# The aftermath of the Zimmerman trial.



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Feel free to add your own observations. This one just happened. Angela Corey's IT director, Kruidbos was just fired. He was the one that originally pulled the files off Trayvon's phone and wrote a report. He found out the report, evidence, wasn't turned over to Zimmerman's lawyers.

Apparently for ethical reasons he went to a private attorney. After getting the head up it looks like Zimmerman's attorneys retained their own expert. If you recall, the judge disallowed the evidence based in part on authentication issues.

"In January, he used computer software technology to extract photographs and text messages from the source file in Martinâs cellphone. Kruidbos was able to recover more information than the Florida Department of Law Enforcement obtained previously. GETTING LEGAL ADVICE
Kruidbos said he became concerned that lead prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda might not have turned over Kruidbosâ report to defense attorneys. "


http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/...ey-fires-information-techonology-director-who


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

This is just like the rest of the government corrupt and full of tyranny


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I agree. The disturbing thing about it is they didn't try to hide it. Power isn't something that's taught in business school. I saw one exercise in a meeting in a well known corporation. I remember thinking, "Wow, look at this!" 

A representative from the division controller (staff) openly threatened a line manager. What amazed me was everything the staff guy said was false. 

The manager's group was in the initial stages of developing and selling a new product to utilities. The product was a package including a DEC min-computer with specialized software. The manager was a Black woman in her late 20s maybe early 30s who up to that point had a stellar career. She was an exceptional manager and electrical engineer.

The party that instigated the project shutdown was the IT department (staff) that felt left out or threatened. I should have gotten their stooge assigned to project fired or removed when he returned late from lunch one day smelling strongly of alcohol. In a manner of speaking it was a turf war where the manager was hit by an A bomb with no warning. afterwards in her office she was literally shaking. 

Most of the time power is used behind the scenes. Most times you never really know what happened. That incident was remarkably blatant. Staff, the tail, wagged the dog, which was executive line function..

The same exercise of power has been associated with the Zimmerman trial and the powers that be don't care. They do to the extent they got outed for proprietorial misconduct. But otherwise they are the law in their minds and they will deal with anyone who gets in their way.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

Darren said:


> I agree. The disturbing thing about it is they didn't try to hide it. Power isn't something that's taught in business school. I saw one exercise in a meeting in a well known corporation. I remember thinking, "Wow, look at this!"
> 
> A representative from the division controller (staff) openly threatened a line manager. What amazed me was everything the staff guy said was false.
> 
> ...


If you don't do what I want I will sick the IRS on ya. Thank you Darren good post. Were is Tricky when you need her. LOL


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

This case has turned into another crisis not to be wasted, and you can rest assured that, as Washington has already expressed a deep interest in it via overt tampering, there is a dark agenda to be advanced.

The deep shading of the right to self defense is only the beginning.


----------



## katydidagain (Jun 11, 2004)

Forerunner said:


> The deep shading of the right to self defense is only the beginning.


Sorry but not everyone who believes in the right to self defense believes this was a case of such.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Here is another---

Maybe there would be no reason for the government to fix government if the check and balance of the strenght of the the court stood strong. The back bone of the court is us. Us with the knowledge of jury Rights. There is no NEED --but that we can't accept that we the citizens were to be the watch dogs over coruption in the govenment. 

Sick people can't heal all by themself---yet we have let the govenment infalt it's self and even the govenment EDUCATE us of our position----Think about this in forming the Dept. of Education they are removing and changing history.

Call me a liar about the Juryer's Rights but prove it. If you did that you might just be shocked that everyone who has stated that the courts have claimed to restrict you but did you every wonder----question ----Where did the court---the judge get the authourity to dictate that you--in the JURY --MUST obey---(you slave--for I have the power to jail you for not doing my bidding---blind obedency is slavery---) 

The Judge is there to ensure order.

I hope that there could be some discussions about the rights of citizens before they are forgotten and thought of as a fanstasy. It is hard to tell a proffesional that they are misinformed ---but if it is going to harm someone do we have a duty to speak up if we believe in justice.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Forerunner said:


> This case has turned into another crisis not to be wasted, and you can rest assured that, as Washington has already expressed a deep interest in it via overt tampering, there is a dark agenda to be advanced.
> 
> The deep shading of the right to self defense is only the beginning.


It sure seems there is BIG pressure from somewhere/someone to get this man behind bars.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

gapeach said:


> It sure seems there is BIG pressure from somewhere/someone to get this man behind bars.


Then why didn't the prosecution put on a better case?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Then why didn't the prosecution put on a better case?


That's a good question. Do you think that maybe the Sandford ex-chief of police, the original investigator and the FBI might be telling the truth? 

Do you think the other invesigators that went over everything after the original invesigation found anything beyond what the first one did?

The answer to the first question is yes!

The answer to the second question is also yes!

That's because the IT directorfor the AG's office accessed the files on Trayvon's phone and sent a report to the lead prosecutor. The results of that report which were not made available to the defense as required by the rules of discovery is now the cause of a sticky situation for the prosecution.

BDLR, the prosecutor, may end up like Nifong made infamous by the Duke lacrosse case.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

katydidagain said:


> Sorry but not everyone who believes in the right to self defense believes this was a case of such.


Apology accepted.

In any event, there is no excuse for the commentary and clandestine interference that came out of Washington, following.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

The whole thing stinks. You know the prosecutor is no good.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> That's a good question. Do you think that maybe the Sandford ex-chief of police, the original investigator and the FBI might be telling the truth?
> 
> Do you think the other invesigators that went over everything after the original invesigation found anything beyond what the first one did?
> 
> ...


None of that explains not preparing witnesses and missing opportunities to object to inappropriate testimony.

My theory is that the prosecutor is accustomed to going up against public defenders, who don't have a lot of resources. He could probably get away with that kind of sloppy sharing of evidence with a public defender. While he probably knows the law pretty well, he was clearly outclassed by the defense team.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I refuse to believe that in a case that is the focus of national and even international attention the prosecuor brought anyhing less than his A game. The real problem for he prosecutor is there is no evidence that refutes Zimmerman's self defense claim. 

Did the prosecutor forget something? You don't put a witness on the stand and go outside and take a break. You question the witness. The prosecutor should have known all of the evidence before the trial. If the witness forgot something, ask a question.

The appeal o emotion in the closing rather than fact shows the evidence wasn't there to file charges.to start with. The trial is based on the assumption that lot's of people think somethings there because Zimmerman broke the law not that the is innocen before being proven guily.

That's part of the psychology the prosecution used. Fortunaely Zimmerman had good attornies and they did a good job along with picking up on the prosecution's illegal acts.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> I refuse to believe that in a case that is the focus of national and even international attention the prosecuor brought anyhing less than his A game.


Pretty sloppy "A" game.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Pretty sloppy "A" game.


The old saying that "If the law is on your side, pound the law. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If neither is on your side, pound the table" applies here. The prosecutor had neither the facts or law on his side, so he pounded the table a lot. He knew it going in but sought some time in front of the cameras in a show trial. It became clear in his final arguments when he asked the jurors to search their hearts for a verdict. He wants them to decide Zimmerman's fate based on their feelings for Martin and his family instead of facts and law. He should be disbarred.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

poppy said:


> The old saying that "If the law is on your side, pound the law. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If neither is on your side, pound the table" applies here. The prosecutor had neither the facts or law on his side, so he pounded the table a lot. He knew it going in but sought some time in front of the cameras in a show trial. It became clear in his final arguments when he asked the jurors to search their hearts for a verdict. He wants them to decide Zimmerman's fate based on their feelings for Martin and his family instead of facts and law. He should be disbarred.


The prosecutor may be disbarred. That is the issue addressed at the beginning of the thread, Anyone know what the penalty is for concealing evidence?


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Kruidbos' concerns are certainly relevant and of greatest concern; however, it was the way he went about it that is totally wrong. In the legal system there are avenues you take due to confidentiality issues. You can certainly take those issues to outside sources *but* *only* if you've gone through your available avenues first. Kruidbos didn't do that; he went right to an outside attorney. That is a legal breach of confidence and he should be fired.

I realize his excuse is he was afraid he would lose his job, but that just can't be true. He took this information outside so it would see the light of day, and he was fully aware that absolutely and positively would cause him to lose his job. He had an obligation, under the law, to follow in-house procedure before taking information elsewhere.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Karen said:


> Kruidbos' concerns are certainly relevant and of greatest concern; however, it was the way he went about it that is totally wrong. In the legal system there are avenues you take due to confidentiality issues. You can certainly take those issues to outside sources *but* *only* if you've gone through your available avenues first. Kruidbos didn't do that; he went right to an outside attorney. That is a legal breach of confidence and he should be fired.
> 
> I realize his excuse is he was afraid he would lose his job, but that just can't be true. He took this information outside so it would see the light of day, and he was fully aware that absolutely and positively would cause him to lose his job. He had an obligation, under the law, to follow in-house procedure before taking information elsewhere.


Normally I would agree with you, Karen except for the other oddities that have come to light in the AG's office. The earlier investigation was strange. Add the documented jury tampering of the woman who wrote the dismissal letter and it seems like the law doesn't always apply in that office. 

Add the fact of some pension shenanigans that benefited Corey's crony, the prosecutor, and herself and the IT guy would have been nuts to go to Corey after he found out his report was not released to the defense.

That is why Zimmerman's attorneys were alerted to the fact that the telephone contained evidence important to the case. The IT guy didn't give Zimmerman's attorneys the heads up it was the lawyer who was an ex-prosecutor who the IT guy consulted.

Even then Zimmerman's team had to hire an expert to do he same work the IT guy did to get all of the evidence out of the telephone. Then the judge allowed the prosecution to use evidence from the phone but not the defense!!!!

What happens if a prosecutor gets caught withholding evidence that could exonerate the defendant?

If the prosecutor as accused withheld evidence, can he be disbarred or subject to legal penalty?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

I wonder if the defense would have even used the text messages if they could. They seemed to make a decision not to go after Trayvon's character as much as they could have with the toxicology. Doesn't matter now. That probably gives them an appeal. I don't know how it affects the people responsible for withholding evidence but I suspect they will not be sanctioned.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

Nevada said:


> Then why didn't the prosecution put on a better case?


Because there isn't one.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

When the entire system is corrupt, *why* do people still insist that if "he had only gone thru the proper channels" that everything would have turned out ok?:bash:


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

From the CNN evidence tampering story
âWhen it takes (defense atty) six months to get a color picture of my client, when the first one I get is a black and white, when I look at it and go, âThis is off a cell phone; cell phones donât take black-and-white pictures,â and I ask for a color copy, that takes two months,â defense lawyer Mark OâMara said Wednesday in an interview with CNNâs Martin Savidge.
âAnd then I get a pastel-colored color copy of it, and it takes me to file a motion and have a hearing set before I get the actual .jpeg, no, thatâs frustrating. That should not happen. Iâve done this too long to make believe in my own mind that thatâs happenstance.â
OâMara said he learned about the missing information months after he was to have received it. âThe only way that we really found out about it ... and the only way that we really found out about the intensity of the failure to give us information was when a person from their own office, a whistle-blower, came forward and said, âI gave them that information in the middle to end of Januaryâ and we didnât get it until June 4th.â
He said he was âbeyondâ shocked. âIt could have derailed the trial,â he said.
The defense said it did not get the complete report until a few days before the trial. OâMara and co-counsel Don West argued that they needed more time to go through the information found on Martinâs phone and asked for a delay, which was denied.
Judge Debra Nelson said before the trial that the possibility of sanctions â requested by the defense â would be addressed after the verdict.â
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-it-firing/index.html#disqus_thread
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-it-firing/index.html#disqus_thread


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

jtbrandt said:


> I wonder if the defense would have even used the text messages if they could. They seemed to make a decision not to go after Trayvon's character as much as they could have with the toxicology. Doesn't matter now. That probably gives them an appeal. I don't know how it affects the people responsible for withholding evidence but I suspect they will not be sanctioned.


I don't think the toxicology results were persuasive. The text messages and photos are anoher story entirely. The judge stopped the defense on that PDQ.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

gapeach said:


> From the CNN evidence tampering story
> âWhen it takes (defense atty) six months to get a color picture of my client, when the first one I get is a black and white, when I look at it and go, âThis is off a cell phone; cell phones donât take black-and-white pictures,â and I ask for a color copy, that takes two months,â defense lawyer Mark OâMara said Wednesday in an interview with CNNâs Martin Savidge.
> âAnd then I get a pastel-colored color copy of it, and it takes me to file a motion and have a hearing set before I get the actual .jpeg, no, thatâs frustrating. That should not happen. Iâve done this too long to make believe in my own mind that thatâs happenstance.â
> OâMara said he learned about the missing information months after he was to have received it. âThe only way that we really found out about it ... and the only way that we really found out about the intensity of the failure to give us information was when a person from their own office, a whistle-blower, came forward and said, âI gave them that information in the middle to end of Januaryâ and we didnât get it until June 4th.â
> ...


That means there was enough information in that phone to get the charges dismissed.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

It is like an invisible hand was guiding the evidence away from the defense.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

I hope the sanctions hearing is televised. It should be fun...even if I don't have much faith that anyone will be punished.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

The spin is on in a big way.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

gapeach said:


> It is like an invisible hand was guiding the evidence away from the defense.


I agree, everything worked toward the defense even though the judge and prosecution were doing everything they could to convict. The lies and sneaky things that were done just incredible. Thank you Lord you are a Just God.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Zimmerman ought to be able to sue the "news agencies" and the president for his attorney's fee's


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Darren said:


> Normally I would agree with you, Karen except for the other oddities that have come to light in the AG's office. The earlier investigation was strange. Add the documented jury tampering of the woman who wrote the dismissal letter and it seems like the law doesn't always apply in that office.
> 
> Add the fact of some pension shenanigans that benefited Corey's crony, the prosecutor, and herself and the IT guy would have been nuts to go to Corey after he found out his report was not released to the defense.
> 
> ...


 http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/dershowitz-zimmerman-trayvon-martin/2013/07/12/id/514847 
Dershowitz thinks they should be disbarred.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> When the entire system is corrupt, *why* do people still insist that if "he had only gone thru the proper channels" that everything would have turned out ok?:bash:



This confirms what I said, from the CNN link above.......



Kruidbos said that, when he printed a 900-page Florida Department of Law Enforcement report from Martin's cell phone in late 2012 or early 2013, he noticed information was missing.
Concerned that attorneys did not have all the information they needed to prepare the case, he said, he reported his concerns to a State Attorney's Office investigator and later to prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda.
Kruidbos said he generated a report that was more than three times the size of the one that had been handed over.
For example, Kruidbos said that 2,958 photos were in the report given to the defense but that his report contained 4,275 photos.
Kruidbos also said that he has been told to not put specific case-identifying information into internal e-mails.
Through his attorney, Wesley White, Kruidbos informed Zimmerman's defense team that the information existed.
Did investigators blow the Zimmerman case?
In court, Kruidbos testified that he was concerned that he could be held liable if all information wasn't shared. "All the information is important in the process to ensure it's a fair trial," he said.
In a six-page dismissal letter, the State Attorney's Office, Fourth Judicial Circuit, blasted Kruidbos' assertions and motivations. Managing Director Cheryl R. Peek accused Kruidbos of having erased data from a laptop in violation of the Public Records Law and derided his concern about being held liable as "feigned and spurious" and "nothing more than shameful manipulation in a shallow, but obvious, attempt to cloak yourself in the protection of the whistleblower law."
She concluded, "Because of your deliberate, willful and unscrupulous actions, you can never again be trusted to step foot in this office. Your have left us with no choice but to terminate your employment




*So, he DOES go thru the chain of command, and this is how it is handled.* Anymore questions about how whistle blowers should or shouldn't act from now on?


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Pretty sloppy "A" game.



Hard to put on a good show when you don't have any solid evidence to back your accusations. I think the prosecutor put on as good a trial as he could, given the fact that he had no case.

This should never have even gone to trial but for the media and racial pressures.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darntootin said:


> This should never have even gone to trial but for the media and racial pressures.


 A guy gets killed and you think 'it never should have gone to trial'?? Because the killer says 'I was scared'?? 
So now if someone puts a bullet into GZ, they have the perfect defense... 'He was a known killer, and I was scared of him!'. Hey it worked for GZ.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

greg273 said:


> A guy gets killed and you think 'it never should have gone to trial'?? Because the killer says 'I was scared'??
> So now if someone puts a bullet into GZ, they have the perfect defense... 'He was a known killer, and I was scared of him!'. Hey it worked for GZ.


Yep......as long as they bring the evidence to court that Zimmerman was breaking their face and slamming their head into concrete.
Don't forget that part when you retell your story over and over again.:indif:

I tried to tell y'all that stuff may be tolerated in L.A., N.Y or Chicago, but we don't tolerate that mess down here, and don't take kindly to outsiders that like to instigate it either.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

greg273 said:


> A guy gets killed and you think 'it never should have gone to trial'?? Because the killer says 'I was scared'??
> So now if someone puts a bullet into GZ, they have the perfect defense... 'He was a known killer, and I was scared of him!'. Hey it worked for GZ.


If Zimmerman walks up to someone, punches them in the face and beats his head on the concrete, sure the person has a right to shoot him. Believe it or not, people get shot and killed all the time and the case never goes to court. Like this one, there is evidence to show they were self defense or sometimes there is just not enough evidence to prove a suspect did the shooting. Should they all go to court anyway? How many young blacks were killed in Chicago alone last weekend? I haven't heard but it is usually more than 10. Only one in ten is even solved and those are open and shut murder cases. It's sad Martin died but it is 10 times more sad in Chicago every weekend and the media ignores it completely.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

gapeach said:


> It is like an invisible hand was guiding the evidence away from the defense.


Maybe invisible to the public but it's not often you see an attorney criticizing another attorney in public. What Crump did was despicable and what the attorney general's office did was probably illegal. 

What the facts show is on that night, George Zimmerman saw what he described as a suspicious person who turned out to have a history of petty crime. *You can't ignore the stolen jewelry.* You can't ignore the longer than needed time for Martin to return from the 711* in the rain.* Was he practicing his Gene Kelly act? I don't think so.

If the contents of the phone were seen by the jury, they wouldn't have been out very long before they returned a not guilty verdict. Martin was trouble that his mother didn't want to deal with and Crump tried to cover up.

I have no doubt, after looking at the stuff the jury didn't get to see, that Zimmerman thought his life was in jeopardy.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> Maybe invisible to the public but it's not often you see an attorney criticizing another attorney in public. What Crump did was despicable and what the attorney general's office did was probably illegal.
> 
> What the facts show is on that night, George Zimmerman saw what he described as a suspicious person who turned out to have a history of petty crime. *You can't ignore the stolen jewelry.* You can't ignore the longer than needed time for Martin to return from the 711* in the rain.* Was he practicing his Gene Kelly act? I don't think so.
> 
> ...


All of those bad acts could and should have been ignored. Zimmerman's state of mind could only have been influenced by the events of that night. Zimmerman had no way of knowing about Martin's past bad acts and they should have had no effect on his thoughts or actions that night. Unless, of course, he thought all young black men wearing hoodies were dangerous which would be profiling and we all know he would never do that.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> Unless, of course, he thought all young black men wearing hoodies were dangerous which would be profiling and we all know he would never do that.


Then what was the point that the defense was trying to make with the robbery victim questioning? The only point that the defense made was that the robber was black. They didn't allege that Martin what the same height, was dressed the same, or even looked like the robber. Their only point was that he was the same race so Zimmerman profiling blacks was reasonable.

How is that not introducing race into the case? Really, I couldn't believe that the prosecution didn't call them on it.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

poppy said:


> If Zimmerman walks up to someone, punches them in the face and beats his head on the concrete, sure the person has a right to shoot him.


 So if an armed man follows you, and you are in fear for your life, are you justified in breaking their nose and slamming their head into the pavement? Sounds like Trayvon was well within his rights as well. 
The fact is, we really don't know exactly what happened. A guy got shot, and the survivor lived to tell the tale.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

greg273 said:


> A guy gets killed and you think 'it never should have gone to trial'?? Because the killer says 'I was scared'??
> So now if someone puts a bullet into GZ, they have the perfect defense... 'He was a known killer, and I was scared of him!'. Hey it worked for GZ.


The is what a Grand Jury is for.

Unfortunately this important process was ignored, favoring instead, an expensive, but fruitless, dog-and-pony show trial.

If a prosecutor expects to win a case, it's a good idea to have one, in the first place.

This prosecutor did not have one, but everyone got a great reality show out of it and the media is laughing all the way to the bank.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Then what was the point that the defense was trying to make with the robbery victim questioning? The only point that the defense made was that the robber was black. They didn't allege that Martin what the same height, was dressed the same, or even looked like the robber. Their only point was that he was the same race so Zimmerman profiling blacks was reasonable.
> 
> How is that not introducing race into the case? Really, I couldn't believe that the prosecution didn't call them on it.


This was one of the few ways the prosecution could get race and profiling introduced. I'm surprised they didn't address it more aggressively once the defense opened the door.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

The President of the NAACP just said on Face the Nation that he wants the DOJ to file *criminal* charges under the hate crime act.
Ok, how about *I* bring some race into this?
The NAACP is black, the Attorney General is black and the President is black.
If a federal criminal charge is filed, is that racial profiling too? Profiling AGAINST Zimmerman?

I hope they do it. If they do, they'll find out just what happens when outsiders interfere.
If Zimmerman needs armed protection from the Federal gov't. he's got volunteers on standby.
Take my word for it........


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

greg273 said:


> So if an armed man follows you, and you are in fear for your life, are you justified in breaking their nose and slamming their head into the pavement? Sounds like Trayvon was well within his rights as well.
> The fact is, we really don't know exactly what happened. A guy got shot, and the survivor lived to tell the tale.




Show me the Florida statute that allows assault and battery because someone follows you at a distance and calls the police.
I'll remind you again not to forget that part when you post.

Also show me how Martin knew Zimmerman was armed BEFORE he was shot at point blank range. Explain the math and physics involved in a contact shooting (that's another way of saying point blank, BTW) that prove Zimmerman was NOT on the bottom and Martin on top, facing him, when it happened.
Those are things every student in jr. high knows, so explain that to me like I'm 12.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> All of those bad acts could and should have been ignored. Zimmerman's state of mind could only have been influenced by the events of that night. Zimmerman had no way of knowing about Martin's past bad acts and they should have had no effect on his thoughts or actions that night. Unless, of course, he thought all young black men wearing hoodies were dangerous which would be profiling and we all know he would never do that.


I'm in strange neighborhoods all of the time. People there know I'm not from there and they eyeball me. Every time I go up to them, give them my name and explain why I'm there. I don't give them attitude. Certainly not in this state.

Whatever happened that night, Martin looked suspicious. We had someone here that looked suspicious. You seldom see people walking where he did. I found out he was an ex-con put away for burglary. I eyeballed him everyday after that and he knew it. I made sure he knew it.

Most people don't casually wander around in the rain. Why did it take Martin so long to return from the 711? I'm still wondering why he was walking in the grass between the houses and the sidewalk. Was that to get a better look at something? That would look suspicious to me. 

We now know he was caught in possession of stolen jewelry by his school.

He looked suspicious in the 711 video. He gave me the impression of a shoplifter when he wandered around aimlessly in the store like he was waiting for the clerk to be distracted.

I think a lot more will come out now given the improper activities of the prosecutor and the attorney general's office have been exposed. There's going to be civil lawsuits beyond the one Zimmerman has against NBC. I just hope Benjamin Crump ends up getting sued too. He's the one who started this mess.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> Show me the Florida statute that allows assault and battery because someone follows you at a distance and calls the police.
> I'll remind you again not to forget that part when you post.


 You assume the survivors version of events is the whole story. There is no evidence, other than the words of the accused, that Trayvon was not accosted by an armed man at some point.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> So if an armed man follows you, and you are in fear for your life, are you justified in breaking their nose and slamming their head into the pavement? Sounds like Trayvon was well within his rights as well.
> The fact is, *we really don't know exactly what happened.* A guy got shot, and the survivor lived to tell the tale.


?????? That would be a no, Greg.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

greg273 said:


> You assume the survivors version of events is the whole story.


I assume NOTHING.
I know full well that much more happened that night than we'll ever know.
What I don't assume, is that 6 women heard the evidence and rendered a verdict based on that evidence at 10 pm. last night.



greg273 said:


> *There is no evidence, other than the words of the accused, *that Trayvon was not accosted by an armed man at some point.


Really?
Does that include the autopsy report *entered into evidence*?
What is the legal definition of "accosted" that you are using, maybe there is a Florida statute that allows assault and battery under _those_ terms?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> I just hope Benjamin Crump ends up getting sued too. He's the one who started this mess.


 George Zimmerman started this mess by disregarding the advice of law enforcement and chasing someone. If he wanted to be a real cop, he should have finished his AOJ studies and put in an application to the police force.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> You assume the survivors version of events is the whole story. There is no evidence, other than the words of the accused, that Trayvon was not accosted by an armed man at some point.


For someone that wants to look at everything including what was improperly withheld from the jury, there's lots of information available on the internet that shows how Trayvon disappeared and based on the short amount of time, the phone call, and the tape eliminates all of the possibilities except for Trayvon choosing to and confronting Zimmerman.

If he hadn't knocked Zimmerman down and started beating him, Trayvon would have still been alive today. The police were almost there. Trayvon was home free until he decided to go back. The phone call shows that.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> George Zimmerman started this mess by disregarding the advice of law enforcement and chasing someone. If he wanted to be a real cop, he should have finished his AOJ studies and put in an application to the police force.


What evidence was presented to show he ignored the advice of the dispatcher?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Darren said:


> For someone that wants to look at everything including what was improperly withheld from the jury, there's lots of information available on the internet that shows how Trayvon disappeared and based on the short amount of time, the phone call, and the tape eliminates all of the possibilities except for Trayvon choosing to and confronting Zimmerman.
> 
> If he hadn't knocked Zimmerman down and started beating him, Trayvon would have still been alive today. The police were almost there. Trayvon was home free until he decided to go back. The phone call shows that.


It's useless.
Those that are prejudiced in this case refuse to look at the evidence. It doesn't fit "their" versions of the events.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

greg273 said:


> A guy gets killed and you think 'it never should have gone to trial'?? Because the killer says 'I was scared'??
> So now if someone puts a bullet into GZ, they have the perfect defense... 'He was a known killer, and I was scared of him!'. Hey it worked for GZ.



A guy got killed while assaulting another man.

In order for someone to be tried, a crime has to be committed. Defending yourself from assault is not a crime.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

[sarcasm on]
Assault?
What assault?
I didn't see no assault.

[/sarcasm off]


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> Unless, of course, he thought all young black men wearing hoodies were dangerous which would be profiling and we all know he would never do that.



It doesn't even matter. Even if you could prove conclusively that Zimmerman profiled TM because of racial bias ( which you cannot ), it doesn't give TM the legal right to beat him to death.

Whatever the motives were doesn't matter, what matters is that GZ was being beaten to death and he defended his life. Racism, does not justify TM's attempt to murder GZ.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> A guy gets killed and you think 'it never should have gone to trial'?? Because the killer says 'I was scared'??
> So now if someone puts a bullet into GZ, they have the perfect defense... 'He was a known killer, and I was scared of him!'. Hey it worked for GZ.


People get killed, not murdered, every day in this country and it's legal. Look up justified killing. Just because someone gets killed doesn't mean the killer is automatically going to be charged and tried.

As they say around here without smiling, "Some people need killing." I'm not saying Trayvon needed killing. I'm saying there's a line. When you cross it, you may have ensured your death, Trayvon crossed the line when he didn't stop beating Zimmerman when the man called for help. The man was crying for help. That was seen by a witness. 

What right did Trayvon have to keep beating him?


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

The only crime that was committed ( according to all the evidence) was by Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman was the victim of an assault and an attempt on his life.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

I have been gone for a while but had to come back to read what was being written about the results of the trial.
Seems like the same things are believed now after the trial as before. 
The people who wanted a trial are not satisfied with the results.

As far as profiling, people do it every day. The police do it, the business owner does it, even the person walking down the street does it.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

I have no doubt George was scared, and he was on the receiving end of a beat down. What I do question is whether getting a beat-down is justification for murder. I've been in enough fights, I realize the adrenaline that kicks in pretty much overrides any logical thinking, and survival is utmost. In retrospect, I am GLAD i did not have a gun. My guess is Georgie panicked and shot the kid after getting his grits whipped. I guess in this day and age people are so terrified of getting a beating they will kill someone rather than suffer it.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

> Darren said:
> 
> 
> > As they say around here without smiling, "Some people need killing."
> ...


 Maybe he didn't want to get shot?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> I have no doubt George was scared, and he was on the receiving end of a beat down. What I do question is whether getting a beat-down is justification for murder. I've been in enough fights, I realize the adrenaline that kicks in pretty much overrides any logical thinking, and survival is utmost. In retrospect, I am GLAD i did not have a gun. *My guess is Georgie panicked and shot the kid after getting his grits whipped.* I guess in this day and age people are so terrified of getting a beating they will kill someone rather than suffer it.


I agree. Except I think Zimmerman believed the beating wasn't going to stop until he wasn't moving any more. The question you have to consider was what was Trayvon saying to Georgie while he was beating him? 

We already know about Trayvon's attitude when he walked up to Zimmerman. 

We already know Trayvon continued beating Zimmerman after he was whupped.

Have you heard kids get angry at each other and chase one saying they were going to kill them. What do you think Trayvon was saying as he beat Zimmerman?

Did he say he was going to kill him as Zimmerman alleged?

Did he say he was going to beat him to a pulp?

There's no doubt Trayvon was enraged. What do you think he said while enraged and with adrenaline flowing?

Whatever it was, it wasn't pleasant. My guess is the beating plus what Trayvon said panicked Zimmerman. As I said previously Trayvon crossed a line.


----------



## dkhern (Nov 30, 2012)

to me the single issue is if you were on the ground getting your head bounced on the sidewalk would you be in fear for your life? i would. i know this is gz story but no evidence contradicted his version. im surprised it took the jury 16 hrs. if doj wants to go for civil rights charge they have to overcome the fbi report saying race wasnt involved in shooting.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

dkhern said:


> to me the single issue is if you were on the ground getting your head bounced on the sidewalk would you be in fear for your life? i would. i know this is gz story but no evidence contradicted his version. im surprised it took the jury 16 hrs. if doj wants to go for civil rights charge they have to overcome the fbi report saying race wasnt involved in shooting.


I'm hoping the FBI report is a showstopper for the DOJ. Given the ignoranti in the administration,. who knows. They may think it's in their best interests to have another show trial. They're certainly being egged on. With the Hispanic vote at risk, however, that may be an end to it.

I'm wondering what Zimmerman thinks about Obama now. that he had to kill his son.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> I agree. Except I think Zimmerman believed the beating wasn't going to stop until he wasn't moving any more.


 You seem to have a pretty good idea of what Trayvon said to Zimmerman, how is that? You apparently believe Zimmermans account of the fight. Do you think he may be just a little biased? Considering he was being tried for murder and all...
I find it hard to believe that a 158lb kid could have even come close to 'beating to death' the 185lb man he was fighting.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Based on Trayvon's posts I've read elsewhere, I don't expect the kid was saying anything nice. People in a rage usually aren't acting friendly.


----------



## katydidagain (Jun 11, 2004)

Darren said:


> Based on Trayvon's posts I've read elsewhere, I don't expect the kid was saying anything nice. People in a rage usually aren't acting friendly.


Sticks and stones...

I doubt he was in a rage; I think he was hopped up on adrenaline and testosterone which are 2 very powerful natural "drugs". Both of them had a bad case of machismo I suspect.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

greg273 said:


> The fact is, we really don't know exactly what happened. A guy got shot, and the survivor lived to tell the tale.


Agreed. So I'm wondering why that doesn't stop you from repeatedly making hyperbolic and inflammatory statements.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

katydidagain said:


> Sticks and stones...
> 
> I doubt he was in a rage; I think he was hopped up on adrenaline and testosterone which are 2 very powerful natural "drugs". Both of them had a bad case of machismo I suspect.


Attacking someone calmly at his age without anger requires a very cold-blooded nature. If that's what happened, I'm glad Zimmerman took him out of the gene pool. Based on his writings, I have no doubt he wouldn't have killed someone later.

Regardless of what was fueling his actions, when he didn't stop the attack when Zimmerman cried for help, he crossed the line.


----------



## katydidagain (Jun 11, 2004)

Darren said:


> Regardless of what was fueling his actions, when he didn't stop the attack when Zimmerman cried for help, he crossed the line.


You know GZ was the one calling for help? You were there? You should have been on the witness stand.


----------



## katydidagain (Jun 11, 2004)

Darren said:


> Based on what we do know as fact, yes it was Zimmerman. We have an eye witness, we have the circumstances themselves and we have Martin's persona. That kid wasn't calling for help when he already had the creepy cracker down and bleeding. The kid's background as a thug alone wouldn't have allowed him to call for help.
> 
> Remember that wasn't Trayvon punching Zimmerman that was the no_limit_****** living up to the image he showed the world.


No, you don't know only what you think you know and what you want to believe you know. And the earth is flat as we all know.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

Well all is well that ends well, I guess. Our thoughts and prayers are with Zimmerman and his family.


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

The jury verdict means that there was at least reasonable doubt that Zimmerman shot Martin in anger instead of self defence. It could mean that the jury believed that Zimmerman shot in self defence. We have to wait for a juror to tell us what they thought.

The case should never have come to trial. The liberal politicians and media forced the charges against Zimmerman. They took every opportunity to portray Martin as a child. Using the term child to describe Martin and showing a picture of him when he was a lot younger. Here is a more current pic. He was a strong young man.









I don't understand how so many people can claim the verdict was wrong and demand that Zimmerman be punished. I do get that the media wanted riots to boost their ratings and that Sharpton and Jackson are rabble-rousers. It's time to move on and let Zimmerman get his life back if he can.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

Martin said to Zimmerman he was going to die. He was scared.


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

davel745 said:


> Martin said to Zimmerman he was going to die. He was scared.


Right,and the thing is,there were two dangerous weapons being used. Trayvon was already using his (concrete) when Zimmerman decided if he didn't want to die,he might orta bring his weapon (firearm) out and into the equation.It was self defense folks and nothing else.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

katydidagain said:


> No, you don't know only what you think you know and what you want to believe you know. And the earth is flat as we all know.


You are correct that I don't know what I don't know. But I do know what I do know. That was to be the subject of this thread. As usual there's been some drift.

There's a critical part of this incident that hasn't been well explored here. It's particularly interesting because it was the central part of Crump's falsified press release. It's the now revealed non-girlfriend of Martin. The questionable issues revolve around her and the possible motivation behind the manipulations by Crump.

Nevada repeatedly wondered why she hadn't been prepared better. Nevada was right on target. The preparation of the witness is where I believe the case against Zimmerman falls apart. It goes to what the witness was willing and not willing to do.

I think it's vital to our understanding of what happened. I'll start a new thread and focus on the non-girlfriend witness. It's obvious that many don't know about Crump's deliberate lies. Once you know about the obvious lies, it should pique your curiosity about why Crump had to lie.


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

katydidagain said:


> You know GZ was the one calling for help? You were there? You should have been on the witness stand.


 It was GZ's head hitting the concrete,so why would Trayvon be calling for help?He was in the process of trying to spill Zimmerman's brains onto the concrete which would have killed him. Trayvon had Zimmerman whipped.He should have stood up and walked away.He chose to keep beating Zimmerman's head into the concrete.

At this point Zimmerman had two options.Keep taking the pounding that would probably kill him or kill the source of the pounding and live. He chose to live.
Trayvon had the same choices,but by his own actions to destroy this (creepy___cracker) that was following him,he chose death.Not intentionally however, just that judging crackers ain't easy and one should never take them for granted.No telling what might happen.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

EDDIE BUCK said:


> It was GZ's head hitting the concrete,so why would Trayvon be calling for help?He was in the process of trying to spill Zimmerman's brains onto the concrete which would have killed him. Trayvon had Zimmerman whipped.He should have stood up and walked away.He chose to keep beating Zimmerman's head into the concrete.
> 
> At this point Zimmerman had two options.Keep taking the pounding that would probably kill him or kill the source of the pounding and live. He chose to live.
> Trayvon had the same choices,but by his own actions to destroy this (creepy___cracker) that was following him,he chose death.Not intentionally however, just that judging crackers ain't easy and one should never take them for granted.No telling what might happen.


Zimmerman's own statement was that Martin reached for his gun. For those of you who claim that Martin had won the fight and should have walked away I'll ask you one last question. How many of you would just walk away from a man armed with a gun who you had just had a violent altercation with without either incapaciting or disarming them?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I think this case illustrates the dangers of vigilanteeism, and suggests a breakdown in law and order in our society.

When GZ called 911 from his car to report a suspicious individual in his neighborhood, I believe the dispatcher told him not to follow the 'suspect.' If he had taken that advice and stayed in his vehicle, it's likely the shooting never would have happened.

Likewise, if TM had called 911 when he realized he was being followed, and had chosen to get out of Dodge instead of confronting Zimmerman, he wouldn't have been shot. 

Neither man trusted the police to do their job adequately. GZ expressed his frustration to the dispatcher ("These [expletives] always get away"). It appears Martin did not even turn to the police for help.While it's risky to speculate as to another's mindset, I think it's possible that as a young black man, he did not view the police as being his allies. Perhaps it never even occurred to him that he could summon them for help. 

When law and order break down in a community, and people no longer trust authority figures to protect them, tragedies like this are the result.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

greg273 said:


> Maybe he didn't want to get shot?


The chance you take when you start a fight is that the other person may be able to beat you. Martin sized up Zimmerman when he walked around his truck. It was then that he decided Zimmerman was dising him and he decided to do something about it. But he didn't realize that Zimmerman was armed.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> Zimmerman's own statement was that Martin reached for his gun. For those of you who claim that Martin had won the fight and should have walked away I'll ask you one last question. How many of you would just walk away from a man armed with a gun who you had just had a violent altercation with without either incapaciting or disarming them?


Martin had several choices that would have probably led to his survival.

1. He could have gone home as suggested by the girl he was talking to.

2. He could have chosen not to knock Zimmerman to the ground. 

3. After he had knocked Zimmerman to the ground, he could have stopped instead of straddling Zimmerman and continuing the beating.

4. He could stopped beating Zimmerman on the ground when Zimmerman started crying for help. 

5. He could stopped beating Zimmerman on the ground after Zimmerman was crying for help.and the neighbor who witnessed the beating told him to stop. *I don't think the gun was in play yet.*

Seconds after the neighbor went inside, the gun came out and Martin's options and life expired.

Martin went through at least five points in time when he could have stopped during the confrontation and assault and lived.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

willow_girl said:


> I think this case illustrates the dangers of vigilanteeism, and suggests a breakdown in law and order in our society.
> 
> When GZ called 911 from his car to report a suspicious individual in his neighborhood, *I believe the dispatcher told him not to follow the 'suspect.' If he had taken that advice and stayed in his vehicle, it's likely the shooting never would have happened.
> 
> ...


*

Zimmerman was already out of his truck going toward where Martin disappeared looking for an address when the dispatcher suggested he not follow. Maybe we can blame this on the dispatcher who asked for an address.*


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> Martin had several choices that would have probably led to his survival.
> 
> 1. He could have gone home as suggested by the girl he was talking to.
> 
> ...


We don't know when the gun came into play. It was a simple question. Why no answer to it?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Please stop using the derogatory word for white people, it is just as bad as the derogatory word for blacks. It is being used here often.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

No links, but fox is reporting that feds are looking into this being a hate crime AGAIN.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Martin, per Zimmerman, didn't know about the gun until towards the end. He could have chosen to walk away from the man at five identifiable moments before the gun was revealed. Zimmerman had a CCW. Those who characterized Zimmerman as a cop wannabe ignored that Zimmerman acted as a civilian and not a cop the entire time. He kept the gun concealed until almost the very end.

I've yet to attack anyone. And I have no reason to think I will in the future. I have no reason to wonder whether someone has a gun. The point is Martin had the opportunity to stop the assault several times. After the gun was revealed, maybe he did go after it. He might have still been able to throw his hands up and give up.

Martin didn't know Zimmerman had a gun until it was probably too late. Martin made choices and he paid the ultimate price for his bad decisions.

As for what I would do if I was forced into that situation, I don't know. There are too many factors to take into consideration to give a pat answer.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

dixiegal62 said:


> No links, but fox is reporting that feds are looking into this being a hate crime AGAIN.


Fox is still stirring the pot. Some ex-employees of the DOJ don't think it will be easy. The FBI already eliminated racism. That's probably the high hurdle Holder mentioned.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...simple/u4NNXk5VRdpQMPZIB5R23M/singlepage.html


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> Martin, per Zimmerman, didn't know about the gun until towards the end. He could have chosen to walk away from the man at five identifiable moments before the gun was revealed. Zimmerman had a CCW. Those who characterized Zimmerman as a cop wannabe ignored that Zimmerman acted as a civilian and not a cop the entire time. He kept the gun concealed until almost the very end.
> 
> I've yet to attack anyone. And I have no reason to think I will in the future. I have no reason to wonder whether someone has a gun. The point is Martin had the opportunity to stop the assault several times. After the gun was revealed, maybe he did go after it. He might have still been able to throw his hands up and give up.
> 
> ...


And yet you're certain how Martin should have acted at each and every point.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> And yet you're certain how Martin should have acted at each and every point.


Martin was out of control before he encountered Zimmerman. I've haven't seen anything that makes me think anything other than Martin saw Zimmerman as an opportunity to pound the hell out of a ***** *** ******* and brag about it to his friends later.

Martin crossed more than one line on his rendezvous with death that night.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

Bottom line; Our court system works and a thug got smoked. Break out the ear plugs boys or your ears will be dragging the ground from all the crying we're in for.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> Martin was out of control before he encountered Zimmerman. I've haven't seen anything that makes me think anything other than Martin saw Zimmerman as an opportunity to pound the hell out of a ***** *** ******* and brag about it to his friends later.
> 
> Martin crossed more than one line on his rendezvous with death that night.


He certainly looked "out of control" in the convenience store video. Both people had equal opportunity to walk away.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Darren, we don't know that Martin did go for the gun. In fact, there is some evidence it he couldn't have. We also do not know who's voice is on that tape. We also don't know for certain who was on top.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

So, what should we do......re-try the case ?

What fate for Zimmerman would sate the appetites of those here who believe he murdered a man ?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

OK Karen, in my deleted post I already said I would obey the rules, as soon as I knew what they were.
I realize some on here feign ignorance, but in this case I was truly being honest.
I really didn't know what you were talking about.
That's the truth.


----------



## sandsuncritters (Nov 18, 2011)

Angie, I hope you're not considering the term "cracker" to be a derogatory term.

As a proud descendant of Florida pioneer families, I think a little education may be in order. Like Farmr Brown, we're a wee bit proud of our Cracker heritage. We carry on as best we can, passing down the lifestyle and the moniker to succeeding generations. 

In my opinion this country could benefit from learning about and living the Florida Cracker culture. It's something to be proud of, and I am! BTW, I ride a Cracker horse and there are Cracker cattle on the ranch. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_cracker

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Florida Cracker

In His Love
Mich


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

edited out what was here -

I checked the links provided and read the pm's sent to me.

Seems that Crackers are a good term in Florida in general. 

But I still see it being used here via quotes of TM to not be within that meaning. But I'll leave it alone.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

I agree with Angie and it's the fact that it wasn't just quoting an article; rather being used over and over in these posts when there is no reason to keep using. Even in Florida, it becomes insulting if used constantly to reference someone. 

In other words, it was fine to define/quote that M called Z a "creepy cracker" but then when making personal posts, it isn't necessary and is inflammatory, to constantly keep referring to Z as the creepy cracker rather than just using his name. So it's not that it's wrong, but it becomes wrong and no better than using the 'n' word when it you take it too far and constantly as a derogatory term.

Please let's not argue the point anymore and get back to the original intent of this thread.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Forerunner said:


> So, what should we do......re-try the case ?
> 
> What fate for Zimmerman would sate the appetites of those here who believe he murdered a man ?


Bingo!! We have a winner!! 

That's exactly the point. Regardless of how we may personally feel or view the evidence, the jury did their best, was conscientious, took their time and were serious about their decision. As Americans, we have respect that decision and just let it go because there is no better system. 

To keep hashing it out, is futile and keeps us from moving forward. If we do then we can become better Americans that are proud to have a system where we are allowed the freedom to a fair trial -- even if it sometimes fails or we make mistakes in it; because there is no better way and it sure beats the judicial system of places like China, N Korea and most others.


----------



## sandsuncritters (Nov 18, 2011)

See bolded text. The terms "Cracker" and "creepy cracker" are very different, having different meanings and defining much different peoples. 

Cracker refers to a proud heritage and hardworking honest people who helped to build this country. There's nothing insulting about the term. I take umbrage with your assertion that it can be used that way.

You may be feeling a bit short-tempered at the moment and I don't blame you. Wouldn't want your job refereeing this forum. :duel: but I do want to make sure that my people are not sullied in anyway by the assertions of a few ignoramuses.

I sent Angie a pm that you might also find useful, before I saw this post. Hopefully she will share the info with you. 

Now back to the original intent f this thread, whatever that was.

In His Love
Mich



Karen said:


> I agree with Angie and it's the fact that it wasn't just quoting an article; rather being used over and over in these posts when there is no reason to keep using. *Even in Florida, it becomes insulting if used constantly to reference someone. *
> 
> In other words, it was fine to define/quote that M called Z a "creepy cracker" but then when making personal posts, it isn't necessary and is inflammatory, to constantly keep referring to Z as the creepy cracker rather than just using his name. So it's not that it's wrong, but it becomes wrong and no better than using the 'n' word when it you take it too far and constantly as a derogatory term.
> 
> Please let's not argue the point anymore and get back to the original intent of this thread.


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

Zimmerman will crash and burn.
Too much fame.
He may get too much money.. book deals, Lifetime movie deal whatever..
Too fast of a new car, too much drink, gambling..
Or he may just fade away, ending up destitute and making poor choices.
I cannot imagine that he will get a good job, settle down and buy a house, grow some roses in the backyard...

He was not a successful guy, he didn't have the faculties to have a steady job and life.
The fame/infamy will be his downfall.
You have to be a seriously centered person to survive this untainted and I don't see him having that.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

sandsuncritters said:


> Cracker refers to a proud heritage and hardworking honest people who helped to build this country.


I've never heard the term "cracker" used in that context.


----------



## sandsuncritters (Nov 18, 2011)

Read the links I posted, for starters. Then do a little research on Florida history. It's an interesting read 

In His Love
Mich



Nevada said:


> I've never heard the term "cracker" used in that context.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Forerunner said:


> So, what should we do......re-try the case ?
> 
> What fate for Zimmerman would sate the appetites of those here who believe he murdered a man ?


The trial was fair and the verdict just. What I object to is the deification of Zimmerman and the demonization of Martin. Both made numerous decisions that night that led to the death of one. Neither had to die or even have a violent confrontation. I find the celebratory nature of some's reaction to the death of a young man as distasteful as the violence that occurred in Oakland in the aftermath of the verdict.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> The trial was fair and the verdict just. What I object to is the deification of Zimmerman and the demonization of Martin. Both made numerous decisions that night that led to the death of one. Neither had to die or even have a violent confrontation. I find the celebratory nature of some's reaction to the death of a young man as distasteful as the violence that occurred in Oakland in the aftermath of the verdict.


If the verdict had gone the other way, there would be celebration. The phone messages were kept from the defense. That was not right either.


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

I was proud to be called a cracker. Still am.

[YOUTUBE]T08mjU2Ihp4[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> The trial was fair and the verdict just. What I object to is the deification of Zimmerman and the demonization of Martin. Both made numerous decisions that night that led to the death of one. Neither had to die or even have a violent confrontation. I find the celebratory nature of some's reaction to the death of a young man as distasteful as the violence that occurred in Oakland in the aftermath of the verdict.


The media got what they wanted, divisions.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Ambereyes said:


> The media got what they wanted, divisions.


The media did get what they wanted. Ratings and ad revenue.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> The media did get what they wanted. Ratings and ad revenue.


That too, with half truths and innuendo in some reporting. Whatever works I guess.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

chickenista said:


> Zimmerman will crash and burn.
> Too much fame.
> He may get too much money.. book deals, Lifetime movie deal whatever..
> Too fast of a new car, too much drink, gambling..
> ...


I hope you're not right, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's what happened if he isn't murdered. He doesn't really have much of a life left. The HT site is a very small example of the discord that's been generated. People still refuse to accept it was self defense. 

This Sunday a regional paper still got the facts wrong. The AP article they ran was still slanted to show an unarmed little boy getting shot while walking through the neighborhood. Self defense is out of the question. Sound familiar?


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Possum Belly said:


> I was proud to be called a cracker. Still am.
> 
> [YOUTUBE]T08mjU2Ihp4[/YOUTUBE]


I don't care if I am called a cracker. I have heard it many times and just walked on by smiling. I am Southern born and Southern bred and a Georgia cracker now rincess: and proud of it.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> I've never heard the term used in that context.



LOL
Picture this, said in the dialect of Jeff Foxworthy, or even Larry the Cable Guy, (a perhaps little known part-time resident of Sanford, on the north side of Lake Jessup, I believe)......


"IF......you've ever......heard.......the phrase........*'You ain't from around here, are ya?'*...........you probably aren't."






I was chuckling to myself all day after reading this on another thread.....



CesumPec said:


> I used to have a customer at DOT HQ, an older white man nearing retirement. There was a meeting and one of the new low level political appointees of the GWB administration was sitting in and things got mildly contentious. That's when another DOT employee, a black man, said to my customer, "Look, (white-eee), that's how it is supposed to be done."
> 
> The political appointee was astounded that such a simple discussion of procedure had gone from mild disagreement to racial insults so fast. He stopped the meeting because he knew he could not be seen as allowing this sort of thing. This was the first test of his leadership, he had to take a stand.
> 
> And everyone laughed and laughed and laughed at him; the political guy was embarrassed and confused. Then it was explained that (White-eee) was the Christian name of that particular fellow, just like (White-eee) Ford, the baseball player.





farmrbrown said:


> :smack LMAO
> 
> LOL
> That just reminded me of a story that an EMT friend of mine that I grew up with from Florida tells.
> ...


----------



## sandsuncritters (Nov 18, 2011)

farmrbrown said:


> LOL
> Picture this, said in the dialect of Jeff Foxworthy, or even Larry the Cable Guy, (a perhaps little known part-time resident of Sanford, on the north side of Lake Jessup, I believe)......
> 
> 
> "IF......you've ever......heard.......the phrase........*'You ain't from around here, are ya?'*...........you probably aren't."


:rock::bow::goodjob:

In His Love
Mich


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> "IF......you've ever......heard.......the phrase........*'You ain't from around here, are ya?'*...........you probably aren't."


Except that I used to live in Florida.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

I know, that's why I said _probably_. You and I were from the same area in the southern end and both our mama's live within a hard day's walk from each other now.

Chances are, one of has relatives buried there, perhaps _all_ of them, going back to the Seminoles and one of us doesn't. Chances are, both of us know whether we're telling like it is or not, too.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Except that I used to live in Florida.


But aren't you from Ohio originally?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> But aren't you from Ohio originally?


Yes, but most of my family defected to Florida (all but myself and a sister in New Jersey). My father defected to Florida in 1967, so that was the first time I lived in Florida. I have no immediate family living in Ohio today. I'm sure that Ohio still has an ample supply of people, but they don't happen to be my people.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

> I'm sure that Ohio still has an ample supply of people, but they don't happen to be my people.


Good to know...I've never understood Ohio people. I was born there myself but didn't stay long.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Darren said:


> Fox is still stirring the pot. Some ex-employees of the DOJ don't think it will be easy. The FBI already eliminated racism. That's probably the high hurdle Holder mentioned.
> 
> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...simple/u4NNXk5VRdpQMPZIB5R23M/singlepage.html


 
I doubt fox is the only one. I'm growing weary of seeing people on tv telling us that blacks now fear being randomly shot by white men. Media is still trying to start a race war.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

When some voiced feared Z wouldn't be able to receive a fair trial we where told by more than one member that the jury's verdict was law and whatever they decided was justice. It's pretty clear they only felt that way when they assumed Z would be found guilty. Now that he's free many are singing a different tune.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

dixiegal62 said:


> When some voiced feared Z wouldn't be able to receive a fair trial we where told by more than one member that the jury's verdict was law and whatever they decided was justice. It's pretty clear they only felt that way when they assumed Z would be found guilty. Now that he's free many are singing a different tune.


More infprmation about Trayvon's criminal acts are coming out on the web. I recently saw 20 out of the 3,000+ picures on his phone finally showed up along with the death scene photo showing guess who. Now that the trial's over lots of things will be revealed. 

I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the people that staked their careers on a guilty verdict.

Of course that's not going to change the minds of the Saint Trayvon believers who so far seem to have strictly relied on the big media for their ... guidance.

It's a shame the NSA's recording of the call between the girl and Trayvon isn't available. I'd give a body part I don't use much anymore to hear that.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

I may not agree with the verdict, but I respect their decision. They looked at the evidence, and made the decision they thought best. Innocent until PROVEN guilty is the way it is, and the way it ought to be. 
And about the 'cracker' thing, didn't that whole thing get started with the white folk being 'whip crackers' over their slaves?? Thats what I was led to believe.


----------



## Pearl B (Sep 27, 2008)

I agree with this,



> Regardless of how we may personally feel or view the evidence, the jury did their best, was conscientious, took their time and were serious about their decision. As Americans, we have respect that decision and just let it go because there is no better system.
> 
> To keep hashing it out, is futile


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

farmrbrown said:


> LOL
> 
> "IF......you've ever......heard.......the phrase........*'You ain't from around here, are ya?'*...........you probably aren't.


*Cracker*, sometimes *white cracker* or *cracka*, is an expression and common ethnic slur for white people especially poor rural whites in the Southern United States. In reference to a native of Florida or Georgia, however, it is sometimes used in a neutral or positive context and is sometimes used self-descriptively with pride.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracker_(pejorative)#cite_note-2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracker_(pejorative)

My mother and father told me that a cracker was a sharecropper. Sharecroppers were poor white people who got a wage from the farmer for working the crops. The cracker or cracker family got a little shotgun house to live in on the property.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

I've seen this reported, don't know if it made it to HT. It is a rather interesting story in the aftermath of the Zimmerman case..........

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/hero-teens-chase-kidnapper-bikes-article-1.1398831

Hero teens save 5-year-old by chasing kidnapper on their bikes 
Jocelyn Rojas, 5, of Lancaster Township, Pa., was freed by her alleged captor after a group of local teens spotted her in a car and began tailing it on their bikes.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...dnapper-bikes-article-1.1398831#ixzz2Z9Vf6s4u


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

gapeach said:


> *Cracker*, sometimes *white cracker* or *cracka*, is an expression and common ethnic slur for white people especially poor rural whites in the Southern United States. In reference to a native of Florida or Georgia, however, it is sometimes used in a neutral or positive context and is sometimes used self-descriptively with pride.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracker_(pejorative)#cite_note-2
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracker_(pejorative)
> 
> My mother and father told me that a cracker was a sharecropper. Sharecroppers were poor white people who got a wage from the farmer for working the crops. The cracker or cracker family got a little shotgun house to live in on the property.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymmj0mN9tB8[/ame]


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

It appears that Obama and Holder are out for revenge now. Soon we will have to draw our line in the sand. It is an opportunity not to be passed up by the corrupt government and there struggle to become the king.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

gapeach said:


> *Cracker*, sometimes *white cracker* or *cracka*, is an expression and common ethnic slur for white people especially poor rural whites in the Southern United States. In reference to a native of Florida or Georgia, however, it is sometimes used in a neutral or positive context and is sometimes used self-descriptively with pride.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracker_(pejorative)#cite_note-2
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracker_(pejorative)
> 
> My mother and father told me that a cracker was a sharecropper. Sharecroppers were poor white people who got a wage from the farmer for working the crops. The cracker or cracker family got a little shotgun house to live in on the property.



........And I was thinking about past Florida Governors the other day....
Lawton Chiles would have been giving one of his "aw shucks" comments.....

http://chilesfoundation.org/legend-of-he-****-2/memorable-quotes/

http://www.sptimes.com/State/121498/THE__HE_COON__SPEAKS.html


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

EDDIE BUCK said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymmj0mN9tB8


Thanks, Eddie. I never heard that before. I knew Chubby Checker married a white girl. He was from my era. Who could ever be offended by that song??? My family was not sharecroppers but it is part of our Southern heritage. The sharecroppers did get a share of the crops too, enough to feed their family. Women used to dip snuff and chew tobacco too. Loved the music.....


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

mnn2501 said:


> Zimmerman ought to be able to sue the "news agencies" and the president for his attorney's fee's


When has Obama ever been held accountable?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

According to Allen Dershowitz, Zimmerman now has a basis of a defamation lawsuit against Angel Corey. Do it Georgie!

""Clearly he is somebody who was acquitted by a jury on the grounds of self-defense and she shouldnât be going around second-guessing the jury verdict and calling him a murderer," the veteran Harvard Law professor said.

"He probably has a defamation action against her. She has no immunity as a prosecutor for appearing on television and if I were his lawyer I would think seriously about bringing a defamation lawsuit against her."

On an interview taped after Zimmerman's acquittal Saturday and airing Monday night on CNN's Headline News program "HLN After Dark," Corey is asked for a word that comes to mind for the former neighborhood-watch volunteer.

"Murderer," she says after several seconds of silence."
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Dershowitz-zimmerman-defamation/2013/07/15/id/515150#ixzz2ZDMEiTpr 

​


----------



## Old John (May 27, 2004)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *sandsuncritters*  
_Cracker refers to a proud heritage and hardworking honest people who helped to build this country._

I've never heard the term "cracker" used in that context. 
__________________





Nevada said:


> I've never heard the term "cracker" used in that context.


When I worked in a large Factory that supplied steering gears to the Auto Industry, I heard the term "Cracker", always used in a derogatory fashion. It was mostly used by a Black fellow as a put-down to a white guy he was working with. I saw it come close to provoking a Fight a bunch of times. It is definitely Not a Friendly term.

I don't want anyone calling me "Cracker!"


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

*On Martin case, Obama shifts from passion to calm*

7-17-2013 JULIE PACE AP



WASHINGTON (AP) &#8212; When President Barack Obama first addressed the death of Trayvon Martin last year, he did so passionately, declaring that if he had a son, he would look like the slain 17-year-old. His powerful and personal commentary marked a rare public reflection on race from the nation's first black president.
But now, with the man who fatally shot Martin acquitted and the burden of any future charges squarely on his own administration, Obama is seeking to inject calm into a case that has inflamed passions, including his own. In a brief statement, the president called Martin's killing a "tragedy" but implored the public to respect a Florida jury's decision to clear George Zimmerman, the man charged in the teen's death.
"I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher," Obama said Sunday. "But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken."
The president's restrained response underscores the complicated calculus for the White House as it grapples with the fallout from the racially charged case. Obama faces inevitable questions about the verdict, given his previous statements on the matter and his own race. But as the head of a government considering levying federal charges against Zimmerman, he must also avoid the appearance of influencing an ongoing Justice Department investigation.
"Barack Obama is a lawyer and I think his legal sense is that he should do nothing that would interrupt or disrupt any future matters involving George Zimmerman," said Charles Ogletree, a law professor at Harvard University and longtime friend of the president.
http://news.yahoo.com/martin-case-obama-shifts-passion-calm-071703119.html


He needs to tell rabble rousers Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to stop organizing protests across the country that end up in violence.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

There's a cute picture on the internet of Obama sitting in the Oval Office with a picture of his son on he wall. It's the one showing Trayvon giving the Hawaiian good luck sign.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

gapeach said:


> *On Martin case, Obama shifts from passion to calm*
> 
> 7-17-2013 JULIE PACE AP
> 
> ...


So the president should order private citizens to stop exercising their rights of free speech and assembly? Gotta love that Constitution.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

He is aware of what they are doing. He could tell them that they are causing mobs to form and they are becoming violent. He could urge them to stop. I will take away the word* order*.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

You could also add the word "peaceable" to assembly as well, since that's the way the first amendment is actually worded.
I've noticed that it pays to be very attentive on here where people start to quote something they believe is a law or constitutional right.
For the most part I sincerely believe it isn't being done intentionally. OTOH I've seen a few cases where there's no doubt.

I'll refer to the nonsense going on in Oakland as a prime example.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> So the president should order private citizens to stop exercising their rights of free speech and assembly? Gotta love that Constitution.


Peaceable assembly is one thing, rioting is another as is encouraging the murder of a legally innocent man.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

*This is what worries me. College starts back here in 14 days. Sharpton does not use the word peaceful. 
*

*NBC's Sharpton Plans Protests In 100 Cities*

*During MSNBC's 11 am hour, above a chyron that read, "More Marches, Protests Planned in Coming Days, Weeks," MSNBC anchor Al Sharpton said that he and his National Action Network are "mobilizing" protests in 100 cities. Sharpton made clear that the protests were meant to pressure the Justice Department into taking legal action against George Zimmerman:*

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/15/NBCs-Al-Sharpton-Plans-Protest-in-100-
Cities


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> You could also add the word "peaceable" to assembly as well, since that's the way the first amendment is actually worded.
> I've noticed that it pays to be very attentive on here where people start to quote something they believe is a law or constitutional right.
> For the most part I sincerely believe it isn't being done intentionally. OTOH I've seen a few cases where there's no doubt.
> 
> I'll refer to the nonsense going on in Oakland as a prime example.


My apologies for not including "peaceably". I have seen no calls for violent protest from any of the major public figures involved. I have already criticized the actions in Oakland and will take the opportunity here to express my displeasure at what happened in LA last night. The vast majority of people gathering and speaking out have been peaceful. I was heartened to see the gathering in NYC included young people of many colors. That is what gives me hope for the future. As for the president-his initial statement called for "calm reflection". I would not object to him making a statement to reiterate a call for calm. Both sides could take a step or two back and think about what they are saying. I refer you to the remarks of Ted Nugent. Perhaps if Martin and Zimmerman had stepped back that night we would not be here.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

To clarify, I didn't think you intentionally left that part out either, mmoetc, no apology necessary.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> As for the president-his initial statement called for "calm reflection". I would not object to him making a statement to reiterate a call for calm.


I will give Obama credit for his first statement saying 'we are a nation of laws and the jury has spoken'. That's the message that needs to keep coming from the WH.

Considering Sharpton's history (Crown Heights), he should be banned from ever calling for/organizing protests again. EVER!! The man is nothing but an racist agitator and he's already caused people to die because of his careless words. He's a disgusting human being, IMO.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

*Witness claims youths yelled 'this is for Trayvon' in beating*

*Police still investigating claim in beating of Hispanic man
*

Hundreds of Trayvon Martin supporters gathered in downtown Baltimore to rally in response to the George Zimmerman verdict. (Lauren Loricchio/Baltimore Sun video)
By Justin George, The Baltimore Sun  7:39 p.m. EDT, July 15, 2013

Baltimore police say they are investigating a witness account that a group of black youths beat a Hispanic man near Patterson Park Sunday while saying, "This is for Trayvon."
A witness posted the account on a community Facebook page, and police confirmed they are looking into whether the suspects' reaction to the verdict in the Florida trial of George Zimmerman played a part in the incident. A police report on the beating does not mention the alleged comments.
Sgt. Eric Kowalczyk, a police spokesman, declined to go into further detail.
excerpt: 
Using a translator, police spoke to the victim, who knows some English, according to the police report. The victim told officers that he was standing in the intersection of Fairmont and N. Potomac Street when a group of five black males first approached him.
He described all of the males as between 16 and 18 and told police a 6-foot suspect with a black "stretchy" shirt and mohawk told him, "What's up, [expletive]." When the victim raised his phone to call 911, the suspect raised his shirt and flashed a silver handgun in his waistband.
The victim turned and ran before he was caught in the 2800 block of Fairmont and was beaten, police said. He sustained abrasions to his elbows and forearms but refused medical attention.
Police listed all of the suspects involved as black males. Three were "skinny" while one was described as overweight.
Dudley, who lives in the neighborhood, said she worries about her Hispanic neighbors and said she and other residents were looking for ways to warn them of the incident beyond Facebook. Patterson Park has one of the city's highest concentration of Latinos and is home to the city's annual Latino Fest

Read more: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ma...monday-20130715,0,5135359.story#ixzz2ZEZgbGHM

This was caused by the actions of Al Sharpton and his ilk.
So whites and Hispanics will be targeted because Zimmerman was described as a white Hispanic?
Baltimore is one of the places where the citizens have lost their guns.
​


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

We are supposed to have protests here in Detroit and Flint. Flint is the one to worry about. 3 people murdered in their apartment last night. Lots of crime.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

My husband used to work in Flint and it was bad then, 60's and 70's. Just stay inside and keep the doors locked. 
This is something that law abiding people should not have to go through. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are behind this. How can the law let innocent people throughout the country who never had anything to do with what happened in Florida have to suffer?
There is a certain, sad segment of our population that thrives on crating strife amongst the races.
This case had nothing to do with race period.
Obama and Holder could speak to the people and get this stopped if they wanted to.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

This is what Obama wants, those of us that know what Obama is all about have said this all along. He is a product of the racial troubles in the 60's, the same people surrounded him all his life and were his mentors. Add to that the Cloward and Piven plan, and here we are. Like clockwork. Except, I do not think that this will be as bad as what O needs to complete his plan. Many can see thru him, even tho they stay quiet on the subject.
My Dh lived in Flint in the 60's, I was born in Detroit, I remember the riots well. Thank goodness we are not too close to flint,maybe 30 miles.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

7thswan said:


> He is a product of the racial troubles in the 60's


You say that like there's some sort of shame associated with 60's racidal movements. We have a lot to be proud of. We ended the Vietnam war, gave 18 year-olds the right to vote, got the civil rights act, and women have gained a lot of equal rights. Which of those are you against?


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Nevada said:


> You say that like there's some sort of shame associated with 60's racidal movements. We have a lot to be proud of. We ended the Vietnam war, gave 18 year-olds the right to vote, got the civil rights act, and women have gained a lot of equal rights. Which of those are you against?


 The shame is, is that Obama wants it to continue. More Government, Bigger government and Obama is using the hatered to promote "change". These protesters don't know what "change" Obama wants,but they will listen to him, and Obama knows, and that is why Obama won't tell these rioters to knock it off and grow up. There is all kinds of shame that surrounded the 60's-look at Charels Manson, Bill Ayers....


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> You say that like there's some sort of shame associated with 60's racidal movements. We have a lot to be proud of. We ended the Vietnam war, gave 18 year-olds the right to vote, got the civil rights act, and women have gained a lot of equal rights. Which of those are you against?


I'm against the horrible treatment of our soldiers by the public which occured at the time.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Lazaryss said:


> I'm against the horrible treatment of our soldiers by the public which occured at the time.


Sad that those soldiers were subject to the draft then. Most of them did not volunteer to go to Vietnam and were not treated right when they came home. Most of them carry baggage from the war still today.


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

gapeach said:


> Sad that those soldiers were subject to the draft then. Most of them did not volunteer to go to Vietnam and were not treated right when they came home. Most of them carry baggage from the war still today.


I agree completely.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Lazaryss said:


> I'm against the horrible treatment of our soldiers by the public which occured at the time.


I never saw that, and would have never taken part in anything like that. I had lots of friends in the service at the time. The anti-war movement was all about keeping troops home. As I saw it, we were on the side of the troops.

I can't help but believe that mistreatment of Vietnam troops was an urban legend.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

gapeach said:


> Most of them did not volunteer to go to Vietnam and were not treated right when they came home. Most of them carry baggage from the war still today.


Unlike a lot of wars, returning Vietnam troops found that they had been fighting a very unpopular war. The accomplishments of the war were unsung for the most part, and they weren't greeted as heroes. They found themselves returning to an economy with unemployment problems and a lot of them didn't develop much in the way of marketable job skills in the service.

On the whole, it was difficult for them. Many turned to the GI bill so they could go to college. It worked for some, but not others. Many took jobs at factories or gas stations, but a lot became drunks and drug addicts. \

As bad as things were, nobody I knew hated them for their participation on the war. There was no reason to hate them.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I can't help but believe that mistreatment of Vietnam troops was an urban legend.


I know a lot of veterans, my DH included, who would strongly disagree with you. He remembers, and mentions to this day, the term 'baby killer' when he returned from 'Nam. :grump:


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Txsteader said:


> I know a lot of veterans, my DH included, who would strongly disagree with you. He remembers, and mentions to this day, the term 'baby killer' when he returned from 'Nam. :grump:


You are exactly right. One of my HS friends had the job of taking the bodies off the battlefield to ID them. He has died now but never really got over the horrors that he witnessed. He has died of cancer now. Urban legends, my rear end!


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

It's one thing to be drafted into service for your country. It's an entirely different thing to be treated w/ such contempt on your return. 

And we all know who was saying those contemptible things. Most of them vote Democrat today.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> I know a lot of veterans, my DH included, who would strongly disagree with you. He remembers, and mentions to this day, the term 'baby killer' when he returned from 'Nam. :grump:


I'm at a loss why anyone would do that.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> I know a lot of veterans, my DH included, who would strongly disagree with you. He remembers, and mentions to this day, the term 'baby killer' when he returned from 'Nam. :grump:


Yes I clearly remember some calling the returning vets that. No exaggeration there at all. It was done.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

I think it was mostly because of the My Lai Massacre.
* *


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Yes I clearly remember some calling the returning vets that. No exaggeration there at all. It was done.


Can you elaborate? Where, when, what happened? What did you do or say?


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

greg273 said:


> And about the 'cracker' thing, didn't that whole thing get started with the white folk being 'whip crackers' over their slaves?? Thats what I was led to believe.


Sorry to disappoint you, in the antebellum South, a cracker was a small farmer, a tad on the poor side. Someone who never had a slave, let alone crack a whip over one. . 


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061231201343AASs4R0


By the 1760s, this term was in use by the English in the British North American colonies to refer to Scots-Irish settlers in the south. A letter to the Earl of Dartmouth reads: "I should explain to your Lordship what is meant by Crackers; a name they have got from being great boasters; they are a lawless set of rascalls on the frontiers of Virginia, Maryland, the Carolinas, and Georgia, who often change their places of abode." A similar usage was that of Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species, to refer to "Virginia squatters" (illegal settlers).

Historically the word suggested poor, white rural Americans with little formal education. Historians point out the term originally referred to the strong Scots-Irish of the backcountry (as opposed to the English of the seacoast). Thus a sociologist reported in 1926, "As the plantations expanded these freed men (formerly bond servants) were pushed further and further back upon the more and more sterile soil. They became 'pinelanders,' 'corn-crackers,' or 'crackers.'" [Kephard Highlanders] Frederick Law Olmsted, a prominent landscape architect from the northern United States, visited the South as a journalist in the 1850s and noted that some crackers "owned a good many *******, and were by no means so poor as their appearance indicated."


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tabitha said:


> Sorry to disappoint you, in the antebellum South, a cracker was a small farmer, a tad on the poor side.


I've never heard that before.

Are you suggesting that Martin's girlfriend interpreted the term "cracker" to mean that a small farmer was following him?


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

Are you trying to be funny? You know exactly how she meant it.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

> Tabitha said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry to disappoint you, in the antebellum South, a cracker was a small farmer, a tad on the poor side. Someone who never had a slave, let alone crack a whip over one. .
> ...


 Ok, so its a term for a farmer. But also including slave owning farmers. Glad we cleared that up.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tabitha said:


> Are you trying to be funny? You know exactly how she meant it.


Sure, Martin called him a "cracker" because he believed Zimmerman might be a racist white man, and that's what she thought also.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I've never heard that before.
> 
> Are you suggesting that Martin's girlfriend interpreted the term "cracker" to mean that a small farmer was following him?


She said on Piers Morgan that the term "cracka" was a policeman os security guard!
I've been called a "cracka" before and they didn't mean I was a cop. It's a derogatory term for white folks.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Sure, Martin called him a "cracker" because he believed Zimmerman might be a racist white man, and that's what she thought also.


Martins "girlfriend" said Martin was afraid because he thought GZ was going to rape him! She was on Piers Morgan. She really needs to go back to school and learn english.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Sure, Martin called him a "cracker" because he believed Zimmerman might be a racist white man, and that's what she thought also.


Zimmerman was a Hispanic man and the "cracker" was a derogatory term for a white person. All of this is ridiculous. Even the FBI investigated the case and people involved. They came to the conclusion that this was not a racist crime. The girlfriend says a lot of outlandish nonsense and especially about Z being a rapist. I heard what she said too about the people on the jury being old and not like people "today".


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> I've been called a "cracka" before and they didn't mean I was a cop. It's a derogatory term for white folks.


Yes, "cracker" is a racist and derogatory term for white folks. That impression didn't do the prosecution any good either. It left the jury with the impression that Martin had racist leanings.

I swear, I'll never understand how the prosecution could have botched the preparation of that witness so badly. Remember when the prosecutor handed her the letter and asked her to read it. She had to admit that she couldn't read cursive handwriting. I mean seriously, how much preparation could he have given her when he didn't even know she couldn't read the letter?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

gapeach said:


> The girlfriend says a lot of outlandish nonsense and especially about Z being a rapist.


I don't think either one of them really thought Zimmerman was a gay rapist. That was her way of encouraging Martin to get away from the guy following him, because for all he knows the guy following him might be a rapist.


----------



## 65284 (Sep 17, 2003)

mmoetc said:


> So the president should order private citizens to stop exercising their rights of free speech and assembly? Gotta love that Constitution.


 
Vast difference between exercising right of free speech...............and inciting to riot. The Supremes long ago decided there is a limit to free speech. Can't yell fire in a crowded theater.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

65284 said:


> Vast difference between exercising right of free speech...............and inciting to riot. The Supremes long ago decided there is a limit to free speech. Can't yell fire in a crowded theater.


Free speech is limited in many ways, as is the right of assembly and even the right to petition the government. None of those rights is absolute.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Tabitha said:


> Sorry to disappoint you, in the antebellum South, a cracker was a small farmer, a tad on the poor side. Someone who never had a slave, let alone crack a whip over one. .
> 
> 
> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061231201343AASs4R0
> ...


It doesn't matter to me what the word meant at one time, the 'n' word was just a description now its derogatory and polite people don't use it. It should be the same with 'any' word used to describe 'any' race in a derogatory manner. Tired of the double standards.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

"That term" was used at our family dinner table, to describe ourselves........a multigenerational Florida family who never owned slaves. I also heard it used in a derogatory context in the 70's .....by those who were ignorant of its true meaning, but couldn't think of anything else to say. That's why it always made me laugh.





Nevada said:


> I never saw that, and would have never taken part in anything like that. I had lots of friends in the service at the time. The anti-war movement was all about keeping troops home. As I saw it, we were on the side of the troops.
> 
> I can't help but believe that mistreatment of Vietnam troops was an urban legend.





Nevada said:


> As bad as things were, nobody I knew hated them for their participation on the war. There was no reason to hate them.





Nevada said:


> I'm at a loss why anyone would do that.




Even people that disagreed with what they saw and heard, still remember seeing it and hearing it.
Y'all remember my warning about those that "feign ignorance"?
I'm not talking about those truly ignorant.....this is something entirely different.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> Ok, so its a term for a farmer. But also including slave owning farmers. Glad we cleared that up.


I doubt poor farmers could afford slaves unless the slaves were at the point in their lives they couldn't do much.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> *I don't think either one of them really thought Zimmerman was a gay rapist.* That was her way of encouraging Martin to get away from the guy following him, because for all he knows the guy following him might be a rapist.


*BINGO!*

Nevada, you just brought up something that's been puzzling me since I first found out the story of Trayvon's girlfriend was bogus. I haven't had a chance to watch Jeantel's testimony. When you commented on the apparent lack of preparation of Jeantel, you hit the nail on the head. Why did she need preparation? There's a reason and it's not what you think.

The latest revelation is the elaborate chain of events and connections in the campaign to stir up enough outrage to force the State of Florida to charge Zimmerman. It was a sophisticated effort. that involved some surprising people.

It was designed to bamboozle people and elict support by appealing to people's prejudices. Only after the trial are all of the details being discovered. Jeantel was the key to the effort and. it seems, the weakest link.

If gays stalking and raping Black kids didn't sound rediculous to you, I've got an antique bridge in New York City that I'm willing sell you at a fire sale price. I'm a motivated seller as was Benjamin Crump.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

65284 said:


> Vast difference between exercising right of free speech...............and inciting to riot. The Supremes long ago decided there is a limit to free speech. Can't yell fire in a crowded theater.


There have been more than a few threads here on the issue of free speech. They make for some interesting reading. If Jim Bunton is around I'm sure hell post his link pointing out that yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't illegal. So far, I've heard none if the protest organizers calling for violence. Just because you don't like the nature of a protest doesn't mean the govt. should do anything to suppress it.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Yes, "cracker" is a racist and derogatory term for white folks. That impression didn't do the prosecution any good either. It left the jury with the impression that Martin had racist leanings.


Maybe we people who are called crackers are not as thin skinned and think political correctness has really gone to extremes. I just smile at anyone who uses the word, I have heard it in fast food restaurants where the teenagers were in a group and that smile stops them every time.
I have never heard the word used by older Americans. They are friendlier and more polite.

I agree that J's use of the word did not do the prosecution any good at all.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Nevada said:


> I never saw that, and would have never taken part in anything like that. I had lots of friends in the service at the time. The anti-war movement was all about keeping troops home. As I saw it, we were on the side of the troops.
> 
> I can't help but believe that mistreatment of Vietnam troops was an urban legend.


Then you should have gotten out more. Because there was plenty of mistreatment. My father almost got arrested for punching out a hippie that spit on him & called him a baby killer in SanDiego.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

Darren said:


> *BINGO!*
> 
> Nevada, you just brought up something that's been puzzling me since I first found out the story of Trayvon's girlfriend was bogus. I haven't had a chance to watch Jeantel's testimony. When you commented on the apparent lack of preparation of Jeantel, you hit the nail on the head. Why did she need preparation? There's a reason and it's not what you think.
> 
> ...


I thought from the get go that she was a phony. Why in the world would a nice looking kid like travon be interested in her? She is a crump special.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I'm not sure what the deal is and why something struck me as odd. I still haven't watched her testimony. I'm back to wondering where the gay thing came from when I found out she was born in Miami although her mother is from Haiti.

I just can't wrap my mind around Trayvon being worried about being raped.I can see that said in jest ... and infuriating Trayvon. Especially the run home part. For an seventeen year old, that comes across as a challenge. 

As much as he wanted people to see him as a gangsta, the fear of gays doesn't make sense.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Darren said:


> I'm not sure what the deal is and why something struck me as odd. I still haven't watched her testimony. I'm back to wondering where the gay thing came from when I found out she was born in Miami although her mother is from Haiti.
> 
> I just can't wrap my mind around Trayvon being worried about being raped.I can see that said in jest ... and infuriating Trayvon. Especially the run home part. For an seventeen year old, that comes across as a challenge.
> 
> As much as he wanted people to see him as a gangsta, the fear of gays doesn't make sense.



It is pretty obvious to me as to "why".

The racial profiling angle didn't work, even the jurors rejected that.
The anti-gun angle didn't work, the jury reaffirmed that right.
So.....let's try the homophobia agenda, to see if we can further erode our natural rights.

Meanwhile the actual events of what led to this tragedy haven't changed, just the "spin" coming from the left.
I'm sure that what she said to Trayvon was a very small part of the totality of the event, but the left will try to distract with minute details to further their agenda of disarmament.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

As for the demonstrations planned for this coming weekend. Take a look at who benefits when racial tensions are high and you will see who it is that is pushing all this division. This is Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and their Rent-A-Mobs, not the everyday citizens of any color. Eric Holder and Obama both know that the demonstrations are planned. Obama is keeping silent right now but all he would have to do is to come out and say to tone the rhetoric down before someone gets hurt really bad or killed. Eric Holder knows it too. He is not trying to stop it.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

I advise Katy to get her gun skills up to snuff and to the others to be prepared. This isn't going to end well.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Pops2 said:


> Then you should have gotten out more. Because there was plenty of mistreatment. My father almost got arrested for punching out a hippie that spit on him & called him a baby killer in SanDiego.


It still doesn't make sense to me. For the most part the troops were drafted, and a lot who enlisted only did it because the knew they were going to be drafted anyway. Those guys only did what they were told to do. We knew that.

My motivation to protest the Vietman war was so young Americans didn't have to be drafted and send to southeast Asia. What possible motivation would I have to harass a returning soldier? I was protesting on behalf of the troops. In fact a lot of returned troops were protesting along side of us. It just makes no sense at all.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

The feds have told the Sanford PD not to return Zimmerman's gun. I thought he was found not guilty. I guess this doesn't have any meaning anymore.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Nevada said:


> It still doesn't make sense to me. For the most part the troops were drafted, and a lot who enlisted only did it because the knew they were going to be drafted anyway. Those guys only did what they were told to do. We knew that.
> 
> My motivation to protest the Vietman war was so young Americans didn't have to be drafted and send to southeast Asia. What possible motivation would I have to harass a returning soldier? I was protesting on behalf of the troops. In fact a lot of returned troops were protesting along side of us. It just makes no sense at all.


 People attacked the Messinger not the message. I do belive it's why so many Vets from that time still have problems.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

davel745 said:


> The feds have told the Sanford PD not to return Zimmerman's gun. I thought he was found not guilty. I guess this doesn't have any meaning anymore.


They haven't blocked Zimmerman from getting his gun back permanently. They just put a hold on the evidence for a federal investigation. That sounds reasonable.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

he will get his weapon back once all the lamestream media chimps tea party about it is over and the trial evidence is released.

We were discussing this over lunch the other day and many of us remarked that is why we classify our handguns in two or three categories. Most of us have our lower cost but dependable every day carry service weapons and our more valuable older out of production weapons that we carry occasionally and the lucky ones have the truly valuable antique grade weapons that usually remain safe stored and see limited range use. Regardless of the grade and value we personally assign them, they all still are defensive weapons and can be used as such.

Legally George Zimmerman's KT will be returned to him, however if his trial status has already been negated and his 2nd Amendment right is no longer judicially impacted and fully restored, he has already quietly been returned possession of any other weapons that he or his immediate family owned that were taken into custody from his home during the trial.

It would not surprise me at all if George Zimmerman were to allow his KT to be scrapped and he quietly returns to as normal of a lifestyle as he can as Kel Tec is one of the more affordable daily service use pieces of hardware and protect himself with other weapons that he owns.

Of course if he chooses to return to life as quietly as possible with other weapons in his ownership, the lamesteam media, leftist gun abolishment and 2nd Amendment gun rights lobby groups will continue the battle over his Kel Tec's release from custody as it can be spun to strengthen all of their agendas regardless if those agendas are rating sweeps, gun control or gun ownership rights.

Regardless of how the show plays out now, George Zimmerman's role is most likely going to be minimal

As the staged media production plays out all any of us can do is ensure the safety of ourselves and homes to the best level that our personal values allow us to.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Nevada said:


> It still doesn't make sense to me. For the most part the troops were drafted, and a lot who enlisted only did it because the knew they were going to be drafted anyway. Those guys only did what they were told to do. We knew that.
> 
> My motivation to protest the Vietman war was so young Americans didn't have to be drafted and send to southeast Asia. What possible motivation would I have to harass a returning soldier? I was protesting on behalf of the troops. In fact a lot of returned troops were protesting along side of us. It just makes no sense at all.


Then you were A LOT smarter than your peers, because many (probably not most but many) treated the troops like crap. Since they couldn't confront the politicians that made those choices they stupidly transferred their anger toward the executors of the political decisions.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> They haven't blocked Zimmerman from getting his gun back permanently. They just put a hold on the evidence for a federal investigation. That sounds reasonable.


I thought I was done with the Zimmerman nonsense, but I just have to ask...what could the gun possibly contribute to a civil rights investigation?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

jtbrandt said:


> I thought I was done with the Zimmerman nonsense, but I just have to ask...what could the gun possibly contribute to a civil rights investigation?


Withholding the gun contributes drama to an otherwise ho hum theme of can kicking. It fools some into thinking the DOJ is serious about the latest theater production.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

jtbrandt said:


> I thought I was done with the Zimmerman nonsense, but I just have to ask...what could the gun possibly contribute to a civil rights investigation?


I heard that the reason is that the government thinks he is racist and a possible danger to the public. I should say the DOJ thinks he is racist, I guess that is the government.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> I thought I was done with the Zimmerman nonsense, but I just have to ask...what could the gun possibly contribute to a civil rights investigation?


What did the gun contribute to the trial we just saw? There was never a dispute that it was the weapon used and that Zimmerman was the one who fired it. Still, when you have a trial over someone being shot the prosecution will want to have the weapon used. I think there are no exceptions to that.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

davel745 said:


> I heard that the reason is that the government thinks he is racist and a possible danger to the public. I should say the DOJ thinks he is racist, I guess that is the government.


This incident was still a tragedy, and I'm hearing nothing from the right about how to correct it. The fact remains that an innocent boy was shot and killed, and that fact bothers a lot of people. If the right doesn't become engaged in a discussion about how to prevent similar incidents in the future then a solution will be thrust upon you. You won't like it, but you'll have nobody to blame but yourself.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Nevada said:


> This incident was still a tragedy, and I'm hearing nothing from the right about how to correct it. The fact remains that an innocent boy was shot and killed, and that fact bothers a lot of people. If the right doesn't become engaged in a discussion about how to prevent similar incidents in the future then a solution will be thrust upon you. You won't like it, but you'll have nobody to blame but yourself.


 
If preventing one human from killing another was that easy it would have already been done. Seeing that GZ voted for Obama the problem isn't with the right it's with the left.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> If preventing one human from killing another was that easy it would have already been done. Seeing that GZ voted for Obama the problem isn't with the right it's with the left.


Let me put it in more simple terms. I suspect that legislators will be taking another look at self-defense and stand-your-ground laws after this case. You might still be able to own a gun and buy ammunition, but I think we'll see a shift towards shooters having more accountability.

Gun owners are completely silent on accountability. If you don't show a little consideration for the rights of unarmed people to walk the streets without being shot then the shift in gun laws will be just that much more severe.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

I will put it this way, if I am attacked I will do whatever is necessary to stop the threat.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Ambereyes said:


> I will put it this way, if I am attacked I will do whatever is necessary to stop the threat.


That's fine. Just don't come back later and say that the new self-defense standard is unfair. You have a chance to speak up now, but all you want is your gun. You might still be allowed to have your gun, but you might go to prison for using it.


----------



## How Do I (Feb 11, 2008)

Holder's just worried if he uses it again, the kickback will break his nose again.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Nevada said:


> That's fine. Just don't come back later and say that the new self-defense standard is unfair. You have a chance to speak up now, but all you want is your gun. You might still be allowed to have your gun, but you might go to prison for using it.


Are you saying you would rather the victim of an attack die than defend themselves? I do like having my gun, as a woman it can be the equalizer in an attack. I can defend myself without it, as I am fortunate in having training to do so. Does my extra training in some minds constitute an unfair advantage?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Ambereyes said:


> Are you saying you would rather the victim of an attack die than defend themselves? I do like having my gun, as a woman it can be the equalizer in an attack. I can defend myself without it, as I am fortunate in having training to do so. Does my extra training in some minds constitute an unfair advantage?


I can't say, since I have no idea what kind of training you're talking about.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Nevada said:


> I can't say, since I have no idea what kind of training you're talking about.


I'll give you a couple krav maga, my favorite and close quarters combat training. There are several others that I keep current in.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Ambereyes said:


> I'll give you a couple krav maga, my favorite and close quarters combat training. There are several others that I keep current in.


I don't know that there's anything unfair about you having knowledge, but you might still face charges if you kill someone. Do you think that's unfair?


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Nevada, are you suggesting that, anytime there is an assault, and the result is a death, that the one left standing should always face prison time, or worse, whether that one be the initial attacker, or the initially attacked ?

Kind of like modern life in high school......

Pick a fight, or have a fight forced upon you; either way, you are guilty.

Is that your version of justice ?


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I don't know that there's anything unfair about you having knowledge, but you might still face charges if you kill someone. Do you think that's unfair?


 No, that's the way it is now.
This was a case of self defense from day one.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Nevada said:


> I don't know that there's anything unfair about you having knowledge, but you might still face charges if you kill someone. Do you think that's unfair?


Yep, if I am attacked it would be without common sense for me to face charges.


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

Nevada said:


> What kind of clishmaclaver is this?
> 
> Please elaborate a bit on the accountability.
> GZ might just as well have used a knife and Martin would be just as dead. What then?
> ...


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> What did the gun contribute to the trial we just saw? There was never a dispute that it was the weapon used and that Zimmerman was the one who fired it. Still, when you have a trial over someone being shot the prosecution will want to have the weapon used. I think there are no exceptions to that.


In the trial he just had, the crime he was accused of directly involved the gun. The feds can't try him for the shooting. That would be double jeopardy. The gun is no longer relevant. All that is relevant is what was in Zimmerman's head, which I'm pretty sure the gun does not know.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

IMHO open carry would be optimal, maybe Martin would have had some second thoughts about jumping Zimmerman.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> The fact remains that an innocent boy was shot and killed, and that fact bothers a lot of people.


That is not a fact.


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> This incident was still a tragedy, and I'm hearing nothing from the right about how to correct it. The fact remains that an innocent boy was shot and killed, and that fact bothers a lot of people. If the right doesn't become engaged in a discussion about how to prevent similar incidents in the future then a solution will be thrust upon you. You won't like it, but you'll have nobody to blame but yourself.


A lot of have suggested ways to correct that. Don't attack someone and beat them to the point where they feel for their lives and the person won't get shot. Tragedy averted!


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Let me put it in more simple terms. I suspect that legislators will be taking another look at self-defense and stand-your-ground laws after this case. You might still be able to own a gun and buy ammunition, but I think we'll see a shift towards shooters having more accountability.
> 
> *Gun owners are completely silent on accountability. If you don't show a little consideration for the rights of unarmed people to walk the streets without being shot then the shift in gun laws will be just that much more severe.*


Do you have some examples of this?
I'm not sure about the gun owners you know, but other than the occasional idiot, I don't know of any that *aren't * accountable, and take their responsibility very seriously. I know of no cases, other than the criminals in jail, who don't show respect for unarmed citizens walking the streets.
What is this new epidemic that you're talking about?

OR.......are you just talking about this......



Nevada said:


> This incident was still a tragedy, and I'm hearing nothing from the right about how to correct it. The fact remains that an innocent boy was shot and killed, and that fact bothers a lot of people. If the right doesn't become engaged in a discussion about how to prevent similar incidents in the future then a solution will be thrust upon you. You won't like it, but you'll have nobody to blame but yourself.


If this is about the Zimmerman case, I can answer your questions, with a few corrections.

1) Before, during and after that trial, it has been apparent that any objective person knows there was no "innocent boy" involved. Innocent boys act right in school, don't take things that don't belong to them, respect their parents, and don't try to hurt people. If they DO fight, it's only a last resort of self defense.

2) You're not hearing anything about how to "correct" it because the only thing that can and will, is for people to learn respect for each other. They haven't really invented a law that does that, so I don't see one coming out of this that will teach people common sense this time either.
The only "correction" for this case, unfortunately has already been done. That was one hard lesson, but hopefully others will take heed. I kind off doubt it, but one can hope.

3) If we can agree on a serious discussion about respecting each other, I'm all in. If by a "solution", you mean some sort of infringement on self defense, 
then I'll just read the memo.

This is apparently another "misinformed misunderstanding" that I've seen batted around on this.
Have you ever seen two men pass each other on the street without pulling out guns and shooting?
"Happens every day".....you say?
Yeah, me too.
Fact is, people go about their business all day, every day within arm's length of each other without killing someone.
We pass each other, nod, smile or just look on and keep walking.
The vast majority.....every day.
It's called mutual respect, and even when it's not given to me, I've somehow managed to avoid killing someone.
I HAVE had the disrespect go as far as ambushing me, beating me and taking my money.
I know you wouldn't condone THAT, but if there was ever a place and time I wish I had a loaded gun on me, that was it.
Now, in that discussion about a "solution" ........ what in YOUR opinion, should I be "allowed" to do?:hrm:


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Nevada said:


> This incident was still a tragedy, and I'm hearing nothing from the right about how to correct it. The fact remains that an innocent boy was shot and killed, and that fact bothers a lot of people. If the right doesn't become engaged in a discussion about how to prevent similar incidents in the future then a solution will be thrust upon you. You won't like it, but you'll have nobody to blame but yourself.


 Yea, what's the left going to get engaged? What have they done to stop blacks killing blacks?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Lazaryss said:


> A lot of have suggested ways to correct that. Don't attack someone and beat them to the point where they feel for their lives and the person won't get shot. Tragedy averted!


 And don't chase strangers down darkened streets with a pistol and do something to cause them to say 'get off, get off' before they lay a whoopin on you. Tragedy averted!


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

Holder just wants to sell the gun to the Mexican cartel

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 4 Beta


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

greg273 said:


> And don't chase strangers down darkened streets with a pistol and do something to cause them to say 'get off, get off' before they lay a whoopin on you. Tragedy averted!


Dont walk across the backyards of private property...use the sidewalk.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 4 Beta


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

wannabechef said:


> Dont walk across the backyards of private property...use the sidewalk.
> 
> Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 4 Beta


You really think someone walking through a backyard is a threat worthy of violence? That's freaking crazy.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

FYI--the CCW was not drawn prior till it was needed to save the life of the holder of the gun. GZ was not out branishing a gun seeking to harm anyone--he saw what he saw as suspious in some way to him that alerted him to contact the LEO and took the time to gain more info --he headed back to his car and was jumped.---I bet many trust GZ instinks more than the TSA. History has proven TM was not a safe person. It is ashame that TM could not have been a better person--he would be alive today. TM put HIS own live on the line--he lost.


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

bluesky said:


> You really think someone walking through a backyard is a threat worthy of violence? That's freaking crazy.



Do you approve of folks walking across just any backyard? What about your own backyard? If someone walks into my yard, looking suspiciously like some of the fellows that have been burglering the neighborhood, you think I am out of line asking or approaching the person? What if that person then attacks you? I guess you are okay with that, too.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Walking?
Heck no! If ya just gotta do it, run zig zag and don't even look back!
LOL.


This whole thing was too simple to understand, I guess.
Zimmerman could have slowed his car, rolled down the window and said, "Hey, bud, can I give you a ride? It's raining. You live here? "
Martin could have said just about anything like, "No Thanks, I'm almost there, I'm staying with my Dad this summer right on ________ drive..... 'preciate it though."

Two strangers passing in the night, no problem.
But it didn't quite go like that.


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

I think a neighborhood watch person should watch and report, not detain and kill. Z was not on duty that night, he was carrying a gun. He should not have been following anyone! I watched the video of the re enactment, when M approached him and asked if z had a problem with him, why didnt Z say he was a watch member, and wondered what M was doing there? Perhaps, just perhaps the kid would have told him, and none of this would have happened to end the boys life....


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

suzfromWi said:


> I think a neighborhood watch person should watch and report, not detain and kill. Z was not on duty that night, he was carrying a gun. He should not have been following anyone! I watched the video of the re enactment, when M approached him and asked if z had a problem with him, why didnt Z say he was a watch member, and wondered what M was doing there? Perhaps, just perhaps the kid would have told him, and none of this would have happened to end the boys life....



From a purely speculative standpoint, and that is what you and I are doing, since we weren't there and are relying on re-enactments and survivor testimony only..........I'll answer your question why Zimmerman didn't say he was a watch member....that is _if_ he had taken the stand.

Q) "What's your problem?"

When asked from a reasonable distance and you stop and wait for a response, while a little confrontational, an answer can and should be given.
Note : The question wasn't "Excuse me sir, I noticed you following me, is there a problem?"
NOT
"What's your problem,***?"
Which is much more likely how it was asked.

*Now*, if you ask that question as you proceed to advance in a threatening manner, or if you ask that question after you've knocked me to the ground and are on top of me, I'll likely refrain from answering it, or answering it in an appropriate manner, lol.


IOW........context.

Remember, this event involved two people, both making decisions that led up to this. That's why I object to the portrayal of an "innocent boy" who did nothing but get skittles and iced tea and walk home. I know that's the way you turn a tragic end into a brutal, criminal murder, but that's asking me to ignore and disbelieve everything else in the context. (see post #211)


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

I was impressed with the temperament of the jury, being all women--who are more prone to make an emotional decision in response to an emotional situation.......and yet they acquitted Zimmerman.

Others might consider that and leave well enough further alone.


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

bluesky said:


> You really think someone walking through a backyard is a threat worthy of violence? That's freaking crazy.


Well lets see, it was dark, raining and the community had had many burglaries...and no I dont really think the sitiation called for violence, UNTIL Zimmerman was assualted. Martin should have been on the sidewalk and this probably would have turned differently.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 4 Beta


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

suzfromWi said:


> I think a neighborhood watch person should watch and report, not detain and kill. Z was not on duty that night, he was carrying a gun. He should not have been following anyone! I watched the video of the re enactment, when M approached him and asked if z had a problem with him, why didnt Z say he was a watch member, and wondered what M was doing there? Perhaps, just perhaps the kid would have told him, and none of this would have happened to end the boys life....


So because he "wasnt on duty" he should just ignore a suspicious person? Let me tell you this, I carry a gun (its my right), I am not a neighborhood watch person, nor is my neighborhood in a watch program, but if I see something suspicious I will call the police...if im attacked while doing so I will defend myself...with violence.



Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 4 Beta


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

bluesky said:


> You really think someone walking through a backyard is a threat worthy of violence? That's freaking crazy.


If someone is walking thru my backyard, ya, I'd think they are nuts. I've had kids climb thru my 100 mile electric fence(throws a blue zap 2 inches) to go sledding. They were idiots, Texas longhorns and our bull are not to be messed with. My shotgun came out right away-it was to protect the idiots from harm. People need to be taught to think, what they DO is SAYING something.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Forerunner said:


> I was impressed with the temperament of the jury, being all women--who are more prone to make an emotional decision in response to an emotional situation.......and yet they acquitted Zimmerman.
> 
> Others might consider that and leave well enough further alone.


I was totally impressed. At first when I heard about the jury all I could picture is a Beauty Salon full of Hairdressers-That is scary.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

bluesky said:


> You really think someone walking through a backyard is a threat worthy of violence? That's freaking crazy.


 Getting into my backyard requires climbing several fences, so yeah wander around my backyard at your peril.


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

bjba said:


> Getting into my backyard requires climbing several fences, so yeah wander around my backyard at your peril.


My dogs and bullets are faster than a person can run...so dont be snooping around my property lookin to steal something.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 4 Beta


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

jtbrandt said:


> That is not a fact.


Sho aint...

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 4 Beta


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

*Michael Eric Dyson: More white kids must die for America to understand racism [video] on MSNBC
*
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nRv2UVDOg0[/ame]

Transcript:
So now we get more approximate to the truth of what race is in this country. As for Eric Holder, look: the reality is you gotta act now. The president, you won the second term. You&#8217;re in office. You are ensconced. Do something courageous, bold, and helpful. Not only to African American people but to America. Because unless we do this, white Americans and others will feel that this was a justifiable verdict, this is how things happen. *Not until, and unless, the number of white kids die that approximate the numbers of black and other kids who die, will America see.* It&#8217;s beyond logic. It&#8217;s about rationality. It&#8217;s about let&#8217;s get something done. I think the attorney general will look at this and I think it&#8217;s time for him to act.&#8221;

It is hard for me to know that this man, a professor, would think it is ok and to advocate the killing of young kids no matter what color they are.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

There is quite a bit of damage from the Protests today.


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

That sounds kinda threatening GAPEACH

This is good..the first 4 min

*Man would buy zimmerman a gun*http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ew-gun-after-doj-puts-hold-on-trial-evidence/


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Brad Thor is one of my husband's favorite authors. Good for him. He is not afraid of the AG. We need more like Thor.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

bluesky said:


> You really think someone walking through a backyard is a threat worthy of violence? That's freaking crazy.


Most likely not.

But ambushing me and beating my head into concrete? For sure.


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

bluesky said:


> You really think someone walking through a backyard is a threat worthy of violence? That's freaking crazy.


No, but someone walking through someone else's backyard is worthy of suspicion don't you think?


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Lazaryss said:


> No, but someone walking through someone else's backyard is worthy of suspicion don't you think?


Especially if they're taking the time to look into windows.


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

EDDIE BUCK said:


> That sounds kinda threatening GAPEACH
> 
> This is good..the first 4 min
> 
> *Man would buy zimmerman a gun*http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ew-gun-after-doj-puts-hold-on-trial-evidence/


I offered to buy him one...if you look up onelawnguy on twitter you will see my tweet.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 4 Beta


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

He was found not guilty? He should get his own gun back.They kept it to use against him for whatever BS they can come up with to hang him.I'm afraid its fixen to hit the fan .If we the people let Obama and the rest of his racist clan unjustly harm Zimmerman for something he's not guilty for,America is full of a bunch of impotent pansies and we deserve whatever we get.Its over for America,we can kiss it goodbye.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

Darren said:


> I agree. Except I think Zimmerman believed the beating wasn't going to stop until he wasn't moving any more. The question you have to consider was what was Trayvon saying to Georgie while he was beating him?
> 
> We already know about Trayvon's attitude when he walked up to Zimmerman.
> 
> ...


Aggression and paranoia...two side effects of "Lean". Martin's liver was already showing damage consistent with lean usage?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...bout_trayvon_martin_and_george_zimmerman.html


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I'm not sure what caused the "focal patchy yellow discoloration due to mild fatty metamorphosis" noted in the autopsy. Alcohol abuse is one cause.. Trayvon didn't come across a a drinker or someone interested in partying in his social media posts. I'm not convinced about the lean suggestion.

I haven't found the toxicology report.online. The defense sure wanted it admitted into evidence. The media seems to think that's because of the marijuana usage. Lean would explain aggressive actions. Although Trayvon was looking for codeine, I got the feeling he hadn't tried lean yet. That's why the toxicology report is key. Did Trayvon have opiates in his blood?

In a reply to one of his posts, he was clued into using Robitussin.for the codeine. I've wondered if Robitussin was in Green's house and that was the reason for the trip to the 711 for the two other ingredients to make lean. There's quite a bit of info coming out about Tracy Martin and Brandy Green. It's obvious now aspects of the father's story are false.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Darren said:


> I haven't found the toxicology report.online.


Here ya go.

http://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/martin_trayvon_report.pdf


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

The autopsy says a toxicology report was completed, it does not include it. I'm curious why tthe toxicology report was never released. Unlike the report of the telephone files, it wasn't withheld from the defense. Why isn't it available to the public if the autopsy has been on the internet for at least a year?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

bluesky said:


> You really think someone walking through a backyard is a threat worthy of violence? That's freaking crazy.


That's where the devil is in the details. The backyard was a commons area between rows of townhouses. If you read the transcript of the police interview, Martin was not on the sidewalk in the middle of the commons. He was walking on the wet grass between the sidewalk and one row of houses. 

One of the houses that drew Martin's attention was the location of a possible attempted burglary that brought the police out before when Zimmerman found it open during the day time. The police contacted the resident and got permission to go into the house. Nothing had been touched.

We had a known thief move here. He was out walking and looking around frequently. He was known to have light fingers. I wasn't going to call the sheriff for him walking around looking. But I staid at the fire department during times he was out and about and made a point of watching him.

All of us eyeballed him. Eventhough I'm not in a neighborhood watch. I go up to anyone strange in the area and ask them if they need help. That means I get a better description. I've never had anyone express an attitude. They've almost always explained why they were in the area.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Darren said:


> The autopsy says a toxicology report was completed, it does not include it. I'm curious why tthe toxicology report was never released. Unlike the report of the telephone files, it wasn't withheld from the defense. Why isn't it available to the public if the autopsy has been on the internet for at least a year?


:doh: Sorry, I was thinking 'autopsy' rather than 'toxicology'. Hadn't had my 2nd cuppa. 

The only thing I've seen so far is that the toxicology report indicated THC in his system.

I agree, why hasn't the toxicology report been made public?


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

I'm hearing that Adderal and Torazapan (sp) were in his system.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I haven't read about those. Even the lean is conjecture. Just because he had two of the three ingredients doesn't mean anything. Taken with his posts all we know is he wanted to make lean. 

There's some info out there about his dad who is a Crip. That doesn't mean his son was into that. I haven't seen anything in Trayvon's writings to indicate he was in a gang although he was doing his best to enhance his resume based on the school incidents and the 53 days he was absent.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Turns out, the 9 mm was fully functional when the police took possession. There was a round in the chamber. Police then unloaded it. The fired casing was found on the ground.

That means Zimmerman could have pumped Trayvon full of lead if he'd wanted to. Instead he stopped after one shot.

For those that don't recognize the name, Ayoob is one of the foremost experts on fire arms and self defense that testifies at trials. He can know talk about being contacted by the defense team and the pointers he provided. Although the media tried to add to the confusion with incorrect facts, including an obvious one by Nancy Grace, he does a good job of explaining the whys and how comes.

http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2013/07/21/zimmerman-verdict-part-5-the-gun-stuff/


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

Zimmerman saved a family of 4 in a overturned car last week...

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 4 Beta


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

He didn't save them. He helped 2 of the kids get out of the car and no one was injured.


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

Karen said:


> He didn't save them. He helped 2 of the kids get out of the car and no one was injured.


Does it really matter? He could have simply drove on by...and stayed in hiding. But it appears your news source differs from mine...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/2...ed-man-from-truck-crash-last-week-police-say/


Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 4 Beta


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

I totally agree. It's just that some of the news reports are making it sound like he ran into a burning car and saved the lives of the entire family. My point was it's yet more media hype and people are falling into it again.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

The only media I have heard has been that he did not witness simple he and another (unnamed) assisted unijured people from a car. The word used was pulled --odd but used so perhaps the doors were damaged or the final resting place of the suv required assistance to get out. I am glad that he was there and I am glad he was willing to once again aid a person in need. I would love to have more like him around. No matter what he will do for others will always be suspect. Yet, look at one drug using punk his past is sealed and the few things out in public are very distirbing and current activities shady and that person is forgiven by many who have disected Zimmerman life and hate him. 

Seem like while one was an organizer the other did/does the work. One has the blood of Brian terry, Amb Steven, and countable other and one killed another during a beating. One is given a pass and one death threats. Mom said life is'nt fair and how one handles life after a hardship shows the heart and charactor. I can respect George.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I wonder what those who still hold Zimmerman in high disregard think of the ACLU's letter to Holder last week. The ACLU cited the Constitution as grounds for not pursuing federal action against Zimmerman. When the ACLU continued with the theme of Blacks shot by cops they missed the opportunity to direct attention where really needed.

http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/aclu_letter_to_ag_holder_re_gzimmerman_case_1.pdf

"Dear Attorney General Holder,

We are writing to clearly state the ACLU&#8217;s position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction. A jury found Zimmerman not guilty, and that should be the end of the criminal case.
However, there are still actions the federal government"

Black youth are at risk today. Not from the Zimmermans who try to protect their families and neighborhoods but their abandonment by a society that leaves their education and upbringing to the street.

That is the real tragedy of Martin's death. Alicia Stanley is one of the loose threads that should give everyone pause for thought. She was Martin's real mother for most of his life until the divorce seems to have placed Trayvon at loose ends at a critical time in his life. His Crip father and his bogus story of his activities on the night of his son's death are something else that bears examination.

Rather than serve as a reason to examine the real problem, the death of Trayvon Martin was exploited by the media, those that live on perceived racism and yes, even by the family who ignored him at the most critical time in his life but rose to the occasion when real money was involved.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Karen said:


> I totally agree. It's just that some of the news reports are making it sound like he ran into a burning car and saved the lives of the entire family. My point was it's yet more media hype and people are falling into it again.


For Zimmerman that was extraordinary because of the bounty offered by the Black Panthers, the other death threats and most imprortantly it tells the ones that want to kill him the general area where he's located. 

Don't forget Trayvon's father's a Crip. Once a Crip always a Crip. His Crip tattoo, CAT (Crippen all the time) on his neck for those that don't know adds a lot more people that would kill Zimmeramn for the bragging rights.

That was a beyond stupid stunt on Zimmerman's part. If it was done because he thought it might make people think better of him, it was even more than stupid. The people that bought the media hype initially and still think justice wasn't served aren't likely to change their mind.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

> The people that bought the media hype initially and still think justice wasn't served aren't likely to change their mind.


Obviously.


----------



## cast iron (Oct 4, 2004)

Darren said:


> For those that don't recognize the name, Ayoob is one of the foremost experts on fire arms and self defense that testifies at trials. He can know talk about being contacted by the defense team and the pointers he provided. Although the media tried to add to the confusion with incorrect facts, including an obvious one by Nancy Grace, he does a good job of explaining the whys and how comes.
> 
> http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2013/07/21/zimmerman-verdict-part-5-the-gun-stuff/


I think this one bears repeating as I believe it's one of the best point-by-point analyses of the trial and its outcome I've seen yet. The series of articles cover more aspects than just the gun part.

So far it's an eight article/subject piece with the latest article posted today 7/26.

From the beginning, Part 1
http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2013/07/13/the-zimmerman-verdict-part-1/


----------

