white people. Clearly, it isn't true of all of them. I'm quite envious of folks that can trace their families back for many generations or who have been able to pass a piece of property down from generation to generation. Unless you were a free man of color, blacks weren't allowed to bequeath anything to their heirs because slaves weren't allowed to own property. It was also illegal to teach them to read. When slavery was finally outlawed, slaves weren't able to earn the same wages that were paid to white people. They were free, but were forced to earn disproportionate wages. While many white people didn't have money or an education, they were free (by law) to earn both for a whole lot longer than blacks were.

*I guess I&#8217;m lucky because my Grandma was able to trace our branch of the family back to Plymouth Rock. But that information and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee. I&#8217;d be envious of anyone that can pass property from generation to generation. But I don&#8217;t know anyone that did. My grandparents and their brothers and sisters weren&#8217;t allowed to bequeath any property either. Long after slavery was abolished, Share Croppers worked from season to season on the lands of the rich, rarely getting more than a few dollars ahead. They lived in housing not so different from the dirt floor shacks commonly used as housing the southern black slaves.
Wage disparity is common worldwide. Every ethnic group that came to this country faced it. Most eventually overcame it through hard work. Michigan was the first state to offer free education to everyone, even Indians way back in the 1880s. Did you miss out on an educational experience because you are black?*

I don't know a whole lot about prison guard jobs, so I cannpt comment on the hiring process.

*Oh, come on. There&#8217;s nothing unique about the hiring process. It is a State job. What went on in the late 1960 and just now leveling out is known to anyone, of any color, that held a job during those racial adjustments. Minorities, mostly Blacks and Women, had been deprived of equal opportunity for many jobs. To get the employment levels to more closely match the general population, minorities were hired at a brisk rate. Affirmative Action not only sharply increased minority&#8217;s employment; it also enhanced their rapid promotion within those jobs. *

I wasn't raised on myths and folklore. I was raised on the history of Emmit Till and Medgar Evers. I was raised to respect the sacrifices of three Mississippi Civil Rights workers that were killed while fighting for equality. I was raised knowoing that I live in country that opts not to include much of the history of people of various hues because it is deemed to be unimportant or because it casts a negative light on the accounts that were previously included in history books. I was raised to seek the truth and be open minded about the people that I encounter in my daily endeavors. Not everybody was raised in the same way.

*I did a book report on George Washington Carver in the early 1960, and that book had been around awhile, along with other black scholars, scientists and inventors, so you must be talking about way back before you and I were born. You aren&#8217;t perpetrating a myth are you?
I wasn&#8217;t taught that Japan attacked China to start WWII and that Australia was attacked just like Pearl Harbor. Lots of gaps in both of our history lessons. Know about Walter Reuther? Our country is full of brave men who suffered to make this country a more fair place to live. It took too long for Civil Rights. But my point is that I didn&#8217;t benefit one dime from those past inequalities. I doubt that you lost a dime from them either. But for many people of color, there is that undercurrent of resentment and feelings of percussion that perpetuates racial divisiveness. Conversely, there are too many White people that see that the majority of violent crimes are committed by Blacks and therefore see all Blacks as criminals.*

They have quieted down because they feel that they are being targeted due to the actions of a few terrorists. One thing that all of those Muslims that you cited have in common is that they are American citizens and they have the right to practice their religion without fear of retribution. While Louis Farrakhan has made many anti-semitic comments and anti-white comments, he does not speak for nor represent all muslims in America. Farrakhan followers are from the sect known as the Nation of Islam (and yes, many of his teachings are racist!) Many of the Bosnians that relocated to the US are white and Muslim. They don't hate whites and race is not a basis of the Muslim religion. All people that identify themselves as Christians do not share the exact same set of beliefs and it is unfair to lump them all together. While I know that Mormons and Baptists identify themselves as Christians, there are distinct differences between the two groups.
*I have walked among groups of Black Muslims, Nation of Islam and Moorish Scientist Temple of America. I can recite portions of their scripture and I know that I&#8217;m described as the Blue eyed devil. Farrakhan preaches hatred of Whites, just as Jeremiah Wright spews his racist messages.
There are racist white people. There are plenty more White people that are racist and don&#8217;t realize it. It shows up in subtle ways. But there is no denying that there are plenty of Black people that dislike whites over things those people had no influence.*


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

haypoint said:


> I guess I&#8217;m lucky because my Grandma was able to trace our branch of the family back to Plymouth Rock. But that information and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee. I&#8217;d be envious of anyone that can pass property from generation to generation. But I don&#8217;t know anyone that did. My grandparents and their brothers and sisters weren&#8217;t allowed to bequeath any property either. Long after slavery was abolished, Share Croppers worked from season to season on the lands of the rich, rarely getting more than a few dollars ahead. They lived in housing not so different from the dirt floor shacks commonly used as housing the southern black slaves.
> Wage disparity is common worldwide. Every ethnic group that came to this country faced it. Most eventually overcame it through hard work. Michigan was the first state to offer free education to everyone, even Indians way back in the 1880s. Did you miss out on an educational experience because you are black?
> 
> * I know a lot of people that were able to pass possessions/property down from generation to generation, but they are mostly white. I remember learning a bit about the history of my parents' home. Different portions of the house were added on by the descendants of the original family as they gained more wealth. It was once a large dairy farm. Much of the land was acquired by the family between 1780 (approx) and 1890 or so. Then the farm was passed down from generation to generation. Being able to inherit property that was unencumbered makes it easier to focus your efforts on growing the family's wealth. It doesn't mean that the family ever got rich...just that they had opportunities to shuck off the shackles of poverty. The shackles of slavery didn't shuck so easily!*
> ...


My response is in bold..


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> Nevada, it might be a good idea to stop watching so many old movies and look at what is happening in the world outside of your house.


I suppose Heat of the Night is an old film, but I was in high school when it was released. I was nearly 40 years-old when Mississippi Burning came out. Heck, I think of an old movie as being like a Humphrey Bogart film.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

TheMartianChick said:


> My response is in bold..


While I realize we are getting a long ways off the original topic, I feel your well thought out comments deserved a reply. I find it interesting that you know of many White people that have passed property down though generations and I donât know any. The closest thing I know is a few farmers SOLD their farms to one of their children, so they could live in a trailer park in Florida. Perhaps you could read up on sharecroppers, dirty thirtys, depression, hobos and tenent farming? Of Mice and Men would entertain, too.

I know lots of White people with Degrees and never got the chance to work at that occupation. Many have had their high aspirations and intellect and educations go unrecognized. Clearly not a Black-White issue. Might have been in the 1950s and before, but thatâs nearly a lifetime ago. At the prison, there were guards with Degrees in Chemistry, Teaching, Business Administration, Accounting and Theology. 

Interesting that you are aware of the termâ Triangular Tradeâ. Iâve never heard of it before. Iâve only heard the name, âPickaninnyâ used once. Jessie Jackson was making the claim about white racists. New to me.

When I walked among the members of those Black versions of Muslim, I feared for my life. This was inside a prison. They promoted hatred of Whites. You might think about listening to Louis again, but heâs off my interesting persons list until he gives up that spaceship nonsense.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Walk a mile in their moccasins....


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Walk a mile in their moccasins....


Very good advice. Sometimes we can then see how difficult their journey. But others need to walk a mile in our shoes, too. One cannot look back in history and see Blacks as slaves and Whites as slave owners. That's just not factual.One cannot lament about the living conditions of many slaves in the south, 150 years ago, without recognizing the similarity to the shacks of the white farmers in the north.
It is counterproductive to imagine that you or your family failed to reach their full potential because of their skin color, during a time when most White people were similarily struggling.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Many times when people talk about slaves they think about black people.
Other people have been slaves also.

I have relatives from both sides. Two of my great great grand mothers were born on a plantation. One was the plantation owners daughter and the other was a slave. The slave was Cherokee.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

pancho said:


> Many times when people talk about slaves they think about black people.
> Other people have been slaves also.
> 
> I have relatives from both sides. Two of my great great grand mothers were born on a plantation. One was the plantation owners daughter and the other was a slave. The slave was Cherokee.


The Irish were also enslaved.

"The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Irelandâs population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britainâs solution was to auction them off as well."

The Irish Slave Trade &#8211; The Forgotten &#8220;White&#8221; Slaves &#8211; Rasta Livewire


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Darren said:


> The Irish were also enslaved.
> 
> "The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.
> 
> ...


My father's side of the family is Irish. My great grand father was a very well known bank robber. He faked his death and changed his name.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I heard that telling a Black person that there have been more white slaves than black ones is like telling a Jewish person that more Christians were killed in WWII than Jews.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Slaves were regarded as valuable property. Jews were regarded as garbage. There's no comparison.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

Darren said:


> Slaves were regarded as valuable property. Jews were regarded as garbage. There's no comparison.


While the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court upheld the belief that slaves were property, most slaves were treated as garbage while enslaved. Once freed, they were still treated as garbage...They just weren't property anymore.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

haypoint said:


> I heard that telling a Black person that there have been more white slaves than black ones is like telling a Jewish person that more Christians were killed in WWII than Jews.


I suppose that this could be true... I am reminded of when my husband and I both come home from work complaining of how tired we are from our day. We seem to be trying to outdo the other with the particulars of how stressful/tiring/difficult the hours spent at work were. We each have our own perspective on how hard it was and yet neither of us is capable of walking in eachother's shoes because we have different skillsets.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

TheMartianChick said:


> While the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court upheld the belief that slaves were property, most slaves were treated as garbage while enslaved. Once freed, they were still treated as garbage...They just weren't property anymore.


You might want to do a bit of research. Slaves were expensive and valuable and therefore treated as such. Would you go out and spend $30,000 (what a field slave would cost in 1861 in today's dollars) on a piece of equipment for your business then treat it like garbage?

If you check you'll find that most dangerous work was NOT done by slaves but by hired workers. If you had your slave do it and he was hurt or killed it could cost you $30,000. If the hired man was killed or injured it cost you nothing but the pay for the partial day he worked before he was killed or injured.

Were there owners who did treat their slaves like garbage? Sure, just like today there are people who treat $500,000 cars like garbage. But in both cases they not the norm.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

My great grand mother used to tell me stories when she was a small child on a plantation. As soon as she could walk she learned how to use a gun and carried one. That was just about the time she learned to walk. According to her a slave would kill a young white child if they could catch it alone.
She carried a gun 24 hours a day as long as she lived. Sometimes it might be a small derringer and the next day a large 45.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> You might want to do a bit of research. Slaves were expensive and valuable and therefore treated as such. Would you go out and spend $30,000 (what a field slave would cost in 1861 in today's dollars) on a piece of equipment for your business then treat it like garbage?


It depends on the owner. I agree that it would be unfair to say that all slave owners mistreated their slaves, but you would be mistaken to suggest that it didn't occur. While the book Uncle Tom's Cabin was certainly propaganda, there were still elements of truth throughout the book.

When a slave became a problem, such as being unproductive, acting insubordinate, or was a runaway risk, he might be "sold down the river." That meant that he was sold to a slave owner who accepted problem slaves, most often associated with plantations in the deepest part of the south (i.e., down the river). Those plantations often restrained slaves with chains, used whips, and used whatever means were necessary to keep and motivate the slaves.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It depends on the owner. I agree that it would be unfair to say that all slave owners mistreated their slaves, but you would be mistaken to suggest that it didn't occur.


It would be unfair to say even a fair percentage of slave owners mistreated their slaves.




Nevada said:


> While the book Uncle Tom's Cabin was certainly propaganda, there were still elements of truth throughout the book.


There's a elements of truth in almost any propaganda, that's what makes it work. But in most cases there are very few of those elements.




Nevada said:


> When a slave became a problem, such as being unproductive, acting insubordinate, or was a runaway risk, he might be "sold down the river." That meant that he was sold to a slave owner who accepted problem slaves, most often associated with plantations in the deepest part of the south (i.e., down the river). Those plantations often restrained slaves with chains, used whips, and used whatever means were necessary to keep and motivate the slaves.


As I said in my orig reply "Were there owners who did treat their slaves like garbage? Sure, just like today there are people who treat $500,000 cars like garbage. But in both cases they not the norm. "

Think about it. How much work can a chained slave do? How much work can a slave that has been beaten do?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by *Nevada*
> _While the book Uncle Tom's Cabin....... _


Have you noticed ALL your arguments now are based on FICTION?

But then, I guess that's really nothing new.
You're just running out of your OWN fiction


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

I can't speak to the issue of slavery, but anyone that thinks racism no longer exists towards blacks doesn't know what they're talking about. I see if all the time when I'm out with my DS.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

Sonshine said:


> I can't speak to the issue of slavery, but anyone that thinks racism no longer exists towards blacks doesn't know what they're talking about. I see if all the time when I'm out with my DS.


Sonshine racism goes both ways it isnt only towards blacks.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> I can't speak to the issue of slavery, but anyone that thinks racism no longer exists towards blacks doesn't know what they're talking about. I see if all the time when I'm out with my DS.


Racism exist and it exist in many ways and it will always exist in this world. Some whites hate blacks, some blacks hate browns, some browns hate reds, some reds hate yellows, some. . . 

One reason its still so strong is some people use it to keep their power. Some stoke the hate and they are evil. Others stoke the fear and, IMO, they are worse.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Everyone is a racist. Some people do not like people of another color. Some people do not like fat people. Some people do not like democrats. Some people do not like people who have cats.

People have the right to dislike anyone they want to.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

pancho said:


> Everyone is a racist. Some people do not like people of another color. Some people do not like fat people. Some people do not like democrats. Some people do not like people who have cats.
> 
> People have the right to dislike anyone they want to.


However niether fat, nor democrats nor those tweaked out cat people are a race.

Not that I disagree with your point but if you are hating for any reason beside race you are not a racist. Just a hateful little person (unless it's against cats . . or the Irish)


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

gideonprime said:


> However niether fat, nor democrats nor those tweaked out cat people are a race.
> 
> Not that I disagree with your point but if you are hating for any reason beside race you are not a racist. Just a hateful little person (unless it's against cats . . or the Irish)


Really colors are not anymore of a race than fat people.
All people a certain color do not belong to the same race.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

pancho said:


> Really colors are not anymore of a race than fat people.
> All people a certain color do not belong to the same race.


Too True!

We are all the same species . . .just different shades of the same species.:shrug:


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

watcher said:


> You might want to do a bit of research. Slaves were expensive and valuable and therefore treated as such. Would you go out and spend $30,000 (what a field slave would cost in 1861 in today's dollars) on a piece of equipment for your business then treat it like garbage?
> 
> If you check you'll find that most dangerous work was NOT done by slaves but by hired workers. If you had your slave do it and he was hurt or killed it could cost you $30,000. If the hired man was killed or injured it cost you nothing but the pay for the partial day he worked before he was killed or injured.
> 
> Were there owners who did treat their slaves like garbage? Sure, just like today there are people who treat $500,000 cars like garbage. But in both cases they not the norm.


I guess that would depend on a person's belief on what is considered treating a person like garbage. I think having to give in to the sexual desires of your owner would rank up there pretty high, as well as having your children sold and never be able to see them again. The slave owners knew how to punish their slaves and still keep them productive as work animals, because that's all they were to the slave owners.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

davel745 said:


> Sonshine racism goes both ways it isnt only towards blacks.


Maybe not, but I'm white and my DS is bi-racial and until we adopted him I didn't realize just how much racism there is against people of color. I knew it was still around, but having to live with it now has been a real eye opener.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> Everyone is a racist. Some people do not like people of another color. Some people do not like fat people. Some people do not like democrats. Some people do not like people who have cats.
> 
> People have the right to dislike anyone they want to.


I disagree with this statement.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Sonshine said:


> Maybe not, but I'm white and my DS is bi-racial and until we adopted him I didn't realize just how much racism there is against people of color. I knew it was still around, but having to live with it now has been a real eye opener.


Yep. 

As a white guy with a black wife and now bi-racial daughter it is amazing what you just didn't notice before.

Subtle and venomous it is still lurking in more place than I would have thought.


----------



## jaredI (Aug 6, 2011)

Just my 2 cents, but I think a lot of racism is mostly lack of education. Their daddy hated (insert race) so they were raised to hate the same race, with no thoughts as to why.
I was 16 before I met a black gentleman for the first time. I clearly remember my first thoughts, "oh my gosh, a black man!" This individual taught me one of the best lessons I have learned in my entire life. He was truly a great man, and the way he treated me taught me to treat others in kind. I cannot begin to thank this man for what he did to help shape my views on people of other races. I believe had my first experience with a black man would of been with a dishonest thug, I could very easily have been "trained" to be racist. 
I have worked side by side with many people of different races, and for the most part I have learned much from every single one of them. If we are ignorant enough to believe "insert race" is better then any other race, we are truly limiting our life experiences, and very likely depriving ourselves of developing some great friendships.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

jaredI said:


> Just my 2 cents, but I think a lot of racism is mostly lack of education. Their daddy hated (insert race) so they were raised to hate the same race, with no thoughts as to why.
> I was 16 before I met a black gentleman for the first time. I clearly remember my first thoughts, "oh my gosh, a black man!" This individual taught me one of the best lessons I have learned in my entire life. He was truly a great man, and the way he treated me taught me to treat others in kind. I cannot begin to thank this man for what he did to help shape my views on people of other races. I believe had my first experience with a black man would of been with a dishonest thug, I could very easily have been "trained" to be racist.
> I have worked side by side with many people of different races, and for the most part I have learned much from every single one of them. If we are ignorant enough to believe "insert race" is better then any other race, we are truly limiting our life experiences, and very likely depriving ourselves of developing some great friendships.


Unfortunately, we seldom here about the good people from varying races. Instead we see the worst, and many who may have already been told they are better than another race, or that another race is nothing but trouble will use what they see to validate that belief. The cycle is hard to break.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> I guess that would depend on a person's belief on what is considered treating a person like garbage. I think having to give in to the sexual desires of your owner would rank up there pretty high, as well as having your children sold and never be able to see them again. The slave owners knew how to punish their slaves and still keep them productive as work animals, because that's all they were to the slave owners.


Slavery was awful. Savery is still awful.
But, plenty of non-slaves have been in positions where they had to submit to survive. The very poor all over the world have faced this. The tenent farmers often had to "farm out" their children. Many were never seen again.

We often use a broad brush when thinking of slaves and slave owners. Some were badly treated and some were fairly treated. Just as the share
croppers of the north, kept in poverty by the land owners.
Even work aninmals are well cared for if the farmer expects them to remain healthy and productive.A slave owner had a vested interested in keeping his slave workers healthy. Land owners of the north had no concern for the sharecroppers or tenent farmers that worked their land.Rural poverty was a form of slavery.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> I guess that would depend on a person's belief on what is considered treating a person like garbage. I think having to give in to the sexual desires of your owner would rank up there pretty high, as well as having your children sold and never be able to see them again. The slave owners knew how to punish their slaves and still keep them productive as work animals, because that's all they were to the slave owners.


Yes it would. What you describe is being treated like an animal. Some people treat their animals ok and others treat them like garbage. Same thing for slaves. Again you have to realize slaves were VERY expensive, not only to buy but to keep. The only reason it was profitable was because there was such a shortage of labor in the free market the cost of hiring someone to do the job was higher.

At the time of the civil war (which it wasn't but that's another political discussion) slavery was already on its way out due to the cost involved. It had become cheaper to hire someone to do the work when there was work to do than keep slaves year round. As I have already pointed out slave owners did not use slaves to do dangerous jobs because they had a lot of money invested.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> I disagree with this statement.


You think the government has the right to force you to like someone? Or to be able to tell you who you can and can not associate with? 

Sometimes freedom stinks but if you limit a persons freedom because you don't like someone doing something what prevents them from limiting yours because of something they don't like?

IMO, you have every right to like, love, dislike or hate any individual or group you wish. You have the right to associate with or avoid any individual or group you wish. If you own a business you have the right to serve or refuse to serve any individual or group you wish. And those individuals or groups have the same rights.

What you do NOT have a right to do is to use force, either yours OR the governments, to limit the freedom of individuals or groups. 

If I own a car and want to sell it but only want to sell it to a left handed, green eyed female midget what right do you have to tell me I must sell it to a right handed, blue eyed 6'6"+ man?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

gideonprime said:


> Yep.
> 
> As a white guy with a black wife and now bi-racial daughter it is amazing what you just didn't notice before.
> 
> Subtle and venomous it is still lurking in more place than I would have thought.


And in all races. Have you not noticed how black view/treat you and your daughter? They can be just as racist.

I still remember a friend of mine explaining how segregated blacks are. He was *BLACK*, he's the darkest human I have ever met, and he was telling me how bad the division is between dark black and light blacks. He said there were places he couldn't go because it was 'light' place. What shocked me was he said he'd feel safer going to a Klan meeting than in some of those places (I'm sure he was exaggerating a bit).

Being the only white face in a crowd will give you a different view on things.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

watcher said:


> And in all races. Have you not noticed how black view/treat you and your daughter? They can be just as racist.
> 
> I still remember a friend of mine explaining how segregated blacks are. He was *BLACK*, he's the darkest human I have ever met, and he was telling me how bad the division is between dark black and light blacks. He said there were places he couldn't go because it was 'light' place. What shocked me was he said he'd feel safer going to a Klan meeting than in some of those places (I'm sure he was exaggerating a bit).
> 
> Being the only white face in a crowd will give you a different view on things.


No I have not. Because they have not treated me in a negative way.

Yeah sure when everyone is "black" they segreate by color or nationality or whatever, same as whites. Had an great uncle killed in a gang fight in my little town in MA, he was polish fighting with the french. Everyone was white.

Color is just an easy line for haters to divide folks with.

Before we moved to FL when we were still in NYC in her largely black neighborhood I would get some looks. NEver treated poorly just looks trying to figure why I was there. Was a cop? Was I with the govt? Who was I cause I sure wasn;t "From there". OR so it seemed to me.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> If you own a business you have the right to serve or refuse to serve any individual or group you wish.


Federal law says you are mistaken about that. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Federal law says you are mistaken about that. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations.


An individual can do what ever they want.
They can sell to anyone they want to and refuse to sell to anyone they want to.
They can also evict anyone they want to from their property for any reason.
If they do not like your color you are gone.
If the do not like your weight you are gone.
If the do not like the color belt you have on you are gone.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Federal law says you are mistaken about that. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations.


You missed "IMO, " in my message. But just because the government says something doesn't make it right. I give you the fact our government has said slavery was right, segregation was right. 

A few questions for you. Where does the government get the power to force you to serve someone? If the government has the power to force you to serve someone does it not also have the power to force you to NOT serve someone? 

Now thinking about that I give you Nazi era in Germany and the Khmer Rouge era in Cambodia.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

gideonprime said:


> No I have not. Because they have not treated me in a negative way.


You must be very special because every one I know in your situation has been.


----------



## jaredI (Aug 6, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Federal law says you are mistaken about that. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations.


 Yes you are right. But "IF" I was to be discriminatory I could still refuse service to anyone, I just couldn't say I'm not serving you because you are (insert race,color,religion, or whatnot). It is very difficult, if not impossible, to legislate against these things.


----------

