# Neighborhood Watch Carries out Death Sentence



## plowjockey

From the 911 account, of this "Vigilante", the suspect appeared be "acting suspicious".

That must be all that it takes.

*Florida college students want neighborhood watch leader who shot unarmed teen to death arrested *



> Zimmerman spotted Martin as he was patrolling his neighborhood on a rainy evening last month and called 911 to report a suspicious person. *Against the advice of the 911 dispatcher*, Zimmerman then followed Martin, who was walking home from a convenience store with a bag of Skittles in his pocket.





> "I don't think a man who exited his vehicle after the 911 dispatcher told him to stay inside the car can claim self-defense," Carl McPhail, a 28-year-old Barry University law school student, said at the Sanford rally.


Read more: Florida college students want neighborhood watch leader who shot unarmed teen to death arrestedÂ  - NY Daily News

Link to 911 audio.

911 Tapes Tell Chilling Tale of Sanford KillingÂ |Â Florida Center for Investigative Reporting


----------



## wwubben

The Florida law that allows something like this is ridiculous.This kid was murdered.Some of these laws are just going way overboard.


----------



## tinknal

wwubben said:


> The Florida law that allows something like this is ridiculous.This kid was murdered.Some of these laws are just going way overboard.


I think that it is a vast overassumption to say that Florida law allows this.


----------



## Sonshine

The man should be tried. I understand having to kill someone if your life or your family's lives are in danger, but this guy took it to the extreme.


----------



## watcher

IMO, there's much more to this story than has been reported. I suggest waiting for more info


----------



## poppy

watcher said:


> IMO, there's much more to this story than has been reported. I suggest waiting for more info


Nope, that it. The lad was walking home from work where he puts in 60 hours a week after school to help support his mother, who is blind and deaf with no legs. He had just spent his last dollar on a bag of Skittles in order to have the energy to walk the 17 miles to his house. BTW, a white man had taken his shoes at knifepoint earlier in the day, so he was barefoot and his feet were bleeding. He was holding 2 baby kittens he found by the side of the road and was going to try and save when he got home. Seriously, it is a tragic story but I would like the whole story too. Did the boy have an arrest record? That would shed some light on whether or not he was likely to cause problems and a tox screen would be handy too.


----------



## tinknal

poppy said:


> Seriously, it is a tragic story but I would like the whole story too. Did the boy have an arrest record? That would shed some light on whether or not he was likely to cause problems and a tox screen would be handy too.


Funny you would just ask those questions about the kid but not the guy who shot him.....................

Of course since the man was not arrested at the time I guess a tox screen wouldn't mean much now, would it?


----------



## copperkid3

plowjockey said:


> *Against the advice of the 911 dispatcher*


******************************************
doesn't really help the case you're presenting. Since when does the word of a 911 operator mean anything? 
Most personnel who are employed in city/county dispatch offices, are civilian.....and have little 
to no training or instruction in the law. So.... It's not even good 'legal' counsel and since the 
shooter didn't retain him either, just what exactly is your point in the highlighting that phrase???~~~ 

I'm reminded of a similar case that occurred in Pasadena, Tx, back in Nov 07, when Joe Horn called 911 
and was also told by the dispatcher *NOT* to confront the suspects who were breaking into 
and stealing from his next door neighbor's residence. He 'disobeyed' the dispatcher, went outside 
with his shotgun, confronted them and shot them both dead. He was no-billed a short time 
later by the Harris County grand jury. Here's that 911 call as it happened. 

*[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jqLie6-Y0]Man Kills 2 . . . [Joe Horn - Full Tape] - YouTube[/ame]*

I'm going to reserve further judgement until *MORE* of the facts come into play......
and also, because while I do know that Florida has a more open interpretation of what
constitutes threat to life or property *(much like Texas), there appears to be a lot that
isn't in any way, shape or form, like what occurred in the Texas case. At this point, it 
appears he's got a lot of 'splaining to do and I don't think from what he's said so far, it's going to fly too well.


----------



## pancho

Got to be more to the story.
I think I will wait until I see why they didn't arrest the man doing the shooting.


----------



## Nevada

I've been following this case. The thing is that the shooter can't say exactly what the threat that justified self-defense was. Without a credible threat I don't know what the prosecutors are waiting for.


----------



## poppy

tinknal said:


> Funny you would just ask those questions about the kid but not the guy who shot him.....................
> 
> Of course since the man was not arrested at the time I guess a tox screen wouldn't mean much now, would it?


Well, what about the guy? How long has he been doing this? Let's get the full story. I just find it difficult to think many people would jump out of a car and shoot someone unless he felt threatened somehow.


----------



## plowjockey

copperkid3 said:


> ******************************************
> doesn't really help the case you're presenting. Since when does the word of a 911 operator mean anything?
> Most personnel who are employed in city/county dispatch offices, are civilian.....and have little
> to no training or instruction in the law. So.... It's not even good 'legal' counsel and since the
> shooter didn't retain him either, just what exactly is your point in the highlighting that phrase???~~~


So, 911 operators are not trained at all, on how to get callers through certain situations, to protect the caller and maybe the responding cops, too?

Really?

If you listened to the 1st 911 call, the "perp", was doing nothing, but "acting suspicious".

Exactly what it the law in this case?


----------



## MO_cows

Sounds like the guy should be charged with 2nd degree murder. More information might come out, but so far, it looks like he was very much in the wrong.


----------



## Sonshine

poppy said:


> Nope, that it. The lad was walking home from work where he puts in 60 hours a week after school to help support his mother, who is blind and deaf with no legs. He had just spent his last dollar on a bag of Skittles in order to have the energy to walk the 17 miles to his house. BTW, a white man had taken his shoes at knifepoint earlier in the day, so he was barefoot and his feet were bleeding. He was holding 2 baby kittens he found by the side of the road and was going to try and save when he got home. Seriously, it is a tragic story but I would like the whole story too. Did the boy have an arrest record? That would shed some light on whether or not he was likely to cause problems and a tox screen would be handy too.


Sounds to me like some here have tried and convicted the victim. eep:


----------



## Sonshine

poppy said:


> Well, what about the guy? How long has he been doing this? Let's get the full story. I just find it difficult to think many people would jump out of a car and shoot someone unless he felt threatened somehow.


The story says the kid was unarmed. IMO that makes what the other guy do murder. How could he feel threatened if he was in a car and the kid was walking??? And how long has he been doing this? Are you talking about the kid? If so, according to the article he wasn't from that area, but was visiting.


----------



## poppy

Sonshine said:


> The story says the kid was unarmed. IMO that makes what the other guy do murder. How could he feel threatened if he was in a car and the kid was walking??? And how long has he been doing this? Are you talking about the kid? If so, according to the article he wasn't from that area, but was visiting.


I don't know all the facts. Suppose the guy got out to ask the kid what he was doing and the kid got angry and threatened him? What if the kid approached him in a threatening manner after he told him to stay back? How would the guy know he was unarmed? We need more info before we call the guy guilty. An investigation should show how close the guy was to the kid when he fired. If he shot him in the back, I would say something is wrong.


----------



## watcher

poppy said:


> Nope, that it. The lad was walking home from work where he puts in 60 hours a week after school to help support his mother, who is blind and deaf with no legs. He had just spent his last dollar on a bag of Skittles in order to have the energy to walk the 17 miles to his house. BTW, a white man had taken his shoes at knifepoint earlier in the day, so he was barefoot and his feet were bleeding. He was holding 2 baby kittens he found by the side of the road and was going to try and save when he got home. Seriously, it is a tragic story but I would like the whole story too. Did the boy have an arrest record? That would shed some light on whether or not he was likely to cause problems and a tox screen would be handy too.


The fact the cops didn't arrest the shooter tells me there's something the press isn't telling up. Cops usually arrest everyone within reach and let the lawyers sort it out.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> The Florida law that allows something like this is ridiculous.
> This kid was murdered.Some of these laws are just going way overboard.


The law allows the use of deadly force *for self defense*.
The police are obviously convinced that is what happened, or charges would have been filed.

"Overboard" is *anyone* deciding what happened based on a few news reports


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> The thing is that the shooter can't say exactly what the threat that justified self-defense was


The *police chief* I saw interviewed tonight seemed satisfied, even if they neglected to send you a memo with all the details


----------



## Sonshine

In this article it says that Zimmerman got out of his SUV and started following the kid on foot and a fight broke out? Uproar grows over citizen volunteer's killing of Florida teen - latimes.com I'm wondering why Zimmerman got out of his vehicle.

I find this particular article pretty interesting: FBI, Justice Department to Investigate Trayvon Martin Killing - ABC News

The manual, from the National Neighborhood Watch Program, states: "It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers, and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles. They should also be cautioned to alert police or deputies when encountering strange activity. Members should never confront suspicious persons who could be armed and dangerous." 

Then farther down in the article it says this:
Law enforcement expert Rod Wheeler, who listened to the tapes, told ABC News that Zimmerman, not Martin, sounded intoxicated in the police recordings of the 911 calls.

"When I listened to the 911 tape, the first thing that came to my mind is this guy sounds intoxicated. Notice how he's slurring his words. We as trained law enforcement officers, we know how to listen for that right away, and I think that's going to be an important element of this entire investigation," Wheeler said.

According to Chris Tutko, the director of the National Neighborhood Watch Program, there are about 22,000 registered watch groups nationwide, and Zimmerman was not part of a registered group -- another fact the police were not aware of at the time of the incident.


----------



## time

watcher said:


> The fact the cops didn't arrest the shooter tells me there's something the press isn't telling up. Cops usually arrest everyone within reach and let the lawyers sort it out.


Yep.

If the cops had a shred of suspicion, the guy would have been arrested.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Then farther down in the article it says this:
> *Law enforcement expert* Rod Wheeler, who listened to the tapes, told ABC News that Zimmerman, not Martin, sounded intoxicated in the police recordings of the 911 calls.


The guy the reporter probably paid based that on hearing a voice on a recording.
The officers who were actually there evidently didn't reach that conclusion


----------



## Kazahleenah

MO_cows said:


> Sounds like the guy should be charged with 2nd degree murder. More information might come out, but so far, it looks like he was very much in the wrong.


Since he "followed the victim AND got out of his car"... it could be stretched to 1st degree murder.


----------



## copperkid3

plowjockey said:


> So, 911 operators are not trained at all, on how to get callers through certain situations, to protect the caller and maybe the responding cops, too?
> 
> Really?
> 
> If you listened to the 1st 911 call, the "perp", was doing nothing, but "acting suspicious".
> 
> Exactly what it the law in this case?


*******************************************************
that I did not. Read my sentence again.....
*"and have little to no training or instruction in the law." *

Now let's check on what you made it sound like I said: 
*"So, 911 operators are not trained at all, on how to get callers 
through certain situations, to protect the caller and maybe the responding 
cops, too?"* 

Big difference in getting a caller through certain situations and explaining the ramifications 
of shooting a person and making sure that the necessary threat is perceived; 
both at the time of the shooting and further down the road when having to explain it to the grand jury......

And you don't have to be a Rhodes legal scholar to explain to _*ANYONE*_, that it isn't a good idea to
still have a gun around in your hands, when the police arrive to an active shooting scene.

BTW: What 'first' 911 call are you referring to? The one that I provided that occurred in Texas??? 
Or is there another that I'm unaware of??? I certainly was unaware that the 'perp' was just acting 
suspicious, as Mr. Horn clearly mentioned that he had busted into his neighbor's house......
which is *MORE* than just suspicious in my book. Anything else we need to clarify.....oh yes, 
you asked: "Exactly what* it *(sic) the law in this case?" I'm going to go out on a limb, and 
'assume' that you really meant to ask, is: "What _*is*_ the law in this case?? And the Texas laws 
at the time of that shooting, allowed him to do exactly what he did; which was to 'ignore' the non-legal 
advice of a civilian dispatcher and go out and protect his neighbor's property. When he perceived 
that the thugs were a threat to himself (and/or others), he removed said threat with lethal force.

Guess you missed my condensed version, where I mentioned that a short time later, 
a Texas grand jury in Harris county, no-billed him; i.e. he would _*NOT*_ be prosecuted 
for killing the two burglars. End of story. Need I say more?


----------



## TNHermit

On the news this morning the FBI has taken over. Bad things about the cops etc.etc. Will be interesting to see how much politics get involved in this


----------



## SteveD(TX)

People are jumping to conclusions. The man is claiming that the teen attacked him. With no witnesses to say otherwise, the law just might be on his side. Here is an update:

State senator calls for hearings into Stand Your Ground law - Florida - MiamiHerald.com


----------



## Nevada

SteveD(TX) said:


> People are jumping to conclusions. The man is claiming that the teen attacked him. With no witnesses to say otherwise, the law just might be on his side. Here is an update:
> 
> State senator calls for hearings into Stand Your Ground law - Florida - MiamiHerald.com


_"Zimmerman said he had stepped out of his truck to check the name of the street he was on when Trayvon attacked him from behind as he walked back to his truck, police said. He fired the semiautomatic handgun he was licensed to carry because he feared for his life."_

This doesn't agree with the 911 transcript at all. In the 911 call he discussed the "suspicious person" he was following, but never mentioned any kind of confrontation. From the 911 tape transcripts I've heard I think Zimmerman is going to have a very hard time making anyone believe that he was attacked.


----------



## gideonprime

SteveD(TX) said:


> People are jumping to conclusions. The man is claiming that the teen attacked him. With no witnesses to say otherwise, the law just might be on his side. Here is an update:
> 
> State senator calls for hearings into Stand Your Ground law - Florida - MiamiHerald.com


Thing is he wasn't standing his ground, he was chasing the kid.

I don't see where stand your ground means pursue and shoot.:shrug:


----------



## pancho

Wonder why the kid was running away?


----------



## gideonprime

pancho said:


> Wonder why the kid was running away?


Cause some creepy guy was following him.

Seen pictures fo this guy? If I was a kid being followed by some strange man I would run too. 

HE didn't know if this guy was a molester or what.

Fleeing seems prudent.


----------



## InvalidID

time said:


> Yep.
> 
> If the cops had a shred of suspicion, the guy would have been arrested.


 It depends. I've been to some towns where the good ol' boy club was in full effect.


----------



## gideonprime

InvalidID said:


> It depends. I've been to some towns where the good ol' boy club was in full effect.


They just had to move a trial here because the perp who hit and killed a woman with her car (while medicated) and her hubby are friends with the Sherrif (sp?).

I'm about an hour and a half away from where this happened. THe good old boys club is in full effect.


----------



## pancho

gideonprime said:


> Cause some creepy guy was following him.
> 
> Seen pictures fo this guy? If I was a kid being followed by some strange man I would run too.
> 
> HE didn't know if this guy was a molester or what.
> 
> Fleeing seems prudent.


Never really thought of that.
I guess since I don't choose to run from anyone I just don't think of that.


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> Wonder why the kid was running away?


Is shooting someone who is running away an act of self-defense?


----------



## Sonshine

gideonprime said:


> They just had to move a trial here because the perp who hit and killed a woman with her car (while medicated) and her hubby are friends with the Sherrif (sp?).
> 
> I'm about an hour and a half away from where this happened. THe good old boys club is in full effect.


I lived in Sanford for awhile, but it's been a long time ago. I wasn't sure if the police department were any better, but sounds like they're like they use to be. I wasn't going to say anything about the good old boy thing because it's been too long since I've lived there. I had hoped they had changed since then, obviously not.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Is shooting someone who is running away an act of self-defense?


There's been no evidence he was shot WHILE running away.

Witnesses have said they were fighting, and Zimmerman had injuries.

Making judgements based *only* on media reports is foolish.
Public *opinion* has no place in this at all


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's been no evidence he was shot WHILE running away.
> 
> Witnesses have said they were fighting, and Zimmerman had injuries.
> 
> Making judgements based *only* on media reports is foolish.
> Public *opinion* has no place in this at all


I just asked the question.


----------



## gideonprime

BFF yes he had very minor injuries, scratches mostly according to the local news here in FL.

Clearly he needed to shoot the kid, one of those scratches might have broken the skin.


----------



## FreeRanger

According to Zimmerman, the boy was moving away from him, hence he followed the person. Simple case from what I have seen in the news so far. 

Zimmerman carrying a loaded gun chased (followed) an un-armed individual who was just walking home. Zimmerman confronted the young adult and shot him in cold blood. First degree murder....Premeditated, he was told the police were investigating (on the way) and to stay back. He moved forward and shot, *premeditated*. 

Hell yes if I was 17 and some man twice my size (not in a police uniform) tried to stop me from walking home at night in the rain, I would have put up a fight. I would have put up *twice* the fight if I saw he was carrying a gun. I will not be a willing victim. Those of you "waiting" for more information, I don't believe for a minute you would have not defended yourself at age 17 from a predator?

Zimmerman is a predator looking for a fight, it's that simple. He should be removed from the community for a LONG time.


----------



## FreeRanger

Clearly Zimmerman started the fight by chasing the boy. If he hadn't confronted the person, there would have been no shooting.

Witness say they didn't see any fighting, just Zimmerman's word that there was a fight. Again, if I was 17 and being chased by a big man with a gun, HELL YES there would be a fight before I roll over dead.......

And yes this is just my opinion based on very little that is in the media. It would take alot new facts to change my opinion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> I just asked the question.


I just answered it :shrug:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Clearly he needed to shoot the kid, one of those scratches might have broken the skin.


See, you're DECIDING his guilt when the truth is you don't KNOW what happened.

The reports are all slanted, and NO ONE but those involved should be judging what occurred.

I saw an interview with the Cheif of Police, and HE seems satisfied *for now *that it was self defense.

Unless you have *more* facts then he, you have no logical reason to pick sides.

Just sit back and WAIT for a full investigation


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FreeRanger said:


> Clearly Zimmerman started the fight by chasing the boy. If he hadn't confronted the person, there would have been no shooting.
> 
> *Witness say they didn't see any fighting*, just Zimmerman's word that there was a fight. Again, if I was 17 and being chased by a big man with a gun, HELL YES there would be a fight before I roll over dead.......
> 
> And yes this is just my opinion based on very little that is in the media. It would take alot new facts to change my opinion.


*Different witnesses say different things.*
No big mystery there

That's why if YOU didn't see it, you shouldn't be making decisions about it.

Some DID say they saw the fight.


----------



## TheMartianChick

A little more of the story... Phone records show that Trayvon Martin's girlfriend was on the phone when he was killed.

U.S. News - Trayvon Martin's final phone call: 'He said this man was watching him'



> Although Martin initially told his girlfriend he wasn't going to run, he eventually did, she said, but the stranger managed to corner him.
> 
> "Trayvon said, 'What, are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the headset just fell. I called him again and he didn't answer the phone."





> Zimmerman called 911 dozens of times in the months that led to the fatal shooting, The Orlando Sentinel reported Monday evening. The Seminole County Sheriff's Office released six calls he had made, four of which called police to report "suspicious" persons -- all of whom were black -- in or near the Retreat at Twin Lakes enclave, the paper said.
> 
> The other calls were about a neighbor's open garage door and children playing in the street at dusk, reported The Sentinel. None of the newly released calls are related to Martin's shooting.


----------



## TheMartianChick

pancho said:


> Never really thought of that.
> I guess since I don't choose to run from anyone I just don't think of that.


We have to remember that this was a kid and not an adult. He didn't respond in a way that an adult would (likely) because he was a kid.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Bearfootfarm said:


> See, you're DECIDING his guilt when the truth is you don't KNOW what happened.
> 
> The reports are all slanted, and NO ONE but those involved should be judging what occurred.
> 
> I saw an interview with the Cheif of Police, and HE seems satisfied *for now *that it was self defense.
> 
> Unless you have *more* facts then he, you have no logical reason to pick sides.
> 
> Just sit back and WAIT for a full investigation


While I agree that more information is needed, the police (initially) said that they weren't going to do any more investigating. If not for all of the publicity, the case may not have been scrutinized again.


----------



## unregistered168043

Well.. none of us were there so speculation won't get us very far. Let the local people handle their own.


----------



## Oxankle

I prefer the Texas law to the OK law. In Texas you can protect your property as well as your life or the life of another. 

As I understand it today OK law only permits me to shoot if the bad guy has entered my home. One reason I won't carry is that no matter what the circumstances, if it happens outside your home you are going to need legal advice. Zimmerman had better get some quick.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Darntootin said:


> Well.. none of us were there so speculation won't get us very far. Let the local people handle their own.


That's nice in theory, but under the circumstances that have been revealed, I'm glad that this won't be left to local law enforcement.


----------



## Pearl B

911 told Zimmerman he didnt need to follow the kid.



> Zimmerman, patrolling the neighborhood in his car, called the 911 emergency number and reported what he called "a real suspicious guy."
> 
> "This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about," Zimmerman told dispatchers, adding, "These @!$%#s. They always get away."
> 
> The dispatcher, hearing heavy breathing on the phone, asked Zimmerman: "Are you following him?"
> 
> "Yeah," Zimmerman said.
> 
> "Okay, we don't need you to do that," the dispatcher responded.


U.S. News - Justice Department, FBI to probe shooting death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin

Imo, I think it will be found that this was/is a racially motivated murder.
I suspect it will also set back the 'Stand Your Ground' law and neighborhood patrol groups as well


----------



## FreeRanger

I don't need more information. The 911 tapes have been released and I read them. 

First degree premediated murder is the correct answer at this point. 

The boy was talking on his phone and confronted by a stranger. The boy made every attempt to avoid confrontation, Zimmerman chased him around the neighborhood. The boy is NOT accused of doing anything illegal. Talking on a cell phne wearing a hoodie in the rain is NOT reason to follow a person around and then demand their names. I can't remember the last time I a grown man, was afraid of a man walking down the road with a cell phone to his head.....must be a miserable life to live in fear....of the normal...

From the tapes it appears the boy was screaming for help after being attacked by Zimmerman. Then Zimmerman lies to the police that "he was the one yelling for help" He wouldn't need help, he had the upper hand with the gun and was the clearly stalking the boy. Again HELL yes I would have ran away, HELL yes I would have fought back against someone accosting me in the dark.

Those of you who are still defending Zimmerman. I am glad you don't have a watch in my area. You appear to think it's OK to *stalk *strangers and shooting them dead when they don't give you their name and/or fight back when you grab them.

I guess some of you like to be victims? that's why you are OK with a grown man stalking a young boy.

By the way, my DD is home from school. Told me last week, the rumor going around campus is young men are disappearing across the Midwest. Some dying in strange circumstances, like the young ice fisherman who drowned in the river at her school, even thou his friends say he wasn&#8217;t drunk, it wasn&#8217;t late and knew that running water never freezes completely.


----------



## How Do I

The 911 audio tapes.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Another piece of information that I picked up from the news about the case is that Trayvon was an extremely young looking 17 year old. Some of the comments that have been posted under news stories in other venues indicated that folks thought that the family was circulating photos that were 3-5 years old because he looked so young and clean cut. 

The photos that I've seen, he looks to be about 14-15 years of age. However, those photos were taken about a week before his death. There would have been no mistaking him for an adult and he was definitely clean cut.

Of course, that should have no bearing on the case but I thought that I'd mention it anyway.


----------



## plowjockey

Bearfootfarm said:


> The *police chief* I saw interviewed tonight seemed satisfied, even if they neglected to send you a memo with all the details


Of course that is what he is going to say. 

For real, they probably didn't have much choice.

A shooter with a believable story, of self-defense and a dead kid, could could not dispute the story.

Looks like the "wall have ears", so there is more stuff coming out on this story, that may change things a bit.


----------



## TheMartianChick

The Al Sharpton Show on MSNBC just reported a few more facts that I was unaware of:

The police made no attempt to identify Trayvon after he died. They had his cell phone and didn't bother to call anyone. Trayvon's dad was calling the local hospitals to try to locate his son while his son was at the morgue. It took 3 days before he was located.

Zimmerman had been studying Criminal Justice and had a prior run in with police that resulted in him scuffling with them.

There is a muttered racial epithet spoken by Zimmerman on the 911 tape. 

Here is the audio; [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A37N3zlZqw[/ame]

The racial epithet is around the 1:50 mark and it was muttered under Zimmerman's breath. He referred to Trayvon as an effing c--n.

Lastly, in my own defense I have to add this disclaimer...I am not a regular Reverend Al viewer but my client/friend may be a guest on tonight's show.


----------



## Sonshine

How Do I said:


> The 911 audio tapes.


Oh my goodness. Hearing that poor kid yelling for help and then the silence after the gunshot is really disturbing. Why didn't someone go out to help that poor kid?


----------



## pancho

TheMartianChick said:


> A little more of the story... Phone records show that Trayvon Martin's girlfriend was on the phone when he was killed.
> 
> U.S. News - Trayvon Martin's final phone call: 'He said this man was watching him'


I know several areas a black person would be stopped as there weren't any living anywhere around there.

Just today I was stopped by the Jackson, Ms. police. The reason I was stopped was I was white.


----------



## Narshalla

Oxankle said:


> I prefer the Texas law to the OK law. In Texas you can protect your property as well as your life or the life of another.
> 
> As I understand it today OK law only permits me to shoot if the bad guy has entered my home. One reason I won't carry is that no matter what the circumstances, if it happens outside your home you are going to need legal advice. Zimmerman had better get some quick.


Respectfully, this happened in Florida.

I agree with you, the ability to protect one's property is obviously valuable, but Texas and Oklahoma law isn't really applicable here.


----------



## JeffreyD

pancho said:


> I know several areas a black person would be stopped as there weren't any living anywhere around there.
> 
> Just today I was stopped by the Jackson, Ms. police. *The reason I was stopped was I was white*.


I've had that happen to me several times. The last time i went to my friends house and we went out to eat. On the way back, the police dropped in behind us and Sean said they would pull me over just before we got to his private drive. Sure enough they did. Wanted to know why was i "in the area" and what was i going to do! Told them i was with my friend and we were going to his house. We got pulled from the car and searched. Finely let us go. Sean was laughing. He said the only reason we were pulled over was because i was white(Sean is black, not African American-he makes it a point to correct folks when they use that term), and the cops in this area don't like it when different races hangout together. Idiots! I don't care what skin color you have, just don't be an idiot!


----------



## TheMartianChick

pancho said:


> I know several areas a black person would be stopped as there weren't any living anywhere around there.
> 
> Just today I was stopped by the Jackson, Ms. police. The reason I was stopped was I was white.


It is wrong regardless of who it happens to.


----------



## TheMartianChick

JeffreyD said:


> I've had that happen to me several times. The last time i went to my friends house and we went out to eat. On the way back, the police dropped in behind us and Sean said they would pull me over just before we got to his private drive. Sure enough they did. Wanted to know why was i "in the area" and what was i going to do! Told them i was with my friend and we were going to his house. We got pulled from the car and searched. Finely let us go. Sean was laughing. He said the only reason we were pulled over was because i was white(Sean is black, not African American-he makes it a point to correct folks when they use that term), and the cops in this area don't like it when different races hangout together. Idiots! I don't care what skin color you have, just don't be an idiot!


My daughter and her boyfriend were harassed by a cop in front of our house awhile back. The cop actually told her to go in the house and that she could not stay in the car talking to him. She didn't want to wake us up (due to the lateness of the hour), so she didn't make a fuss of any kind. I found out a few days later.

He checked their ID and found that they were both above age 21. The car was completely legal and is owned by a local minister (boyfriend's grandfather) but the cop was determined to force them to do what he wanted. Some cops are jerks...Not all but some!


----------



## How Do I

Sonshine said:


> Oh my goodness. Hearing that poor kid yelling for help and then the silence after the gunshot is really disturbing. Why didn't someone go out to help that poor kid?


I agree. It's pretty pathetic.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> A shooter with a believable story, of self-defense and a dead kid, could could not dispute the story.


And *witnesses* who said they SAW them fighting, with Zimmerman on the bottom.

Why not just WAIT for the investigations to be *completed?
*


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why not just WAIT for the investigations to be *completed?*


From what I've read I think there is little doubt that the grand jury will indict him, probably not for murder but for some degree of manslaughter.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> From what I've read, I think there is little doubt that *the grand jury will indict him*, probably not for murder but some degree of manslaughter


Of course they will, since everyone is demanding it now, and national attention is focused on them

Everyone has made up their minds


----------



## suzfromWi

The Man had the GUN. The boy was unarmed, oh wait he had skittles..The man gave chase, the boy ran. The boy is dead...I dont need to know anything else...


----------



## FreeRanger

Bearfoot, I see you are still OK with the actions take by the grown man. What are your thoughts on the boy?

Should he not have a right to walk to the store in a strange neighborhood? 
When your son is walking back from a store, should he not be aware that a truck with a single man is following him? 
Should your son not move away from the street to get away from a stalker?
When the stalker jumps out of the truck, should your son not "run" for home?
What if the stalker (Zimmerman) chased him all the way home and then shot him dead. Would that still be self defense?

No Bearfoot, you are wrong on to "wait" for a FULL investigation. I don't need anymore evidence to know the boy did everything I would hope my son would do. Move away from a stalker, head for home, if confronted fight back.

Which of these things did the boy do wrong?

Meanwhile, I am waiting for a SINGLE reason Zimmerman felt threaten in any way. He knew the neighborhood. He was safe in the truck, he was safe on the sidewalk carrying a loaded gun following a person talking on the phone, he was physically bigger than the boy. 

Bearfoot, please enlighten us on how that can ever be seen as self defense?

Forget the evidence of this case:bdh:, just give us one reason to think Zimmerman shot in self defense? I can't think of any.


----------



## Pearl B

What FreeRanger said. Im trying to figure out how the boy was a threat to Zimmerman at all. I saw a pic of the kid last night. He looks like a little boy at that.

I bet they will find Zimmerman is the one on drugs, paranoid and delusional.


----------



## pancho

Near where I live a man died last week. He was welding when two men came up and beat him with metal rods and stole his wallet. He was in a coma for a few weeks but finally dies. It just barely made the local news.
Wonder why some people get national coverage and some don't even get local coverage?


----------



## poppy

Pearl B. said:


> What FreeRanger said. Im trying to figure out how the boy was a threat to Zimmerman at all. I saw a pic of the kid last night. He looks like a little boy at that.
> 
> I bet they will find Zimmerman is the one on drugs, paranoid and delusional.


How old was the picture? The ones I've seen all say "age unknown". I can show you pictures of our boys and they are really cute skinny little kids at age 16. By age 19 they had put on a lot of weight and looked much different.


----------



## big rockpile

Ok I lived in a Black neighborhood in Kansas City.I was setting outside having a smoke.Neighborhood Watch came talked with me.If I had put my Hand in my Pocket for anything I believe they would have been all over me.Yes they are not trained but they would have had every right to feel their life was in danger.

big rockpile


----------



## Sonshine

Pearl B. said:


> What FreeRanger said. Im trying to figure out how the boy was a threat to Zimmerman at all. I saw a pic of the kid last night. He looks like a little boy at that.
> 
> I bet they will find Zimmerman is the one on drugs, paranoid and delusional.


I agree, the boy looked to be in his early teens rather than 17. I would have guessed him to be about 12 or 13. Zimmerman has a history of calling in suspicious people and from what I have gathered they were usually blacks. I'm not one to call racist very often, but it sure sounds like this may be the case with Zimmerman.


----------



## Pearl B

poppy said:


> How old was the picture? The ones I've seen all say "age unknown". I can show you pictures of our boys and they are really cute skinny little kids at age 16.  By age 19 they had put on a lot of weight and looked much different.


The pic was only 2 weeks old. He was in a football outfit, I thought it was a joke. He looked way to small to be on a football field.


----------



## FreeRanger

Let me state it clearly, I don't care what color, age or size the boy was. He was doing everything right and nothing I have heard of wrong. Meanwhile I have heard nothing yet to justify a "neighborhood watch person" to stalk strangers in their personal truck and jump out to assult them for crossing your sidewalk. 

Big Rock, 
I find it hard to believe the neighborhood watch would have "been all over you" because you put a hand in a pocket. You must live in fear? I don't care if you did have a gun in your pocket, you imply you were on your own "property." Are you saying it's the wildwest in Kanas City? You look at someone wrong, then they blow your head off?

I personally believe I could still be changed to think otherwise of Zimmerman at trial, but at this point I don't see how?


----------



## Smalltowngirl

I heard on the news this morning that Zimmerman has family members of other races; the way it was said; at least to me, seemed to indicate that there was no way he would target someone of a specific race.
Honestly, I know some friends who have other races(Asian DIL) in their family and due to some unpleasant experiences seem very anti-Asian & not just with their DIL.

I feel so sad for the young mans family and I hope that justice prevails.


----------



## Nevada

Smalltowngirl said:


> I feel so sad for the young mans family and I hope that justice prevails.


Even more important than justice, a message needs to be sent that the use of deadly force can't be used indiscriminately. If nothing is done about this I hate to think the precedent this will set, and how many similar incidents it will encourage.


----------



## Smalltowngirl

Nevada said:


> Even more important than justice, a message needs to be sent that the use of deadly force can't be used indiscriminately. If nothing is done about this I hate to think the precedent this will set, and how many similar incidents it will encourage.


I kind of meant not just the judicial judgement on this case but on all armed situations where deadly force is chosen over following common sense. 
I guess I'm lucky, there's a rural neighborhood watch around here and nobody goes out armed to the teeth, in fact in order to be in our neighborhood watch, you can't carry a gun while on patrol but mace/pepper spray is encouraged.. We all carry radios & if there's a problem, the police/EMS are there within a few minutes.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Bearfoot, I see you are still *OK with the actions take by the grown man*. What are your thoughts on the boy?


I never said any such thing

What I said is* I don't KNOW enough* about what *REALLY* happened to lay blame on anyone



> No Bearfoot, you are wrong on to "wait" for a FULL investigation. *I don't need anymore evidence* to know the boy did everything I would hope my son would do. Move away from a stalker, head for home, if confronted fight back.


That's what I said; everyone has decided, even though they dont REALLY know all the facts.

If he's guilty, he will be punished, but it's not my place to decide based on media information alone



> *Forget the evidence* of this case
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , just give us one reason to think Zimmerman shot in self defense? I can't think of any.


Yeah , who cares about the *truth?*


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Even *more important than justice*, a message needs to be sent that the use of deadly force can't be used indiscriminately


Yeah, *agendas* are more important than justice.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yeah, *agendas* are more important than justice.


From the transcript of the victim's telephone conversation, he felt threatened also because he was being followed. Would he have been justified in shooting first?

What we want to avoid is people using deadly force any time they claim that they felt uncomfortable. Clearly, that would create a very bad environment for all of us. Unless the shooter can demonstrate a credible threat, I think that sending a message is appropriate.

But I am disturbed that there has been no arrest. The more I hear about this case the more I wonder why not. I think the police department also needs to be looked at. I suspect that will happen.


----------



## FreeRanger

Bearfoot you are correct you never said you are OK with a man stalking a stranger. It's what you are still not saying as well. Silence is acceptance of the behavior. 

Yeah, I think we should all just wait around for justice...form no opinion on news of the day. Heck, I usually do the same thing, turn away when I notice an injustice (NOT). 

Clearly the news coming out is the police didn't do their job. But HEY I trust them...never heard of a corrupt official in the United States of America. We are all up standing people and would do the right thing (NOT). 

I fail to see an agenda here by people forming an opinion. Where is it? Justice for a young man who was walking home without a gun? He couldn't legally carry a gun to defend himself. Not a fair fight.

Background, I have guns, I might even be carrying (not saying that I have a permit). When I shoot, it's almost always a kill (not target practice). Last year, not counting handgun target shooting, I shot long guns 17 times with 17 kills (raccoons and few deer). Guns are for killing, not to stop crimes.

The agenda is to justify carrying a loaded gun around your neighborhood?


----------



## watcher

Sonshine said:


> I find this particular article pretty interesting: FBI, Justice Department to Investigate Trayvon Martin Killing - ABC News


Can you say "politics"? 




Sonshine said:


> Then farther down in the article it says this:
> Law enforcement expert Rod Wheeler, who listened to the tapes, told ABC News that Zimmerman, not Martin, sounded intoxicated in the police recordings of the 911 calls.


Again if the cops on scene had gotten even a whiff of booze from the guy he'd been cuffed and in the car. As I implied in another post cops have an "arrest them all, let the lawyers sort them out" type of thinking. 




Sonshine said:


> According to Chris Tutko, the director of the National Neighborhood Watch Program, there are about 22,000 registered watch groups nationwide, and Zimmerman was not part of a registered group -- another fact the police were not aware of at the time of the incident.


The term "neighborhood watch" has become a catch all phrase. If a group of people get together and agree to start watching their area its called a 'neighborhood watch'. Its like when people say "Tylenol" there is a good chance they are talking about acetaminophen in general not that exact brand.


----------



## watcher

Kazahleenah said:


> Since he "followed the victim AND got out of his car"... it could be stretched to 1st degree murder.


That'd be some stretch. You'd have a very hard time proving the guy planned on shooting him when he got out of the car.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Is shooting someone who is running away an act of self-defense?


Everything I've read, and its not much, agree there was some kind of physical contact just before or at the time of the shooting.

The last I read said the evidence is already refuting the witnesses testimony. Witnesses have said they heard two shots but the evidence shows only one round was fired.

As I said there's more to this story than we are being told by the press.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> That'd be some stretch. You'd have a very hard time proving the guy planned on shooting him when he got out of the car.


I agree. That's exactly why I suggested that the grand jury will indict on manslaughter instead of murder. A manslaughter conviction will still send a message that the use of deadly force can't be used indiscriminately.


----------



## Wanderer0101

pancho said:


> Near where I live a man died last week. He was welding when two men came up and beat him with metal rods and stole his wallet. He was in a coma for a few weeks but finally dies. It just barely made the local news.
> *Wonder why some people get national coverage and some don't even get local coverage*?


And you just asked the magic question! 

The reason is these two individuals in this unfortunate incident are being used by liberals to jack up racial tension prior to the next election. You only have to look at who is posting their "outrage" on this particular thread to see what is going on. There are almost no facts on this incident available to the public but liberals have already reached their conclusions and are screaming them in all directions. You can bet the Holder Injustice Department is going to back them up in any way they can. This is like the Duke incident all over again. The same kinds of people are making exactly the same noises again.


----------



## Nevada

Wanderer0101 said:


> And you just asked the magic question!
> 
> The reason is these two individuals in this unfortunate incident are being used by liberals to jack up racial tension prior to the next election. You only have to look at who is posting their "outrage" on this particular thread to see what is going on. There are almost no facts on this incident available to the public but liberals have already reached their conclusions and are screaming them in all directions. You can bet the Holder Injustice Department is going to back them up in any way they can. This is like the Duke incident all over again. The same kinds of people are making exactly the same noises again.


That's absurd. There's no grand conspiracy here. The only reason this incident is newsworthy is because there has been no arrest in the case.


----------



## Wanderer0101

Nevada said:


> That's absurd. There's no grand conspiracy here. The only reason this incudent is newsworthy is because there has been no arrest in the case.


I'm so glad you chimed in. There's nothing like confirmation.


----------



## Sonshine

Wanderer0101 said:


> And you just asked the magic question!
> 
> The reason is these two individuals in this unfortunate incident are being used by liberals to jack up racial tension prior to the next election. You only have to look at who is posting their "outrage" on this particular thread to see what is going on. There are almost no facts on this incident available to the public but liberals have already reached their conclusions and are screaming them in all directions. You can bet the Holder Injustice Department is going to back them up in any way they can. This is like the Duke incident all over again. The same kinds of people are making exactly the same noises again.


I'm not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## Sonshine

watcher said:


> Can you say "politics"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Again if the cops on scene had gotten even a whiff of booze from the guy he'd been cuffed and in the car. As I implied in another post cops have an "arrest them all, let the lawyers sort them out" type of thinking.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term "neighborhood watch" has become a catch all phrase. If a group of people get together and agree to start watching their area its called a 'neighborhood watch'. Its like when people say "Tylenol" there is a good chance they are talking about acetaminophen in general not that exact brand.


Having lived in Sanford, albeit it's been quite a while since I lived there, I wouldn't be surprised at them not locking a guy up because of smelling alcohol on someone's breath.


----------



## pancho

There has to be more to the story than what I have read.
Just because there are a lot of people yelling for an arrest does not mean there should be one.
Another incident that happened very near where I live.
A woman got off from working 3rd shift and stopped by her father's house on the way home. When he went to work she fell asleep on the couch. There was a home burglary and she was shot and killed. A couple of days later the police arrested two men.
There was a big uproar in a certain community. People said on the TV these two men were good hard working men who had never been in trouble in their lives. All of their relatives and friends were sure the police had the wrong men.
Both men had been released from prison in the last 6 months. One man had been convicted of murder. Both had very long police records. One man even showed the police where the gun they had used was hidden.
Still many people say they were framed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Bearfoot you are correct you never said you are OK with a man stalking a stranger. It's what you are still not saying as well. *Silence is acceptance of the behavior.
> 
> *Yeah, I think we should all just wait around for justice*...form no opinion on news of the day*. Heck, I usually do the same thing, turn away when I notice an injustice (NOT)


"Silence" is keeping your mouth shut when you don't KNOW the truth.

How can I form a *VALID* opinion based on *media hype*?.


----------



## Hollowdweller

My gut instinct is to say the shooter is liable but things are not always what they seem.

I'm for laws that allow people to protect themselves but I think we are almost getting to the point in the US where we will be like Afghanistan where the local militia can pretty much do anything to you and get away with it.

I think that the legal system will decide if the guy is guilty of murder or not but here's my thought:

*If you are walking along the street and you are not bothering anybody no matter whether you look suspicious or look like you have money or what. You shouldn't have to worry about being robbed OR being harrassed and shook down by the cops OR some neighborhood watch. *


----------



## FreeRanger

Wanderer0101 said:


> There are almost no facts on this incident available to the public but liberals have already reached their conclusions and are screaming them in all directions.


I am not a liberal. There are MANY "facts" or evidence being presented on this incident available to the public. It's not the media hype sites that I read. My opinion is based on that information such as the transcripts of the 911 calls and the information Zimmerman provided to the police and they published. If by trial additional information was made available, I could change my mind. 

I am still waiting for someone on here to justify "a man with a loaded gun stalking young boys in the neighborhood, who jumps out a truck and confronts the stranger, is some how defending himself?" I say it can't be done because Zimmerman was pursuing a man trying to move away. That's NOT self defense. 

Waderer and Bearfoot seem to OK with conservatives carrying guns and shooting any stranger that crosses his path? What other conclusion can I come to?

Silence equals: "when they came for the Jews, I didn't say anything because I am not a Jew." You all know the rest of the story. 

Your opinion matters and is valid for moment you give it. An opinion can and should change over time. If it doesn't then I would use the word I saw debated on the HT Singles forum the word is "simpleton" Try wiki Simpleton (folklore) for the definition.


----------



## Nevada

Hollowdweller said:


> I think we are almost getting to the point in the US where we will be like Afghanistan where the local militia can pretty much do anything to you and get away with it.


It's up to us whether that's an acceptable way to live.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Wanderer0101 said:


> And you just asked the magic question!
> 
> The reason is these two individuals in this unfortunate incident are being used by liberals to jack up racial tension prior to the next election. You only have to look at who is posting their "outrage" on this particular thread to see what is going on. There are almost no facts on this incident available to the public but liberals have already reached their conclusions and are screaming them in all directions. You can bet the Holder Injustice Department is going to back them up in any way they can. This is like the Duke incident all over again. The same kinds of people are making exactly the same noises again.


Actually, all of this came to light because Trayvon's mother has been pleading for some sort of justice for her son. Most of the major news outlets picked up the story and the wonders of cyberspace caused the story to go viral. While it has become a cause that even celebrities are promoting, it is very much an outcry from average people.


----------



## Guest

Citizens/neighborhood watch have absolutely no arrest or detention powers unless someone is committing a felony in most states. His(Zimmermans) actions would have caused his own injury or death in some circumstances and rightfully so.


----------



## Stephen in SOKY

Wanderer0101 said:


> And you just asked the magic question!
> 
> The reason is these two individuals in this unfortunate incident are being used by liberals to jack up racial tension prior to the next election. You only have to look at who is posting their "outrage" on this particular thread to see what is going on. There are almost no facts on this incident available to the public but liberals have already reached their conclusions and are screaming them in all directions. You can bet the Holder Injustice Department is going to back them up in any way they can. This is like the Duke incident all over again. The same kinds of people are making exactly the same noises again.


Not just the racial aspect, but the anti-gun rhetoric as well. This story, and several others we've seen in the MSM recently are laying groundwork for repealing Castle Doctrines, CCDW and gun rights in general. The general public is being fed a stream of stories clearly outlining how those of us with CCDW licenses are prone to unnecesary violence. The second term agendas are being pushed more each week.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I am still waiting for someone on here to justify "a man with a loaded gun stalking young boys in the neighborhood, who jumps out a truck and confronts the stranger, is some how defending himself?" I say it can't be done because Zimmerman was pursuing a man trying to move away. That's NOT self defense.
> 
> Waderer and Bearfoot seem to OK with conservatives carrying guns and *shooting any stranger that crosses his path*? *What other conclusion can I come to?
> *


You can't logically reach that conclusion from anything we *actually said*, which is why you probably shouldn't be making judgements about the case either.

You're simply distorting reality with wild exaggerations, much the same way as the media


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Actually, all of this came to light because Trayvon's mother has been pleading for *some sort of justice* for her son. Most of the major news outlets picked up the story and the wonders of cyberspace caused the story to go viral. While *it has become a cause* that even celebrities are promoting, it is very much* an outcry from average people*.


From "average people" letting emotions take the place of facts.

"Justice" is for the courts to decide based on ALL the facts, and nothing else


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> How can I form a *VALID* opinion based on *media hype*?.


I don't know why you can't, but I've been able to conclude a number of things.



From the 911 tapes, it's clear that Zimmerman was following Martin, not the other way around.
Zimmerman left his truck to follow Martin, making no mention of having been attacked by Martin to the 911 operator.
Zimmerman followed Martin against the suggestion of the 911 operator.
Zimmerman's concern was not with his personal safety, but with the possibility that Martin might "get away."
Nobody has alleged that Martin was engaged in committing any crime, only that he looked suspicious and was possibly intoxicated.
There was an audible scuffle immediately before the shooting, where Martin called-out for help.
Zimmerman shot Martin with a single fatal shot.
Martin was unarmed.
Drug & alcohol testing was performed on the victim, but not on the shooter.

How to those facts compare with your understanding of what happened?


----------



## FreeRanger

I am not promoting the repeal of Castle Doctrines or CC or gun rights in general. I purchase two guns last year. Again, *fear* by the conservatives to drive THEIR agenda. 

Some how I have managed to avoid the media sites that are exploting the racial aspect. Wouldn't matter to me what either of them are. I try treat all people the same (as taught to me as Christian).

I believe the people United States of America should FREE to walk down any public sidewalk and not question as to why you are here (and then be shot by some self appointed posse). 

Stephen, if you really want freedom and gun rights, then I think you should rethink your position on this one. I haven't seen a stream of stories saying cc person is prone to unnecessay violence. I have relatives with CC permits. This was an isolated incident by a man who dreams of being a cop or has control issues that need to be resolved in prison. Deal with it, don't blame the liberals or some other boogyman.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Bearfootfarm said:


> From "average people" letting emotions take the place of facts.
> 
> "Justice" is for the courts to decide based on ALL the facts, and nothing else


Keep in mind that this case would not have progressed to a court of law because the police officers refused to investigate further.

Keep in mind that the police made no attempt to find out the boy's identity and it took 3 days of the father's calls to finally locate Trayvon at the morgue. The police had his cell phone. If they had called any of the numbers, they would have found out his identity.

Just curious but...What would it have taken for you to feel that the case was NOT properly investigated?


----------



## FreeRanger

Bearfootfarm said:


> From "average people" letting emotions take the place of facts.
> 
> "Justice" is for the courts to decide based on ALL the facts, and nothing else


The facts so far are the police didn't bother to find out who the boy was. They didn't seek a second opinion on the event. They just took Zimmerman at his word (sounds like you too). OH, that's right by your logic, the FACTS will come out in the court room. Only they would not have come out because the police failed to do their job. They took the opinion of Zimmerman, that he shot in selfdefense, as the facts. See how that opinion thing works...

The family had to go searching for him. They had to create the media attention to get a date in front of a judge. The facts so far, are the boy was trying to walk home, Zimmerman followed him and shot him. Those are the facts, I wouldn't call that emotions.


----------



## Nevada

TheMartianChick said:


> Just curious but...What would it have taken for you to feel that the case was NOT properly investigated?


What I'm finding interesting about this incident is that support & opposition seems to be straight down party lines, with the left calling for prosecution and the right being satisfied with no arrest at all. Even Fox News is getting into the act.

Fox News Coverage of the Trayvon Martin Case Criticized - The Daily Beast

There is an interesting clip imbedded in that article where they discuss it. I just can't figure out what the political advantage is to Fox News and the rest of the right talking a stand to defend Zimmerman.


----------



## Stephen in SOKY

FreeRanger said:


> Stephen, if you really want freedom and gun rights, then I think you should rethink your position on this one. I haven't seen a stream of stories saying cc person is prone to unnecessay violence. I have relatives with CC permits. This was an isolated incident by a man who dreams of being a cop or has control issues that need to be resolved in prison. Deal with it, don't blame the liberals or some other boogyman.


Here's one from right here on HT a few days ago. Just watch, the MSM will slip one in every few days or weeks to subliminally build support against gun rights for the next several months.

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/general-chat/432936-castle-laws-where-should-line-drawn.html


----------



## TheMartianChick

Stephen in SOKY said:


> Not just the racial aspect, but the anti-gun rhetoric as well. This story, and several others we've seen in the MSM recently are laying groundwork for repealing Castle Doctrines, CCDW and gun rights in general. The general public is being fed a stream of stories clearly outlining how those of us with CCDW licenses are prone to unnecesary violence. The second term agendas are being pushed more each week.


I agree that there are some that are stating that guns are the problem... I am not one of those people. I believe mightily in responsible gun ownership. The gun didn't kill Trayvon...a vigilante did. Although there does seem to be a racial component to this story, it isn't the entire story. 

A child is dead and no one bothered to investigate. The parents weren't notified of his death and spent days searching for their child, essentially doing their own investigation. Put yourself in the parents' shoes for a moment. I have a stepson and I can imagine what those parents are going through. No one has come up with a single crime that this boy committed...
Including the shooter. 

I'm trying to figure out why the police even responded to George Zimmerman's call at all. If I called my local cops and told them that a guy was walking down the street looking around, they'd tell me to call back if he actually committed a crime. Wearing a hoodie is not a crime. Having something in your hand is not a crime. Stalking and shooting a teen? Now that's a crime.


----------



## FreeRanger

Nevada said:


> I just can't figure out what the political advantage is to Fox News and the rest of the right talking a stand to defend Zimmerman.


I can't either. 

Still try to find someone who can tell me why it's OK for citizens to carry a loaded gun while stalking strangers in the neighborhood. You can carry your gun, just don't try to enforce your person beliefs on us FREE Americans. Freedom of travel is a basic USA right. It's one of the things that makes America the GREAT, not America the restricted people. Zimmerman took that right away from the boy. 

Such as extreme right is doing by embracing Mr. Rick S.

The right is just as guilty as the left on giving up freedoms.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Nevada said:


> What I'm finding interesting about this incident is that support & opposition seems to be straight down party lines, with the left calling for prosecution and the right being satisfied with no arrest at all. Even Fox News is getting into the act.
> 
> Fox News Coverage of the Trayvon Martin Case Criticized - The Daily Beast
> 
> There is an interesting clip imbedded in that article where they discuss it. I just can't figure out what the political advantage is to Fox News and the rest of the right talking a stand to defend Zimmerman.


The fact that Fox News tends to ignore any news that relates to African Americans is one of the reasons why so few blacks will watch the network. This is one of the topics that my client was slated to speak about last night on Al Sharpton's show last night. The interview was scrubbed because of Joe Madison's segment about the racial epithet on the 911 recording.

Fox had minimal coverage about the Haitian earthquake and countless other types of news that were considered to be major national stories by other networks.


----------



## Beowulf

FreeRanger said:


> I can't either.
> 
> Still try to find someone who can tell me why it's OK for citizens to carry a loaded gun while stalking strangers in the neighborhood. You can carry your gun, just don't try to enforce your person beliefs on us FREE Americans. Freedom of travel is a basic USA right. It's one of the things that makes America the GREAT, not America the restricted people. Zimmerman took that right away from the boy.
> 
> Such as extreme right is doing by embracing Mr. Rick S.
> 
> The right is just as guilty as the left on giving up freedoms.


What???

WTH does one thing have to do with the other?

Zimmerman was very likely wrong (only a trial will tell), and Santorum is a religious nut-job, but the two are very likely not related...


----------



## Sonshine

Nevada said:


> What I'm finding interesting about this incident is that support & opposition seems to be straight down party lines, with the left calling for prosecution and the right being satisfied with no arrest at all. Even Fox News is getting into the act.
> 
> Fox News Coverage of the Trayvon Martin Case Criticized - The Daily Beast
> 
> There is an interesting clip imbedded in that article where they discuss it. I just can't figure out what the political advantage is to Fox News and the rest of the right talking a stand to defend Zimmerman.


Ummm, I'm not on the left.


----------



## Sonshine

TheMartianChick said:


> The fact that Fox News tends to ignore any news that relates to African Americans is one of the reasons why so few blacks will watch the network. This is one of the topics that my client was slated to speak about last night on Al Sharpton's show last night. The interview was scrubbed because of Joe Madison's segment about the racial epithet on the 911 recording.
> 
> Fox had minimal coverage about the Haitian earthquake and countless other types of news that were considered to be major national stories by other networks.


I watch FOX news and never really saw a bias when it comes to news relating to African Americans. I basically see the same stories on Fox as I do on CNN and HLN and MSNBC, but just covered differently, from different perspectives.


----------



## Sonshine

Beowulf said:


> What???
> 
> WTH does one thing have to do with the other?
> 
> Zimmerman was very likely wrong (only a trial will tell), and Santorum is a religious nut-job, but the two are very likely not related...


Looks like some people will drag politicians into every discussion.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Sonshine said:


> I watch FOX news and never really saw a bias when it comes to news relating to African Americans. I basically see the same stories on Fox as I do on CNN and HLN and MSNBC, but just covered differently, from different perspectives.


I don't usually see the same stories because I don't watch Fox on a regular basis. I have "tested" them when news stories are of particular interest to the ethnic community. When the Haitian earthquake happened. I kept flipping from channel to channel to see what was being covered by the various networks. I found that while Fox mentioned the quake in passing, they didn't have any reports from the scene. They spent a great deal of time covering everything but the quake and I almost wondered if they were using a previously recorded segment. They talked politics...but barely mentioned the biggest story of the day.

News should not have a color and yet there is an absence of news that relates to people of color on that channel. While they did focus on Herman Cain, it seemed as though they were trying to highlight the fact that he was a black Republican (which is not seen very often). The channel will focus on blacks as criminals and rarely as role models. 

I object to that channel not so much because of conservative views but because of their exclusive views. Their newscasts are not at all inclusive of the diversity that makes up America. I am reminded of the television programming of the 1970's. It was extremely rare to see someone that looked like me on tv unless they were engaging in buffoonery a la George Jefferson or JJ on Good Times. Today on Fox, the small amount of ethnic news is mostly negative and dismissive.


----------



## farmmom

Sonshine said:


> Ummm, I'm not on the left.


Me either. I believe this case should be thoroughly investigated. I believe the police involved should be as well. I believe Zimmerman should have been taken in for questioning and drug/alcohol tested. I believe all the evidence should be presented to a grand jury, and that a trial should result. I believe a jury should decide the guilt/innocence of Zimmerman and the repercussions of his actions.

My initial feeling is that he murdered the young man. JMO


----------



## TheMartianChick

Breaking news on Headline News is that the city government of Sanford FL has voted "no confidence" in their Police Chief.



> Why is the history of the Sanford Police Department in question?
> 
> Sanford PD's officers have suffered a series of public missteps in recent years, according to local reporters. In 2006 two private security guards&#8212;the son of a Sanford police officer, and a volunteer for the department&#8212;killed a black teen with a single gunshot in his back. Even though they admitted to never identifying themselves, the guards were released without charges. In 2009, after an assailant allegedly attempted to rape a child in her home, the department was called to task for sitting on the suspect's fingerprints, delaying identification and pursuit of the attacker.
> 
> Perhaps the most significant incident occurred in late 2010: Justin Collison, the son of a Sanford PD lieutenant, sucker-punched a homeless black man outside a bar, and officers on the scene released Collison without charges. He eventually surrendered after video of the incident materialized online. The police chief at the time was ultimately forced into retirement. "Bottom line, we didn't do our job that night," a Police Department representative told WFTV of the incident. The TV station later learned that the Sanford patrol sergeant in charge on the night of Collison's assault, Anthony Raimondo, was also the first supervisor on the scene of Trayvon Martin's shooting death.
> 
> As a result of these incidents and their initial handling of Martin's death, the Sanford Police Department has been under increased scrutiny. Martin's parents have suggested they might call for Police Chief Bill Lee to resign.


The above clip comes from the Mother Jones site but indicates that there have been other issues with this police force and police chief:

The Trayvon Martin Killing, Explained | Mother Jones


----------



## Nevada

TheMartianChick said:


> Breaking news on Headline News is that the city government of Sanford FL has voted "no confidence" in their Police Chief.http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-happened-trayvon-martin-explained


It amazes me that this sort of behavior is worth it to them. They know that they are risking enormous lawsuits for the city, the department, and even for themselves. And what value do they get out of it?


----------



## big rockpile

FreeRanger said:


> Let me state it clearly, I don't care what color, age or size the boy was. He was doing everything right and nothing I have heard of wrong. Meanwhile I have heard nothing yet to justify a "neighborhood watch person" to stalk strangers in their personal truck and jump out to assult them for crossing your sidewalk.
> 
> Big Rock,
> I find it hard to believe the neighborhood watch would have "been all over you" because you put a hand in a pocket. You must live in fear? I don't care if you did have a gun in your pocket, you imply you were on your own "property." Are you saying it's the wildwest in Kanas City? You look at someone wrong, then they blow your head off?
> 
> I personally believe I could still be changed to think otherwise of Zimmerman at trial, but at this point I don't see how?


Well truth I have been shot at and my Mom was stabbed in Kansas City,most I've seen don't play there.

big rockpile


----------



## Pearl B

Just saw on the cbs national news? The guy who wrote and worked to get Stand your ground law passed believes it shouldnt apply in this specific case. Due to a few other misuses of the law, he, the original writer of the law believes it needs a bit more legislation added to it, to prevent this sort of thing.


----------



## Nevada

Pearl B. said:


> Just saw on the cbs national news? The guy who wrote and worked to get Stand your ground law passed believes it shouldnt apply in this specific case. Due to a few other misuses of the law, he, the original writer of the law believes it needs a bit more legislation added to it, to prevent this sort of thing.


The stand-your-ground law says you aren't obligated to retreat, but it doesn't give a green light to aggression. If Zimmerman was the aggressor, which he appears to have been, I don't see how that law is going to help him much.


----------



## Pearl B

The guy who wrote the law said pretty much the same thing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I don't know why you can't, but I've been able to conclude a number of things.
> 
> 
> 
> From the 911 tapes, it's clear that Zimmerman was following Martin, not the other way around.
> Zimmerman left his truck to follow Martin, making no mention of having been attacked by Martin to the 911 operator.
> Zimmerman followed Martin against the suggestion of the 911 operator.
> Zimmerman's concern was not with his personal safety, but with the possibility that Martin might "get away."
> Nobody has alleged that Martin was engaged in committing any crime, only that he looked suspicious and was possibly intoxicated.
> There was an audible scuffle immediately before the shooting, where Martin called-out for help.
> Zimmerman shot Martin with a single fatal shot.
> Martin was unarmed.
> Drug & alcohol testing was performed on the victim, but not on the shooter.
> How to those facts compare with your understanding of what happened?


1 Did you notice the media is now using the term "911 call" for all the calls when it was first reported he called on a "non-emergency" number? 
Did anyone ever claim it was the "other way around"?

2 When he left his *vehicle*, (you keep saying truck, witnesses said car) there had been no fight, so he couldn't possibly have mentioned it
Your timeline is off

3 He was following before he called. It's not illegal, and the operator has no authority to give orders

4 Pure speculation since you cannot KNOW what he was thinking

5 Irrelevant, althouogh technically he was tresspassing by walking through yards and between houses

6 There were "sounds" and someone called for help. You don't *know* who it was

7 Some witnesses said there were 2 shots. Zimmerman only fired one



> A press release that night says that "there was *an altercation* between the two males and shots were fired."


Trayvon Martin shooting timeline: A timeline of the events surrounding the fatal shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin by neighborhood-watch volunteer George Zimmerman - Orlando Sentinel

8 Irelevant

9 You don't *know* what tests were performed

It seems your "facts" conflict with some of the reports, and you're confused as to what happened when, which is a GREAT reason to *stop trying to judge* and let the investigation proceed


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *Keep in mind that this case would not have progressed to a court of law because the police officers refused to investigate further.*





> *Keep in mind* that the police made no attempt to find out the boy's identity and it took 3 days of the father's calls to finally locate Trayvon at the morgue. The police had his cell phone. If they had called any of the numbers, they would have found out his identity.
> 
> Just curious but...*What would it have taken for you to feel that the case was NOT properly investigated*?


*Keep in mind* a LOT of what is reported is not necessarily the truth*, *and a lot is ONLY from the point of view of Martin's family.

I haven't said it ws or it wasn't.
I've said all along *I DON"T KNOW* enough to make any judgements about it at all, which is why I am willing to wait until the SPIN stops and the truth is figured out


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> The facts so far are the police didn't bother to find out who the boy was. They didn't seek a second opinion on the event. They just took Zimmerman at his word (sounds like you too).


You're taking the word of reporters who keep telling different versions


----------



## Sonshine

TheMartianChick said:


> I don't usually see the same stories because I don't watch Fox on a regular basis. I have "tested" them when news stories are of particular interest to the ethnic community. When the Haitian earthquake happened. I kept flipping from channel to channel to see what was being covered by the various networks. I found that while Fox mentioned the quake in passing, they didn't have any reports from the scene. They spent a great deal of time covering everything but the quake and I almost wondered if they were using a previously recorded segment. They talked politics...but barely mentioned the biggest story of the day.
> 
> News should not have a color and yet there is an absence of news that relates to people of color on that channel. While they did focus on Herman Cain, it seemed as though they were trying to highlight the fact that he was a black Republican (which is not seen very often). The channel will focus on blacks as criminals and rarely as role models.
> 
> I object to that channel not so much because of conservative views but because of their exclusive views. Their newscasts are not at all inclusive of the diversity that makes up America. I am reminded of the television programming of the 1970's. It was extremely rare to see someone that looked like me on tv unless they were engaging in buffoonery a la George Jefferson or JJ on Good Times. Today on Fox, the small amount of ethnic news is mostly negative and dismissive.


Maybe because I watch them quite a bit I have a different perspective than you do.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Just saw on the cbs national news? The guy who wrote and worked to get Stand your ground law passed believes it shouldnt apply in this specific case. Due to a few other misuses of the law, he, the original writer of the law believes it needs a bit more legislation added to it, to prevent this sort of thing.


Just one more *taking advantage* of the situation to get some publicity, even though he wasn't there and knows NOTHING about the cas that he didn't read in the media


----------



## Sonshine

Nevada said:


> It amazes me that this sort of behavior is worth it to them. They know that they are risking enormous lawsuits for the city, the department, and even for themselves. And what value do they get out of it?


They've gotten away with it for a long time, guess they figured it wouldn't leave their little town.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> It seems your "facts" conflict with some of the reports, and you're confused as to what happened when, which is a GREAT reason to *stop trying to judge* and let the investigation proceed


If it turns out that Zimmerman is charged, tried, and convicted will you go along with it then? Or will you say he was railroaded by a liberal media?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> If it turns out that Zimmerman is charged, tried, and convicted will you go along with it then? Or will you say he was railroaded by a liberal media?


I'll accept whatever verdict a FAIR trial produces, (if there is proof he even broke the law) but the odds of him getting one now will be pretty slim with all the hysteria

Rahm Emanuel said "You never want a good crisis to go to waste", and they will turn this into one to push various agendas


----------



## vicker

Didn't this young man have the right to stand his ground? It is a safe bet that, had this young man been carrying a legally registered firearm and killed his aggressor, he would be in jail right now.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Didn't this young man have the right to stand his ground? It is a safe bet that, had this young man been carrying a legally registered firearm and killed his aggressor, he would be in jail right now.


Yes, he had a right to defend himself *if *attacked.

The rest is speculation


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, he had a right to defend himself *if *attacked.
> 
> The rest is speculation


He could not have been attacked if he had stayed in his vehicle. That is not speculation.


----------



## FreeRanger

Bearfoot, the boy didn't have a right to carry a gun. How could he defend himself from Zimmerman who was following him *WITH A GUN*? It was 7PM, not even late night.

I still can't get over the simple fact that Zimmerman followed the boy, and you (and apparently many others) think that is not stalking? I guess I don't understand that mentality.

Again if you were that boy, what would you have done?


----------



## Mike in Ohio

FreeRanger said:


> Bearfoot, the boy didn't have a right to carry a gun. How could he defend himself from Zimmerman who was following him *WITH A GUN*? It was 7PM, not even late night.
> 
> I still can't get over the simple fact that Zimmerman followed the boy, and you (and apparently many others) think that is not stalking? I guess I don't understand that mentality.
> 
> Again if you were that boy, what would you have done?


Consider this FreeRanger..... Anyone Zimmerman approaches now would be justified in being fearful and shooting him out of hand based on the information available to the public at large. Why put yourself at risk from this guy?


----------



## Wanderer0101

TheMartianChick said:


> Breaking news on Headline News is that the city government of Sanford FL has voted "no confidence" in their Police Chief.
> 
> 
> 
> The above clip comes from the Mother Jones site but indicates that there have been other issues with this police force and police chief:
> 
> The Trayvon Martin Killing, Explained | Mother Jones


Ah yes, a radical left wing rag like Mother Jones is a really good source. Blatantly the baying hounds of the left are in full cry on this one. Their faux outrage is so obviously agenda based that only the brain dead can't see it. 

Black kids throw gasoline on a white kid and set him on fire on his own porch when he's running away from them. Because he's white by their own declaration. Where's the outrage about that? Where's the media attention? Where's Al Sharpton? Where's the FBI? Where's the corrupt, racist Holder Injustice Department?


----------



## TheMartianChick

There was a black political pundit on MSNBC last night who explained why the Trayvon Martin case was so personal for him. I only caught part of the story, but the pundit mentioned that his mom had re-married and moved to what was essentially an all white neighborhood with her new husband. 

At that time, someone had to sit the 14 or 15 year old pundit down and explain that he should only walk and not run in order to ensure that people didn't suspect him of a crime. He was told that he should never have anything in his pockets to make sure that no one thought that he had stolen something. This man appeared to be in his late 30's or early 40's. He said that the saddest thing about the Trayvon Martin case to him was the fact that it appeared that there were still areas in America where those rules were still valid and that parents still needed to teach their black sons to follow them.

In my area, we don't teach boys those exact rules, but we do teach them how to interact with law enforcement to ensure that they are not returned to their parents in a body bag. Many of those things that we teach them are in direct contradiction to their rights, but we teach it anyway because we don't want them to die. 

In the Trayvon Martin case, he told his girlfriend that he wasn't going to run, but at some point, it seems that he did. When kids get scared, they will usually choose flight versus fight, but when you are a black male, both choices carry a sentence. Flight usually ends in some kind of jail sentence and a fight can end in a death sentence.


----------



## FreeRanger

Mike, that was my thought this week. 

If person lived in that area, they might be tempted to "follow" Mr. Zimmerman because he "looks" suspicious. Then when he turns toward you to confront you for following him, you would feel threaten by his action (knowing he is a big man with a gun), and would be forced to pull a gun and shoot him DEAD in self defense. 

If I was Zimmerman, I wouldn't be out in public any more. If he is setting the standard for self defense, turn play is fair play.

Of course I personally would just try to avoid that area. I also would tell everyone I knew to avoid that city, as I am sure is happening that area right now. 

Wonder, two wrongs don't make a right. Redirection is a coward defense.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Wanderer0101 said:


> Ah yes, a radical left wing rag like Mother Jones is a really good source. Blatantly the baying hounds of the left are in full cry on this one. Their faux outrage is so obviously agenda based that only the brain dead can't see it.
> 
> Black kids throw gasoline on a white kid and set him on fire on his own porch when he's running away from them. Because he's white by their own declaration. Where's the outrage about that? Where's the media attention? Where's Al Sharpton? Where's the FBI? Where's the corrupt, racist Holder Injustice Department?


I happened to find the Mother Jones version of the story. However, those points about the Sanford police force are a matter of public record. Another poster at HT (who is unable to post in this topic) tipped me off to a few other things about the Sanford police and legal system that I am attempting to verify and post. This is a person that is familiar with the area and what passes for justice there.

Sonshine has indicated that she was familiar with the Sanford police and that it sounds as though not much has changed there.

As to the topic of black kids throwing gasoline on a white kid... I am outraged over ANY injustice that is done to a child, but I am one person and cannot take up every cause that comes my way. If you are similarly outraged by a case, then I suggest that you stand up and organize a protest or call attention to it somehow. It is much easier to get your voice heard today with social media, then it was back in the days of just print media and the local news. 

Just because you feel that justice wasn't served for the white child that was doused with gasoline, doesn't mean that justice shouldn't be served for Trayvon Martin. With that kind of thinking, as long as one person has ever gotten away with a crime, there should never be any justice at all.


----------



## Sonshine

Wanderer0101 said:


> Ah yes, a radical left wing rag like Mother Jones is a really good source. Blatantly the baying hounds of the left are in full cry on this one. Their faux outrage is so obviously agenda based that only the brain dead can't see it.
> 
> Black kids throw gasoline on a white kid and set him on fire on his own porch when he's running away from them. Because he's white by their own declaration. Where's the outrage about that? Where's the media attention? Where's Al Sharpton? Where's the FBI? Where's the corrupt, racist Holder Injustice Department?


I haven't heard anything about someone setting a kid on fire, white, black or purple. Do you have a link?

I'm white, well, more red than white I guess. I'm conservative. So, where does that leave me in your little rant?


----------



## Sonshine

TheMartianChick said:


> There was a black political pundit on MSNBC last night who explained why the Trayvon Martin case was so personal for him. I only caught part of the story, but the pundit mentioned that his mom had re-married and moved to what was essentially an all white neighborhood with her new husband.
> 
> At that time, someone had to sit the 14 or 15 year old pundit down and explain that he should only walk and not run in order to ensure that people didn't suspect him of a crime. He was told that he should never have anything in his pockets to make sure that no one thought that he had stolen something. This man appeared to be in his late 30's or early 40's. He said that the saddest thing about the Trayvon Martin case to him was the fact that it appeared that there were still areas in America where those rules were still valid and that parents still needed to teach their black sons to follow them.
> 
> In my area, we don't teach boys those exact rules, but we do teach them how to interact with law enforcement to ensure that they are not returned to their parents in a body bag. Many of those things that we teach them are in direct contradiction to their rights, but we teach it anyway because we don't want them to die.
> 
> In the Trayvon Martin case, he told his girlfriend that he wasn't going to run, but at some point, it seems that he did. When kids get scared, they will usually choose flight versus fight, but when you are a black male, both choices carry a sentence. Flight usually ends in some kind of jail sentence and a fight can end in a death sentence.


I was 15 when we moved from IL to AL. My Grandmother was from AL, as was my Dad. When we went to visit my Grandmother there was one neighbor who had a grandson my age. They were a black family. I ended up spending more time at her house than my Grandmother's, so she was just like a Grandmother to me. When we moved to AL I didn't realize how bad the racism was, granted this was in 1972, but I still visited with this dear old lady, and her grandson, who I still to this day consider a good friend. I was told that I shouldn't be coming around them now that we lived in the south, that it would only bring me trouble. Well, nothing ever happened, to which I am greatful, but I have seen in other areas of AL cross burnings that scared the daylights out of me. It's sad that there aer people who will judge others because of the color of their skin, or who believe that one race is superior to another because one has more pigmentation in their skin than the other. Things are better than when I was a child, but there are still racists around. I don't know if Zimmerman was a racist or not, but everything I have heard about this story seems to lead to the fact that he shot that child in cold blood.


----------



## Sonshine

TheMartianChick said:


> I happened to find the Mother Jones version of the story. However, those points about the Sanford police force are a matter of public record. Another poster at HT (who is unable to post in this topic) tipped me off to a few other things about the Sanford police and legal system that I am attempting to verify and post. This is a person that is familiar with the area and what passes for justice there.
> 
> Sonshine has indicated that she was familiar with the Sanford police and that it sounds as though not much has changed there.
> 
> As to the topic of black kids throwing gasoline on a white kid... I am outraged over ANY injustice that is done to a child, but I am one person and cannot take up every cause that comes my way. If you are similarly outraged by a case, then I suggest that you stand up and organize a protest or call attention to it somehow. It is much easier to get your voice heard today with social media, then it was back in the days of just print media and the local news.
> 
> Just because you feel that justice wasn't served for the white child that was doused with gasoline, doesn't mean that justice shouldn't be served for Trayvon Martin. With that kind of thinking, as long as one person has ever gotten away with a crime, there should never be any justice at all.


Exactly. Children are children, regardless of the color of their skin.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Sonshine said:


> I haven't heard anything about someone setting a kid on fire, white, black or purple. Do you have a link?
> 
> I'm white, well, more red than white I guess. I'm conservative. So, where does that leave me in your little rant?


Here are a couple of links. The story did receive national attention from CBS News, HuffPost, MSNBC NY Daily News and other places. I think that the notable difference is that the KCMO Police are investigating the crime, whereas the Sanford Police refused to investigate the Trayvon Martin case.

Cops seek teens who allegedly set fire to 13-year-old student - Crimesider - CBS News

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-04/news/31122324_1_white-boy-fire-tv-station


----------



## sidepasser

TheMartianChick said:


> There was a black political pundit on MSNBC last night who explained why the Trayvon Martin case was so personal for him. I only caught part of the story, but the pundit mentioned that his mom had re-married and moved to what was essentially an all white neighborhood with her new husband.
> 
> At that time, someone had to sit the 14 or 15 year old pundit down and explain that he should only walk and not run in order to ensure that people didn't suspect him of a crime. He was told that he should never have anything in his pockets to make sure that no one thought that he had stolen something. This man appeared to be in his late 30's or early 40's. He said that the saddest thing about the Trayvon Martin case to him was the fact that it appeared that there were still areas in America where those rules were still valid and that parents still needed to teach their black sons to follow them.
> 
> In my area, we don't teach boys those exact rules, but we do teach them how to interact with law enforcement to ensure that they are not returned to their parents in a body bag. Many of those things that we teach them are in direct contradiction to their rights, but we teach it anyway because we don't want them to die.
> 
> In the Trayvon Martin case, he told his girlfriend that he wasn't going to run, but at some point, it seems that he did. When kids get scared, they will usually choose flight versus fight, but when you are a black male, both choices carry a sentence. Flight usually ends in some kind of jail sentence and a fight can end in a death sentence.


The sad thing is it doesn't just happen to black kids. I have lived in the same neighborhood for 26 years. My son who is white and his friend, also white, were walking down our country road in broad daylight and were stopped by the local sheriff's deputy who put them in the car and brought them home (to my house). I asked if they had done anything wrong and was told "they looked suspicious" and he wanted to know if they were telling the truth about who they were and where they lived. Neither boy had ever been in trouble with the law, both were wearing khaki shorts and a tshirt with tennis shoes on. Neither had weapons, drugs, alcohol, etc. I filed a complaint with the sheriff's office and called my local commissioners to let the know I did not appreciate my child being picked up when he was doing nothing wrong. 

My son's best friend in college is a black boy (well man now, gee they grow up too fast) and I had to tell both boys not to be walking about our neighborhood in GA. together. Now how about that? I feared they would be picked up and hauled in because they were "suspicious". I think part of it is that kids don't do a lot of walking in the country anymore and so if anyone sees kids that are out and about walking, it's immediate grounds to stop them and question them. So when my son's friend comes home from college with him, we generally go to a friendlier area like Atlanta or Columbus, because I can tell you, that some small towns in the south are still "backwards" about race.

I do believe that poor child was murdered after hearing the 911 tape. No gun or knife found on that child and Zimmerman was told not to follow the boy and did it anyway. I think Zimmerman knew what he was doing and he set out to kill that child by stalking him, following him and perhaps making the child react in self defense so he could shoot him. You can wait till the cows come home for justice in some small towns, but I can tell you know, in many small towns, there is a "close the ranks" mentality and also a mentality of fifty years ago regarding race. I've lived in the south near all my life, it may be PC on the surface, it is what is underneath that generally isn't spoken about or seen, but it's there.


----------



## Wanderer0101

Sonshine said:


> I haven't heard anything about someone setting a kid on fire, white, black or purple. Do you have a link?


Which 100% validates my point. 

All this outrage and condemnation is highly selective. 

Search on the phrase "You get what you deserve, white boy" and you'll find it. It happened this month. You'll also find that the media did quite a lot to obscure what actually happened including leaving out the "white boy" part in all the initial reports. They also dropped the story like a hot rock just as soon as the could.


----------



## Wanderer0101

TheMartianChick said:


> Here are a couple of links. The story did receive national attention from CBS News, HuffPost, MSNBC NY Daily News and other places. I think that the notable difference is that the KCMO Police are investigating the crime, whereas the Sanford Police refused to investigate the Trayvon Martin case.
> 
> Cops seek teens who allegedly set fire to 13-year-old student - Crimesider - CBS News
> 
> Teens set kid on fire for being 'white boy' - New York Daily News


The notable difference is that one is a white kid and one is black kid. The unfortunate black kid is just being used as a tool by people with an agenda.


----------



## TheMartianChick

TheMartianChick said:


> There was a black political pundit on MSNBC last night who explained why the Trayvon Martin case was so personal for him. I only caught part of the story, but the pundit mentioned that his mom had re-married and moved to what was essentially an all white neighborhood with her new husband.
> 
> At that time, someone had to sit the 14 or 15 year old pundit down and explain that he should only walk and not run in order to ensure that people didn't suspect him of a crime. He was told that he should never have anything in his pockets to make sure that no one thought that he had stolen something. This man appeared to be in his late 30's or early 40's. He said that the saddest thing about the Trayvon Martin case to him was the fact that it appeared that there were still areas in America where those rules were still valid and that parents still needed to teach their black sons to follow them.
> 
> In my area, we don't teach boys those exact rules, but we do teach them how to interact with law enforcement to ensure that they are not returned to their parents in a body bag. Many of those things that we teach them are in direct contradiction to their rights, but we teach it anyway because we don't want them to die.
> 
> In the Trayvon Martin case, he told his girlfriend that he wasn't going to run, but at some point, it seems that he did. When kids get scared, they will usually choose flight versus fight, but when you are a black male, both choices carry a sentence. Flight usually ends in some kind of jail sentence and a fight can end in a death sentence.


I managed to find a link to the written version of what the political pundit said on MSNBC:

Under &lsquo;suspicion&rsquo;: The killing of Trayvon Martin - PostPartisan - The Washington Post


----------



## Sonshine

TheMartianChick said:


> Here are a couple of links. The story did receive national attention from CBS News, HuffPost, MSNBC NY Daily News and other places. I think that the notable difference is that the KCMO Police are investigating the crime, whereas the Sanford Police refused to investigate the Trayvon Martin case.
> 
> Cops seek teens who allegedly set fire to 13-year-old student - Crimesider - CBS News
> 
> Teens set kid on fire for being 'white boy' - New York Daily News


Thanks. I haven't been watching tv much, so didn't see that.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Wanderer0101 said:


> The notable difference is that one is a white kid and one is black kid. The unfortunate black kid is just being used as a tool by people with an agenda.


Do you realize how often this type of thing happens to black kids and black men? This isn't an isolated incident.


----------



## Sonshine

Wanderer0101 said:


> Which 100% validates my point.
> 
> All this outrage and condemnation is highly selective.
> 
> Search on the phrase "You get what you deserve, white boy" and you'll find it. It happened this month. You'll also find that the media did quite a lot to obscure what actually happened including leaving out the "white boy" part in all the initial reports. They also dropped the story like a hot rock just as soon as the could.


How does that prove your point? That only means that I have not been watching the news lately. Why didn't you start a thread posting your outrage here since you're so quick to post to this thread and say it's all about promoting racism. I just don't get how some people's minds work. :huh:


----------



## Sonshine

Wanderer0101 said:


> The notable difference is that one is a white kid and one is black kid. The unfortunate black kid is just being used as a tool by people with an agenda.


So, because you don't think there was enough coverage regarding the white kid then you believe this is all about politics?


----------



## sirquack

Wow, a lot of tension here on this thread. I have had this same discussion with friends and none of us got this worked up about the topic. 
I think the justice system will review and make the appropriate determination on Zimmerman's guilt or innocense. The biggest issue to me is that fact that people are not only calling for Zimmerman's arrest, but also that he should get killed. They have had to move he and his family due to death threats. 
And we talk about making judgements. Let the courts sort it out and then we can decide where we stand. 
I have heard lots of speculation, and some facts. Facts that support both sides of the discussion. Martin was unarmed. But if he was reaching for his waistband, I would be on high alert. Zimmerman had defensive wounds, but implies some altercation took place. I still don't quite get why Martin called his girlfriend instead of his family who would have presumably been closer to him to help him. 
So there are a lot of facts that still out there to be determined. That is for none of us to determine. That is for the authorities, who I still generally trust. 
Are there some bad cops... yes! Are there bad people... yes! But I would still like to believe that most people are good by nature... even if we disagree on a topic.


----------



## Sonshine

sirquack said:


> Wow, a lot of tension here on this thread. I have had this same discussion with friends and none of us got this worked up about the topic.
> I think the justice system will review and make the appropriate determination on Zimmerman's guilt or innocense. The biggest issue to me is that fact that people are not only calling for Zimmerman's arrest, but also that he should get killed. They have had to move he and his family due to death threats.
> And we talk about making judgements. Let the courts sort it out and then we can decide where we stand.
> I have heard lots of speculation, and some facts. Facts that support both sides of the discussion. Martin was unarmed. But if he was reaching for his waistband, I would be on high alert. Zimmerman had defensive wounds, but implies some altercation took place. I still don't quite get why Martin called his girlfriend instead of his family who would have presumably been closer to him to help him.
> So there are a lot of facts that still out there to be determined. That is for none of us to determine. That is for the authorities, who I still generally trust.
> Are there some bad cops... yes! Are there bad people... yes! But I would still like to believe that most people are good by nature... even if we disagree on a topic.


I believe Zimmerman should be given a trial. I don't believe in vigilante justice. I just get upset that it's being used as a race thing instead of the fact that a seventeen yr old boy who was unarmed is dead, shot by Zimmerman. As far as I know he doesn't dispute that fact that he's the shooter. Yet the police did not make an arrest? I don't know, maybe it is a race issue, at least some are trying to make it one.


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> How does that prove your point? That only means that I have not been watching the news lately. Why didn't you start a thread posting your outrage here since you're so quick to post to this thread and say it's all about promoting racism. I just don't get how some people's minds work. :huh:


The burning of the white boy happened over 2 weeks ago. So far I haven't heard of any group calling for investigations, about any hate crimes, seen any movie stars complaining, or people gathering.
How long after the black boy was shot did it take for these things to happen?


----------



## Nevada

Sonshine said:


> I believe Zimmerman should be given a trial. I don't believe in vigilante justice. I just get upset that it's being used as a race thing instead of the fact that a seventeen yr old boy who was unarmed is dead, shot by Zimmerman.


Race is part of the equation because Zimmerman has not been arrested or charged. It's the perception of the black community, and apparently a lot of the white community, that if the shooter had been black and the victim white that an arrest would have been made on the spot. The belief that the lack of an arrest is the result of a bigoted good-old-boy network in the Sanford police department is what is racially charging this incident.

The question of whether Zimmerman's shooting of Martin might have been racially motivated is not at issue yet. If it becomes a factor it won't come up until trial.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I still can't get over the simple fact that Zimmerman followed the boy, and you (and apparently many others) think that is not stalking? I guess *I don't understand* that mentality.


What you don't understand it the LEGAL meaning of "stalking"

Most laws don't change according to time of day, and 7 PM here is DARK


----------



## InvalidID

pancho said:


> The burning of the white boy happened over 2 weeks ago. So far I haven't heard of any group calling for investigations, about any hate crimes, seen any movie stars complaining, or people gathering.
> How long after the black boy was shot did it take for these things to happen?


 About a year or so back in Portland 4 black girls jumped and beat a white girl in the Max line. (Think above ground subway) They took her Ipod and jacket after they were done. The reason they gave? We just felt like beating up a white girl.

They all were put on probation.

Last week a guy got into a fight with 2 gay guys. Witnesses say one of gay guys called him a F--ot joking around and he took offense. The two gay guys jumped the one straight guy (who was coming out of a gay club, go figure) and guess where this is headed. The guy getting jumped (according to eye witnesses, including club patrons) is charged with a hate crime. 

Hate crimes and such are a double standard that simply don't apply to anyone but white males.


----------



## Wanderer0101

Sonshine said:


> So, because you don't think there was enough coverage regarding the white kid then you believe this is all about politics?


That's exactly what I believe.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> So, because you don't think there was enough coverage regarding the white kid then you believe this is all about politics?


It's not "all" about politics, but a LOT of it is, as well as the gun control/self defense agenda.

The other case couldn't be used for that, so barely got any air time at all

And we didn't see the Feds rushing in to take part in the other case


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Sonshine said:


> I believe Zimmerman should be given a trial. I don't believe in *vigilante justice*. I just get upset that it's being used as a race thing instead of the fact that *a seventeen yr old boy who was unarmed is dead,* shot by Zimmerman. As far as I know he doesn't dispute that fact that he's the shooter. Yet the police did not make an arrest? I don't know, maybe it is a race issue, at least some are trying to make it one.


"Viglilante justice" is one of the buzzwords used by the anti gunners so often. I'm* not* saying YOU are one, but think about why you used that term

Maybe because you recently heard it in the MEDIA?

Even an "unarmed" person can be a threat.

Under most "deadly force" laws, it can also be used to "prevent *serious bodily injury"*. 

There was at least one witness who stated Martin was on top of Zimmerman during the fight, and Zimmerman has wounds consistant with being beaten, which would have been grounds to use a weapon, and would explain why there was no arrest.


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Viglilante justice" is one of the buzzwords used by the anti gunners so often. I'm* not* saying YOU are one, but think about why you used that term
> 
> Maybe because you recently heard it in the MEDIA?
> 
> Even an "unarmed" person can be a threat.
> 
> Under most "deadly force" laws, it can also be used to "prevent *serious bodily injury"*.
> 
> There was at least one witness who stated Martin was on top of Zimmerman during the fight, and Zimmerman has wounds consistant with being beaten, which would have been grounds to use a weapon, and would explain why there was no arrest.


I will say it again. There would have been no fight, confrontation or scuffle if he had stayed in his vehicle. What ever happened was a direct result of him escalating the situation.


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> The burning of the white boy happened over 2 weeks ago. So far I haven't heard of any group calling for investigations, about any hate crimes, seen any movie stars complaining, or people gathering.
> How long after the black boy was shot did it take for these things to happen?


I agree, I haven't heard an outcry, in fact I had not heard about the boy that was burned. I may have seen the story though and turned it off before I really heard it. That is one area that I struggle with. I lost my first two kids in a housefire, so anything like that triggers a PTSD in me. In other words, I didn't know about this story. Were the ones that did this to him arrested?


----------



## Sonshine

Nevada said:


> Race is part of the equation because Zimmerman has not been arrested or charged. It's the perception of the black community, and apparently a lot of the white community, that if the shooter had been black and the victim white that an arrest would have been made on the spot. The belief that the lack of an arrest is the result of a bigoted good-old-boy network in the Sanford police department is what is racially charging this incident.
> 
> The question of whether Zimmerman's shooting of Martin might have been racially motivated is not at issue yet. If it becomes a factor it won't come up until trial.


I lived in Sanford in the early 80's. I don't know how much it has changed since then, but back then the good ole boy network was in place.


----------



## Sonshine

InvalidID said:


> About a year or so back in Portland 4 black girls jumped and beat a white girl in the Max line. (Think above ground subway) They took her Ipod and jacket after they were done. The reason they gave? We just felt like beating up a white girl.
> 
> They all were put on probation.
> 
> Last week a guy got into a fight with 2 gay guys. Witnesses say one of gay guys called him a F--ot joking around and he took offense. The two gay guys jumped the one straight guy (who was coming out of a gay club, go figure) and guess where this is headed. The guy getting jumped (according to eye witnesses, including club patrons) is charged with a hate crime.
> 
> Hate crimes and such are a double standard that simply don't apply to anyone but white males.


I think the whole hate crime thing is stupid. Just another way to create divisions. Crime is crime. If someone is assaulted they should face the same consequences.


----------



## Sonshine

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Viglilante justice" is one of the buzzwords used by the anti gunners so often. I'm* not* saying YOU are one, but think about why you used that term
> 
> Maybe because you recently heard it in the MEDIA?
> 
> Even an "unarmed" person can be a threat.
> 
> Under most "deadly force" laws, it can also be used to "prevent *serious bodily injury"*.
> 
> There was at least one witness who stated Martin was on top of Zimmerman during the fight, and Zimmerman has wounds consistant with being beaten, which would have been grounds to use a weapon, and would explain why there was no arrest.


No, I didn't hear it on the media recently. I have not been watching tv lately, so when I see things here I try to do an online search on the story. I used the term vigilante because IMO that's what this seems like. Zimmerman, by his own words, thought the boy looked suspicious. Zimmerman, on the 911 tapes was told not to follow him, yet he continued following him and got out of his truck literally chasing him down the street. You could hear the 911 operator asking him about it and he said he didn't want him to get away. You can hear the struggles and the gunshot, then silence. I put myself in this situation. If a man, who looks to be a pretty good sized man, was chasing me I would run too. If he tried to stop me, I'd fight back. So yes, I imagine their was a scuffle.


----------



## Narshalla

pancho said:


> The burning of the white boy happened over 2 weeks ago. So far I haven't heard of any group calling for investigations, about any hate crimes, seen any movie stars complaining, or people gathering.
> How long after the black boy was shot did it take for these things to happen?


Thank you, this was what I was going to say.



Sonshine said:


> I think the whole hate crime thing is stupid. Just another way to create divisions. Crime is crime. If someone is assaulted they should face the same consequences.


Every time you hear "hate crime," just substitute "thoughtcrime." After all, they are the same thing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> The question of whether Zimmerman's shooting of Martin might have been racially motivated is *not at issue yet*.


You're kidding, right?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> *I will say it again*.
> There would have been no fight, confrontation or scuffle if he had stayed in his vehicle. What ever happened was a direct result of him escalating the situation.


You can repeat it as often as you like.

It won't change the fact that an altercation DID take place, we don't KNOW who started it, and what Zimmerman had done UP TO that point was *not illegal.*

*



<H2 class="header Heading3">Arrest

Click to expand...

*


> When someone has the reasonable suspicion that a felony has been committed, a citizen's arrest might be made. The arrest is no different than any other police arrest. All relevant laws apply. Excessive force cannot be used, for example. But the general concept is that any citizen has the right to stop another who has committed a felony.


Read more: Florida Citizen's Arrest Laws | eHow.com Florida Citizen's Arrest Laws | eHow.com</H2>​


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're kidding, right?


Nobody is talking about the motivation of the shooting, everyone is talking about the shooter not having been arrested.

The shooting may well have been racially motivated. After listening to the police call tapes I think that it probably was, but whether the shooting might have been racially motivated is not relevant to the decision of the police to not make an arrest. We're still stuck on that point right now.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> It won't change the fact that an altercation DID take place, we don't KNOW who started it, and what Zimmerman had done UP TO that point was *not illegal.*


Isn't that also true of Martin?


----------



## Rocktown Gal

Nevada said:


> Race is part of the equation because Zimmerman has not been arrested or charged. It's the perception of the black community, and apparently a lot of the white community, that if the shooter had been black and the victim white that an arrest would have been made on the spot. The belief that the lack of an arrest is the result of a bigoted good-old-boy network in the Sanford police department is what is racially charging this incident.
> 
> The question of whether Zimmerman's shooting of Martin might have been racially motivated is not at issue yet. If it becomes a factor it won't come up until trial.


I would like to know why everyone is saying the shooter is white...the story I read said that the police listed him as white but that his family said that he was hispanic. I'm I the only one that read that story. I will see if I can find the link.

Edit: found link http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/2...illed-by-neighborhood-watch-captain-says-was/



> Police have described Zimmerman as white; his family says he is Hispanic and not racist.


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> Nobody is talking about the motivation of the shooting, everyone is talking about the shooter not having been arrested.
> 
> The shooting may well have been racially motivated. After listening to the police call tapes I think that it probably was, but whether the shooting might have been racially motivated is not relevant to the decision of the police to not make an arrest. We're still stuck on that point right now.


The motivation of the shooting is the only issue.

If the motivation was self defence, there would be no arrest.


----------



## Wanderer0101

Rocktown Gal said:


> I would like to know why everyone is saying the shooter is white...the story I read said that the police listed him as white but that his family said that he was hispanic. I'm I the only one that read that story. I will see if I can find the link.
> 
> Edit: found link Florida Teen Killed By Neighborhood Watch Captain Talked To Girlfriend Before Shooting, Lawyer Says | Fox News


When the action is Hispanic on black the default guideline for the media is that the Hispanic person is white (Caucasion).


----------



## Rocktown Gal

Wanderer0101 said:


> When the action is Hispanic on black the default guideline for the media is that the Hispanic persono is white (Caucasion).


Well that's stupid


----------



## TheMartianChick

sirquack said:


> I still don't quite get why Martin called his girlfriend instead of his family who would have presumably been closer to him to help him.
> So there are a lot of facts that still out there to be determined. That is for none of us to determine. That is for the authorities, who I still generally trust.
> Are there some bad cops... yes! Are there bad people... yes! But I would still like to believe that most people are good by nature... even if we disagree on a topic.


Trayvon Martin was already on the phone with the girlfriend. His girlfriend called him about 20 minutes before he was killed and remained on the phone with him until about a minute or two before he died when Trayvon stopped responding to her. During the course of the conversation, he told her that the man was following him.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Sonshine said:


> I agree, I haven't heard an outcry, in fact I had not heard about the boy that was burned. I may have seen the story though and turned it off before I really heard it. That is one area that I struggle with. I lost my first two kids in a housefire, so anything like that triggers a PTSD in me. In other words, I didn't know about this story. Were the ones that did this to him arrested?


I cannot find any information to indicate that the perpetrators of the gasoline crime have been arrested yet, but I also can't find information that indicates that the police know did the crime. In other words, the police are still looking for them.


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> I think the whole hate crime thing is stupid. Just another way to create divisions. Crime is crime. If someone is assaulted they should face the same consequences.


Just yesterday a man was sentenced to 2 life sentences for a hate crime committed in Jackson. He was sentenced to a life sentence for killing a man, and another life sentence for it being a hate crime.

In the same city 2 men just had their charge upgraded to murder after beating a man to death.
In both cases there was a minority involved. Can't understand how one could be considered a hate crime and the other one not.


----------



## pancho

TheMartianChick said:


> I cannot find any information to indicate that the perpetrators of the gasoline crime have been arrested yet, but I also can't find information that indicates that the police know did the crime. In other words, the police are still looking for them.


I don't think they are looking very hard. I think the kids who burned the other one went to the same school as he did.


----------



## Wanderer0101

Rocktown Gal said:


> Well that's stupid


Yes, it's stupid, but it's politically correct. Very clear in this particular case.


----------



## Wanderer0101

pancho said:


> I don't think they are looking very hard. I think the kids who burned the other one went to the same school as he did.


Yeah, they know two sixteen year olds set fire to a thirteen year old but they can't find them. Go figure.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Wanderer0101 said:


> When the action is Hispanic on black the default guideline for the media is that the Hispanic person is white (Caucasion).


Actually, that isn't exactly the case. There are white hispanics, black hispanics, etc... They all share Spanish heritage but they do not always think of themselves as being the same. As someone else pointed out several pages back, different types of Hispancis may or may not have respect for other types of Hispanics. Zimmerman is what is considered to be a white Hispanic due to his skin color, but I don't know that he himself identifies as such.


----------



## Rocktown Gal

TheMartianChick said:


> Actually, that isn't exactly the case. There are white hispanics, black hispanics, etc... They all share Spanish heritage but they do not always think of themselves as being the same. As someone else pointed out several pages back, different types of Hispancis may or may not have respect for other types of Hispanics. Zimmerman is what is considered to be a white Hispanic due to his skin color, but I don't know that he himself identifies as such.


I think that is really stretching it. There is light skin black people and dark skinned black people is it the same thing there. I'm sorry but I have never heard of this kind of thing...maybe I stay on the farm way too much.


----------



## zant

TheMartianChick said:


> Actually, that isn't exactly the case. There are white hispanics, black hispanics, etc... They all share Spanish heritage but they do not always think of themselves as being the same. As someone else pointed out several pages back, different types of Hispancis may or may not have respect for other types of Hispanics. Zimmerman is what is considered to be a white Hispanic due to his skin color, but I don't know that he himself identifies as such.


This post is pseudointellectual pablum.....WHITE Hispanics/BLACK Hispanics?????Are there Yellow Black people or White Black people ????Are there BLACK WHITE people...oops forgot REDYELLOWBLACK people...are the racists now making subspecies of skin tint/color???Could someone please make up a Color Chart of Different Shades...so when I'm looking at someone I understand that even though they look Black,White,Tan,Yellow,or Red...they may actually be a whole new subspecies of color determined by someone with absolutely no life nor intellectual thought..........and BTW-everything I've read points to this to be a simple case of 2nd degree murder.....


----------



## Rocktown Gal

zant said:


> This post is pseudointellectual pablum.....WHITE Hispanics/BLACK Hispanics?????Are there Yellow Black people or White Black people ????Are there BLACK WHITE people...oops forgot REDYELLOWBLACK people...are the racists now making subspecies of skin tint/color???Could someone please make up a Color Chart of Different Shades...so when I'm looking at someone I understand that even though they look Black,White,Tan,Yellow,or Red...they may actually be a whole new subspecies of color determined by someone with absolutely no life nor intellectual thought..........and BTW-everything I've read points to this to be a simple case of 2nd degree murder.....


Thank you...my point exactly.


----------



## J.T.M.

TheMartianChick said:


> There was a black political pundit on MSNBC last night who explained why the Trayvon Martin case was so personal for him. I only caught part of the story, but the pundit mentioned that his mom had re-married and moved to what was essentially an all white neighborhood with her new husband.
> *
> At that time, someone had to sit the 14 or 15 year old pundit down and explain that he should only walk and not run in order to ensure that people didn't suspect him of a crime. He was told that he should never have anything in his pockets to make sure that no one thought that he had stolen something. This man appeared to be in his late 30's or early 40's. He said that the saddest thing about the Trayvon Martin case to him was the fact that it appeared that there were still areas in America where those rules were still valid and that parents still needed to teach their black sons to follow them.
> 
> In my area, we don't teach boys those exact rules, but we do teach them how to interact with law enforcement to ensure that they are not returned to their parents in a body bag. Many of those things that we teach them are in direct contradiction to their rights, but we teach it anyway because we don't want them to die.
> *
> In the Trayvon Martin case, he told his girlfriend that he wasn't going to run, but at some point, it seems that he did. When kids get scared, they will usually choose flight versus fight, but when you are a black male, both choices carry a sentence. Flight usually ends in some kind of jail sentence and a fight can end in a death sentence.


Not untill people have to actually live within these rules ( and I know this is just a short list ) will they ever fully grasp what you said here.I will freely admit I have already formed my opinion of the shooter .I have met many Zimmermans in my life .He is a dirtbag,rouge cowboy and I hope his future roomy pops viagra like it was candy. ~ spit ~


----------



## FourDeuce

When I went to Basic Training we had a group of Mexican Hispanics who looked down their noses at the Puerto Rican Hispanics(who returned the favor). It was almost like gangs.
BTW, I thought the title of this thread would be a good example of the old Soviet technique of agitprop.


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> Just yesterday a man was sentenced to 2 life sentences for a hate crime committed in Jackson. He was sentenced to a life sentence for killing a man, and another life sentence for it being a hate crime.
> 
> In the same city 2 men just had their charge upgraded to murder after beating a man to death.
> In both cases there was a minority involved. Can't understand how one could be considered a hate crime and the other one not.


I can't either. Murder is murder.


----------



## Sonshine

zant said:


> This post is pseudointellectual pablum.....WHITE Hispanics/BLACK Hispanics?????Are there Yellow Black people or White Black people ????Are there BLACK WHITE people...oops forgot REDYELLOWBLACK people...are the racists now making subspecies of skin tint/color???Could someone please make up a Color Chart of Different Shades...so when I'm looking at someone I understand that even though they look Black,White,Tan,Yellow,or Red...they may actually be a whole new subspecies of color determined by someone with absolutely no life nor intellectual thought..........and BTW-everything I've read points to this to be a simple case of 2nd degree murder.....


Actually some people do still call black people different things according to the color of their skin. My son, who is bi-racial, is not considered a true black person because his skin is lighter.


----------



## Sonshine

J.T.M. said:


> Not untill people have to actually live within these rules ( and I know this is just a short list ) will they ever fully grasp what you said here.I will freely admit I have already formed my opinion of the shooter .I have met many Zimmermans in my life .He is a dirtbag,rouge cowboy and I hope his future roomy pops viagra like it was candy. ~ spit ~


I try to keep an open mind in most matters, but have to admit that I may not have succeeded with this case. Hits too close to home for me.


----------



## FreeRanger

Read some where, Zimmerman was doing the "watch" because he believed the neighborhood was being burglarized by black men. Apparently the police have a statement on this. I am not sure how you can tell a house has be burglarized by a white man? Do they only break in doors and not windows? Zimmerman apparently has special insight into the break ins. The police should be questioning if he, Zimmerman, was the burglar that was creating the environment. Clearly he is a self admitted stalker.


----------



## TheMartianChick

zant said:


> This post is pseudointellectual pablum.....WHITE Hispanics/BLACK Hispanics?????Are there Yellow Black people or White Black people ????Are there BLACK WHITE people...oops forgot REDYELLOWBLACK people...are the racists now making subspecies of skin tint/color???Could someone please make up a Color Chart of Different Shades...so when I'm looking at someone I understand that even though they look Black,White,Tan,Yellow,or Red...they may actually be a whole new subspecies of color determined by someone with absolutely no life nor intellectual thought..........and BTW-everything I've read points to this to be a simple case of 2nd degree murder.....


Caste systems have always existed. Among black people in America, lighter colored skin was always prized. There were even black social clubs that only allowed members with skin color that was lighter than a brown paper bag and it was referred to as 'being able to pass the bag test.'

To generalize, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Cubans and Mexicans don't all hang out together and bond over their ability to speak Spanish. They have different cultures and may have prejudice for one another.

None of this stuff is new... It has been around for a long time. Have you ever watched a Hispanic novella (soap opera)? They rarely have a character that has darker skin, most have European skintone and features. When they do have a a character with darker skin, the character is invariably a maid, a gardener or some sort of uneducated low-life with very poor grammar.

In Asian cultures, lighter skin was prized and darker skin was a sign of someone being a low-class farmer. That sentiment is illustrated in the book The Good Earth.

We were on a flight several years ago and one of the flight attendants was holding a conversation with a passenger. She was from somewhere in South America (can't remember where). The passenger indicated that he had a co-worker from the same country and named the city. The flight attendant asked if the co-worker was 'dark and dirty'? She went on to say (in a really nasty tone) 'Most of the people are really dark and dirty!' We were floored.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Sonshine said:


> Actually some people do still call black people different things according to the color of their skin. My son, who is bi-racial, is not considered a true black person because his skin is lighter.


The interesting thing about this is that in the past, a child with any black heritage was considered to be black by the white community. The black community was the one that was more likely to differentiate and refer to the child as being "mixed", but it was also the community that was more likely to accept the child.


----------



## Stephen in SOKY

Right on cue the NBC Nightly News made rather a big deal of whether the Florida "Stand your ground" law was actually a "License to Kill". I'm curious as to what the additional busloads of people from Atlanta hope to achieve by their presence? Do they think they can add to the investigation?


----------



## TheMartianChick

Stephen in SOKY said:


> Right on cue the NBC Nightly News made rather a big deal of whether the Florida "Stand your ground" law was actually a "License to Kill". I'm curious as to what the additional busloads of people from Atlanta hope to achieve by their presence? Do they think they can add to the investigation?


I fully support a regular Castle Doctrine, but the Stand Your Ground Law does seem to have a few flaws. I'd rather see them iron out the issues in it. 

(Yes, I know this is a state issue and I am a New Yorker but I pay my share of Florida property taxes on a piece of property that we purchased near Ocala several years ago.)


----------



## Sonshine

TheMartianChick said:


> The interesting thing about this is that in the past, a child with any black heritage was considered to be black by the white community. The black community was the one that was more likely to differentiate and refer to the child as being "mixed", but it was also the community that was more likely to accept the child.


We were told one of the main reasons his birthmom wouldn't keep him was because the black community would not accept him. This was in Birmingham Alabama. She came from an affluent black family. Both parents had college degrees, I believe one of them was an attorney. The birthmom was in college at the time she got pregnant and had great grades.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I fully support a regular Castle Doctrine, but the Stand Your Ground Law does seem to have a few flaws. I'd rather see them iron out the issues in it.


I see no flaws in the law. 
It just means you don't have to run *before* you can use force

CBS did their report tonight on the "protests" in FL. seeking "justice"

You could tell it hurt their feelings when they reported there were a couple of witnesses who *backed Zimmerman's story*, and that the police had interviewed him for 5 hours the night of the shooting, plus again the next day.

He passed a "voice stress test" similar to a "lie detector" and was being "fully cooperative" with police.

They even took him to the scene of the shooting and did a reenactment

*Maybe* he did something wrong.
*Maybe* he didn't

Either way, the *PUBLIC *needs to stay out of it, and to stop USING it to promote their own causes


----------



## texican

A black person was killed by a white person. This fact alone frames most peoples view on the subject. This, imho, is the only reason the Justice Dept, FBI, and Obama minions are on this.

I have heard diddly (from the MSM) about the 13 year old white boy getting immolated (doused with gasoline and lit with a bic lighter) on his front porch by two older black boys.... wanna bet Justice/FBI/Obama don't say a peep? about it?

Police didn't arrest him... there's obviously something 'we' don't know.


----------



## Wanderer0101

Bearfootfarm said:


> I see no flaws in the law.
> It just means you don't have to run *before* you can use force
> 
> CBS did their report tonight on the "protests" in FL. seeking "justice"
> 
> You could tell it hurt their feelings when they reported there were a couple of witnesses who *backed Zimmerman's story*, and that the police had interviewed him for 5 hours the night of the shooting, plus again the next day.
> 
> He passed a "voice stress test" similar to a "lie detector" and was being "fully cooperative" with police.
> 
> They even took him to the scene of the shooting and did a reenactment
> 
> *Maybe* he did something wrong.
> *Maybe* he didn't
> 
> Either way, the *PUBLIC *needs to stay out of it, and to stop USING it to promote their own causes


You are exactly right. What we are seeing at the moment is an attempt at mob rule and a lynching.


----------



## TheMartianChick

texican said:


> A black person was killed by a white person. This fact alone frames most peoples view on the subject. This, imho, is the only reason the Justice Dept, FBI, and Obama minions are on this.
> 
> I have heard diddly (from the MSM) about the 13 year old white boy getting immolated (doused with gasoline and lit with a bic lighter) on his front porch by two older black boys.... wanna bet Justice/FBI/Obama don't say a peep? about it?
> 
> Police didn't arrest him... there's obviously something 'we' don't know.


If the parents suspect that the police aren't doing their part to bring the perpetrators to justice, then they can also seek to bring attention to the situation. Trayvon's parents got a lot of media attention because they refused to be silent about the matter. In the black community, we tend to go through the churches as a means of obtaining social justice. The framework is already there dating back to the Civil Rights era and has a large number of "bodies" to make a statement. Most black churches are linked through religious affiliations so they have their own brand of social networking going on. In my city, there is a sort of organization that many of the black pastors belong to. They meet regularly to plan social and commemorative events for their combined congregations.

I'm not sure that there is an equivalent "machine" to drive a protest and raise awareness for other groups of people. I do think that social media may be the key to this in the future. In the black community, social media has amplified efforts (such as the Martin case) making it easy to organize a protest. If you think about it...The people didn't immediately take to the streets. There were internet blog stories followed by online petitions (fed by Facebook & Twitter) which ultimately led up to the marches. Trayvon Martin died almost a month ago. The people didn't immediately take to the streets.

Sadly, in the past, the black community was unable to interest most mainstream media to cover our stories when we were victimized. It isn't very often that there is coverage of a missing African American woman or child on the news. That (at least) is starting to change due to pushback that the media received when Lacy Peterson went missing. There was another pregnant woman with a similar background as Lacy. She also went missing and her family tried to get the media interested in the story to almost no avail. What got the story out was the fact that someone in the family was in advertising and FINALLY got a bit of coverage for the story. This pushed people like Nancy Grace to start covering ethnic missing stories, too.

Justice should be served up fairly...for everyone. This doesn't mean that the perpetrator of a crime will always be caught, but that the families should be able to have confidence in the knowledge that law enforcement is giving their best effort to do so. 

What do I think about the case involving a child being doused in gasoline? I think that the boys parents need to mobilize and force the police to share what they are doing and what they have learned about the case. If the parents don't know how to do this then they need to find a child advocacy group or someone else to help them. If something so horrific happened to one of my children, I would do the same. No Justice...No Peace!


----------



## FreeRanger

What you are seeing at this point is the police didn't do their job. And many good Americans are getting upset about it. That would not have come out if the parents (and the community at large) did not raise the issue to the national level. 

Had the police followed procedure, you are right we could all sit back calmly and go about are business. However, you are wrong, clearly we now know the local police did not investigate (regardless of an arrest that night). 

I can't stick my head in the sand, knowing that people (like some on HT) are willing to be sheep and victims. Passive approval of the "self defense" arguement make me ill. Zimmerman admited to following the individual. THAT NOT STANDING YOUR GROUND. If you really want to save "your agenda" of keep these laws in place then this is one case you will want to have fully exposed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I can't stick my head in the sand, knowing that people (like some on HT) are willing to be sheep and victims.
> 
> Passive approval of the "self defense" arguement make me ill. *Zimmerman admited to following the individual.* THAT NOT STANDING YOUR GROUND. If you really want to save "your agenda" of keep these laws in place then this is one case you will want to have fully exposed.


Which part of that is *NOT illegal* keeps confusing you?
How do you *KNOW* they "didn't follow procedure"?

What makes you *qualified* to decide innocence or guilt when you have no REAL knowledge of what happened?


----------



## Wanderer0101

FreeRanger said:


> What you are seeing at this point is the police didn't do their job. And many good Americans are getting upset about it. That would not have come out if the parents (and the community at large) did not raise the issue to the national level.


What you really mean is that the police didn't do what you and a certain segment of the population think they should have. Not sure whether these people are "good Americans" or not. What I've seen so far isn't too impressive. Lots of declarative statements being made on the basis of few or no facts. 

A very large segment of the population thinks the police did their job and that the justice system should be left to get on with it without the interference of screaming mobs and professional agitators. Any time Al Sharpton is your voice your argument is probably weak at best and most likely is completely wrong.


----------



## Mike in Ohio

FreeRanger said:


> What you are seeing at this point is the police didn't do their job. And many good Americans are getting upset about it. That would not have come out if the parents (and the community at large) did not raise the issue to the national level.
> 
> Had the police followed procedure, you are right we could all sit back calmly and go about are business. However, you are wrong, clearly we now know the local police did not investigate (regardless of an arrest that night).
> 
> I can't stick my head in the sand, knowing that people (like some on HT) are willing to be sheep and victims. Passive approval of the "self defense" arguement make me ill. Zimmerman admited to following the individual. THAT NOT STANDING YOUR GROUND. If you really want to save "your agenda" of keep these laws in place then this is one case you will want to have fully exposed.


I agree with FreeRanger 100%. Speaking as a conservative supporter of the 2nd amendment, we need to stand up and recognize when wrong is wrong. Zimmerman was NOT standing his ground... he was intentionally encroaching on someone elses ground.

And the local police clearly did not properly investigate the scene. If there was blood on Zimmermans head, what caused it? Was the can of ice tea preserved as evidence and checked for fingerprints? If there were scratch marks on Zimmerman then one would expect there to be skin and other material under the fingernails of Marvin (Why weren't his hands bagged to preserve evidence?)

The police did not have to simply take Zimmermans word on this. There was plenty of potential physical evidence that could have been preserved and examined...but wasn't.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> There was plenty of potential physical evidence that *could have been preserved and examined...but wasn't*.


And just how do you know all that?

*Were you there*?

If not, you only "know" what someone told you , whether it's true or not


----------



## Wanderer0101

Mike in Ohio said:


> I agree with FreeRanger 100%. Speaking as a conservative supporter of the 2nd amendment, we need to stand up and recognize when wrong is wrong. Zimmerman was NOT standing his ground... he was intentionally encroaching on someone elses ground.
> 
> And the local police clearly did not properly investigate the scene. If there was blood on Zimmermans head, what caused it? Was the can of ice tea preserved as evidence and checked for fingerprints? If there were scratch marks on Zimmerman then one would expect there to be skin and other material under the fingernails of Marvin (Why weren't his hands bagged to preserve evidence?)
> 
> The police did not have to simply take Zimmermans word on this. There was plenty of potential physical evidence that could have been preserved and examined...but wasn't.


You have absolutely no clue as to whether the police properly investigated the scene or not . You are just repeating the propaganda being spouted by the mob and the agenda driven media.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> There was at least one witness who stated Martin was on top of Zimmerman during the fight, and Zimmerman has wounds consistant with being beaten, which would have been grounds to use a weapon, and would explain why there was no arrest.


I'm having a logical problem with that. From all accounts it makes no sense for Martin to have attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman had a motivation to at least detain Martin, since he was concerned that Martin would get away. Nobody has suggested why Martin had a reason to attack Zimmerman. Martin had every motivation to stay as far away from Zimmerman as he could.


----------



## Sonshine

I want to address everyone bringing up the point about the white boy that was doused with gas and set on fire by two blacks. Since this thread is about Martin's death I'm not sure why the other was brought up, except to make political points. Yet those who are bringing it up say this whole thing with Zimmerman and Martin is a political thing. To those I look at it this way. A child is dead. My interest in this is getting justice for the child. I want it investigated fully to find out what happened and if there was wrong doing to take care of it. It doesn't matter to me if it's white on black violence or black on white violence. If it ends in the death of a child it should be investigated. If there isn't the same type of media coverage on the other case then why aren't you making a fuss about it with the media? If they won't bring it to the forefront and you believe they should, then push the issue. But that doesn't make this situation any less than what it is, a dead child at the hands of another.


----------



## FreeRanger

Adult men carrying guns following boys around the neighborhood at night in the rain is against the law in most communities. I believe some authorities have already stated that Zimmerman should be charge with disorderly conduct for that behavior alone. 

If you were to start following my son around and he called me, guess what, in FL I would come out of my house and shoot you dead. Not even bother to ask any questions. You are threatening my son by following him. So I must carry out my orders to remove you....ZOMBIE.... logic some have it, others just wait to be a victim of their own stupidity.

How do I know the police didn't follow procedure? Well I guess I will have to admit I read it on the Internet...and as we all know every thing there is false...or wait maybe not everything...wait maybe most of it is true....wait maybe the majority of the news on the Internet has some truth to it...no wait...I am all wrong...that's right it has to be either on Foxnews or in paper to be true...

If there was blood on Zimmerman's head then at minimum the police should have tested it for who's blood. I am guessing (yes that's an opinion) that if shot in the chest at close range my blood would get on you. But we will never know because (from what I have read so far) the police didn't bother to doing any testing of evidence.

If I was out in the rain my shirt would be wet too, plus I am FAT so I would sweat. So a wet shirt from rolling in the grass....means nothing to me.

BUT some how not testing evidence does bother you at all.....huh? Still waiting for that trial to happen...funny thing is in America the police are in charge of gathering evidence for the jury to decide. Only in this case first Zimmerman declared himself judge and jury, followed by the local police being both judge and jury. Hence the concern of lawful citizens.


----------



## Mike in Ohio

Bearfootfarm said:


> And just how do you know all that?
> 
> *Were you there*?
> 
> If not, you only "know" what someone told you , whether it's true or not


Aha.... Invoking the "Were you there" in bold attack! If you wish to invoke that then nobody should comment or express an opinion on anything where they do not have direct personal knowledge of the event.

Why engage in a conversation at all if that's what you believe? WHY ARE YOU HERE? General Chat should just be shut down. 

Or perhaps what you mean is that only Bearfootfarm should get to express an opinion?

Just to help you out, take a look at wikipedia... Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know you will be dismissive but I would point you to the footnotes. 

Have a wonderful day!


----------



## FreeRanger

Sonshine said:


> I want to address everyone bringing up the point about the white boy that was doused with gas and set on fire by two blacks. Since this thread is about Martin's death I'm not sure why the other was brought up, except to make political points. Yet those who are bringing it up say this whole thing with Zimmerman and Martin is a political thing. To those I look at it this way. A child is dead. My interest in this is getting justice for the child. I want it investigated fully to find out what happened and if there was wrong doing to take care of it. It doesn't matter to me if it's white on black violence or black on white violence. If it ends in the death of a child it should be investigated. If there isn't the same type of media coverage on the other case then why aren't you making a fuss about it with the media? If they won't bring it to the forefront and you believe they should, then push the issue. But that doesn't make this situation any less than what it is, a dead child at the hands of another.


Agree. 

Clearly some people here have other agendas. Pretending you can't make an opinion or statement on this event because "you weren't there" is a coward answer. As is goes, I am sure nearly everything you know either came from books or from someone elses experience retold to you. You aren't there for nearly everything that happens in the world yet I am sure you believe it does happen and you have an opinion. Otherwise I go back the simpliton defense. It the world flat? WHy YES of course it is. :hobbyhors

Is the moon made of cheese? Well I don't know, never been there! LOL


----------



## Hollowdweller

texican said:


> A black person was killed by a white person. This fact alone frames most peoples view on the subject. .


What frames it for me is the guy shot somebody who was much younger than he was.

The guy doing the shooting had a gun and the person shot was unarmed.

Now the kid could have had his hand in his pocket and pretended he had a gun and maybe the guy was justified. 

But you'd think if you had a gun and the other person didn't you could just stop them at gunpoint rather than shooting them.


----------



## Mike in Ohio

Wanderer0101 said:


> You have absolutely no clue as to whether the police properly investigated the scene or not . You are just repeating the propaganda being spouted by the mob and the agenda driven media.


Yep, the Police chief and prosecutor normally step aside when everything has been done right. A special prosecutor gets appointed by the State Attorney General when everything has been handled properly.

YOU are just repeating propaganda that DOES NOT MATCH the facts which are publicly available.


----------



## FourDeuce

""I don't think a man who exited his vehicle after the 911 dispatcher told him to stay inside the car can claim self-defense," Carl McPhail, a 28-year-old Barry University law school student, said at the Sanford rally."

So, judging by that quote, anybody who gets out of the vehicle loses ALL rights to self-defense no matter what happens? Interesting viewpoint. I'd like to see the legal principle he used to come to that conclusion.:huh:


----------



## FourDeuce

Mike in Ohio said:


> Yep, the Police chief and prosecutor normally step aside when everything has been done right. A special prosecutor gets appointed by the State Attorney General when everything has been handled properly.
> 
> *They do when politicians get involved in trying to micro-manage law enforcement.*
> 
> YOU are just repeating propaganda that DOES NOT MATCH the facts which are publicly available.


You are jumping to conclusions which the publicly available facts don't justify.:hobbyhors


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> YOU are just repeating propaganda that DOES NOT MATCH the facts which are publicly available.


LOL
And you're not?


----------



## Mike in Ohio

FourDeuce said:


> ""I don't think a man who exited his vehicle after the 911 dispatcher told him to stay inside the car can claim self-defense," Carl McPhail, a 28-year-old Barry University law school student, said at the Sanford rally."
> 
> So, judging by that quote, anybody who gets out of the vehicle loses ALL rights to self-defense no matter what happens? Interesting viewpoint. I'd like to see the legal principle he used to come to that conclusion.:huh:


No, a person who is following someone else in their vehicle and leaves the vehicle to confront that other person cannot reasonably claim self defense.


----------



## Mike in Ohio

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> And you're not?


So, are you trying to claim I am incorrect in stating that the Police Chief has not stepped down?

Perhaps you are trying to claim I am incorrect in stating that the Prosecutor has stepped down?

Perhaps you are trying to claim that I am incorrect in stating that a Special Prosecutor has been appointed by the State Attorney General?

Perhaps you are trying to claim that I am incorrect in stating that Zimmerman was following the boy?

Perhaps you are trying to claim that I am incorrect in stating that the neighborhood watch training that Zimmerman took specifically states that members should not engage with suspicious persons (I'm paraphrasing here).

Perhaps you are claiming I am incorrect in stating that Zimmerman got out of his vehicle despite the dispatcher telling him that he didn't need to be going after the person (I'm paraphrasing here).

So, tell me which of these things are incorrect and inspired by "the mob" you like to invoke?


----------



## pancho

When people resort to Sharpton for help many will not believe their cause is just.
Even many of the people who might support them will have to take another look.


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> I want to address everyone bringing up the point about the white boy that was doused with gas and set on fire by two blacks. Since this thread is about Martin's death I'm not sure why the other was brought up, except to make political points. Yet those who are bringing it up say this whole thing with Zimmerman and Martin is a political thing. To those I look at it this way. A child is dead. My interest in this is getting justice for the child. I want it investigated fully to find out what happened and if there was wrong doing to take care of it. It doesn't matter to me if it's white on black violence or black on white violence. If it ends in the death of a child it should be investigated. If there isn't the same type of media coverage on the other case then why aren't you making a fuss about it with the media? If they won't bring it to the forefront and you believe they should, then push the issue. But that doesn't make this situation any less than what it is, a dead child at the hands of another.


It was brought up because people had questions about why there is so much publicity about this case and none about the other. Why are groups of people demanding something be done but no one has stepped up about the other matter.


----------



## pancho

Mike in Ohio said:


> Yep, the Police chief and prosecutor normally step aside when everything has been done right. A special prosecutor gets appointed by the State Attorney General when everything has been handled properly.
> 
> YOU are just repeating propaganda that DOES NOT MATCH the facts which are publicly available.


How about we let the special prosecutor handle it now.
Is there anything else the mob would like to be done?
Will they be satisifed with the results of the special prosecutor?


----------



## TheMartianChick

pancho said:


> It was brought up because people had questions about why there is so much publicity about this case and none about the other. * Why are groups of people demanding something be done but no one has stepped up about the other matter*.



Remember this anecdote?

This is the story about FOUR people
EVERYBODY, SOMEBODY, ANYBODY and NOBODY.
There was an important job to be done,
EVERYBODY was sure that SOMEBODY would do it,
ANYBODY could have done it,
But NOBODY did it.
SOMEBODY got angry about that,
Because it was EVERYBODYâs job.
EVERYBODY thought tht ANYBODY could do it,
But NOBODY realised that EVERYBODY would not do it.
It ended up that EVERYBODY blamed SOMEBODY,
When actually NOBODY accused ANYBODY.

*SOMEBODY stepped up in the case of Trayvon Martin and pushed the issue. ANYBODY could do the same in the Kansas City case. EVERYBODY has an opportunity to make a difference. When NOBODY bothers to try, the world becomes a lousy place in which to live.*


----------



## SquashNut

They said all the evidence in this cse has been lost. (thrown out) What is that all about?

This is a sad time for this country.


----------



## Rocktown Gal

SquashNut said:


> They said all the evidence in this cse has been lost. (thrown out) What is that all about?
> 
> This is a sad time for this country.


Where you hear that from


----------



## FreeRanger

Do you believe in the Bible? How can you know any of it is true? YOU WEREN"T THERE! 

Before we discuss the issues of the Bible, *I think we need to wait for judgement day*, only then will I know it's true or not. Don't be questioning the church! Any one who question the church is repeating propaganda hype and has an agenda. Them darn Christians mobs are spreading all kinds of nonsense. I will have NONE of that here...on General Chat forum. 

See how that works...

No, now is the time to have a calm discussion on why we as a society don't really want grown men with guns following teenagers in their SUV and jumping out to question the FREE passage thru the neighborhood. 

Discussion on what is self defense? Might need to start a new thread soon...without any link to this killing.


----------



## Mike in Ohio

pancho said:


> How about we let the special prosecutor handle it now.
> Is there anything else the mob would like to be done?
> Will they be satisifed with the results of the special prosecutor?


So apparently your intent is to imply that "I am the mob" or that "I speak for the mob".

I live in America... 

....it sounds like you live in Amerika where you believe citizens shouldn't have the right to question and discuss the activities of government. I guess you prefer sheeple that respond "appropriately" to authority sayin "Move along here folks, nothing to be seen or talked about".


----------



## plowjockey

pancho said:


> How about we let the special prosecutor handle it now.
> Is there anything else the mob would like to be done?
> Will they be satisifed with the results of the special prosecutor?


Unfortunately, this case has gone from one extreme to the other.

It started out as "oh well, young black perp, killed in self defense, by _well meaning white guy_" , which was about it for the Police investigation, to now, essentially, a _black lynch mob_, going for justice, after the white killer.

Strange days indeed.


----------



## plowjockey

SquashNut said:


> They said all the evidence in this cse has been lost. (thrown out) What is that all about?
> 
> This is a sad time for this country.


Didn't sound like they had much "evicence" in this case, to throw out.



> Zimmerman tells police he killed Martin in self defense. Taking him at his word, police do not arrest him, nor administer a drug or alcohol test. They also did not run a background check.


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/03/trayvon-martin-case-timeline-of-events/


----------



## FreeRanger

plowjockey said:


> Didn't sound like they had much "evidence" in this case, to throw out.


Exactly, didn't have much evidence because the police decided not to collect any evidence (or apparently little). No testing on the boy originally, so how does the police know if it was a shot at close range or from farther away. Say a safe distance away from the boy. Was there any evidence on the boy that he punched Zimmerman? Coward shot him and then pretend to have a struggle could be what the evidence indicated. Again I state that the blood seen by the police was just the boy's own blood only. We will probably never know. Why? Because the police didn't do their job.

Oh and by the way, the ABCNews timeline is OK, but I have seen better ones of the actual event timeline of the 911 phone calls and the boy's cell phone records. There appears to be no time for a struggle in the 911 calls. If it was a struggle at all, it was less than 60 seconds.

YES, we are doing trial by proxy. This is general chat. It has no impact on Zimmerman's trial. I don't pretend to be a police officer, that's saved for Zimmerman (and other self appointed posse groups) apparently.


----------



## pancho

TheMartianChick said:


> Remember this anecdote?
> 
> This is the story about FOUR people
> EVERYBODY, SOMEBODY, ANYBODY and NOBODY.
> There was an important job to be done,
> EVERYBODY was sure that SOMEBODY would do it,
> ANYBODY could have done it,
> But NOBODY did it.
> SOMEBODY got angry about that,
> Because it was EVERYBODYâs job.
> EVERYBODY thought tht ANYBODY could do it,
> But NOBODY realised that EVERYBODY would not do it.
> It ended up that EVERYBODY blamed SOMEBODY,
> When actually NOBODY accused ANYBODY.
> 
> *SOMEBODY stepped up in the case of Trayvon Martin and pushed the issue. ANYBODY could do the same in the Kansas City case. EVERYBODY has an opportunity to make a difference. When NOBODY bothers to try, the world becomes a lousy place in which to live.*


Yes, somebody did step up in the Martin case. Sharpton.
He hasn't had anything going on for a while and he saw a way to step back into the spotlight. 
Again, when people have to stoop to the level of using Sharpton to further their cause all compassion goes out the window,


----------



## pancho

Mike in Ohio said:


> So apparently your intent is to imply that "I am the mob" or that "I speak for the mob".
> 
> I live in America...
> 
> ....it sounds like you live in Amerika where you believe citizens shouldn't have the right to question and discuss the activities of government. I guess you prefer sheeple that respond "appropriately" to authority sayin "Move along here folks, nothing to be seen or talked about".


You do have the right to question anything your heart desires.
I have the same right. I just disagree with you.


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> Yes, somebody did step up in the Martin case. Sharpton.
> He hasn't had anything going on for a while and he saw a way to step back into the spotlight.
> Again, when people have to stoop to the level of using Sharpton to further their cause all compassion goes out the window,


Actually, the boy's parents stepped up before Sharpton got involved.


----------



## FreeRanger

Sharpton and Jackson are scum who invited themselves into the spotlight. They prey on victims. I am sure the parents are too upset to even worry about those two media dogs. When the Feds step in, those two should have stayed home.

But they do get the attention, and maybe some times that is needed for their many causes (agendas). Here, I feel it was not needed. while the police department may have a race relationship problem, we don't know yet that Zimmerman did. and won't know until the trial, if there is one.


----------



## vicker

So, how bout them Red Sox.


----------



## time

Hmmm.

I'm not a fan of LE.

I really dislike self rightous, nosey people.

Chances are, if the dude had tried to interagate me, I would have socked him upside the head. Probably more than once. But, I'm sure I would have told him that first.

But, as much as I dislike LE and self rightuos folks, I have heard nothing that proves it wasn't self defence.

Unfortunatley, as much as I dislike self rightous and nosey folks, if one were to approach me in the manner this guy did and he did not go about his buisness after I told him to get the ---- away from me, I would probably knock some understanding into him. Chances are, I would get an assault ticket for doing so. Been there, done that. So there you have it, I can be charged with assault, if I am approached by a do gooder. With that in mind, I find it a reasonable assumption, that guy could claim self defence from my assault.

That Mr. DoGooder followed and approached the teen is not proof of anything.

What it comes down to, is who attacked who. That's all that matters. 

And, as much as I dislike LE, I much prefer they do not arrest people without some fairly clear evidence. There isn't any here, at least not that has been reported. Lot's of people seem to *think* they know what happened. 

So as much as I dislike LE and Mr. DoGooder, I don't have enough info to decide if either did anything wrong.


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> It was brought up because people had questions about why there is so much publicity about this case and none about the other. Why are groups of people demanding something be done but no one has stepped up about the other matter.


So, why don't some of those who are complaining step up and demand something be done about the other case??


----------



## JeffreyD

plowjockey said:


> Unfortunately, this case has gone from one extreme to the other.
> 
> It started out as "oh well, young black perp, killed in self defense, by _well meaning white guy_" , which was about it for the Police investigation, to now, essentially, a _black lynch mob_, going for justice, after the white killer.
> 
> Strange days indeed.


Who's the white killer, not Zimmerman, he's Hispanic?


----------



## watcher

Mike in Ohio said:


> No, a person who is following someone else in their vehicle and leaves the vehicle to confront that other person cannot reasonably claim self defense.


If you saw someone you thought committed a crime and was following them in your car while calling the cops. They then went somewhere you could not drive would you just let them escape or would you leave your car and continue following them so you could let the cops know where they were?

If leaving the car to follow them on foot then I guess I have broken the law twice in my life. I wonder if the fact I was able to point the guys out to the cops would cause the judge to suspend any sentence. . .


----------



## plowjockey

JeffreyD said:


> Who's the white killer, not Zimmerman, he's Hispanic?


You are correct, my mistake.

I was just thinking _non-black_.


----------



## JeffreyD

plowjockey said:


> You are correct, my mistake.
> 
> I was just thinking _non-black_.


Actually, in this case, it's easy to make that mistake, especially considering the last name of "Zimmerman"!


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> So, why don't some of those who are complaining step up and demand something be done about the other case??


It is simple.
They do not have some of the media whores looking for any reason to turn the spotlight on them.

Another reason is the victim in one case was black and in the other case was white. There is little to gain by calling attention to a white person being wronged by blacks. There is a lot to be gained by bringing attention to a black being wronged by whites.


----------



## Sonshine

JeffreyD said:


> Who's the white killer, not Zimmerman, he's Hispanic?


It's my understanding that he's only half hispanic, but I could be wrong about that.


----------



## Sonshine

watcher said:


> If you saw someone you thought committed a crime and was following them in your car while calling the cops. They then went somewhere you could not drive would you just let them escape or would you leave your car and continue following them so you could let the cops know where they were?
> 
> If leaving the car to follow them on foot then I guess I have broken the law twice in my life. I wonder if the fact I was able to point the guys out to the cops would cause the judge to suspend any sentence. . .


The cops had already been notified. The 911 operator told him to not follow. He should have waited for the cops.


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> It is simple.
> They do not have some of the media whores looking for any reason to turn the spotlight on them.
> 
> Another reason is the victim in one case was black and in the other case was white. There is little to gain by calling attention to a white person being wronged by blacks. There is a lot to be gained by bringing attention to a black being wronged by whites.


Ok, so following that logic, how many that believe the cops did the right thing about not taking Zimmerman in when it first happened would feel the same way if it had been reversed and it was a white boy that was killed by a black man? Or would they be upset that the black man was let off because of the color of his skin?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Ok, so following that logic, how many that believe the cops did the right thing about *not taking Zimmerman in when it first happened *


They interrogated him for* 5 hours* that night.
He cooperated fully, and passed a "voice stress test"
At least 1 witness SAW them fighting on the ground, and said Martin was on top.

The next day they interviewed him again, and took him to the scene to do a reenactment


----------



## FourDeuce

Mike in Ohio said:


> No, a person who is following someone else in their vehicle and leaves the vehicle to confront that other person cannot reasonably claim self defense.


That's not quite what I asked you. I asked you what legal principle says you give up ALL rights to self-defense in that situation? I've never heard of anything like that. I've heard of mitigating circumstances and things like that, but nothing that says you lose ALL right to self-defense in certain circumstances. Got any precedents for that? That would seem to go against the Constitution which guarantees the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


----------



## snake35

Al Sharpton will not be happy till Orlando Florida riots and burns the city to the ground.

By allowing the Federal government to take over this case the American people are allowing big government way to much control.

This incident is very good for whipping up Owe-bamas support base, that is why the liberal media is all over this case.


----------



## Wanderer0101

Mike in Ohio said:


> Yep, the Police chief and prosecutor normally step aside when everything has been done right. A special prosecutor gets appointed by the State Attorney General when everything has been handled properly.
> 
> YOU are just repeating propaganda that DOES NOT MATCH the facts which are publicly available.


They step aside when the mob is howling for blood in an attempt to diffuse the situation. They are attempting to act responsibly, unlike the race hustlers and the agenda driven leftist goons.


----------



## Wanderer0101

Mike in Ohio said:


> No, a person who is following someone else in their vehicle and leaves the vehicle to confront that other person cannot reasonably claim self defense.


That statement is just a meaningless noise. What you are saying is that we must be subservient to criminals, they have the rights and we don't, all we can do is submit. People like you consistently make victims out of criminals.


----------



## Wanderer0101

Mike in Ohio said:


> So apparently your intent is to imply that "I am the mob" or that "I speak for the mob".
> 
> I live in America...
> 
> ....it sounds like you live in Amerika where you believe citizens shouldn't have the right to question and discuss the activities of government. I guess you prefer sheeple that respond "appropriately" to authority sayin "Move along here folks, nothing to be seen or talked about".


Yes, you are the face of the mob.


----------



## Wanderer0101

Sonshine said:


> So, why don't some of those who are complaining step up and demand something be done about the other case??


Because we are waiting for law enforcement and the justice system to do their job. That's what good citizens do. In the end, if they don't, there are mechanisms for dealing with the issue. Those mechanisms don't include screaming mobs, race hustlers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, or the deployment of a bigoted media. 

I'm sure the difference is difficult if not impossible for you to understand.


----------



## Wanderer0101

pancho said:


> Yes, somebody did step up in the Martin case. Sharpton.
> He hasn't had anything going on for a while and he saw a way to step back into the spotlight.
> Again, when people have to stoop to the level of using Sharpton to further their cause all compassion goes out the window,


And now Jesse Jackson is weighing in on the national assault on blacks. He was a little slow off the mark. Probably holed up with his white girl friend.


----------



## Wanderer0101

Sonshine said:


> The cops had already been notified. The 911 operator told him to not follow. He should have waited for the cops.


You keep saying this. There is *NO* law that says you have to follow the direction of a 911 operator. What don't you understand about that?


----------



## gapeach

*Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman*

Updated: Friday, 23 Mar 2012, 6:19 PM EDT
Published : Friday, 23 Mar 2012, 5:47 PM EDT

ORLANDO - A witness we haven't heard from before paints a much different picture than we've seen so far of what happened the night 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot and killed.

The night of that shooting, police say there was a witness who saw it all.

Our sister station, FOX 35 in Orlando, has spoken to that witness.

What Sanford Police investigators have in the folder, they put together on the killing of Trayvon Martin few know about.

The file now sits in the hands of the state attorney. Now that file is just weeks away from being opened to a grand jury.

It shows more now about why police believed that night that George Zimmerman shouldn't have gone to jail.

Zimmerman called 911 and told dispatchers he was following a teen. The dispatcher told Zimmerman not to.

And from that moment to the shooting, details are few.

But one man's testimony could be key for the police.

"The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, helpâ¦and I told him to stop and I was calling 911," he said.

Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.

The witness only wanted to be identified as "John," and didn't not want to be shown on camera.

His statements to police were instrumental, because police backed up Zimmerman's claims, saying those screams on the 911 call are those of Zimmerman.

"When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point," John said.

Zimmerman says the shooting was self defense. According to information released on the Sanford city website, Zimmerman said he was going back to his SUV when he was attacked by the teen.

Sanford police say Zimmerman was bloody in his face and head, and the back of his shirt was wet and had grass stains, indicating a struggle took place before the shooting. 
Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman


----------



## Wanderer0101

Bearfootfarm said:


> They interrogated him for* 5 hours* that night.
> He cooperated fully, and passed a "voice stress test"
> At least 1 witness SAW them fighting on the ground, and said Martin was on top.
> 
> The next day they interviewed him again, and took him to the scene to do a reenactment


You are inconveniently supplying facts. The howlers don't want facts, they want to establish perpetual victimhood for certain segments of society and restrict those who don't buy into their plan.The villains and the victims must be properly identified as has been predetermined by the media and the left. 

Interesting that a search of the New York Times shows that they have not used the term "white Hispanic" since 1858 but they are using it now. Also interesting that not once in the media or any of the screaming does anyone mention that this "child" was 6'2".


----------



## pancho

On the news this morning they said Zimmerman had a broken nose and injuries to the back of his head.


----------



## FreeRanger

Bearfootfarm said:


> They interrogated him for* 5 hours* that night.
> He cooperated fully, and passed a "voice stress test"
> At least 1 witness SAW them fighting on the ground, and said Martin was on top.
> 
> The next day they interviewed him again, and took him to the scene to do a reenactment


WOW, someone's tune has changed on this thread....now suddenly you are quoting some kind of evidence? I haven't read anything about a "voice stress test" Where did you get that information? YOU DON"T KNOW, (now do you?) YOU weren't there! (isn't that your original answer?) Must have read it on FoxNews, where only the TRUE facts are revealed.

Did a reenactment, never heard that either. Oh you were there and saw this? That's why your opinion is still Zimmerman is in the clear? Or are you now searching out the truth, the rest of the world?

I think this thread has successfully change at least one person... I am done now, my agenda has been fulfilled.:lock::happy::clap:


----------



## Bentley

As a side note, has anyone noticed that Obama is quick to offer opinions, judgement, and/or criticism when there appears to be a white on black crime, but never when there is a black on white crime?

I'm like many who have posted; let's wait for the investigation before choosing sides in this particular case. Something obama should do.

B


----------



## FreeRanger

Bentley said:


> As a side note, has anyone noticed that Obama is quick to offer opinions, judgement, and/or criticism when there appears to be a white on black crime, but never when there is a black on white crime?
> 
> I'm like many who have posted; let's wait for the investigation before choosing sides in this particular case. Something obama should do.
> 
> B


One last response to the trolls that are redirecting this thread, The thread was Neighborhood Watch man kills neighborhood kid, on the General Chat forum. If you want to wait for justice, then don't comment on the thread. Stick your head in the sand and wait for the Zombie police to come protect you...

Bringing in Jackson, Sharpton, Obama etc is another coward defense. 

"has anyone noticed that (insert repub name) is quick to offer opinions? Like *Rick S*, and *Newt G* and Obama and most leaders of this nation did this week?

You are trolling.:duel:..for a fight that has nothing to do with man stalking and killing neighborhood boy.


----------



## MO_cows

All the media hysteria is gonna make it hard to sort out the facts. I'm still leaning toward Zimmerman facing charges. Even if he had a scuffle with the kid, look at it from the kid's view. Here is this guy following him, yelling at him, etc. Not a cop, not an authority figure. The kid probably thought he was about to be abducted or something. Zimmerman instigated the whole thing, and without a good reason anybody has brought forth, at least yet. He didn't recognize the kid from the neighborhood and seems to have jumped to the conclusion, wrongly, he was up to no good just because he didn't know him.


----------



## pancho

FreeRanger said:


> WOW, someone's tune has changed on this thread....now suddenly you are quoting some kind of evidence? I haven't read anything about a "voice stress test" Where did you get that information? YOU DON"T KNOW, (now do you?) YOU weren't there! (isn't that your original answer?) Must have read it on FoxNews, where only the TRUE facts are revealed.
> 
> Did a reenactment, never heard that either. Oh you were there and saw this? That's why your opinion is still Zimmerman is in the clear? Or are you now searching out the truth, the rest of the world?
> 
> I think this thread has successfully change at least one person... I am done now, my agenda has been fulfilled.:lock::happy::clap:


That seems to be a big part of the problem.
The people making the most noise didn't wait long enough to hear the evidence. A common problem with mobs.


----------



## pancho

FreeRanger said:


> One last response to the trolls that are redirecting this thread, The thread was Neighborhood Watch man kills neighborhood kid, on the General Chat forum. If you want to wait for justice, then don't comment on the thread. Stick your head in the sand and wait for the Zombie police to come protect you...
> 
> Bringing in Jackson, Sharpton, Obama etc is another coward defense.
> 
> "has anyone noticed that (insert repub name) is quick to offer opinions? Like *Rick S*, and *Newt G* and Obama and most leaders of this nation did this week?
> 
> You are trolling.:duel:..for a fight that has nothing to do with man stalking and killing neighborhood boy.


A neighborhood watch following a suspicious person is not stalking. It is common sense.


----------



## TheMartianChick

pancho said:


> A neighborhood watch following a suspicious person is not stalking. It is common sense.


But what was the suspicious behavior? The boy was walking down the street talking on a cell phone. People do that every day. Was the wearing of a hoodie in Florida in February suspicious? I'm wearing a hoodie today...Should I be followed everywhere that I go?

Trayvon was 6'2" and 140lbs. He was a very skinny kid with a baby face.

The police reports say that Zimmerman was not interviewed and now, information surfaces that says he was interviewed for 5 hours. Maybe he was...maybe he wasn't. There are several witnesses that say that their statements weren't taken at the scene. Why would the police not take the statements of all of the witnesses? If Trayvon had been killed by a car, most police departments would have administered a drug and alcohol test to the driver/killer. Why wasn't Zimmerman tested but Trayvon's body was? 

Why was Trayvon's famiily told that the shooter was a stand up guy with no criminal background? Zimmerman assaulted a cop and there was a history of some sort of domestic abuse with his ex-girlfriend.

To say that we should have all waited for an investigation is ridiculous...There wasn't going to be an investigation because the police had already told the family that. They had to sue to get the 911 audio recordings released. Now the police concede that they may have missed the racial epithet on the tape. Maybe it is because they didn't bother to investigate. Clearly, they didn't bother to try to identify the boy because the father had to file a missing person's report in order to locate his missing teen. There weren't even any crime scene photos taken.
Are these things that sound like a real investigation took place?

I just hope that none of us ever have to go through what Trayvon Martin's family went through. It is every parent's nightmare.


----------



## Jim Bunton

pancho said:


> A neighborhood watch following a suspicious person is not stalking. It is common sense.


I have my reservations about some neighborhood watch programs. They tend to attract people that want to have power over others much like law enforcement, but with none of the training or procedures in place to try and limit abuses. We do not know what happened so I am not going to say Zimmerman should be tried, but if he approached Martin and made any kind of demands in a threatening way I believe he lost the right to claim he was acting under the hold your ground law. 

Jim


----------



## pancho

TheMartianChick said:


> But what was the suspicious behavior? The boy was walking down the street talking on a cell phone. People do that every day. Was the wearing of a hoodie in Florida in February suspicious? I'm wearing a hoodie today...Should I be followed everywhere that I go?
> 
> Trayvon was 6'2" and 140lbs. He was a very skinny kid with a baby face.
> 
> The police reports say that Zimmerman was not interviewed and now, information surfaces that says he was interviewed for 5 hours. Maybe he was...maybe he wasn't. There are several witnesses that say that their statements weren't taken at the scene. Why would the police not take the statements of all of the witnesses? If Trayvon had been killed by a car, most police departments would have administered a drug and alcohol test to the driver/killer. Why wasn't Zimmerman tested but Trayvon's body was?
> 
> Why was Trayvon's famiily told that the shooter was a stand up guy with no criminal background? Zimmerman assaulted a cop and there was a history of some sort of domestic abuse with his ex-girlfriend.
> 
> To say that we should have all waited for an investigation is ridiculous...There wasn't going to be an investigation because the police had already told the family that. They had to sue to get the 911 audio recordings released. Now the police concede that they may have missed the racial epithet on the tape. Maybe it is because they didn't bother to investigate. Clearly, they didn't bother to try to identify the boy because the father had to file a missing person's report in order to locate his missing teen. There weren't even any crime scene photos taken.
> Are these things that sound like a real investigation took place?
> 
> I just hope that none of us ever have to go through what Trayvon Martin's family went through. It is every parent's nightmare.


Where I live wearing a hoodie is a reason to be suspicious. I guess if you live in an area where people who do not do crimes wearing hoodies it might be different. Where I live a hoodies is the preferred dress for criminals. It helps to hide their identity. Also look at the temps. Wearing a hoodie in Chicage might not be suspicious but one in Florida is much more likely to be considered suspicious.
A 6'2" person wearing a hoodie don't look like a child.

Many people didn't wait or listen to the fact Zimmerman was interviewed. They were too busy listening to the likes of Sharpton, who doesn't care about the facts as long as he is in the spotlight.

Put yourself in the place of the police. 
A neighborhood watch person noticed a suspicious person in the neighborhood. He called 911 to report the person and followed.
When he approached the suspicious person he was attacked, hence the broken nose and injured head. They have a witness who saw the suspicious man on top of the neighborhood watch person beating him who ran when he was told they were going to call 911.

What would be your reaction?


----------



## Nevada

FourDeuce said:


> That would seem to go against the Constitution which guarantees the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


The problem with that is Trayvon Martin also had a right to life. Trayvon Martin can't have the benefit of the doubt at this point. He's dead.

Perhaps he's just the victim of a chain of unfortunate circumstances. If that's the case then it's up to us to change it somehow.

Zimmerman defenders need to be careful on this one. Defend the defensible, but defending the indefensible makes gun rights advocates appear unreasonable, and even irresponsible. The right to own a gun comes with an obligation of responsibility. When someone handles a gun irresponsibly then gun rights advocates should be the first to speak out. If they don't speak out against irresponsible use of guns then they appear on the whole as a group of people who can't be trusted with guns. That's a giant step backwards for gun rights.

Mark my words, if gun rights advocates continue to back Zimmerman there will be legislation to prevent this from happening again. That can mean nothing other than loss of gun rights.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> The problem with that is Trayvon Martin also had a right to life. Trayvon Martin can't have the benefit of the doubt at this point. He's dead.
> 
> Perhaps he's just the victim of a chain of unfortunate circumstances. If that's the case then it's up to us to change it somehow.
> 
> Zimmerman defenders need to be careful on this one. Defend the defensible, but defending the indefensible makes gun rights advocates appear unreasonable, and even irresponsible. The right to own a gun comes with an obligation of responsibility. When someone handles a gun irresponsibly then gun rights advocates should be the first to speak out. If they don't speak out against irresponsible use of guns then they appear on the whole as a group of people who can't be trusted with guns. That's a giant step backwards for gun rights.
> 
> Mark my words, if gun rights advocates continue to back Zimmerman there will be legislation to prevent this from happening again. That can mean nothing other than loss of gun rights.


Please do not confuse the people who would rather wait for proof as defending Zimmerman. Some people do not care for mob justice. Especially when the mob does not take the time to learn the facts or makes up things to further their own real putpose.

Some of the same people in the mob were the same ones complaining when the mob was made up of other people who did not agree with them.


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> Please do not confuse the people who would rather wait for proof as defending Zimmerman.


It certainly gives that appearance. It's that appearance that will result in loss of gun rights. Either advocate responsible gun use, or suffer the loss of gun rights. The choice is yours.


----------



## TheMartianChick

pancho said:


> Where I live wearing a hoodie is a reason to be suspicious. I guess if you live in an area where people who do not do crimes wearing hoodies it might be different. Where I live a hoodies is the preferred dress for criminals. It helps to hide their identity. Also look at the temps. Wearing a hoodie in Chicage might not be suspicious but one in Florida is much more likely to be considered suspicious.
> A 6'2" person wearing a hoodie don't look like a child.
> 
> Many people didn't wait or listen to the fact Zimmerman was interviewed. They were too busy listening to the likes of Sharpton, who doesn't care about the facts as long as he is in the spotlight.
> 
> Put yourself in the place of the police.
> A neighborhood watch person noticed a suspicious person in the neighborhood. He called 911 to report the person and followed.
> When he approached the suspicious person he was attacked, hence the broken nose and injured head. They have a witness who saw the suspicious man on top of the neighborhood watch person beating him who ran when he was told they were going to call 911.
> 
> What would be your reaction?


My reaction would be to talk to all of the witnesses, not just the shooter and the one witness that agrees with him. The information about Zimmerman not being interviewed did not come from Sharpton and his ilk. The information came from the official police report.

A hoodie is standard attire in my neighborhood. They are worn by blacks, whites, hispanics and asians. Hoodies cut across all socio-economic groups: college students at the community college and major university where them. Soccer moms wear them, too. And yes...some of our criminals wear hoodies to conceal their identity. It was 51 degrees in my city before I left the house this morning. I put on a hoodie.

In Florida, the months of January and February can be quite cool in the evenings, especially when you consider that Floridians are used to much warmer temperatures. During the warmer months, the air conditioning is usually cranked up in public places so most people seem to carry a hoodie or a light sweater. Personally, I freeze in Florida restaurants and stores when on vacation. Wearing a hoodie in Florida in the month of February is not out of line. I looked up the average temperatures for Sanford FL in February and found that the average high is 72 and the average low is 49 degrees.

Climate Sanford - Florida - Climate graph

Additionally, many black people have a serious aversion to getting their hair wet because it causes it to become frizzy and unmanageable. My husband is 54 years old and he wears a baseball cap and/or a hoodie most of the time that he isn't at work. 

A 6'2" person wearing a hoodie might not look like a child...but he still has the right to walk to the store to buy an Arizona iced tea and a bag of Skittles without being followed, molested, harrassed or shot. I'm pretty sure that the founding fathers would agree.


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> A neighborhood watch person noticed a suspicious person in the neighborhood. He called 911 to report the person and followed.
> *When he approached the suspicious person he was attacked*, hence the broken nose and injured head.


I'm curious where you got the information that Martin attacked Zimmerman. I'm not sure we can take Zimmerman at his word. It just doesn't make sense to me that Martin would have attacked Zimmerman.


----------



## poppy

Nevada said:


> I'm curious where you got the information that Martin attacked Zimmerman. I'm not sure we can take Zimmerman at his word. It just doesn't make sense to me that Martin would have attacked Zimmerman.


Perhaps it would make more sense to you if you kept an open mind.


----------



## Jim Bunton

pancho said:


> Where I live wearing a hoodie is a reason to be suspicious. I guess if you live in an area where people who do not do crimes wearing hoodies it might be different. Where I live a hoodies is the preferred dress for criminals. It helps to hide their identity. Also look at the temps. Wearing a hoodie in Chicage might not be suspicious but one in Florida is much more likely to be considered suspicious.
> A 6'2" person wearing a hoodie don't look like a child.
> 
> Many people didn't wait or listen to the fact Zimmerman was interviewed. They were too busy listening to the likes of Sharpton, who doesn't care about the facts as long as he is in the spotlight.
> 
> Put yourself in the place of the police.
> A neighborhood watch person noticed a suspicious person in the neighborhood. He called 911 to report the person and followed.
> When he approached the suspicious person he was attacked, hence the broken nose and injured head. They have a witness who saw the suspicious man on top of the neighborhood watch person beating him who ran when he was told they were going to call 911.
> 
> What would be your reaction?


I lived in Fl. for ten years locals dressing warm when tourists think it is hot is not unusual behavior. 

In the last paragraph are you suggesting that Trayvon Martin was running away when he was shot?

Jim


----------



## Nevada

poppy said:


> Perhaps it would make more sense to you if you kept an open mind.


Sure. What might Martin's motivation to attack Zimmerman have been?

We know that Martin was on his way home with Skittles & iced tea, so why would he have attacked an armed man much larger than him? We know that Zimmerman was motivated to keep Martin from getting away, but I have no idea why Martin would have attacked Zimmerman.


----------



## Allen W

Zimmerman confronted the young man after being advised not to by the dispatcher, no body was in any danger until Zimmerman confronted the young man. Why any kind of stand your ground law should apply in this case is beyond me.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> I don't know why you can't, but I've been able to conclude a number of things.
> 
> 
> 
> From the 911 tapes, it's clear that Zimmerman was following Martin, not the other way around.
> Zimmerman left his truck to follow Martin, making no mention of having been attacked by Martin to the 911 operator.
> Zimmerman followed Martin against the suggestion of the 911 operator.
> Zimmerman's concern was not with his personal safety, but with the possibility that Martin might "get away."
> Nobody has alleged that Martin was engaged in committing any crime, only that he looked suspicious and was possibly intoxicated.
> There was an audible scuffle immediately before the shooting, where Martin called-out for help.
> Zimmerman shot Martin with a single fatal shot.
> Martin was unarmed.
> Drug & alcohol testing was performed on the victim, but not on the shooter.
> 
> How to those facts compare with your understanding of what happened?


There are events I try to stay away from until the dust has settled. Sometimes it's too easy for emotions to cloud judgement. 

I'm curious.

1. Why the police didn't arrest Zimmerman.
2. If a CNN analysis of the 911 call truly didn't provide any further info that contradicts Zimmerman. 
3. Why the kid was suspended from school for five days and was sent to be with his father. 
4. Whether another witness who supposedly saw the entire incident and supports Zimmerman's claims is being truthful.
5. Why Zimmerman's pistol failed to chamber a round after being fired but did not jam. The magazine was full.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> I'm curious where you got the information that Martin attacked Zimmerman. I'm not sure we can take Zimmerman at his word. It just doesn't make sense to me that Martin would have attacked Zimmerman.


Zimmerman had injuries.
If, as many people have stated, Martin was running away how do they explain the injuries Zimmerman has?
Also there was an eye witness who saw Martin on top of an beating Zimmerman.


----------



## pancho

Jim Bunton said:


> I lived in Fl. for ten years locals dressing warm when tourists think it is hot is not unusual behavior.
> 
> In the last paragraph are you suggesting that Trayvon Martin was running away when he was shot?
> 
> Jim


I didn't say when Martin was shot, I don't know.
There was an eye witness who threatened Martin that he was going to call 911 when he saw him on top of Zimmermen beating him. According to him Martin ran from the scene.


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> Zimmerman had injuries.
> If, as many people have stated, Martin was running away how do they explain the injuries Zimmerman has?
> Also there was an eye witness who saw Martin on top of an beating Zimmerman.


Why couldn't the injuries have been from Martin defending himself? If there was a scuffle, the fact that Martin rolled to the top at some point is not surprising.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> Sure. What might Martin's motivation to attack Zimmerman have been?
> 
> We know that Martin was on his way home with Skittles & iced tea, so why would he have attacked an armed man much larger than him? We know that Zimmerman was motivated to keep Martin from getting away, but I have no idea why Martin would have attacked Zimmerman.


No, you don't know what Martin was doing. You are basing what you believe on the second hand reports from those who want to believe that is what he was doing.
Martin may have had a reason for attacking Zimmermen and it might have nothing to do with what has been reported. That is why there needs to be an investigation.


----------



## pancho

Darren said:


> There are events I try to stay away from until the dust has settled. Sometimes it's too easy for emotions to cloud judgement.
> 
> I'm curious.
> 
> 1. Why the police didn't arrest Zimmerman.
> 2. If a CNN analysis of the 911 call truly didn't provide any further info that contradicts Zimmerman.
> 3. Why the kid was suspended from school for five days and was sent to be with his father.
> 4. Whether another witness who supposedly saw the entire incident and supports Zimmerman's claims is being truthful.
> 5. Why Zimmerman's pistol failed to chamber a round after being fired but did not jam. The magazine was full.


Wery interesting.
For some reason I don't think you will get many answers to your questions.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> Why couldn't the injuries have been from Martin defending himself? If there was a scuffle, the fact that Martin rolled to the top at some point is not surprising.


The injuries could have been caused by that reason.
The injuries could have also been caused by Martin attacking Zimmerman when he asked him some questions.
Again, that is why we need an investigation instead of mob violence.

Why not try to answer the 5 questions Darren posted?


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> No, you don't know what Martin was doing. You are basing what you believe on the second hand reports from those who want to believe that is what he was doing.
> Martin may have had a reason for attacking Zimmermen and it might have nothing to do with what has been reported. That is why there needs to be an investigation.


The problem I have with Zimmerman's story is that it doesn't make sense. I simply don't believe that Martin would have attacked a man bigger then him for no reason. On the other hand, Zimmerman had reason to attack Martin.

What I think happened is that Zimmerman approached Martin and attempted to detain him. Martin refused to be detained and fought to get away. Zimmerman probably got punched (thus the injury) during the scuffle and then shot Martin in anger. To save his own hide, Zimmerman claimed self-defense when the police arrived.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> The problem I have with Zimmerman's story is that it doesn't make sense. I simply don't believe that Martin would have attacked a man bigger then him for no reason. On the other hand, Zimmerman had reason to attack Martin.
> 
> What I think happened is that Zimmerman approached Martin and attempted to detain him. Martin refused to be detained and fought to get away. Zimmerman probably got punched (thus the injury) during the scuffle and then shot Martin in anger. To save his own hide, Zimmerman claimed self-defense when the police arrived.


That is what you think happened.
Would you be willing to bet Zimmerman's life on what you think happened?

Again, can you answer the 5 questions posted earlier?


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> Why not try to answer the 5 questions Darren posted?


1. Why the police didn't arrest Zimmerman.
_That's what the special prosecutor is going to find out._

2. If a CNN analysis of the 911 call truly didn't provide any further info that contradicts Zimmerman. 
_Maybe not, but I'm not sure of your point here._

3. Why the kid was suspended from school for five days and was sent to be with his father.
_He was suspended for tardiness._

4. Whether another witness who supposedly saw the entire incident and supports Zimmerman's claims is being truthful.
_That's valuable evidence, but eyewitness accounts can be unreliable._

5. Why Zimmerman's pistol failed to chamber a round after being fired but did not jam. The magazine was full.
_Maybe, but may have no relevance to the case._


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> 1. Why the police didn't arrest Zimmerman.
> _That's what the special prosecutor is going to find out._
> 
> 2. If a CNN analysis of the 911 call truly didn't provide any further info that contradicts Zimmerman.
> _Maybe not, but I'm not sure of your point here._
> 
> 3. Why the kid was suspended from school for five days and was sent to be with his father.
> _He was suspended for tardiness._
> 
> 4. Whether another witness who supposedly saw the entire incident and supports Zimmerman's claims is being truthful.
> _That's valuable evidence, but eyewitness accounts can be unreliable._
> 
> 5. Why Zimmerman's pistol failed to chamber a round after being fired but did not jam. The magazine was full.
> _Maybe, but may have no relevance to the case._


1. That is what I have been saying, let the prosecutor do his job and not depend on mobs.

2. Just because you are not sure doesn't change the facts.

3. Where I live and where I went to school a kid would not be suspended for 5 days for tardiness. His parents would have been contacted much sooner than that.

4. Would you rather have an eyewitness account or the thoughts of some mob who wasn't even in the state when it happened?

5. Sort of hard to fire off a round or two and still have a full magazine.


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> Sort of hard to fire off a round or two and still have a full magazine.


What are you suggesting, that Zimmerman wasn't the shooter or that his gun wasn't involved?


----------



## pancho

TheMartianChick said:


> A hoodie is standard attire in my neighborhood. They are worn by blacks, whites, hispanics and asians. Hoodies cut across all socio-economic groups: college students at the community college and major university where them. Soccer moms wear them, too. And yes...some of our criminals wear hoodies to conceal their identity. It was 51 degrees in my city before I left the house this morning. I put on a hoodie.
> 
> In Florida, the months of January and February can be quite cool in the evenings, especially when you consider that Floridians are used to much warmer temperatures. During the warmer months, the air conditioning is usually cranked up in public places so most people seem to carry a hoodie or a light sweater. Personally, I freeze in Florida restaurants and stores when on vacation. Wearing a hoodie in Florida in the month of February is not out of line. I looked up the average temperatures for Sanford FL in February and found that the average high is 72 and the average low is 49 degrees.
> 
> Climate Sanford - Florida - Climate graph
> 
> Additionally, many black people have a serious aversion to getting their hair wet because it causes it to become frizzy and unmanageable. My husband is 54 years old and he wears a baseball cap and/or a hoodie most of the time that he isn't at work.
> 
> A 6'2" person wearing a hoodie might not look like a child...but he still has the right to walk to the store to buy an Arizona iced tea and a bag of Skittles without being followed, molested, harrassed or shot. I'm pretty sure that the founding fathers would agree.


Maybe in your neighborhood a hoodie is standard attire. In my neighborhood a hoodies is a sure sign of a criminal. Different neighborhoods different thoughts.
Do you live in Zimmerman's neighborhood? His neighbors seem to support him.

I live north of Florida. In the 20 something years I have lived here I have never even wore a jacket.

How do you know that the only thing Martin was doing was walking to the store to buy tea and skittles?


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> What are you suggesting, that Zimmerman wasn't the shooter or that his gun wasn't involved?


I don't know that one way or the other.
Again, that is what the investigatioin should uncover.
Maybe Martin had a gun and that was the one that was fired.


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> I don't know that one way or the other.
> Again, that is what the investigatioin should uncover.
> Maybe Martin had a gun and that was the one that was fired.


Regardless of whether the gun jammed, Zimmerman has admitted shooting Martin with that gun. Nobody disputes that.


----------



## gapeach

I believe this still America with a Constitution. Innocent until proven guilty. I am so disgusted and tired of all the racist angles on this situation mostly being promoted by the media now. It makes me very nervous thinking about race riots when my most of my kids work downtown and my grandchildren go to an inner city school.
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson can incite crowds with their ranting. They need to stay out of this and Jesse Jackson's comment that "Blacks are under attack" is ridiculous and race baiting. It's nothing new with those 2 though.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> Regardless of whether the gun jammed, Zimmerman has admitted shooting Martin with that gun. Nobody disputes that.


That may be true.
It also might be true that Martin had a gun and Zimmerman shot him with his own gun. Did Zimmerman say what gun was used to shoot Martin?
Some witnesses heard 2 shots.

Lot of questions need answered. We are not likely to get any when we have a mob gathering that is easily incited by those who have something to gain by a mob action, Sharpton and Jackson.


----------



## Nevada

gapeach said:


> I believe this still America with a Constitution. Innocent until proven guilty.


That's only in court. In fact it's only true in criminal court. Citizens have to right to form any opinion they wish.

By the way, where was Martin's presumption of innocence?


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> Some witnesses heard 2 shots.


I heard 2 shots on a 911 tape also. From the evidence, I think it's reasonable to conclude that it was an echo.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> I heard 2 shots on a 911 tape also. From the evidence, I think it's reasonable to conclude that it was an echo.


Again, would you be willing to be the life of Zimmermen on your beliefs, even going against the eyewitnesses?


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> Again, would you be willing to be the life of Zimmermen on your beliefs, even going against the eyewitnesses?


He still deserves a proper investigation and a trial.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> He still deserves a proper investigation and a trial.


Yes, that is what I have been saying all along.
An investigation is needed to see if there is a reason to go to trial.
We can't go by mob rule.
Especially when part of the mob is the likes of Sharpton and Jackson.


----------



## gapeach

Nevada said:


> He still deserves a proper investigation and a trial.



I agree with that. Were you asking me where Martin's presumption of innocence was?


----------



## Mike in Ohio

watcher said:


> If you saw someone you thought committed a crime and was following them in your car while calling the cops. They then went somewhere you could not drive would you just let them escape or would you leave your car and continue following them so you could let the cops know where they were?
> 
> If leaving the car to follow them on foot then I guess I have broken the law twice in my life. I wonder if the fact I was able to point the guys out to the cops would cause the judge to suspend any sentence. . .


Zimmerman never said he thought the boy committed a crime. He stated that the boy was suspicious... why? because he was black, walking in the rain and wearing a hoodie.

I would not be following the boy under the circumstances described... end of discussion.


----------



## pancho

One thing I am positive about.
No person is coming on my property wearing a hoodie.
I could care less if it is in fashion in some areas or who wears then.
They are not allowed on my property.


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> We can't go by mob rule.


Discussing the facts of the case and drawing conclusions is not mob rule, it's freedom of speech. What we discuss has nothing to do with what evidence will be evaluated and presented in court.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> _That's valuable evidence, but eyewitness accounts can be *unreliable*._




Not as unreliable as internet *specualtion*



> Discussing the facts of the case and drawing conclusions is not mob rule, it's freedom of speech. What we discuss has nothing to do with what evidence will be evaluated and presented in court.


*You* don't KNOW the facts.
You know the MEDIA version of the facts


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> Discussing the facts of the case and drawing conclusions is not mob rule, it's freedom of speech. What we discuss has nothing to do with what evidence will be evaluated and presented in court.


I wasn't talking about this forum.
As far as I know Sharpton or Jackson are not members of this forum and definately do not believe in freedon of speech, unless it is them doing the talking.


----------



## Tiempo

pancho said:


> One thing I am positive about.
> No person is coming on my property wearing a hoodie.
> I could care less if it is in fashion in some areas or who wears then.
> They are not allowed on my property.


Your perogative, but I find this a little strange, they are a perfectly practical item of clothing.

I wear them for work quite often and I'm a tall, skinny red headed Englishwoman, not threatening by any stretch of the imagination.

If I showed up to shoe your horses, you'd turn me away or ask me to get cold in a t shirt?


----------



## Pearl B

All the presumed innocence you grant to Zimmerman applies equally to Martin.

The part that initially made me doubt Zimmerman is his history of calling 911.
I figured he was just a person who's afraid of everything and everyone, and Martin unfortunately wound up being a victim of his paranoia.

The other thing, 911 was aware of the situation. The police were on their way. There was no evidence that Martin had did anything to anyone, so the following him part was completely uncalled for. There was nothing that kid did that warranted the attention Zimmerman gave him. Yet he got shot, and killed for it anyways. Any good shot is capable of wounding a person to the point they cant get very far, its not necessary to make it fatal.

And even if Martin did beat Zimmerman up, doesnt Martin have the right to defend himself?

Honestly, what would any of you do if you were in that situation? Some person, without a badge or uniform, or anything that signifies they are law enforcement, or in any position of authority, follows you in a vehicle, then gets out and follows you on foot, and then confronts you. 

Would none of you defend yourself? 
Would any of you start answering questions, name, or any other info to a stranger? 

Wouldnt rapists love it if they could do that, find a victim, follow them in a car, then get out and confront & have their way with the victim. 
Then if it goes wrong, or their done, shoot them and say, ah it was self-defense.

How did Martin know this guy wasnt some kind of freak?

I know why this bothers me so much. A person cant walk down the street without risk of being stalked and shot.




> At the very least, a series of 46 emergency calls made by Zimmerman over the past six years document a man vigilant about keeping his neighborhood safe and orderly. The calls include complaints about unruly people at the pool, potholes, dumped trash, and kids playing in the street. In recent months, as the neighborhood saw an uptick in crime, including burglaries and a shooting, Zimmerman's calls had focused on specific suspects, the majority of them young black men.


Who is George Zimmerman, and why did he shoot Trayvon Martin? - CSMonitor.com.

Some other info from the article.



> In 2005, when he was 21, he was charged with assault on a police officer during an altercation over the arrest of one of his friends for underage drinking in a bar, but he chose a common route for first-time offenders: A pre-trial diversion that allowed him to escape a felony conviction. Such a conviction could have precluded him from having the permit that allowed him to carry the 9 mm gun used to shoot Trayvon.





> Also in 2005, his then-fiancÃ©e accused Zimmerman of domestic violence when she filed a court injunction against him. He responded with an injunction of his own. Their court battled ended when the injunctions expired in 2006.





> Having worked in the past as a car salesman, Zimmerman became interested in becoming a police officer. In 2008, he attended a four-month course at the local sheriff's department.





> The fact that Zimmerman was known to local police has deepened suspicion that prosecutors overlooked key facts in determining that Zimmerman had a legitimate claim of self-defense under Florida's landmark Stand Your Ground law, which allows the use of deadly force and obviates any need by a citizen to retreat if they reasonably fear for their life.



I am curious why there seems to be an implication that Martin was/is guilty of anything, and Zimmerman is above suspicion, and presumed innocent.


----------



## pancho

Tiempo said:


> Your perogative, but I find this a little strange, they are a perfectly practical item of clothing.
> 
> I wear them for work quite often and I'm a tall, skinny red headed Englishwoman, not threatening by any stretch of the imagination.
> 
> If I showed up to shoe your horses, you'd turn me away or ask me to get cold in a t shirt?


Where I live it is the preferred clothing for criminals. Criminals come in all sizes and shapes. The hoodie helps cover them up and makes identification much harder.
You would not be allowed on my property if you were wearing a hoodie. Not at that time or anytime in the future no matter what you would be wearing.


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> I wasn't talking about this forum.
> As far as I know Sharpton or Jackson are not members of this forum and definately do not believe in freedon of speech, unless it is them doing the talking.


Sharpton & Jackson aren't presenting evidence in court either.


----------



## pancho

Pearl B. said:


> All the presumed innocence you grant to Zimmerman applies equally to Martin.
> 
> The part that initially made me doubt Zimmerman is his history of calling 911.
> I figured he was just a person who's afraid of everything and everyone, and Martin unfortunately wound up being a victim of his paranoia.
> 
> The other thing, 911 was aware of the situation. The police were on their way. There was no evidence that Martin had did anything to anyone, so the following him part was completely uncalled for. There was nothing that kid did that warranted the attention Zimmerman gave him. Yet he got shot, and killed for it anyways. Any good shot is capable of wounding a person to the point they cant get very far, its not necessary to make it fatal.
> 
> And even if Martin did beat Zimmerman up, doesnt Martin have the right to defend himself?
> 
> Honestly, what would any of you do if you were in that situation? Some person, without a badge or uniform, or anything that signifies they are law enforcement, or in any position of authority, follows you in a vehicle, then gets out and follows you on foot, and then confronts you.
> 
> Would none of you defend yourself?
> Would any of you start answering questions, name, or any other info to a stranger?
> 
> Wouldnt rapists love it if they could do that, find a victim, follow them in a car, then get out and confront & have their way with the victim.
> Then if it goes wrong, or their done, shoot them and say, ah it was self-defense.
> 
> How did Martin know this guy wasnt some kind of freak?
> 
> I know why this bothers me so much. A person cant walk down the street without risk of being stalked and shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is George Zimmerman, and why did he shoot Trayvon Martin? - CSMonitor.com.
> 
> Some other info from the article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious why there seems to be an implication that Martin was/is guilty of anything, and Zimmerman is above suspicion, and presumed innocent.


If Zimmerman had a history of calling 911 how many times has he killed anyone.
With 46 calls to 911 and no killing what would make a man who has a habit of calling 911 decide to shoot anyone?


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> Sharpton & Jackson aren't presenting evidence in court either.


No, they usually don't. They would much rather incite crowds to do their work for them. Law isn't one of their strong points. Avoiding the law is a common practice.
It is a good income for them.


----------



## Pearl B

pancho said:


> If Zimmerman had a history of calling 911 how many times has he killed anyone.
> With 46 calls to 911 and no killing what would make a man who has a habit of calling 911 decide to shoot anyone?


Who knows why a person acts like they do. Why did he follow this person with 911 aware of the situation and the police on the way?


----------



## Wanderer0101

pancho said:


> If Zimmerman had a history of calling 911 how many times has he killed anyone.
> With 46 calls to 911 and no killing what would make a man who has a habit of calling 911 decide to shoot anyone?


That's 46 calls in eight years. The guy was doing the neighborhood watch thing and he's supposed to call in. This is a non-issue to anyone that is not predisposed.


----------



## Wanderer0101

Nevada said:


> Sharpton & Jackson aren't presenting evidence in court either.


No, they are just winding up the lynch mob.


----------



## pancho

Pearl B. said:


> Who knows why a person acts like they do. Why did he follow this person with 911 aware of the situation and the police on the way?


He was a part of neighborhood watch. Crime had increased in his neighborhood and he thought black people were behing it.
Why wouldn't he follow a black man dressed in a hoodie that was not from the neighborhood?


----------



## pancho

Wanderer0101 said:


> No, they are just winding up the lynch mob.


That is one thing that they are very good at doing.
Makes me very suspicious of any person or group that would welcome them.


----------



## Pearl B

Wanderer0101 said:


> That's 46 calls in eight years. The guy was doing the neighborhood watch thing and he's supposed to call in. This is a non-issue to anyone that is not predisposed.


 6 years ETA: Hes supposed to call in, not confront and shoot.



pancho said:


> He was a part of neighborhood watch. Crime had increased in his neighborhood and he thought black people were behing it.
> Why wouldn't he follow a black man dressed in a hoodie that was not from the neighborhood?


Following is one thing, getting out and confronting is another. He should know that. Its in his neighborhood watch manual. I didnt know till I read the article,


> In 2008, he attended a four-month course at the local sheriff's department.


----------



## FeralFemale

New Black Panther Party puts $10,000 bounty on Zimmerman -- wanted dead or alive.

Trayvon Martin case: New Black Panthers offer $10,000 bounty for Trayvon Martin killer George Zimmerman - Orlando Sentinel

New Black Panthers: Zimmerman 'Wanted Dead or Alive'



> Members of the New Black Panther Party are offering a $10,000 reward for the "capture" of George Zimmerman, leader Mikhail Muhammad announced during a protest in Sanford today.
> 
> When asked whether he was inciting violence, Muhammad replied defiantly saying: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."
> 
> The bounty announcement came moments after members of the group called for the mobilization of 10,000 black men to capture George Zimmerman, the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who shot Trayvon Martin last month.
> 
> Muhammad said members of his group would search for Zimmerman themselves in Maitland and Jacksonville -- where the 28-year old worked before the shooting, employees there told the Orlando Sentinel. But he declined to say when they will begin their hunt.


It's a modern day lynch mob...


----------



## pancho

FeralFemale said:


> New Black Panther Party puts $10,000 bounty on Zimmerman -- wanted dead or alive.
> 
> Trayvon Martin case: New Black Panthers offer $10,000 bounty for Trayvon Martin killer George Zimmerman - Orlando Sentinel
> 
> New Black Panthers: Zimmerman 'Wanted Dead or Alive'
> 
> 
> 
> It's a modern day lynch mob...


Sounds like we may have the start of a modern day race war.


----------



## TNHermit

New Witness Says Trayvon Martin Was on Top of George Zimmerman*



New Witness Says Trayvon Martin Was on Top of George Zimmerman*


**Headline changed away from the MailOnline's take to more accurately reflect the quotes in the story. --rdbrewer*

That "white Hispanic" George Zimmerman was provoked. According to the MailOnline:

T*he witness, known only as John, told Sanford police that he saw Martin on top of George Zimmerman shortly before the fatal shot* that has led to a national outcry, including a huge 'hoodie' march in Philadelphia last night.

He recounted the details to Fox 35 News in Florida.

The witness told FOX 35 in Orlando that he saw evidence of a fight between Martin and Zimmerman, which could lend credence to the gunman's claim that he was acting in self-defence.

'The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: "Help, helpâ¦ and I told him to stop and I was calling 911,' he said.

*Zimmerman was wearing a red sweater*; Martin was in a grey hoodie.

He added: 'When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point.'

And from the the *Orlando Sentinel:*

*Police found blood on [Zimmerman's] face and the back of his head as well as grass on the back of his shirt*.

*It's important to note that the picture we've seen circulated that makes Trayvon Martin look like a little boy might be misleading. Reports are that he was 6'2" tall and a star football player. Apparently that picture is old, which makes one wonder whether it was selected for a reason.*

I'm not saying Trayvon wasn't a wonderful guy and that this isn't a terrible case. I am suggesting that he wasn't some little kid who must be innocent simply because he looks so young and small. We shouldn't be forming opinions based upon the pictures we've seen. 

There shouldn't be a rush to judgment like there was during the Duke lacrosse team case or the case of Richard Jewell, as Ace points out. And I would add Tawana Brawley to that list. (Note that race hustler Al Sharpton was involved in that one too.) Let's not push an agenda on this, okay? Forget about The Narrative.

Added:* Spike Lee, who also involved himself in the Tawana Brawley case, tweeted Zimmerman's address. Nice going, Spike. Maybe someone will shoot him, huh?*


----------



## TNHermit

Trayvon Martin: New witness tells police George Zimmerman was provoked | Mail Online


George Zimmerman's father on Trayvon Martin: My son is not racist, did not confront Trayvon Martin - Orlando Sentinel


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> Maybe in your neighborhood a hoodie is standard attire. In my neighborhood a hoodies is a sure sign of a criminal. Different neighborhoods different thoughts.
> Do you live in Zimmerman's neighborhood? His neighbors seem to support him.
> 
> I live north of Florida. In the 20 something years I have lived here I have never even wore a jacket.
> 
> How do you know that the only thing Martin was doing was walking to the store to buy tea and skittles?


The kid lived in Miami. Sanford is farther north and has a good size lake that gets the lake breezes at night. It can get fairly cool there for someone from Miami, which might explain the hoodie.


----------



## Sonshine

gapeach said:


> I believe this still America with a Constitution. Innocent until proven guilty. I am so disgusted and tired of all the racist angles on this situation mostly being promoted by the media now. It makes me very nervous thinking about race riots when my most of my kids work downtown and my grandchildren go to an inner city school.
> Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson can incite crowds with their ranting. They need to stay out of this and Jesse Jackson's comment that "Blacks are under attack" is ridiculous and race baiting. It's nothing new with those 2 though.


I agree. BUT, I also believe that Zimmerman should be thoroughly investigated for his part in this. I'm not so sure that happened originally. Now that others are involved they may be able to get the truth of what happened.


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> Again, would you be willing to be the life of Zimmermen on your beliefs, even going against the eyewitnesses?


The eye witnesses are telling different stories, which is usually the case, so which one do we believe? That's why it's important to do a real investigation.


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> The kid lived in Miami. Sanford is farther north and has a good size lake that gets the lake breezes at night. It can get fairly cool there for someone from Miami, which might explain the hoodie.


I can understand the reason for the hoodie.
Where I live it is used for something completely different.


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> One thing I am positive about.
> No person is coming on my property wearing a hoodie.
> I could care less if it is in fashion in some areas or who wears then.
> They are not allowed on my property.


Guess if I'm ever invited to dinner then I'll leave my hoodie at home. :hrm:


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> The eye witnesses are telling different stories, which is usually the case, so which one do we believe? That's why it's important to do a real investigation.


Exactly what I have been saying from the start.
Some people have already convicted the man.
It would seem like these people would be the last ones who would convict a person without proof.
Isn't that one of the things they are protesting?


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> Guess if I'm ever invited to dinner then I'll leave my hoodie at home. :hrm:


I would appreciate it.

I am getting to be an old man nowdays.
I didn't get this old living my life the way I did without being very careful and taking notice of warnings.

Around here anyone wearing a hoodie might as well show up in full gang colors.


----------



## Pearl B

pancho said:


> Exactly what I have been saying from the start.
> Some people have already convicted the man.
> It would seem like these people would be the last ones who would convict a person without proof.
> Isn't that one of the things they are protesting?


 It seems to me some have already convicted Martin of doing something.


----------



## pancho

Not long ago in Jackson, Ms. there was a man getting out of his car. Someone driving along shot at him several times. His son, less than one year old was in the back seat. He was killed.
Where was Sharpton and Jackson?

Last year a young girl ran away from home in Jackson Ms. The police found her and instead of taking her home they kept her for their personal plaything. One of their girlfrinds became jealous and stabbed the girl killing her.
Where was Sharpton and Jackson?

Both the baby and the young girl was black, why weren't there any demonstrations?
Eyewitnesses in both cases refused to describe the person who did the killing. Both killers were well know by those who saw them.

It would seem like both Sharpton and Jackson would be all over both of these stories demanding the killers be brought to justice.
Wonder why they weren"t?


----------



## Pearl B

I wonder why a former governor felt the need to speak out on this.




> Jeb Bush: Self-defense doesnât cover teenâs death
> By Associated Press
> Friday, March 23, 2012 - Added 23 hours ago
> EmailE-mail PrintablePrint Comments(1) Comments LargerSmallerText size Bookmark and Share Share
> 
> ARLINGTON, Texas â Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush says the "Stand Your Ground" law he signed shouldnât protect a neighborhood watch captain who hasnât been arrested in the shooting death of an unarmed teenager.
> 
> Bush spoke Friday at the University of Texas at Arlington, just outside Dallas. He told reporters afterward that the Florida law doesnât apply in the incident that left 17-year-old Trayvon Martin dead.
> 
> He said, "Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesnât mean chase after somebody whoâs turned their back."


Jeb Bush: Self-defense doesn&rsquo;t cover teen&rsquo;s death - BostonHerald.com


----------



## FeralFemale

Pearl B. said:


> I wonder why a former governor felt the need to speak out on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeb Bush: Self-defense doesn&rsquo;t cover teen&rsquo;s death - BostonHerald.com


Even Zimmerman's attorney said that Stand Your Ground doesn't apply in this case. The lib media was the one using this horrible shooting as an indictment against the SYG law.


----------



## Pearl B

I hope they just indict Zimmerman instead.I think he is the one at fault and is trying to hide behind that law, to excuse his actions. I think SYG laws are basically good and are needed.


----------



## gapeach

Sonshine said:


> I agree. BUT, I also believe that Zimmerman should be thoroughly investigated for his part in this. I'm not so sure that happened originally. Now that others are involved they may be able to get the truth of what happened.


I agree with you. Maybe they jumped to conclusions too quickly. I just think politicians and agitators should just stay out of all of it now. Since it has been assigned to an investigator from Jacksonville, they all need to let the justice system work. I really do not want to see any protests or riots. That is a very scary situation.


----------



## texican

gapeach said:


> I agree with you. Maybe they jumped to conclusions too quickly. I just think politicians and agitators should just stay out of all of it now. Since it has been assigned to an investigator from Jacksonville, they all need to let the justice system work. I really do not want to see any protests or riots. That is a very scary situation.


I'm thinking that pesky Stand Your Ground law dampens the enthusiasm for looters, rioters, and protesters....

Saw some articles today, wherein the dead boy had been suspended from school for a week, and those records, along with his juvie records are sealed. Not blaming the victim, blaming society... for allowing society to reach such a level, that anyone seeing a young black man, or group of young black men, coming towards them, automatically feel threatened. Remember Jesse Jackson saying the same thing? Of course, if Jesse ran into some gangbangers, sure they'd recognize him, and instead of imposing a 'tax' on him, would high five him.

IF I knew there was a societal taboo about wearing a particular piece of clothing, I don't think I'd wear 'it', anywhere, at any time. Hoodies have a bad rep, the de facto clothing of the young criminal element (regardless of race)... if your going to break the law, the hoodie is perfect for concealing identities....

Sooooo glad I don't live near any one that'd want to wear hoodies, near any gangs, or just humans in general. My sympathies to those of you that do...

my road is not conducive to low riders... or even high riders, right now... thank you rain and mudholes...


----------



## Tiempo

My husband wears a hoodie pretty much every day it's cool enough for one, they are comfortable and practical.

Never occurred to me to be afraid of him.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I am curious why there seems to be an implication that Martin was/is guilty of anything, and Zimmerman is above suspicion, and presumed innocent.


Because if Martin was cutting through yards and between houses, he WAS guilty of trespassing.

If Zimmerman "confronted" him, but didn't TOUCH him, Martin had no reason to "defend" himself

Zimmerman is presumed innocent because EVERYONE is until the facts prove otherwise, and the facts are NOT media hype and emotional spin


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Pearl B. said:


> Who knows why a person acts like they do. Why did he follow this person with 911 aware of the situation and the police on the way?


If Martin was so afraid, why didn't HE call 911 instead of continuing to talk to his girlfriend?

We can *speculate* this thing to no end, and it still won't MEAN anything.
The *detailed* *facts* are all that matter and *no one here* knows them all


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Sonshine said:


> *The eye witnesses* are telling *different stories,* which is usually the case, so *which one do we believe*? That's why it's important to do a real investigation.


Most weren't "eye witnesses" 
Most HEARD what was happening.

At least one says he saw the actual fight.

Others didn't see anything until afterwards

It's really not hard to understand why they say different things

You believe them ALL to a degree, according to their PRECISE accounts, and not what they "thought" might be happening.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because if Martin was cutting through yards and between houses, he WAS guilty of trespassing.
> 
> If Zimmerman "confronted" him, but didn't TOUCH him, Martin had no reason to "defend" himself
> 
> Zimmerman is presumed innocent because EVERYONE is until the facts prove otherwise, and the facts are NOT media hype and emotional spin


You've got a lot of "if's" in there. But not everyone has a presumption of innocence, since Martin is still dead no matter how this turns out.


----------



## kkbinco

Seems there is a witness that supports Zimmerman's claim...
Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman


----------



## FreeRanger

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because if Martin was cutting through yards and between houses, he WAS guilty of trespassing.
> 
> Zimmerman is presumed innocent because EVERYONE is until the facts prove otherwise, and the facts are NOT media hype and emotional spin


There you go again, facts get in your way. You don't know that Martin was trespassing. In fact I am willing to bet that the rules of the community DO allow minor children and their guest to walk on the grass and between the homes. You presume Martin was guilty. You don't presume Zimmerman was just as guilty? How could Zimmerman have any idea if Martin lived in any of the homes? He could have arrived just that day. In which case, in the dark and rain, heck yes he might be looking closely at each house number to find the one that was his.


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> I would appreciate it.
> 
> I am getting to be an old man nowdays.
> I didn't get this old living my life the way I did without being very careful and taking notice of warnings.
> 
> Around here anyone wearing a hoodie might as well show up in full gang colors.


Well, I'm 54 yrs young and up until a few months ago I was confined to a wheel chair for several years. Not sure how intimidating I am in my hoodie.  I like them because they're comfortable. They're just sweatshirts with a hood. Great for when the weather is sort of cool, but not cold enough to wear a coat.


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> Exactly what I have been saying from the start.
> Some people have already convicted the man.
> It would seem like these people would be the last ones who would convict a person without proof.
> Isn't that one of the things they are protesting?


I agree that folks like Sharpton and Jackson are just stirring things up, it's what they do and it's a shame. But I'm glad the parents spoke up for their son to at least get someone outside of Sanford to do some investigating. I lived in Sanford back in the 80's. I don't know what it's like now, but in the 80's LE was a joke.


----------



## vicker

I'm 52 and wear hoodies too. One of them is camo, so I reckon that one is OK.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> You've got a lot of "if's" in there. But not everyone has a presumption of innocence, since Martin is still dead no matter how this turns out.


There are always "ifs" when all the facts aren't* known*

It's been *reported* he was cutting through yards and between houses, and by saying "if" I'm not *presuming* he actually did


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> There you go again, facts get in your way. *You don't know* that Martin was trespassing. In fact I am willing to bet that the rules of the community DO allow minor children and their guest to walk on the grass and between the homes.
> 
> You presume Martin was guilty. You don't presume Zimmerman was just as guilty?
> 
> How could Zimmerman have any idea if Martin lived in any of the homes?
> He could have arrived just that day. In which case, *in the dark and rain*, heck yes he might be looking closely at each house number to find the one that was his.


I've said from the very beginning *I DON'T KNOW*.

Just like you don't know anything about the rules of the community, or what Zimmerman was thinking, or what REALLY happened.

In the dark and in the rain, "common sense" tells you that is suspicious behavior.



> he might be looking closely at each house number to find the one that was his


Really?? You want us to believe he didn't know what his house looked like?


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> There are always "ifs" when all the facts aren't* known*


Here's a fact for you; Zimmerman will be charged with criminal behavior by the middle of the week. I expect it to be a state crime. I don't think there's enough evidence of a hate crime for federal charges.


----------



## copperkid3

Nevada said:


> You've got a lot of "if's" in there. But not everyone has a presumption of innocence, since Martin is still dead no matter how this turns out.


************************************************
That doesn't seem like 'a lot'......particularly with the evidence that the new witness has now presented......
and yet there are organized groups that are now offering a reward of $10,000 for the "capture" 
of the killer of Trayvon Martin, while others who are sponsoring fund-raisers to make the bounty offered, 
a million dollars. So far, they have stated they only want the shooter 'alive',
but it wouldn't surprise me 
at all and I fully expect that by the time the next posters are printed up, they will include the words: 'dead or'......
*
New Black Panther Party offers reward for 'capture' of Florida shooter | cleveland.com*

There are groups within this country right now, that are doing everything within their power to 
precipitate a race war.......starting in the W.H. and working on down. If it happens, there won't
be any need for an election come this November......"O" will declare martial law and have all those
U.S. troops that he's been promising to bring home from Afghan/Iraq, finally return or be called out 
in retaking the streets in the cities across this nation, and will issue orders to restore order and shoot 
if necessary, those who are their neighbors and fellow citizens.


----------



## copperkid3

Nevada said:


> Here's a fact for you; Zimmerman will be charged with criminal behavior
> by the middle of the week. I expect it to be a state crime.* I don't think* there's enough evidence of a hate crime for federal charges.


***************************************
And I was certainly unaware of your great political pull that you seem to exert all the way over 
to Florida; either that or you must have an 'in' to already know that as a "fact".......or you're just 
about the worse psychic that I've seen come down the pike since Jean Dixon.....

Love how you progress steadily downward in take-it-to-the bank statements; i.e. 
"Here's a *FACT* for you".....will be charged with a state crime by the middle of the week......
to "I *EXPECT* it to be a state crime"......to "*I don't think*"......

Do you also tell the IRS agent who tells you to come in for an audit......
"I know for a *FACT* that I'm *OWED* a refund"......to: "I fully *EXPECT* to be sent to Ft. Leavenworth 
by the middle of the week for tax evasion......as there isn't enough evidence to put me in the state pen???" 









Send me a postcard when you figure it out.......


----------



## Sonshine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've said from the very beginning *I DON'T KNOW*.
> 
> Just like you don't know anything about the rules of the community, or what Zimmerman was thinking, or what REALLY happened.
> 
> In the dark and in the rain, "common sense" tells you that is suspicious behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?? You want us to believe he didn't know what his house looked like?


It wasn't his house. He lived in Miami and was visiting his Dad. It was his Dad's girlfriends house.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Here's a fact for you; Zimmerman will be charged with criminal behavior by the middle of the week. I expect it to be a state crime. I don't think there's enough evidence of a hate crime for federal charges.


Where's your source for that "fact"
Or is this another of your "predictions"?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Sonshine said:


> It wasn't his house. He lived in Miami and was visiting his Dad. It was his Dad's girlfriends house.


Do *YOU* think he wouldn't recognize the house he had walked from to get to the store?

If he was "lost" or "confused", wouldn't it make more sense to stay on marked streets rather than cutting through yards in a place you're not familiar with?


----------



## Sonshine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Do *YOU* think he wouldn't recognize the house he had walked from to get to the store?
> 
> If he was "lost" or "confused", wouldn't it make more sense to stay on marked streets rather than cutting through yards in a place you're not familiar with?


That would depend, if there was a big man following me I would probably walk through yards trying to get away from him. Have you ever been to Sanford? Many of the houses look alike in certain neighborhoods. Most contracters only use 2 to 4 models for the whole subdivision. In the dark or rain it can be hard to indentify the house since they all look pretty much the same. When I first moved there I would have problems finding my house for a few weeks if the weather was bad. Some of the rains they get are so bad you can't see a foot in front of you. Sanford also has a pretty big lake in the town, and the town's not really that big. So when the weather is changing it can get foggy real quick. I don't know what the weather was like that night or day, but I do know there's a saying in Florida that if you don't like the weather, stick around a few minutes and it will change. Especially when the seasons are changing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Have you ever been to Sanford? Many of the houses look alike in certain neighborhoods. Most contracters only use 2 to 4 models for the whole subdivision


No, I've never been there, but I've seen enough subdivsions to know what you mean about houses all looking the same.


To me though, that makes it even more logical to remain on the street or sidewalk, and not be cutting through yards.

If I were being followed and *was afraid*, I'd either go knock on someone's door, or use the phone that was already in my hand to call 911.

Trying to avoid contact by going into yards and between houses could look MORE suspicious.

But again, this is all *speculation* on our part, when the truth is only known to those who were there, and all the media attention and emotional rhetoric is NOT helping anything.

The politicians, celebrities, and groups such as the NBP. along with the general public, should stay out of it altogether


----------



## Pearl B

Bearfootfarm said:


> *Because if* Martin was cutting through yards and between houses, he WAS guilty of trespassing.
> 
> If Zimmerman "confronted" him, but didn't TOUCH him, Martin had no reason to "defend" himself
> 
> Zimmerman is presumed innocent because EVERYONE is until the facts prove otherwise, and the facts are NOT media hype and emotional spin


*If* Martin was. If Martin was sticking to the sidewalks, that wouldnt be trespassing. *If *Zimmerman also walked through peoples properties in pursuit of Martin, he was trespassing as well. I just found this as well, 


> FLORIDA: Trespass while in possession of a firearm is a felony punishable by imprisonment for up to five years and/or a fine up to $5,000.


Trespassing (Encyclopedia of Everyday Law) - eNotes.com.
So in that scenario, Zimmerman would have been committing a felony as well.


If Zimmerman confronted Martin, Martin would have no reason to believe anything Zimmerman said, and could well have felt he was being threatened, especially since he had told his girlfriend on the phone that he was being followed by someone in a vehicle. Since Zimmerman had or didnt show anything to indicate he was either a policeman, or neighborhood watch, Martin had no indication, nor anything to give him an indication this guy wasnt some kind of whacko, possibly racist.

Martin also has the presumption of innocence until facts prove him otherwise.

I havent seen in any articles or news stories that Martin was cutting through yards. Do you have any links to that?

Since Zimmerman didnt know Martin, it would be a presumption on his part that Martin was trespassing. For all Zimmerman knew maybe Martin was going by a couple of friends houses.

-----------------------------------------------



Bearfootfarm said:


> If Martin was so afraid, why didn't HE call 911 instead of continuing to talk to his girlfriend?
> 
> We can *speculate* this thing to no end, and it still won't MEAN anything.
> The *detailed* *facts* are all that matter and *no one here* knows them all


 How do we know that Martin wasnt in the process of calling 911 and Zimmerman knocked the phone out of his hand, leading to the fight that apparently took place

Its simply unkown. And with that, both are under the presumption of innocence.
-----------------------------------------------

As a practical matter, do you think a black man could have done what Zimmerman did and not get arrested that night?

Do you think if Martin had turned out to be a girl, do you think he wouldnt have been arrested that night for stalking at the very least, even if shots hadnt been fired?


----------



## Txsteader

kkbinco said:


> Seems there is a witness that supports Zimmerman's claim...
> Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman


Which, it seems, is being ignored. 

Gonna be interesting to see how this affects the national conversation. Black Panthers put a bounty on Zimmerman, Obama has essentially already convicted Zimmerman with his quick & idiotic comments.....and now we have an eyewitness that says Martin was attacking Zimmerman.

Yep, gonna be real interesting to watch how this plays out.


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> That would depend, if there was a big man following me I would probably walk through yards trying to get away from him. Have you ever been to Sanford? Many of the houses look alike in certain neighborhoods. Most contracters only use 2 to 4 models for the whole subdivision. In the dark or rain it can be hard to indentify the house since they all look pretty much the same. When I first moved there I would have problems finding my house for a few weeks if the weather was bad. Some of the rains they get are so bad you can't see a foot in front of you. Sanford also has a pretty big lake in the town, and the town's not really that big. So when the weather is changing it can get foggy real quick. I don't know what the weather was like that night or day, but I do know there's a saying in Florida that if you don't like the weather, stick around a few minutes and it will change. Especially when the seasons are changing.


Have you noticed the size of Martin and the size of Zimmerman?
Look at the heights.
Also there is a witness who says Martin attacked Zimmerman.
According to the report Zimmerman was going back to his SUV when he was attacked from behind by Martin. 
According to the witness Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him and the witness thought Zimmerman was dead.
From the screams on the 911 tape, which was Zimmerman, and the evidence, broken nose and back of head injury to Zimmerman, it would look like Martin was the one doing the attacking.

It would seem that if the weather was so bad and Martin so easily confused why would he be going to the store in the first place.

Maybe the investigation should take a better look at what Martin was really doing.


----------



## pancho

Pearl B. said:


> *If* Martin was. If Martin was sticking to the sidewalks, that wouldnt be trespassing. *If *Zimmerman also walked through peoples properties in pursuit of Martin, he was trespassing as well. I just found this as well,
> Trespassing (Encyclopedia of Everyday Law) - eNotes.com.
> So in that scenario, Zimmerman would have been committing a felony as well.
> 
> 
> If Zimmerman confronted Martin, Martin would have no reason to believe anything Zimmerman said, and could well have felt he was being threatened, especially since he had told his girlfriend on the phone that he was being followed by someone in a vehicle. Since Zimmerman had or didnt show anything to indicate he was either a policeman, or neighborhood watch, Martin had no indication, nor anything to give him an indication this guy wasnt some kind of whacko, possibly racist.
> 
> Martin also has the presumption of innocence until facts prove him otherwise.
> 
> I havent seen in any articles or news stories that Martin was cutting through yards. Do you have any links to that?
> 
> Since Zimmerman didnt know Martin, it would be a presumption on his part that Martin was trespassing. For all Zimmerman knew maybe Martin was going by a couple of friends houses.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------
> 
> How do we know that Martin wasnt in the process of calling 911 and Zimmerman knocked the phone out of his hand, leading to the fight that apparently took place
> 
> Its simply unkown. And with that, both are under the presumption of innocence.
> -----------------------------------------------
> 
> As a practical matter, do you think a black man could have done what Zimmerman did and not get arrested that night?
> 
> Do you think if Martin had turned out to be a girl, do you think he wouldnt have been arrested that night for stalking at the very least, even if shots hadnt been fired?


You keep forgetting that Zimmermans job was to do exactly what he was doing. He was the cheif of the neighborhood watch. 

Witness say Martin attacked Zimmermen from the rear as he was walking back to his SUV. The evidence backs up the story.

Some people keep mentioning stalking. A man doing his job of checking on suspicious people in an area where there has recently been breakins and crime has been rising is not stalking.
Much like a highway patrol driving behind you. Let me know how many people have successfully had a highway partol prosecuted for stalking.

This morning on the news there was a black man, who lived in the neighborhood, defending Zimmerman.

Sure Martin didn't get a chance to call 911. He did take the time to call and visit with his girl friend. He did choose to try to get away when someone said they were calling 911. Why would he run if someone called 911?


----------



## TheMartianChick

FeralFemale said:


> New Black Panther Party puts $10,000 bounty on Zimmerman -- wanted dead or alive.
> 
> Trayvon Martin case: New Black Panthers offer $10,000 bounty for Trayvon Martin killer George Zimmerman - Orlando Sentinel
> 
> New Black Panthers: Zimmerman 'Wanted Dead or Alive'
> 
> 
> 
> It's a modern day lynch mob...


Not quite a lynch mob...This is the same group that declared that they were throwing a Black Panther Rally called a "Day of Action" in Atlanta and a bunch of other cities and nobody showed up. They have a very small following that consists of their members.

This is the main thread that discussed it back then:

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/su...93644-warning-day-action-atlanta-weekend.html

Is it wrong for them to offer a reward for Zimmerman? Absolutely! Does anyone know if there are laws on the books regarding this? If so, I'm expecting a New Black Panther to be in a jail cell for promoting something as heinous as this.


----------



## TheMartianChick

pancho said:


> He was a part of neighborhood watch. Crime had increased in his neighborhood and he thought black people were behing it.
> Why wouldn't he follow a black man dressed in a hoodie that was not from the neighborhood?


I saw a woman who lives in the development on tv the other day. She and her husband are black and her husband was followed home by Zimmerman before. He followed him all the way home and watched him close his garage door.


----------



## trulytricia

Zimmerman's own Black neighbor has said she would trust her life in his hands! Other Black people in the community have had nothing but good to say about him.

It is very disturbing how the media has chosen to portray Zimmerman. They want so much for him to be a white racist . They report some 'facts' but leave out important info that would explain things.

Zimmerman's life might very well be destroyed along with kid. And he may really have been defending himself.

The media has been dragging our minds around from the very beginning of this all.


----------



## TheMartianChick

TNHermit said:


> Added:* Spike Lee, who also involved himself in the Tawana Brawley case, tweeted Zimmerman's address. Nice going, Spike. Maybe someone will shoot him, huh?*


I have to admit that I'm troubled by this one... If it is true, then I'm really disappointed in Spike. However, it appears to be a retweet, not a tweet which means that someone sent it out to him and then he forwarded it to all of his followers. 

Zimmerman's address is a matter of public record, though. Most of our addresses are listed on the tax assessment websites for our respective municipalities. Regardless of how easy it is to get the information, I would expect a person with such a large following of fans to be more responsible with what is essentially starpower. They have the ability to influence so many people and it would be nice if they'd use their platform to 'Do the Right Thing!'


----------



## trulytricia

I don't have television service. Is this story getting any play at all? 

Emanuel says community must join fight against gangs - chicagotribune.com


----------



## TheMartianChick

pancho said:


> Not long ago in Jackson, Ms. there was a man getting out of his car. Someone driving along shot at him several times. His son, less than one year old was in the back seat. He was killed.
> Where was Sharpton and Jackson?
> 
> Last year a young girl ran away from home in Jackson Ms. The police found her and instead of taking her home they kept her for their personal plaything. One of their girlfrinds became jealous and stabbed the girl killing her.
> Where was Sharpton and Jackson?
> 
> Both the baby and the young girl was black, why weren't there any demonstrations?
> Eyewitnesses in both cases refused to describe the person who did the killing. Both killers were well know by those who saw them.
> 
> It would seem like both Sharpton and Jackson would be all over both of these stories demanding the killers be brought to justice.
> Wonder why they weren"t?


Those sound like really horrific cases, Pancho! However, if they are not brought to the attention of the media , then people like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson won't hear about them either. That is why it is important to get information out about cases like the ones that you've described using social media. Not all black people know how to get in contact with Sharpton and Jackson in order to get them involved. It actually takes someone getting the story out for them. In my community, I know exactly who I'd call if I needed to get in contact with Al Sharpton. For Jessie Jackson, I wouldn't have a specific path. Most people don't have a direct pipeline to these guys.


----------



## FeralFemale

TheMartianChick said:


> I have to admit that I'm troubled by this one... If it is true, then I'm really disappointed in Spike. However, it appears to be a retweet, not a tweet which means that someone sent it out to him and then he forwarded it to all of his followers.
> 
> Zimmerman's address is a matter of public record, though. Most of our addresses are listed on the tax assessment websites for our respective municipalities. Regardless of how easy it is to get the information, I would expect a person with such a large following of fans to be more responsible with what is essentially starpower. They have the ability to influence so many people and it would be nice if they'd use their platform to 'Do the Right Thing!'


I agree. And let's not forget the underlying message of tweeting that address -- here, folks, show up at this guy's house. And do what, Spike?? I'm sure he thought he was being Mr. SmartyPants, but all he really was was irresponsible.


----------



## TheMartianChick

FeralFemale said:


> Even Zimmerman's attorney said that Stand Your Ground doesn't apply in this case. The lib media was the one using this horrible shooting as an indictment against the SYG law.


The police said that they werent going to do anymore investigating because Zimmerman stated that he was standing his ground and they could find no evidence to contradict that. Zimmerman and the police department are the ones that introduced Stand Your Ground into this.


----------



## pancho

TheMartianChick said:


> Not quite a lynch mob...This is the same group that declared that they were throwing a Black Panther Rally called a "Day of Action" in Atlanta and a bunch of other cities and nobody showed up. They have a very small following that consists of their members.
> 
> This is the main thread that discussed it back then:
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/su...93644-warning-day-action-atlanta-weekend.html
> 
> Is it wrong for them to offer a reward for Zimmerman? Absolutely! Does anyone know if there are laws on the books regarding this? If so, I'm expecting a New Black Panther to be in a jail cell for promoting something as heinous as this.


Don't hold your breath waiting for someone to arrest the new black panther members. They are black and allowed to do many things white people can't.
Imagine what would happen if the KKK put up a reward for a black person.
Then you could hold your breath until they were arrested. Should take about as long as releasing the reward. Probably would be charged with a hate crime along with a long list of other charges.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because if Martin was cutting through yards and between houses, he WAS guilty of trespassing.
> 
> If Zimmerman "confronted" him, but didn't TOUCH him, Martin had no reason to "defend" himself
> 
> Zimmerman is presumed innocent because EVERYONE is until the facts prove otherwise, and the facts are NOT media hype and emotional spin


There are sidewalks for the residents of the apartments to use. They showed them on tv. They run between the townhouses and divide the backyards from eachother. Trayvon was killed 70 yeards from his father's back door.


----------



## pancho

TheMartianChick said:


> Those sound like really horrific cases, Pancho! However, if they are not brought to the attention of the media , then people like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson won't hear about them either. That is why it is important to get information out about cases like the ones that you've described using social media. Not all black people know how to get in contact with Sharpton and Jackson in order to get them involved. It actually takes someone getting the story out for them. In my community, I know exactly who I'd call if I needed to get in contact with Al Sharpton. For Jessie Jackson, I wouldn't have a specific path. Most people don't have a direct pipeline to these guys.


Guess what.
Both Sharpton and Jackson did show up in Jackson. Not for the above things.
A white teen killed a black man. They both were very vocal about that.
The white teen was charged and convicted of a hate crime along with two white teens.
The two black men who beat a white man to death were finally charged with murder. No hate crime there. Sharpton and Jackson were very silent.

Both Sharpton and Jackson are media whores. Both would sell their mothers if it meant they would get on TV. Both have made a career out of causing as many race problems as they possibly can.
You can add Spike Lee to that list also.


----------



## FeralFemale

TheMartianChick said:


> The police said that they werent going to do anymore investigating because Zimmerman stated that he was standing his ground and they could find no evidence to contradict that. Zimmerman and the police department are the ones that introduce Stand Your Ground into this.


Zimmerman can claim anything he wants to use as an excuse for gunning down that boy, but that doesn't make it applicable once all the facts are out. That's all I'm saying. The media is the one that went nuts over SYG laws because one, they hate guns, and two, the can't read a statute. 

Zimmerman&#8217;s lawyer: &#8216;Stand your ground&#8217; doesn&#8217;t apply in Trayvon Martin case | WTVR.com

The police cannot arrest someone without evidence for probable cause. Everything they had at the time, including an eyewitness and Zimmerman's injuries, jibed with Zimmerman's story. I'd like to know if they just quit investigating or whether they were still gathering evidence for a possible arrest. Even I'd say racism if they just quit investigating -- Martin being a young black male probably 'helped' the police in their conclusion.


----------



## TheMartianChick

pancho said:


> You keep forgetting that Zimmermans job was to do exactly what he was doing. He was the cheif of the neighborhood watch.
> 
> Witness say Martin attacked Zimmermen from the rear as he was walking back to his SUV. The evidence backs up the story.
> 
> Some people keep mentioning stalking. A man doing his job of checking on suspicious people in an area where there has recently been breakins and crime has been rising is not stalking.
> Much like a highway patrol driving behind you. Let me know how many people have successfully had a highway partol prosecuted for stalking.
> 
> This morning on the news there was a black man, who lived in the neighborhood, defending Zimmerman.
> 
> Sure Martin didn't get a chance to call 911. He did take the time to call and visit with his girl friend. He did choose to try to get away when someone said they were calling 911. Why would he run if someone called 911?


Zimmerman was a self-appointed Neighborhood Watch Captain. It wasn't his job. Martin was already on the phone with his girlfriend. She called him before Zimmerman started to follow him. They simply stayed on the phone throughout most of the situation. 

Did you ever wonder why kids are always so torn up when one of their classmates dies in a DUI accident? The reason is that kids don't really think that they are going to die. Death is something that happens to older people. Travon Martin probably thought that Zimmerman was stalking him for whatever reason, but he probably didn't believe that his life was on the line to necessitate a call to 911. He was wrong. However, it probably wouldn't have saved his life since his girlfriend heard the man confront him and heard a scuffle. He was dead within a minute or so.


----------



## TheMartianChick

trulytricia said:


> Zimmerman's own Black neighbor has said she would trust her life in his hands! Other Black people in the community have had nothing but good to say about him.
> 
> It is very disturbing how the media has chosen to portray Zimmerman. They want so much for him to be a white racist . They report some 'facts' but leave out important info that would explain things.
> 
> Zimmerman's life might very well be destroyed along with kid. And he may really have been defending himself.
> 
> The media has been dragging our minds around from the very beginning of this all.


I'm going to step out on a limb and say this. Please know that it is not directed specifically at you but at an attitude that seems to be prevalent in some segments of society. 

Just because a black person says that they've never experienced racism at the hands of a certain person, does not mean that the person is not a racist. It means that they have never had a negative experience that they equate with racism. 

In general, a black woman usually experiences far less racism than a black man. We are not viewed to be as much of a threat, though we are frequently profiled as being thieves or being promiscuous. 

The darker the skin of the black man, the racism increases exponentially. While you've seen interviews with black people that didn't have an issue with Zimmerman, I saw an interview with a black woman whose husband was followed home, even though they live in the neighborhood. She had never had an issue with Zimmerman.

I have had clients that are quite comfortable in my office talking to me but their demeanor changes when my husband or my boss show up in the building. Both men are dark black males in their 50's. My husband's work dictates that he is usually dressed in blue collar-type uniforms, whereas my boss is usually wearing a a dress shirt and tie. 

Racism isn't always just about color...Sometimes it is about hue, gender, age and clothing choice, too.


----------



## TheMartianChick

pancho said:


> Guess what.
> Both Sharpton and Jackson are media whores. Both would sell their mothers if it meant they would get on TV. Both have made a career out of causing as many race problems as they possibly can.
> You can add Spike Lee to that list also.


As I've said before... I'm not a fan of either Sharpton or Jackson.


----------



## pancho

TheMartianChick said:


> Zimmerman was a self-appointed Neighborhood Watch Captain. It wasn't his job. Martin was already on the phone with his girlfriend. She called him before Zimmerman started to follow him. They simply stayed on the phone throughout most of the situation.
> 
> Did you ever wonder why kids are always so torn up when one of their classmates dies in a DUI accident? The reason is that kids don't really think that they are going to die. Death is something that happens to older people. Travon Martin probably thought that Zimmerman was stalking him for whatever reason, but he probably didn't believe that his life was on the line to necessitate a call to 911. He was wrong. However, it probably wouldn't have saved his life since his girlfriend heard the man confront him and heard a scuffle. He was dead within a minute or so.


Neighborhood watch is voluntary in just about all areas. That is why it is called that, neighborhood. It is made up of people who live in the neighborhood. Members of neighborhood watch are a group of neighbors banding together to protect their neighborhood.

How worried could Martin have been if it wasn't important enough for him to hang up on his call?

You keep forgetting Martin attacked Zimmerman while his back was turned. Martin was on top beating Zimmerman to a point that an eye witness thought he was dead.
When the eye witness said he was going to call 911 Martin ran.
Why would he run if he wasn't the guilty party.

The 911 calls and eyewitness accounts are quite different than Martin's girl friend's account. According to 911 tapes, Zimmerman is the person calling for help.


----------



## FeralFemale

pancho said:


> Neighborhood watch is voluntary in just about all areas. That is why it is called that, neighborhood. It is made up of people who live in the neighborhood. Members of neighborhood watch are a group of neighbors banding together to protect their neighborhood.
> 
> How worried could Martin have been if it wasn't important enough for him to hang up on his call?
> 
> You keep forgetting Martin attacked Zimmerman while his back was turned. Martin was on top beating Zimmerman to a point that an eye witness thought he was dead.
> When the eye witness said he was going to call 911 Martin ran.
> Why would he run if he wasn't the guilty party.
> 
> The 911 calls and eyewitness accounts are quite different than Martin's girl friend's account. According to 911 tapes, Zimmerman is the person calling for help.


Why would Zimmerman shoot him if Martin had stopped beating on him and was running away?


----------



## pancho

TheMartianChick said:


> Racism isn't always just about color...Sometimes it is about hue, gender, age and clothing choice, too.


You keep forgetting one very important thing.
A black person is never guilty of racism. That is something only a white person, white males, are guilty of.


----------



## trulytricia

To MartianChick,
I do see what you are saying.

My point only for bringing up his neighbors is that on the news off the radio they were doing their ----ist to portray Zimmerman as a crazy white racist. I read the other comments about him online.

And I brought up the Chicago story because a lot of people are dead and hurt, including a little six year old. Why isn't this story getting as much attention?

People are killed every day. It is a sorry state the media handpicks what is news because they see opportunity to advance in some way.


----------



## pancho

FeralFemale said:


> Why would Zimmerman shoot him if Martin had stopped beating on him and was running away?


Ever think he may have shot him during the struggle?


----------



## TheMartianChick

pancho said:


> You keep forgetting one very important thing.
> A black person is never guilty of racism. That is something only a white person, white males, are guilty of.


And that is something that you've never heard from me. There are all kinds of racism...even black on black. There is a saying in the African American community that says "The white man's ice is colder." It means that there are some black people will buy a product from a white person even when the identical product is readily available from a black person for the same price or less. Sometimes, there is a perception that the product must be better when it comes from a white person. It is one of those old holdovers from slavery/Jim Crow, similar to the Brown v Board of Education case study in which black children invariably chose the white dolls as being "good" and the black dolls as being "bad".


----------



## TheMartianChick

trulytricia said:


> To MartianChick,
> I do see what you are saying.
> 
> My point only for bringing up his neighbors is that on the news off the radio they were doing their ----ist to portray Zimmerman as a crazy white racist. I read the other comments about him online.
> 
> And I brought up the Chicago story because a lot of people are dead and hurt, including a little six year old. Why isn't this story getting as much attention?
> 
> People are killed every day. It is a sorry state the media handpicks what is news because they see opportunity to advance in some way.


I think that the media does go to extremes. The more sensational a story is, the more traction it receives. I think if you ask the media folks why the Chicago story isn't top news, they'd give some sorry story about how there isn't enough time to devote to every story...blah, blah, blah...

It used to be that the daily happenings made the news. Today, we have news "shows" that seek to rehash last week's happenings and ignore what happened today. If there is a shooting/murder in my city, it may not be the top story. Instead, they may lead off with a story about a rescued cat. Somehow that seems out of whack!

In order for certain stories to get national attention, they actually have a media blitz to propel them. That is why has-been stars use social media like Twitter to make little statements all of the time. They are terrified of falling off the celebrity radar. In the Trayvon Martin case, someone got the story to someone with the ability to promote it. Not everyone knows how to do this effectively.


----------



## Nevada

FeralFemale said:


> Why would Zimmerman shoot him if Martin had stopped beating on him and was running away?


Anger for having been punched, not wanting Martin to "get away", racial hate, confidence that he will get away with shooting a black person, frustration in not being effective in crime prevention, just to name a few.


----------



## FeralFemale

pancho said:


> Ever think he may have shot him during the struggle?


You said that Martin ran when the witness said he was going to call 911. That doesn't make any sense. Why would GZ shoot him as he was running away?

The eyewitness account I heard didn't say anything about running away. He said shouted that he was going to call 911, went inside, then when got upstairs looked out the window and martin was on the ground. And I've heard nothing about Martin being shot in the back -- if he was the police would have arrested GZ.


----------



## FeralFemale

Nevada said:


> Anger for having been punched, not wanting Martin to "get away", racial hate, confidence that he will get away with shooting a black person, frustration in not being effective in crime prevention, just to name a few.


I don't understand why people are assuming that Martin was bad or Zimmerman was bad. Couldn't the whole thing be one big tragic turn of events involving two people who are just regular folks -- and not some black gang banger and a racist?


----------



## pancho

FeralFemale said:


> You said that Martin ran when the witness said he was going to call 911. That doesn't make any sense. Why would GZ shoot him as he was running away?
> 
> The eyewitness account I heard didn't say anything about running away. He said shouted that he was going to call 911, went inside, then when got upstairs looked out the window and martin was on the ground. And I've heard nothing about Martin being shot in the back -- if he was the police would have arrested GZ.


So far I haven't seen where he was shot.
I would imagine it would put a different prespective on the whole thing.
If he was shot in the back I am pretty sure it would already be front page news. 

Just my opinion if he was shot in the back he was running and there was no reason for the shooting.
If he was shot in the front there is more proof Zimmerman had a reason to shoot him.


----------



## Darren

TheMartianChick said:


> And that is something that you've never heard from me. There are all kinds of racism...even black on black. There is a saying in the African American community that says "The white man's ice is colder." It means that there are some black people will buy a product from a white person even when the identical product is readily available from a black person for the same price or less. Sometimes, there is a perception that the product must be better when it comes from a white person. It is one of those old holdovers from slavery/Jim Crow, similar to the Brown v Board of Education case study in which black children invariably chose the white dolls as being "good" and the black dolls as being "bad".


I had never heard that before. That has some very surprising implications. 

To comment on the Martin Zimmerman incident, there's a couple of red flags. The strangest is that it has been reported that *Zimmerman's semiauto pistol was only fired once. And it did not feed another round. this is an enormous red flag for anyone looking at the details of the incident. That happening is highly unusual if that is true.*

If true, it indicates the gun was not allowed to cycle by something preventing the slide from moving. One explanation would be a struggle between the two men possibly for the gun. 

*WHAT FOLLOWS NEXT IS CONJECTURE. It's based on information on the internet which cannot be considered factual at this time. But it may well be true. *

If Martin attacked Zimmerman and knocked him down and then was punching him on the ground as reported on the internet as seen by one witness, and as reported/hypothesized on the internet that Martin saw the gun and tried to grab it, Zimmerman may have been involved in a life or death struggle. This is a possible explanation for the condition in which the handgun was found by the police.

I'm open to any other explanation of why the firearm did not cycle. At the very least it should have tried to feed another cartridge. *THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.*

Martin may have very well initiated the final events that led to his death. Otherwise the police would have shown up, questiond him and determined why someone strange was in the area. Nothing would have happened beyond that.


----------



## Darren

feralfemale said:


> i don't understand why people are assuming that martin was bad or zimmerman was bad. Couldn't the whole thing be one big tragic turn of events involving two people who are just regular folks -- and not some black gang banger and a racist?


*Absolutely!*


----------



## Darren

I'm surprised and in a way I'm not surprised by some of the responses in this thread like some of the responses to the shooting of the Jews in France.

I'm still trying to sort it out. Why do some people take what they first read and not ask questions but instead take everything reported by the media as true and factual without looking for other information?


----------



## pancho

According to U.S. News Martin was shot in the chest.
He was not running away.
They also said when Zimmerman first called 911 he was asked if the man was black and Zimmerman didn't know. He said he was acting strang or like he was on drugs. Zimmerman also dais the man was coming toward him and had something in his hand. He asked for an officer.

I am beginning to have a better understanding of what likely happened.
We have just been getting one side of things. There is another side. One that has eye witnesses, phone conservations, and evidence.

We have Zimmermen asking for assistance with a suspicious man in the heighborhood acting strange as if he was on drugs. We have the suspicious man coming toward Zimmerman. We have an eyewitness account of Martin on top of Zimmermen beating him. We have Zimmermen with a broken nose, injuries to the back of the head, and grass stains on the back of his shirt. We have Martin with a gunshot in the chest.

I am beginning to wonder if the injuries to the back of Zimmermen's head was from an attack from behind? That is what Zimmerman said happened and the evidence shows that.


----------



## Txsteader

Darren said:


> To comment on the Martin Zimmerman incident, there's a couple of red flags. The strangest is that it has been reported that *Zimmerman's semiauto pistol was only fired once. And it did not feed another round. this is an enormous red flag for anyone looking at the details of the incident. That happening is highly unusual if that is true.*
> 
> If true, it indicates the gun was not allowed to cycle by something preventing the slide from moving. One explanation would be a struggle between the two men possibly for the gun.


Not necessarily unusual...semi-automatics are known for 'stovepiping', preventing the spent casing from ejecting & allowing a new shell to feed into the chamber. From what I understand, limp-wristed firing can cause it. It's quite possible that during the struggle, Zimmerman may not have had full control of the weapon when he fired, thus jamming the slide.

Your theory could very well be correct. I just wanted to show that it's not _highly_ unusual for SAs to jam under certain conditions.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I'm open to any other *explanation of why the firearm did not cycle*. At the very least it should have tried to feed another cartridge. *THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.*


For a semi auto to chamber a new round, the slide has to come *all the way* back behind the new cartridge

When it's fired, the breech unlocks, the slide starts moving to the rear, the extractor pulls the spent shell from the chamber, the ejector throws the spent shell out of the gun, the slide *continues moving* back until it clears the rear of the next round, then the recoil spring pushs it forward again.

Its VERY easy for that cycle to be interrupted, causing the gun to malfunction.

Holding the gun loosely, or "limp wristing" can cause it to *short cycle*.

If the slide hits anything or is slowed by anything, it can *short cycle*

Any *short cycle* can cause a *failure to feed*, while still ejecting the spent cartridge


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> The police said that they werent going to do anymore investigating because Zimmerman stated that he was standing his ground and they could find no evidence to contradict that. Zimmerman and *the police department are the ones that introduced Stand Your Ground into this*


They mentioned it because *it applies, and it's the law*
The MEDIA jumped on it and immediately started calling for a *repeal.*
They *falsely* portray it as a "license to shoot anyone any time"


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> They mentioned it because *it applies, and it's the law*
> The MEDIA jumped on it and immediately started calling for a *repeal.*
> They *falsely* portray it as a "license to shoot anyone any time"


That's not describing the news articles I've been reading. The consensus is that Stand Your Ground doesn't apply to this case. I agree.


----------



## Sonshine

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, I've never been there, but I've seen enough subdivsions to know what you mean about houses all looking the same.
> 
> 
> To me though, that makes it even more logical to remain on the street or sidewalk, and not be cutting through yards.
> 
> If I were being followed and *was afraid*, I'd either go knock on someone's door, or use the phone that was already in my hand to call 911.
> 
> Trying to avoid contact by going into yards and between houses could look MORE suspicious.
> 
> But again, this is all *speculation* on our part, when the truth is only known to those who were there, and all the media attention and emotional rhetoric is NOT helping anything.
> 
> The politicians, celebrities, and groups such as the NBP. along with the general public, should stay out of it altogether


I don't know what skin color you are, but most people of color would not go knocking on strangers doors for reasons that most white people would not understand. I'm white, but was raised in black neighborhoods, went to black schools, attending a black church and now am raising a bi-racial child. Regardless of how far people believe we have come regarding racism, we still have a long way to go. 

I do agree though that none os us were there. My only concern throughout this debate was I wanted justice done. If Martin was to blame, then so be it. If Zimmerman was to blame, then I hope he faces the full extent of the law.


----------



## Sonshine

Txsteader said:


> Which, it seems, is being ignored.
> 
> Gonna be interesting to see how this affects the national conversation. Black Panthers put a bounty on Zimmerman, Obama has essentially already convicted Zimmerman with his quick & idiotic comments.....and now we have an eyewitness that says Martin was attacking Zimmerman.
> 
> Yep, gonna be real interesting to watch how this plays out.


Where was this eye witness earlier?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> That's not describing the news articles I've been reading. *The consensus* is that Stand Your Ground doesn't apply to this case. I agree.


That's a "concensus" formed by those NOT THERE, who don't know the details, who don't understand the law, and who make up scenarios to fit their assumptions.

The police who DO know the facts say otherwise.


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> They also said when Zimmerman first called 911 he was asked if the man was black and Zimmerman didn't know.


That was false. Zimmerman established that he believed Martin was black right away.










http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html

I'm beginning to think that the false information being propagated here is not by accident. If you repeat false information enough times it becomes political fact. It's an ugly tactic.


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> Have you noticed the size of Martin and the size of Zimmerman?
> Look at the heights.
> Also there is a witness who says Martin attacked Zimmerman.
> According to the report Zimmerman was going back to his SUV when he was attacked from behind by Martin.
> According to the witness Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him and the witness thought Zimmerman was dead.
> From the screams on the 911 tape, which was Zimmerman, and the evidence, broken nose and back of head injury to Zimmerman, it would look like Martin was the one doing the attacking.
> 
> It would seem that if the weather was so bad and Martin so easily confused why would he be going to the store in the first place.
> 
> Maybe the investigation should take a better look at what Martin was really doing.


There were several witnesses that night that called 911. Where was this witness? Why didn't this witness do anything? We don't know if it was Zimmerman or Martin on the 911 tapes. To me it sounded like a young person. I don't know how big Martin was, but Zimmerman is not a small man. As for Martin going to the store in inclement weather, in Florida the weather changes at the drop of the hat. It may not have been showing any signs of rain when he left. He could easily have gotten confused about where he was going if he was running in fear from Zimmerman. I think the investigation should look at all parties involved, including the "eye witnesses". After all, I'm sure Zimmerman has friends in the neighborhood, since he's a resident. Martin was a visitor. Not saying the eye witness was not telling the truth, but it's something that should be looked into.


----------



## Sonshine

TheMartianChick said:


> Not quite a lynch mob...This is the same group that declared that they were throwing a Black Panther Rally called a "Day of Action" in Atlanta and a bunch of other cities and nobody showed up. They have a very small following that consists of their members.
> 
> This is the main thread that discussed it back then:
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/su...93644-warning-day-action-atlanta-weekend.html
> 
> Is it wrong for them to offer a reward for Zimmerman? Absolutely! Does anyone know if there are laws on the books regarding this? If so, I'm expecting a New Black Panther to be in a jail cell for promoting something as heinous as this.


Black Panthers have been nothing but trouble from the date of their coneption. I have not had contact with the New Black Panther Party, but I have some personal experiences with the original Black Panthers.


----------



## FeralFemale

Sonshine said:


> Where was this eye witness earlier?


He was interviewed the night of the incident by police. It's his existence that has just come to light, not his testimony.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> That's not describing the news articles I've been reading. The consensus is that Stand Your Ground doesn't apply to this case. I agree.


That's correct. The question left is was Zimmerman defending himself or did he shoot Martin when Martin was running away and no longer a danger to Zimmerman. If Zimmerman was on the ground with Martin on top of him as reported in some instances it may have been self defense.

The police would have obviously examined Martin's body. If he had been shot in the back, I would have expected the police to have arrested Zimmerman. If the bullet struck Martin from the front, as reported in some places, then self defense may have come into play. 

I don't believe standing your ground applies if you're lying on your back with an assailant on top of you as reported by one supposed witness.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's a "concensus" formed by those NOT THERE, who don't know the details, who don't understand the law, and who make up scenarios to fit their assumptions.
> 
> The police who DO know the facts say otherwise.




Even Zimmerman's lawyer says Stand Your Ground doesn't apply.

_SANFORD, Florida (CNN) â A lawyer for the man at the center of the Trayvon Martin death investigation said Floridaâs âstand your groundâ law doesnât apply to the shooting that killed the unarmed teen._
Zimmerman&#8217;s lawyer: &#8216;Stand your ground&#8217; doesn&#8217;t apply in Trayvon Martin case | WTVR.com


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> Neighborhood watch is voluntary in just about all areas. That is why it is called that, neighborhood. It is made up of people who live in the neighborhood. Members of neighborhood watch are a group of neighbors banding together to protect their neighborhood.
> 
> How worried could Martin have been if it wasn't important enough for him to hang up on his call?
> 
> *You keep forgetting Martin attacked Zimmerman while his back was turned. Martin was on top beating Zimmerman to a point that an eye witness thought he was dead*.
> When the eye witness said he was going to call 911 Martin ran.
> Why would he run if he wasn't the guilty party.
> 
> The 911 calls and eyewitness accounts are quite different than Martin's girl friend's account. According to 911 tapes, Zimmerman is the person calling for help.


At this point this is just here say.


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> You keep forgetting one very important thing.
> A black person is never guilty of racism. That is something only a white person, white males, are guilty of.


Nope, I disagree with that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Where was this eye witness earlier?


He was there the night of the shooting.
The police talked to him that night
He CALLED 911 and reported *seeing " a fight"*

Supporters hold vigil, march for Trayvon Martin after release... | www.wftv.com



> Minutes later, *the first eyewitness called 911 because he saw Zimmerman fighting with the teenager.* He said that he heard a loud sound.
> &#8220;They're wrestling right in the back of my porch. It was either a rock at the window or something. The guy's yelling help and I&#8217;m not going out,&#8221; the caller to 911 said.


The MEDIA is *pretending* he's "new"
Don't fall for the hype without LOOKING for the truth


----------



## Darren

Sonshine said:


> There were several witnesses that night that called 911. Where was this witness? Why didn't this witness do anything? We don't know if it was Zimmerman or Martin on the 911 tapes. To me it sounded like a young person. I don't know how big Martin was, but Zimmerman is not a small man. As for Martin going to the store in inclement weather, in Florida the weather changes at the drop of the hat. It may not have been showing any signs of rain when he left. He could easily have gotten confused about where he was going if he was running in fear from Zimmerman. I think the investigation should look at all parties involved, including the "eye witnesses". After all, I'm sure Zimmerman has friends in the neighborhood, since he's a resident. Martin was a visitor. Not saying the eye witness was not telling the truth, but it's something that should be looked into.


The bullet track in Martin's body and the absence or presence of traces of powder on his clothing will help explain what happened. 

Zimmerman's reported wounds including the supposed broken nose, and scrape on the back of his head and the supposedly reported grass stains on his clothing indicating he had been on the ground on his back may have also contributed to the decision to not arrest him.


----------



## InvalidID

Sonshine said:


> Nope, I disagree with that.


 Have you seen many black kids convicted of hate crimes lately? I posted the example of the girls on our mass transit system beating and robbing a white girl who got probation. There was video evidence and when arrested they openly admitted to 'Just wanting to beat a white girl'. All received probation and no felony charge? Why?


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> You keep forgetting Martin attacked Zimmerman while his back was turned.


I'm having a lot of trouble with that one. Nobody has offered a theory why Martin would have attacked Zimmerman that way. It make no sense at all.

More likely Zimmerman tried to detain Martin, but Martin would have no part of it. In that situation Martin would have been justified in resisting and a struggle would have followed. That theory is consistent with the evidence and makes a lot more sense.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Even Zimmerman's lawyer says Stand Your Ground doesn't apply.
> 
> _SANFORD, Florida (CNN) â A lawyer for the man at the center of the Trayvon Martin death investigation said Floridaâs âstand your groundâ law doesnât apply to the shooting that killed the unarmed teen._
> Zimmermanâs lawyer: âStand your groundâ doesnât apply in Trayvon Martin case | WTVR.com


Here's what he REALLY said:



> âIn my legal *opinion*, thatâs not really applicable to this case. The statute on âstand your groundâ is *primarily when youâre in your house*,â said Craig Sonner, attorney for George Zimmerman.
> 
> â*This is self-defense, and thatâs been around for forever â that you have a right to defend yourself.* So the next issue (that) is going to come up is, was he justified in using the amount of force he did?â


He gave an OPINION, which happens to be *mistaken*, but still maintains it was "self defense", and that "stand your ground" changes nothing

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine



> (3)&#8195;A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is *attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground* and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *How do we know* that Martin wasnt in the process of calling 911 and Zimmerman knocked the phone out of his hand, leading to the fight that apparently took place


Because he was talking to his girlfriend


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> He gave an OPINION, which happens to be *mistaken*, but still maintains it was "self defense", and that "stand your ground" changes nothinghttp://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html


He can still assert self-defense without Stand Your Ground.


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> At this point this is just here say.


If you will look at a transcript of the first 911 call you can see what is really happening.
The first 911 call is from Zimmerman calling and notifying the police there is a suspicious person there. When asked if the person is black Zimmerman says he doesn't know but the person is acting like he is doped up or something.
Zimmerman then says the suspicious person is coming up to check him out.
"He has something in his hand"
"I don't know what his deal is"
"Can we get an officer over here"

Zimmerman is going back to his SUV when he is attacked from behind.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> I'm having a lot of trouble with that one. Nobody has offered a theory why Martin would have attacked Zimmerman that way. It make no sense at all.
> 
> More likely Zimmerman tried to detain Martin, but Martin would have no part of it. In that situation Martin would have been justified in resisting and a struggle would have followed. That theory is consistent with the evidence and makes a lot more sense.


Martin was more than a little ----ed off. He had just been suspended from school for a week, no one knows what for, Mortin was shipped off to stay with his father and his father's girlfriend. If you want to look you can see how many hours he had been on the phone complaining to his girl friend.
When he saw the man watching him he told his girlfriend. She suggested running but Martin wasn't having any of that. He went up to Zimmerman and asked what he wanted. Zimmerman asked him what he was doing there. This is all in the police report and on the real 911 tapes.
Zimmerman turned to go back to his SUV and was attacked.
My guess, and it is a guess, is that Martin had enough and was looking for someone to take it out on.


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> Martin was more than a little ----ed off. He had just been suspended from school for a week, no one knows what for, Mortin was shipped off to stay with his father and his father's girlfriend. If you want to look you can see how many hours he had been on the phone complaining to his girl friend.
> When he saw the man watching him he told his girlfriend. She suggested running but Martin wasn't having any of that. He went up to Zimmerman and asked what he wanted. Zimmerman asked him what he was doing there. This is all in the police report and on the real 911 tapes.
> Zimmerman turned to go back to his SUV and was attacked.
> My guess, and it is a guess, is that Martin had enough and was looking for someone to take it out on.


Martin was suspended from school for tardiness.

You still didn't provide a motive for an attack. It's very hard for me to believe that Martin would have attacked an armed man who was bigger than him just because he was asked what he was doing there. I'm simply not buying it.


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> If you will look at a transcript of the first 911 call you can see what is really happening.
> The first 911 call is from Zimmerman calling and notifying the police there is a suspicious person there. When asked if the person is black Zimmerman says he doesn't know but the person is acting like he is doped up or something.
> Zimmerman then says the suspicious person is coming up to check him out.
> "He has something in his hand"
> "I don't know what his deal is"
> "Can we get an officer over here"
> 
> Zimmerman is going back to his SUV when he is attacked from behind.


I showed you the transcript. What you are saying is false. I'm wondering why.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> Martin was suspended from school for tardiness.
> 
> You still didn't provide a motive for an attack. It's very hard for me to believe that Martin would have attacked an armed man who was bigger than him just because he was asked what he was doing there. I'm simply not buying it.


You say he was suspended for tardiness. I have a hard time believing it and there isn't any record of it. We do kow he was suspended and tardiness isn't usually a week long suspension.
What makes you think Zimmerman was bigger than his. Martin was 6'2".
Martin did not know Zimmerman was armed.
Remember he attacked from the rear.
Martin was mad because he was sent to his fathers and separated from his girlfriend. Look at how long he was on the phone that day complaining about it.
Martin was mad and tried to take it out on an old man.
It didn't work.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> I showed you the transcript. What you are saying is false. I'm wondering why.


You showed a transcript.
Wonder where you got it?


----------



## FeralFemale

I'm not so sure I believe the 'tardiness' explanation. You don't get kicked out of school for 10 days because of tardiness. The school isn't confirming or denying the tardiness story.


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> You showed a transcript.
> Wonder where you got it?


I provided a link to the source. Do you have a link to the information saying that he didn't know if Martin was black?


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> Martin did not know Zimmerman was armed.
> Remember he attacked from the rear.


Wait a minute. I thought you said Zimmerman and Martin had a conversation before the attack, where Zimmerman asked Martin what he was doing there. Now you seem to be saying that Martin only saw Zimmerman from behind.


----------



## Nevada

FeralFemale said:


> I'm not so sure I believe the 'tardiness' explanation. You don't get kicked out of school for 10 days because of tardiness. The school isn't confirming or denying the tardiness story.


Not so. His English teacher has confirmed it.

_Trayvon was under a five-day suspension when he was shot that Sunday night, but Kypriss said it was due to tardiness and not misbehavior._ _"Trayvon was not a violent or dangerous child. He was not known for misbehaving," the teacher said. "He was suspended because he was late too many times."_
Trayvon Martin Shooting: Tensions rise in wake of Trayvon Martin shooting - Orlando Sentinel

I think we can do better at staying factual.


----------



## FeralFemale

Nevada said:


> Not so. His English teacher has confirmed it.
> 
> _Trayvon was under a five-day suspension when he was shot that Sunday night, but Kypriss said it was due to tardiness and not misbehavior._ _"Trayvon was not a violent or dangerous child. He was not known for misbehaving," the teacher said. "He was suspended because he was late too many times."_
> Trayvon Martin Shooting: Tensions rise in wake of Trayvon Martin shooting - Orlando Sentinel
> 
> I think we can do better at staying factual.


The *teacher* confirmed this and not the school. Since then his father has confirmed that he was on a 10 day suspension and it was not for tardiness.

NPR.org Â» Trayvon Martin Was 'Typical Teen,' George Zimmerman Is Hard To Categorize



> "[He] had nonviolent behavioral issues in school, and on the day he was killed, he had been suspended for 10 days from Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School in North Miami-Dade. 'He was not suspended for something dealing with violence or anything like that. It wasn't a crime he committed, but he was in an unauthorized area [on school property],' [his father] said, declining to offer more details.


Please do not condescend to me and wag your finger about 'staying factual'. You know me (my posts) well enough that I don't make things up and I don't state facts without having seen them on a real news page.


----------



## FeralFemale

I am not condemning anyone in this situation -- yet -- except the media that seem to be stoking a race war. The pics above show this. The first is one we are all familiar with, that angelic young face and the miserable mean man (in prison orange?) that shot him. However, people have been digging into his twitter and facebook profiles (that have since been deleted) and finding more recent pics, the bottom one. They've been finding even more interesting stuff about this kid, but I cannot confirm any of it yet.

Media manipulation in this case is just off the charts.


----------



## Nevada

FeralFemale said:


> I am not condemning anyone in this situation -- yet -- except the media that seem to be stoking a race war. The pics above show this. The first is one we are all familiar with, that angelic young face and the miserable mean man (in prison orange?) that shot him. However, people have been digging into his twitter and facebook profiles (that have since been deleted) and finding more recent pics, the bottom one. They've been finding even more interesting stuff about this kid, but I cannot confirm any of it yet.
> 
> Media manipulation in this case is just off the charts.


Are you suggesting that Martin had it coming, and that Zimmerman was the right person to give it to him? I'm not shaking my finger at you, I'm just wondering what I'm supposed to take away from that post.


----------



## FeralFemale

Nevada said:


> Are you suggesting that Martin had it coming, and that Zimmerman was the right person to give it to him? I'm not shaking my finger at you, I'm just wondering what I'm supposed to take away from that post.


What I meant was clearly stated, how dare you twist it into my saying Martin had it coming.


----------



## gapeach

*Media manipulation in this case is just off the charts. *

and the photoshopping of this picture is just so obvious.


----------



## FeralFemale

gapeach said:


> *Media manipulation in this case is just off the charts. *
> 
> and the photoshopping of this picture is just so obvious.


Yeah, the original, unenhanced photo is floating out there on the web. Basically they lightened up the pic and gave him a better complextion (I think he had some acne)

I don't think the media can be blamed for this one though. Here is the original at the Miami Herald

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/22/2708960/trayvon-martin-a-typical-teen.html


----------



## gapeach

I didn't see acne but maybe a stubble of facial hair. My grandsons sometimes don't want to shave everyday. They are 18 but look so much better when they do.
Definitely lightened by photoshop but whatever. Maybe they wanted the poster to look as good as possible.


----------



## ryanthomas

> Martin was mad and tried to take it out on an old man.


28 is old now?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> He can still assert self-defense without Stand Your Ground.


That's exactly what I said, and he's mistaken when he says "stand your ground" means "in your home"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I'm beginning to think that the *false information* being propagated here is *not by accident*. If you repeat false information enough times it becomes political fact. It's an ugly tactic.


That's why the media needs to stay out of it all, and people need to stop putting forth "theories"


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> I provided a link to the source. Do you have a link to the information saying that he didn't know if Martin was black?


Get a transcript of the first 911 call. Do your own work.
I don't care if you don't know what you are talking about.
Your problem.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I think we can do better at *staying factual*.


The stop relying on something someone *SAID.*



> I'm just wondering what I'm supposed to take away from that post.


 I took it to mean you're repeating *any media hype* that makes Martin look innocent, instead of "staying factual" as you say others should do


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> Wait a minute. I thought you said Zimmerman and Martin had a conversation before the attack, where Zimmerman asked Martin what he was doing there. Now you seem to be saying that Martin only saw Zimmerman from behind.


You keep missing the first 911 call.
You should get your facts straight.
Zimmerman made a 911 call to report a suspicious man in the area. At that time he was asked if the man was black. He didn't know.
During that call after he reported Martin he then said Martin was coming toward him with something in his hand. That was when he turned to go back to his SUV and was attacked from the rear.

If you will look for the actual 911 calls and stop depending on 2nd hand info you might see what really happened.


----------



## pancho

ryanthomas said:


> 28 is old now?


If Martin can be called a child Zimmerman has the same right to be called an old man. Maybe if the pics of Martin were recent it might be different. They show a child. He was not a child. The pics were from many years before.
They were specially picked to incite people.
Some people fall for it, some actually check the facts.


----------



## ryanthomas

> Some people fall for it, some actually check the facts.


And some people make up stories about what they think happened.


----------



## pancho

ryanthomas said:


> And some people make up stories about what they think happened.


I agree.
Sharpton and Jackson are well known for doing that.


----------



## ryanthomas

They're not the only ones.


----------



## watcher

TheMartianChick said:


> But what was the suspicious behavior? The boy was walking down the street talking on a cell phone. People do that every day. Was the wearing of a hoodie in Florida in February suspicious? I'm wearing a hoodie today...Should I be followed everywhere that I go?
> 
> Trayvon was 6'2" and 140lbs. He was a very skinny kid with a baby face.


So? Ever seen a pic of Ted Bundy?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> The problem with that is Trayvon Martin also had a right to life. Trayvon Martin can't have the benefit of the doubt at this point. He's dead.
> 
> Perhaps he's just the victim of a chain of unfortunate circumstances. If that's the case then it's up to us to change it somehow.
> 
> Zimmerman defenders need to be careful on this one. Defend the defensible, but defending the indefensible makes gun rights advocates appear unreasonable, and even irresponsible. The right to own a gun comes with an obligation of responsibility. When someone handles a gun irresponsibly then gun rights advocates should be the first to speak out. If they don't speak out against irresponsible use of guns then they appear on the whole as a group of people who can't be trusted with guns. That's a giant step backwards for gun rights.
> 
> Mark my words, if gun rights advocates continue to back Zimmerman there will be legislation to prevent this from happening again. That can mean nothing other than loss of gun rights.


I don't know who is backing Zimmerman. All I have seen are people who are defending letting the system work and not lynching the guy.

Until there are more facts known anyone defending either side is foolish.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> I'm curious where you got the information that Martin attacked Zimmerman. I'm not sure we can take Zimmerman at his word. It just doesn't make sense to me that Martin would have attacked Zimmerman.


Why not? As of right now it seems all the evidence is supporting the rest of what he said. Its my understanding the police report says he had injuries to his face and back of the head (you don't usually get hit on the back of the head if you are the aggressor), his back was wet and had had grass stains on it (not something that happens when you shoot someone while standing) and there is at one witness which has stated he reported to the police he saw the shooter on the ground UNDER the shootee being pummeled and yelling for help. Can you show ANY evidence to give you any reason to not believe this part of his statement?


----------



## watcher

Allen W said:


> Zimmerman confronted the young man after being advised not to by the dispatcher, no body was in any danger until Zimmerman confronted the young man. Why any kind of stand your ground law should apply in this case is beyond me.


It doesn't and either side which tries to say so is being stupid.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Why not? As of right now it seems all the evidence is supporting the rest of what he said. Its my understanding the police report says he had injuries to his face and back of the head (you don't usually get hit on the back of the head if you are the aggressor), his back was wet and had had grass stains on it (not something that happens when you shoot someone while standing) and there is at one witness which has stated he reported to the police he saw the shooter on the ground UNDER the shootee being pummeled and yelling for help. Can you show ANY evidence to give you any reason to not believe this part of his statement?


Could it have happened the way I suggest? I'm thinking that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin, but Martin resisted.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Regardless of whether the gun jammed, Zimmerman has admitted shooting Martin with that gun. Nobody disputes that.


The weapon jamming could be a very big piece of evidence. One problem with semi autos is when you get into a furball (close contact alteration) and have to fire there is not enough room for the action to fully cycle. If the wound shows it was a contact or near contact shot and the weapon was jammed that is fairly good evidence the show was fired during a struggle.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> He still deserves a proper investigation and a trial.


As more and more FACTS are coming out it looks as though the investigation was just fine. Also why does he "deserve" a trial when no one, other than the uninformed and racial pimps are sure a crime was committed?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Discussing the facts of the case and drawing conclusions is not mob rule, it's freedom of speech. What we discuss has nothing to do with what evidence will be evaluated and presented in court.


The mob rule is in the fact that the police did an investigation and the mob rule is when a segment of the public spread false info and politicians step in and use the situation for political gain by demanding some sort of charges be filed.


----------



## watcher

TheMartianChick said:


> The police said that they werent going to do anymore investigating because Zimmerman stated that he was standing his ground and they could find no evidence to contradict that. Zimmerman and the police department are the ones that introduced Stand Your Ground into this.


More proof you should never take legal advice from a cop.


----------



## Mike in Ohio

watcher said:


> Why not? As of right now it seems all the evidence is supporting the rest of what he said. Its my understanding the police report says he had injuries to his face and back of the head (you don't usually get hit on the back of the head if you are the aggressor), his back was wet and had had grass stains on it (not something that happens when you shoot someone while standing) and there is at one witness which has stated he reported to the police he saw the shooter on the ground UNDER the shootee being pummeled and yelling for help. Can you show ANY evidence to give you any reason to not believe this part of his statement?


Yes, 2 women who live right where the shooting occurred that stated on a news program this evening that they saw Zimmerman on top of Martin straddling him. 

The question for me isn't whether Zimmerman is guilty or not - that is for a court of law - but the fact that there is enough information available to raise questions as to whether a more thorough investigation should have been done rather than simply accepting Zimmermans assertion that he was defending himself.


----------



## Nevada

I used to live a few miles north of Sanford. I'm not terribly surprised at the apparent attitude of the police down there.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Zimmerman defenders need to be careful on this one. Defend the defensible, but defending the indefensible makes gun rights advocates appear unreasonable, and even irresponsible. The right to own a gun comes with an obligation of responsibility. When someone handles a gun irresponsibly then gun rights advocates should be the first to speak out. If they don't speak out against irresponsible use of guns then they appear on the whole as a group of people who can't be trusted with guns. That's a giant step backwards for gun rights.
> 
> Mark my words, if gun rights advocates continue to back Zimmerman there will be legislation to prevent this from happening again. That can mean nothing other than loss of gun rights.


There you go turning it into a* political agenda.*


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Could it have happened the way I suggest? *I'm thinking* that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin, but Martin resisted


You're not "thinking"
You're *speculating,* with no basis in fact


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by *Nevada*
> _He still deserves a proper investigation *and a trial.*_


By that statement, you're showing you already ASSUME he has committed a crime.
That is exactly why the* uninformed* public needs to just *stay out of it*


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> There you go turning it into a* political agenda.*


Trayvon's Law. Has a nice ring to it, don't you think?


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> Could it have happened the way I suggest? I'm thinking that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin, but Martin resisted.


Have you ever thought about looking at the evidence instead of making up things?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Mike in Ohio said:


> Yes, 2 women who live right where the shooting occurred that stated on a news program this evening that they *saw Zimmerman on top of Martin straddling him. *
> 
> The question for me isn't whether Zimmerman is guilty or not - that is for a court of law - but the fact that there is enough information available to *raise questions as to whether a more thorough investigation should have been done *rather than *simply accepting Zimmermans assertion* that he was defending himself.


That was AFTER the shot was fired, not while they were still fighting

No one KNOWS how much "investigating" was/is being done, because the media has spread so many *LIES* about it 

They did NOT just "accept Zimmerman's assertion"
There were eyewitnesses and forensic evidence.

Everyone is now using it to promote their agendas and not allowing the process to work. They will distort reality as much as they can to evoke sympathy.

Ask youself why the media hasn't shown this picture if they are "fair and unbiased":










http://sadhillnews.com/wp-content/u...eorge-zimmerman-photo-bias-sad-hill-news2.jpg


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> Have you ever thought about looking at the evidence instead of making up things?


The problem is that the evidence fits both theories.


----------



## pancho

Bearfootfarm said:


> That was AFTER the shot was fired, not while they were still fighting
> 
> No one KNOWS how much "investigating" was/is being done, because the media has spread so many *LIES* about it
> 
> They did NOT just "accept Zimmerman's assertion"
> There were eyewitnesses and forensic evidence.
> 
> Everyone is now using it to promote their agendas and not allowing the process to work. They will distort reality as much as they can to evoke sympathy.
> 
> Ask youself why the media hasn't shown this picture if they are "fair and unbiased":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://sadhillnews.com/wp-content/u...eorge-zimmerman-photo-bias-sad-hill-news2.jpg


Wonder why they didn't use that pic?
It is much closer to his true age.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> The problem is that the evidence fits both theories.


Yes, especially if you take out the original 911 call, the eye witness, the real evidence, the 2nd 911 call, the injuries, and replace them with hype by the media whores.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> The problem is that the* evidence* fits both *theories*.


 
1 You don't KNOW all the evidence
2 Stop *inventing* theories


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> Yes, especially if you take out the original 911 call, the eye witness, the real evidence, the 2nd 911 call, the injuries, and replace them with hype by the media whores.


The only point in question is how the scuffle started. Zimmerman claims that Martin attacked him for no reason, while I believe Zimmerman tried to detain Martin but Martin resisted. We are left to judge which is the most logical.


----------



## big rockpile

Thing is if I see someone around that looks out of place and is acting like a Punk.Ask him or her what their up to,they jump me they are getting shot or at least an A Whooping I don't care if their Black,White or Pea Green.

Hit two kids with Pickup one time trying to cause stuff,Sheriff told me next time don't just play with them.

There was an investigation the Guy was cleared if it was a White Boy that is far as it would have went. :shrug:

big rockpile


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> The only point in question is how the scuffle started. Zimmerman claims that Martin attacked him for no reason, while I believe Zimmerman tried to detain Martin but Martin resisted. We are left to judge which is the most logical.


It may be a question to you but you refuse to look at the real 911 calls and the real evidence.
Anyone who has looked at the real 911 calls and looked at the real evidence can see how it happened.
It would be a lot easier to understand if you didn't take rumors and hype as facts.


----------



## Nevada

big rockpile said:


> Thing is if I see someone around that looks out of place and is acting like a Punk.Ask him or her what their up to,they jump me they are getting shot or at least an A Whooping I don't care if their Black,White or Pea Green.


Since they always get away, wouldn't you try to detain him for the police?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Trayvon's Law. Has a nice ring to it, don't you think?


I can't say what I think


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *We* are left to judge which is *the most logical*.


The most logical is* stop judging* when *you don't know* what happened at all


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trayvon's Law. Has a nice ring to it, don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> I can't say what I think
Click to expand...

You know it's coming. Either there's some accountability for this shooting or there will be a loss of gun rights. People will logically conclude that if there is no law that remedies this shooting that we'll need a new law to protect unarmed 17 year-old kids. That's the way it always works, since it's just this sort of thing that gun laws evolve from.


----------



## ryanthomas

pancho said:


> Have you ever thought about looking at the evidence instead of making up things?


You made up your own story too.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> . Either there's some accountability for this shooting or there will be a loss of gun rights. *People will logically conclude that if there is no law that remedies this shooting that we'll need a new law* to protect unarmed 17 year-old kids. That's the way it always works, since it's just this sort of thing that gun laws evolve from.


There is NO logic there at all
It's emotional rhetoric, and you know it


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is NO logic there at all
> It's emotional rhetoric, and you know it


Mark my words, there will either be accountability for this shooting or there will be resulting gun legislation.

The logic is in the importance of protecting unarmed 17 year-old kids. People see importance to gun rights, but protecting the innocent is also important. If there is no accountability for this shooting, the public will expect legislation. Like I said, Trayvon's Law.


----------



## Darren

Perhaps it might shine some light on the issue if we knew why Trayvon was suspended for ten days from school. Was he a gangsta wannabe? Did he take a swing at a bus driver?

Was Trayvon Martin a Drug Dealer?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Mark my words, there will either be accountability for this shooting or there will be resulting gun legislation.


You've tried and convicted him already
Obviously finding the truth has no meaning to you



> but *protecting the innocent* is also important


You are contradiciting yourself now


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> You've tried and convicted him already
> Obviously finding the truth has no meaning to you


I haven't tried and convicted anyone. I'm just telling you how it's going to be. You don't have to like it, but you have to accept it.

Regardless of whether this goes down as a "good" shooting or not, Trayvod's family has suffered a terrible loss. Other families will empathize, then wonder how they can keep the same thing from happening to their own kids. Considering legislation to prevent this from happening again will be a natural result.

There's only one way to avoid new legislation, and that's to convince the public that satisfactory legislation already exists. The public probably won't have that impression if there is no accountability.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I haven't tried and convicted anyone.


Sure you have, and you keep proving it



> There's only one way to avoid new legislation, and that's to convince the public that satisfactory legislation already exists. The public probably won't have that impression *if there is no accountability*.


"The public" will never be "satisfied" since it's a fantasy construct that means something different to everyone


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> I haven't tried and convicted anyone. I'm just telling you how it's going to be. You don't have to like it, but you have to accept it.
> 
> Regardless of whether this goes down as a "good" shooting or not, Trayvod's family has suffered a terrible loss. Other families will empathize, then wonder how they can keep the same thing from happening to their own kids. Considering legislation to prevent this from happening again will be a natural result.
> 
> There's only one way to avoid new legislation, and that's to convince the public that satisfactory legislation already exists. The public probably won't have that impression if there is no accountability.


I doubt you're going to see any change in the momentum in the move to more self defense laws. Concealed carry has been spreading as is reciprocity between states. Some states are considering no licensing requirement for anyone who meets certain qualifications to carry concealed.

My initial impression is that Trayvon may have been trying to adopt the gangsta personna as a means of either impressing or fitting in with his peers. His short trip down that road did not end in prison. Unfortunately he met his end in an incident that lasted minutes.

The young never have a sense of mortality. For them there is always a tomorrow. Sadly, Trayvon ran out of tomorrows at a very young age.

While the media appears to be trying to portray him as a martyr to gun violence by a racist, the truth may be the much more common saga of black youth betrayed by a culture that celebrates violence in song and speech.


----------



## Txsteader

Nevada said:


> You know it's coming. Either there's some accountability for this shooting or there will be a loss of gun rights. People will logically conclude that if there is no law that remedies this shooting that we'll need a new law to protect unarmed 17 year-old kids. That's the way it always works, since it's just this sort of thing that gun laws evolve from.


And what if the evidence proves beyond doubt that Martin was in the wrong?


----------



## Wanderer0101

Nevada said:


> Trayvon's Law. Has a nice ring to it, don't you think?


Better known as the Criminal Empowerment Act.


----------



## Sonshine

Txsteader said:


> And what if the evidence proves beyond doubt that Martin was in the wrong?


I don't know about others, but all I want is the truth and I believe the only way to find it is through the court system.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> The problem is that the evidence fits both theories.


If you leave out the parts that do not agree with what you want.
The thing is you should look at all of the evidence, not just the part that makes you happy.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> You know it's coming. Either there's some accountability for this shooting or there will be a loss of gun rights. People will logically conclude that if there is no law that remedies this shooting that we'll need a new law to protect unarmed 17 year-old kids. That's the way it always works, since it's just this sort of thing that gun laws evolve from.


Are you willing to sacrifice what might be an innocent man or a victim just for a law with a certain name?

How exactly can a person tell the age of a 6'2" person trying to hide their identity with a hoodie?


----------



## pancho

ryanthomas said:


> You made up your own story too.


I typed in a question.
"Was Martin shot in the front or back" and hit the enter button.
I got a long list of different sites. One by one I went through them looking for an answer to my question. I finally found it. The web site had a transcript of the original 911 call, the physical evidence gathered, and eye witness accounts.

Try it sometimes. You can get the real story and not have to depend on the one put out by people who have an agenda.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> I haven't tried and convicted anyone. I'm just telling you how it's going to be. You don't have to like it, but you have to accept it.
> 
> Regardless of whether this goes down as a "good" shooting or not, Trayvod's family has suffered a terrible loss. Other families will empathize, then wonder how they can keep the same thing from happening to their own kids. Considering legislation to prevent this from happening again will be a natural result.
> 
> There's only one way to avoid new legislation, and that's to convince the public that satisfactory legislation already exists. The public probably won't have that impression if there is no accountability.


One way families might keep their kids from getting into the same type of problems is
1. Keeping their kids in school.
2. Protect their kids from drug users and keep them off drugs.
3. Teach their kids respect.
4. Don't let their kids turn into ganstas.
5. Give their kids someone to look up to.
6. Provide a safe home for their kids,

This won't happen as the parents will have to take responsibility for their kids.
Many find it a lot easier to let others take care of their kids including providing food and shelter. Many choose to defend their kids when the kids are breaking the law.
Besides there is always money to be made by letting the govt raise your kids.
Then if something happens to them you can always sue.


----------



## Txsteader

Sonshine said:


> I don't know about others, but all I want is the truth and I believe the only way to find it is through the court system.


I agree. If the evidence proves that Zimmerman's actions were wrong, then he should be charged. What bothers me is that people are *demanding* he be arrested and charged _in spite of_ evidence that (thus far) shows he acted in self-defense. To me, that is lynch mob mentality based on race and it's becoming extreme.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> Mark my words, there will either be accountability for this shooting or there will be resulting gun legislation.
> 
> The logic is in the importance of protecting unarmed 17 year-old kids. People see importance to gun rights, but protecting the innocent is also important. If there is no accountability for this shooting, the public will expect legislation. Like I said, Trayvon's Law.


Nevada, the kid may have been the victim of an attitude that he adopted for his own personna. 

If that's the case you're up against the first amendment. Have you listened to some of the rap lyrics? Kids at that age aren't listening to big band sounds. They're listening to a music genre that's carries a message of violence, sex and other things that unfortunately find a ready audience with the young.

Kids at that age desperately want to belong. The other pictures that the media have not chosen show a different picture of Trayvon than the squeeky clean kid initially presented. My guess is that Trayvon was basically a good kid that was lead into something by a life style he looked up to.

You want to look at the second amendment when it's the first amendment that probably allowed the messages that got his attention. They say the pen is mightier than the sword. In that encounter the sword trumped the pen. The pen being the message that Trayvon listen to as he grew up.

Given the police report and as long as the autopsy supports Zimmerman's account of the encounter, I doubt the grand jury is going to indict him. Zimmerman was handcuffed at the scene, taken in by the police, questioned by an investigator, and then released without bail. He never went before a judge. I don't believe he would have been released if the initial evidence indicated a wrongful death.

Instead of talking about those scary guns we should be discussing the chain of circumstances that over time setup the situation that resulted in Trayvon's death. We have produced generations that have the same attitudes that Trayvon seems to have adopted.


----------



## Nevada

Txsteader said:


> And what if the evidence proves beyond doubt that Martin was in the wrong?


As long as the public believes it.


----------



## ryanthomas

pancho said:


> I typed in a question.
> "Was Martin shot in the front or back" and hit the enter button.
> I got a long list of different sites. One by one I went through them looking for an answer to my question. I finally found it. The web site had a transcript of the original 911 call, the physical evidence gathered, and eye witness accounts.
> 
> Try it sometimes. You can get the real story and not have to depend on the one put out by people who have an agenda.


I did my own research, too. What I didn't do was make up a story to go with the limited information available, like both you and Nevada did.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> As long as the public believes it.


As it is now, only a small vocal racist part of the public don't believe it.
They will never be satisfied until Zimmerman is in jail or dead. It doesn't matter who was at fault, what the law said, or what the evidence proves.
It alos don't matter what laws they have to break either.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> As long as the public believes it.


Some people have a problem believing facts when they've had every opportunity to enlighten themselves on other topics on this board. *There are more examples of prejudice on this board than I have time to count.* I'll bet that statement has hackles rising all over this country by some that read that.

The more critical thinkers here will wonder why that statement was made. It's simple. Mention prejudice and most will immediately think of either race or possibly gender. That type of prejudice is a very minor subset. The very word prejudice carries a very negative connotation when in our early history it ensured our survival as a species.

*Every person alive on the face of the Earth is prejudiced.* It's a basic fact of human nature. What is prejudice?

*Prejudice is making a decision without considering all of the underlying facts and circumstances.* Many of the acts we perform everyday from getting into and starting a car to doing any of the myriad tasks we accomplish are conducted with prejudice. We simply don't think about them. We just act. We can't devote that much mental effort to rethinking everything we do every day. We're on automatic much of our lives. Once we've learned a sequence that gets the task done, we don't go back and rethink all of the steps every time we do the same thing in the future. Our minds don't work that way.

Let's go back to Trayvon and Zimmerman. We have a media that is so PC, they've lost their impartiality. More than ever the media is not a reliable source of information. Add the quasi-celebrity status of certain individuals and they automatically get media attention when they open their mouths whether it's an actor, politician or someone like Al Sharpton.

Most folks confuse celebrity with expertise. That is why celebrity endorsements work. That's prejudice working again. Since that guy or woman is famous and/or rich they're smarter than me. I'll buy that product. Anyone who's studied marketing understands that hook.

Trayvon was a victim. While the media tries to place the responsibility on Zimmerman, it is much more complicated. It was the culture that Trayvon accepted without thinking that was partially responsible for his death. Trayvon's prejudice meaning lack of critical thinking got him killed. For his prejudice I blame the educational system and his parents. Trayvon was a victim of many things, not Zimmerman who the media is trying to convict.

Trayvon Martin: George Zimmerman's account to police of the Trayvon Martin shooting. - South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

"In his version of events, he had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind, the two exchanged words then Trayvon punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground, and began beating him."

"Trayvon was visiting his father's fiancÃ©e, who lived there. He had been suspended from school in Miami after being found with an empty marijuana baggie. Miami schools have a zero-tolerance policy for drug possession."


----------



## Nevada

The new witness that's come forward heard cries from what she believes was a young person, which ended abruptly when she heard the gunshot.

[ame=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/46853931#46853931]msnbc.com Video Player[/ame]


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> The new witness that's come forward heard cries *from what she believes* was a young person, which ended abruptly when she heard the gunshot.
> 
> msnbc.com Video Player


What she "*believes*" is not "evidence"

What an EYEWITNESS *saw and heard* contradicts her

Some "believe" there were 2 shots on some of the audio tapes but there is no EVIDENCE of that either


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> What she "*believes*" is not "evidence"
> 
> What an EYEWITNESS *saw and heard* contradicts her
> 
> Some "believe" there were 2 shots on some of the audio tapes but there is no EVIDENCE of that either


Now you're picking and choosing which evidence to believe.


----------



## snake35

Orlando will burn by the weekend. Get out now!


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Now you're picking and choosing which evidence to believe.


Yes, I "choose" to believe that of one who both SAW *AND* HEARD.

Her "belief" is NOT evidence

It's what she THINKS she heard, never having heard the voice of either person involved


YOU "choose" to believe it because you are convinced Zimmerman is guilty of a crime and NEEDS to be punished to sooth "the public"


----------



## watcher

Just hear a report the "kid" was kicked out of school because he was caught with a bag with marijuana "residue" on him.


----------



## Pearl B

If a link like this would have been posted at the beginning of this thread it would have affected the way I view this.

Trayvon Martin: George Zimmerman's account to police of the Trayvon Martin shooting. - South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com


With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk several times, leaving him bloody and battered, authorities have revealed to the Orlando Sentinel.

That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say.

Zimmerman has not spoken publicly about what happened, but that night, Feb. 26, and in later meetings he described and re-enacted for police what he says happened.

In his version of events, he had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind, the two exchanged words then Trayvon punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground, and began beating him.


----------



## Nevada

Pearl B. said:


> If a link like this would have been posted at the beginning of this thread it would have affected the way I view this.
> 
> Trayvon Martin: George Zimmerman's account to police of the Trayvon Martin shooting. - South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com
> 
> 
> With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk several times, leaving him bloody and battered, authorities have revealed to the Orlando Sentinel.
> 
> That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say.
> 
> Zimmerman has not spoken publicly about what happened, but that night, Feb. 26, and in later meetings he described and re-enacted for police what he says happened.
> 
> In his version of events, he had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind, the two exchanged words then Trayvon punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground, and began beating him.


Why is this news? Isn't this what the police have been saying all along?


----------



## Pearl B

Most of the news I have seen on it,


> he had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind, the two exchanged words then Trayvon punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground, and began beating him.


 havent covered that. Then I dont spend much time watching cnn or fox.
Most of what I have seen just covered the shooting part.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> Why is this news? Isn't this what the police have been saying all along?


That was what the police said the evidence showed from the beginning.
You along with a few others wouldn't accept that as it didn't further their needs and wants.
What else would you want the law to do/
Would sending an innocent man an victim to prison be good enough for you?

What happened to your tardiness thing?

You should get your info from more credible sources.

Many of the people posting on this thread didn't take the time to read anything other than the ramblings of a few racists.

If they would have taken the time to do a simple search they could have read the real report. To bad they were more interested in causing as much racial problems as they could.


----------



## Pearl B

I didnt see that many credible links posted till the last couple of days.

ETA, even the links I found were pretty much just hearsay.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *Why is this news?* Isn't this what the police have been saying all along?


Yes, other than adding more details.

Why are all the THEORIES considered "news" when they ignore the facts?



> Lawyers for Trayvon's family say it was Trayvon, but police say their evidence indicates it was Zimmerman.
> 
> One witnesses, who has since talked to local television news reporters, told police he saw Zimmerman on the ground with Trayvon on top, pounding him and was *unequivocal that it was Zimmerman who was crying for help.*
> Zimmerman then shot Trayvon once in the chest from very close range, according to authorities.
> When *police arrived less than two minutes later*, Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose, had a swollen lip and had bloody lacerations to the back of his head.


It's also "news" because it reveals Tryavon's parents LIED as to his suspension:



> He had been suspended from school in Miami after being found with an empty marijuana baggie. Miami schools have a zero-tolerance policy for drug possession.





> Martin family lawyer Benjamin Crump began the press conference by addressing the marijuana report.
> 
> "*The family has said*, 'what does that have to do with him (Zimmerman) killing my son? *What does it matter?*'" Crump said. "It's completely irrelevant what Trayvon Martin was suspended for on Feb. 26."
> Trayvon's father, Tracy Martin, said "even in death, they are still *disrespecting my son* and I feel that that's a sin."


No denial, no facts to refute the claim
Suddenly the *TRUTH* doesn't matter to them at all.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Mike in Ohio said:


> Aha.... Invoking the "Were you there" in bold attack! If you wish to invoke that then nobody should comment or express an opinion on anything where they do not have direct personal knowledge of the event.
> 
> Why engage in a conversation at all if that's what you believe? WHY ARE YOU HERE? General Chat should just be shut down.
> 
> Or perhaps what you mean is that only Bearfootfarm should get to express an opinion?
> 
> Just to help you out, take a look at wikipedia... Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I know you will be dismissive but *I would point you to the footnotes*.
> 
> Have a wonderful day!


There are LOTS of footnotes.
There is also lots of proof the police DID in fact do a good investigation, and the FACTS back Zimmerman.

I don't see them backing any of the claims you made, so you will have to do better than showing an entire page and making me guess which part you think supports them


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> If it turns out that *Zimmerman is charged*, tried, and convicted will you go along with it then? Or will you say he was railroaded by a liberal media?


 
If it turns out he's NOT charged, will you accept that, now that more details seem to indicate he's telling the truth?

Or will you keep calling for "accountability"?


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> If it turns out he's NOT charged, will you accept that, now that more details seem to indicate he's telling the truth?
> 
> Or will you keep calling for "accountability"?


No, I'll accept it. But as I also said, there will be gun legislation of Zimmerman isn't charged.


----------



## Pearl B

I would like to see the official police report released. I would also like to see all the 911 calls released. If evidence and witnesses keep coming out to support Zimmerman I will accept that too.



> He had been suspended from school in Miami after being found with an empty marijuana baggie. Miami schools have a zero-tolerance policy for drug possession.


I wish the media would have reported that as well. He may well have been a dealer and Zimmerman suspected it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> No, I'll accept it. But as I also said, there will be gun legislation of Zimmerman isn't charged.


 
Why should there be?

No gun laws were broken, and statistics show allowing concealed weapons REDUCES crime. Florida was one of the first states in the country to allow it, and there have been very few problems, and FAR less crime

Why do you think a knee jerk reaction is appropriate?
Why is it alright to politicize this event just so a few can push an agenda?

Why do you keep insisting he has to be "charged" when the evidence is showing he did NOTHING wrong?


----------



## Darren

Pearl B. said:


> I would like to see the official police report released. I would also like to see all the 911 calls released. If evidence and witnesses keep coming out to support Zimmerman I will accept that too.
> 
> I wish the media would have reported that as well. He may well have been a dealer and Zimmerman suspected it.


The police report has beem available on the town website since at least sometime this weekend. People have also commented after hearing the 911 tape.

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin Lakes Shooting Initial Report.pdf


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> No, I'll accept it. But as I also said, there will be gun legislation of Zimmerman isn't charged.


Thanks Nevada.
You may be right about the gun legislation though.


----------



## pancho

Pearl B. said:


> I would like to see the official police report released. I would also like to see all the 911 calls released. If evidence and witnesses keep coming out to support Zimmerman I will accept that too.
> 
> I wish the media would have reported that as well. He may well have been a dealer and Zimmerman suspected it.


Anyone who has ever been to school or had kids in school should have know that he would not have been suspended for that long for tardiness.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Anyone who has ever been to school or had kids in school should have know that he would not have been suspended for that long for tardiness


It's also true that since he was a "juvenile" any* criminal* records would be sealed.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why should there be?
> 
> No gun laws were broken, and statistics show allowing concealed weapons REDUCES crime. Florida was one of the first states in the country to allow it, and there have been very few problems, and FAR less crime
> 
> Why do you think a knee jerk reaction is appropriate?
> Why is it alright to politicize this event just so a few can push an agenda?
> 
> Why do you keep insisting he has to be "charged" when the evidence is showing he did NOTHING wrong?


It's about a balance between gun owners' rights and the rights of unarmed people. If the public believes that balance has shifted in favor of gun owners to the point where there's a safety problem, you can expect legislation.


----------



## Pearl B

pancho said:


> Anyone who has ever been to school or had kids in school should have know that he would not have been suspended for that long for tardiness.


I dont have kids and its been a long time since Ive been to school. I dont know what they do these days.


----------



## pancho

Pearl B. said:


> I dont have kids and its been a long time since Ive been to school. I dont know what they do these days.


I don't have kids either and it has been a very long time since I was in school but just common sense will tell you that there wouldn't be that kind of suspension for tardiness. If they would have said he had to stay late after class for tardiness I might have believed it. 
Where I live a suspension that long is reserved for those kids who bring weapons to school.


----------



## Hollowdweller

Very strange case. If what we know is mostly true then the dude with the gun messed up going after the guy. If the young kid actually jumped him and he acted in self defense then he REALLY messed up attacking a guy who had a gun on him.

FINALLY if the kids girlfriend is to be believed that he called her and was scared because some strange guy was following him then the shooter also made the mistake of not identifying himself as a neighborhood watch guy.

But to me sounds like the shooter will walk right now.


----------



## pancho

Hollowdweller said:


> Very strange case. If what we know is mostly true then the dude with the gun messed up going after the guy. If the young kid actually jumped him and he acted in self defense then he REALLY messed up attacking a guy who had a gun on him.
> 
> FINALLY if the kids girlfriend is to be believed that he called her and was scared because some strange guy was following him then the shooter also made the mistake of not identifying himself as a neighborhood watch guy.
> 
> But to me sounds like the shooter will walk right now.


You are still using the story put out by those who had a reason to put out a false story.

Zimmerman was head of the neighborhood watch. It was his job to be on the lookout for suspicious people. Zimmerman asked a simple question, "What are you doing around here". The neighborhood had recently had a batch of crimes and home breakins. Two black men had recently been arrested for some of the recent crimes.

He did call his girlfriend, spent hours on the phone with her that same day.
She advised him to run but he said he wasn't going to. He was young and dumb. He had been able to get away with what ever he wanted to do and say no reason to change.

Not a very strange case at all. A simple one.
A man trying to protect his neighborhood and attacked by a wannabe gansta.


----------



## watcher

Pearl B. said:


> I didnt see that many credible links posted till the last couple of days.
> 
> ETA, even the links I found were pretty much just hearsay.


Google and google news are your friends. There's tons of stuff out there and sifting through it will give you the facts. Such as the fact the kid was NOT expelled from school for playing hooky but for drugs. The fact the shooter had all the physical evidence of being beaten. The fact the shooter was "detained and questioned" for, IIRC, 5 hours the night of the shooting.

The problem is people don't like boring facts as much as they like inflammatory lies. IOW, "Man shoots and kills attacker" doesn't get as many people watching your TV show or buying as many papers as "Racist kills unarmed black child!"

Read this and think about what I said:

A man from Boston was visiting family in Atlanta, GA.

One day he decided to take a walk around the area where his relatives lived to to check out their fine, comfortable Southern way of life - something he was not accustomed to, being from Boston.

While walking he came upon a pit bull attacking a small child. His instincts immediately took over, and he ran to the child's aid. He grabbed the dog, pulled it from the child, and choked the dog until it was dead.

He stood there with the dead animal laying at his feet, a man came running over from the other side of the street. He announced that he was the star reporter for the Atlanta newspaper, and he would make the rescuer famous, the headlines would proclaim.

"ATLANTA MAN SAVES CHILD FROM GRUESOME DEATH,"

The would-be savior explained that would be great, but he was Atlanta.

So the news paper man "Well that's ok. How about this: SOUTHERN GENTLEMAN RISK LIFE TO SAVE CHILD."

The guy told the reporter that he wasn't from the south but was from Boston. The reporter looked at him strangely and left.

The next day when the paper came out the headlines of the paper read:

"YANKEE IDIOT KILLS FAMILY PET."


----------



## Txsteader

Nevada said:


> It's about a balance between gun owners' rights and the rights of unarmed people.


You're kidding, right????

Surely you're not claiming that an unarmed person can't pose a risk to another individual's life simply due to the fact that they're "unarmed". 

Please tell me you're not saying that.


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> Zimmerman was head of the neighborhood watch. It was his job to be on the lookout for suspicious people. Zimmerman asked a simple question, "What are you doing around here". The neighborhood had recently had a batch of crimes and home breakins. Two black men had recently been arrested for some of the recent crimes.


Where did you get the idea that being a member of neighborhood watch vested Zimmernam with authority?


----------



## Pearl B

pancho said:


> I don't have kids either and it has been a very long time since I was in school but just common sense will tell you that there wouldn't be that kind of suspension for tardiness. If they would have said he had to stay late after class for tardiness I might have believed it.
> Where I live a suspension that long is reserved for those kids who bring weapons to school.


When I went to school kids were suspended for rational reasons too.
It doesnt take a lot of common sense to know things have changed quite a bit since then.





> On Wednesday, a group of high school athletes at a Long Island school were suspended for staging a spontaneous bout of Tebowing in their high school's hallway.


N.Y. teens suspended for Tebowing in school hallway - Prep Rally - High School-Blog - Yahoo! Sports



> A Gastonia mother says her son was suspended for calling a teacher âcute.â
> 
> Chiquita Lockett said her 9-year-old son, Emanyea, spent the last two days at home.


Student suspended for saying teacher was âcuteâ Â« Hot Air



> Two Brevard County middle school students received a day long, in-school suspension last week after the principal saw them hugging.


Two Florida Middle School Students Suspended For A Hug | StateImpact Florida



> Second-grader suspended and forced into counseling for drawing Jesus Christ on the cross!


Change of Subject: The `student suspended for drawing crucifix' story was too outrageous to be true.



> Seven-year-old Kyle Walker's mom told an The Press newspaper of Atlantic City that her son was suspended for violating the district's zero-tolerance policy on guns. She said her son told her he'd drawn a water pistol.


Boy suspended for stick-figure drawing - US news - Education - msnbc.com


----------



## Pearl B

Nevada said:


> Where did you get the idea that being a member of neighborhood watch vested Zimmernam with authority?


It doesnt, and if he hadnt gotten out of his vehicle and confronted the kid, like one of the 911 operators told him, this might not have happened at all


----------



## Nevada

Txsteader said:


> You're kidding, right????
> 
> Surely you're not claiming that an unarmed person can't pose a risk to another individual's life simply due to the fact that they're "unarmed".
> 
> Please tell me you're not saying that.


Like or don't, a CNN poll shows that nearly 75% of Americans believe that Zimmerman should be charged. If he is not, those same Americans will be left with the impression that unarmed people are at risk of being shot; thereby silencing the victim and allowing the shooter to tell only his version of the story.

People are going to want some assurance that the same thing that happened to Martin won't happen to their own kids. I suspect that will take the form of regulating gun rights more closely.

People are looking at this incident as being too easy for the shooter. Expect it to get more difficult in the future.


----------



## haypoint

Please stop inflating the value of the life of one black teenager over the life of another black teenager, based only on the color of the shooter. Last month, two black women were abducted in front of their Hamtramck home, shoved into the trunk of a car. Today, they found their bodies in shallow graves. Where are the Black Panthers on this crime? Where are Jessie, Al and Barack? Is it only an injustice when a white man kills?


----------



## haypoint

Nevada said:


> Like or don't, a CNN poll shows that nearly 75% of Americans believe that Zimmerman should be charged. If he is not, those same Americans will be left with the impression that unarmed people are at risk of being shot; thereby silencing the victim and allowing the shooter to tell only his version of the story.
> 
> People are going to want some assurance that the same thing that happened to Martin won't happen to their own kids. I suspect that will take the form of regulating gun rights more closely.
> 
> People are looking at this incident as being too easy for the shooter. Expect it to get more difficult in the future.


Let's have CNN do a poll asking how many people know every detail of this horrific incident? If you are honest, you'll have to admit that the facts are yet to be known.


----------



## Nevada

haypoint said:


> Let's have CNN do a poll asking how many people know every detail of this horrific incident? If you are honest, you'll have to admit that the facts are yet to be known.


It doesn't matter. Lawmakers are politicians who are elected by the people. If the people believe that gun owners need to be restrained then you can expect legislation to be introduced to restrain them. That's how our political system works.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> It doesn't matter. Lawmakers are politicians who are elected by the people. If the people believe that gun owners need to be restrained then you can expect legislation to be introduced to restrain them. That's how our political system works.


Nevada, someone with a concealed carry permit is already subject to the law. When you carry a firearm you also carry the responsibility of being subject to more laws than those that don't carry. If Zimmerman screwed up, the law will deal with him. So far based only on what I've read, and I've been actively looking for information via the internet, it seems like the killing was justified. We'll know more after other info is available.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> Nevada, someone with a concealed carry permit is already subject to the law. When you carry a firearm you also carry the responsibility of being subject to more laws than those that don't carry. If Zimmerman screwed up, the law will deal with him. So far based only on what I've read, and I've been actively looking for information via the internet, it seems like the killing was justified. We'll know more after other info is available.


The problem I have with that is that Zimmerman is being given the benefit of the doubt, and it's all based on his version of the story. Martin has no benefit of the doubt, and he is unable to give his version of the story. That gives the armed person a considerable advantage. Perhaps more than is reasonable.

I know that gun owners have regulations to follow, but if people see this case as an indicator that the regulations aren't strict enough then you can expect more restrictive laws. It's a natural consequence.


----------



## FeralFemale

Pearl B. said:


> It doesnt, and if he hadnt gotten out of his vehicle and confronted the kid, like one of the 911 operators told him, this might not have happened at all


Life is full of woulda coulda shouldas when hindsight is 20/20. The other day I saw vid of a Zimmerman friend who responded to a reporter expressing your sentiment. GZ's friend said something like, "You could also say that none of this would have happend if Martin answered George and said, "I'm staying with my parents."

Myself, I might add, none of this would have happened if Martin hadn't punched Zimmerman, jumped on top of him, slammed his head into the sidewalk several times and proceeded to pummell his face.

However, like I said, we all have 20/20 hindsight. Neither Martin nor Zimmerman were priviledged to know, at that moment, what we all know (or think we know) now. My current opinion (note, I said opinion) is that Martin was scared about someone following him and had heightened fear and adrenalin. Then during the verbal confrontation perhaps Zimmerman said something about having called the cops, and Martin went after him because he was carrying a little pot and scared to get arrested. That all is pure conjecture, though -- and a theory full of holes.

I find it (sadly) hilarious that the major MSM is now reporting that Martin attacked Zimmerman as if the this was new info. I wondered if it had to do with the New Black Panther Party's bounty they put on Zimmerman's head over the weekend (and, yes, their wanted posters said 'Dead or Alive', though the MSM did not feel the need to publish that). I don't think even the MSM wants that kind of blood on their hands, hence what appears to be the beginning of their backtracking.


----------



## Nevada

FeralFemale said:


> GZ's friend said something like, "You could also say that none of this would have happend if Martin answered George and said, "I'm staying with my parents."


How do you know he didn't?



FeralFemale said:


> Myself, I might add, none of this would have happened if Martin hadn't punched Zimmerman, jumped on top of him, slammed his head into the sidewalk several times and proceeded to pummell his face.


How do you know he did?


----------



## Cornhusker

Nevada said:


> Like or don't, a CNN poll shows that nearly 75% of Americans believe that Zimmerman should be charged. If he is not, those same Americans will be left with the impression that unarmed people are at risk of being shot; thereby silencing the victim and allowing the shooter to tell only his version of the story.
> 
> People are going to want some assurance that the same thing that happened to Martin won't happen to their own kids. I suspect that will take the form of regulating gun rights more closely.
> 
> People are looking at this incident as being too easy for the shooter. Expect it to get more difficult in the future.


Unarmed people in Chicago where it's illegal to carry a gun are shot every day.
Why isn't the left arming the citizens?
This whole thing is a tragedy turned into a disgusting circus by Obama, Sharpton and other racists for personal gain.
You should be ashamed of the left for this.
But you aren't


----------



## Cornhusker

Nevada said:


> How do you know he didn't?
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know he did?


Witnesses
Real ones
Cops
Real ones


----------



## FeralFemale

Nevada said:


> How do you know he didn't?
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know he did?


I don't. But you don't know, either, do you? However, my opinion is based on eyewitness accounts and Zimmerman's injuries that jibe with his version of the story. What is your opinion based on?

Martin is no longer here to defend himself, that's true. All we are left with is physical evidence and eyewitness accounts which make more sense with Zimmerman's version of the story than yours.

The jury is still out, however. I do not like Zimmerman's past history, so I still have questions.


----------



## Nevada

Cornhusker said:


> Why isn't the left arming the citizens?


That's an interesting question, considering that Martin couldn't get a CCW permit. But of course Zimmerman knew that, didn't he?


----------



## Nevada

FeralFemale said:


> I don't. But you don't know, either, do you? However, my opinion is based on eyewitness accounts


Hold it right there. Let's make sure that Zimmerman asked Martin what he was doing there. I thought Zimmerman lost track of Martin, then Martin approached Zimmerman from behind asking if there was a problem.



> Zimmerman got out of his SUV to follow Trayvon on foot. When a dispatch employee asked Zimmerman if he was following the 17-year-old, Zimmerman said yes. The dispatcher told Zimmerman he did not need to do that.
> 
> There is about a one-minute gap during which police say they're not sure what happened.
> 
> Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words.
> 
> Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose, according to the account he gave police.
> 
> Zimmerman fell to the ground and Trayvon got on top of him and began slamming his head into the sidewalk, he told police.
> 
> Zimmerman began yelling for help.
> http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/na...mmerman-account-20120326,0,2228143,full.story


So when did Zimmerman ask Martin what he was doing there? Either Zimmerman followed Martin and asked him what he was doing there, or Zimmerman lost sight of Martin. He can't have it both ways.


----------



## Cornhusker

Nevada said:


> That's an interesting question, considering that Martin couldn't get a CCW permit. But of course Zimmerman knew that, didn't he?


Martin was the attacker, not the defender
I'm not arguing Zimmerman shouldn't be arrested, I'm just saying you shouldn't jump on Obama's wagon and ride it without looking at the other side, or even if there is another side.
You bought the racist hype, you even believed Zimmerman was some white guy because the media told you so.
You back Obama's disgusting manipulation of this story for his own personal gain just because you always believe what Obama says.
Use your own head.


----------



## Nevada

Cornhusker said:


> Martin was the attacker, not the defender


I'm seriously questioning that.


----------



## Txsteader

Nevada said:


> The problem I have with that is that Zimmerman is being given the benefit of the doubt, and it's all based on his version of the story. Martin has no benefit of the doubt, and he is unable to give his version of the story. That gives the armed person a considerable advantage. Perhaps more than is reasonable.


Which is why LE looks at *evidence* and *eyewitness accounts*. 

Repeatedly, the news stories state that the evidence and eyewitness accounts *corroborate* Zimmerman's version.

Yet you still don't want to believe it.


----------



## watcher

Pearl B. said:


> It doesnt, and if he hadnt gotten out of his vehicle and confronted the kid, like one of the 911 operators told him, this might not have happened at all


And if we all just sit in our homes with the doors locked the criminals have won.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> That's an interesting question, considering that Martin couldn't get a CCW permit. But of course Zimmerman knew that, didn't he?


I can't recall anyone being shot by a criminal with a legally carried weapon. Do you have any data showing the criminals take the time to get a CCW before packing heat?


----------



## Nevada

Txsteader said:


> Which is why LE looks at *evidence* and *eyewitness accounts*.
> 
> Repeatedly, the news stories state that the evidence and eyewitness accounts *corroborate* Zimmerman's version.
> 
> Yet you still don't want to believe it.


No, I won't believe it either. I used to live in that area, in Deltona (the next town to the north of Sanford). Being from there, none of this is surprising. It's an extremely bigoted area, and if you were from there you would be reading between the lines and see right through it.

For example, tale a look at the SunSentinel snippet I quoted in my last post.



> Zimmerman got out of his SUV to follow Trayvon on foot. When a dispatch employee asked Zimmerman if he was following the 17-year-old, Zimmerman said yes. The dispatcher told Zimmerman he did not need to do that.
> 
> There is about a one-minute gap during which police say they're not sure what happened.
> 
> Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words.
> 
> Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose, according to the account he gave police.
> 
> Zimmerman fell to the ground and Trayvon got on top of him and began slamming his head into the sidewalk, he told police.
> 
> Zimmerman began yelling for help.


Notice in the snippet, and even throughout the rest of the article, that they always showed Zimmerman the courtesy of referring to him by his surname. But each and every time Martin was mentioned he was referred to as Trayvon; calling him by his first name. It's subtle tactic to belittle the black man, but effective none the less. It placed Mr. Zimmerman in a higher station in life than little Trayvon.

These things are not by accident.


----------



## Cornhusker

Nevada said:


> I'm seriously questioning that.


Because you listen to the left controlled media, not eyewitnesses and the cops.
Zimmerman is a minority too, so the garbage that this was an evil ol' ****** killin an innocent little black kid is (of course) a lie dreamed up by those who are trying to use it for political traction.
Again, I'm not saying the kid deserved to be shot, but he was far from the innocent 12 year old portrayed in the pictures.
Obama is trying to jump on this to take away the people's right to defend themselves.
It's a farce, another scam wrapped in a real tragedy.
if I was you, I'd more angry about your idiot leader using another tragedy for his own gain.
that doesn't seem to bother you.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> I can't recall anyone being shot by a criminal with a legally carried weapon. Do you have any data showing the criminals take the time to get a CCW before packing heat?


Are you suggesting that Martin was a criminal?


----------



## haypoint

Martin did not deserve to die because he didn't answer the stranger's question. Zimmerman isn't guilty of murder because he followed Martin after Dispatch said he didn't have to.

We have a person that has devoted a lot of time and effort trying to root out the criminal element in his crime ridden suburban development, who crossed paths with a man-child that has seen or heard about Blacks being treated as second class citizens. Many 17 year olds, of all colors, think they are quite tough. Perhaps he hadn't learned the urban rule: Never bring a fist to a gun fight.

Martin might have gotten the drop on Zimmerman and broke his nose and smashed the back of his skull, but Zimmerman was packing heat.

Perhaps this was handled badly by both guys. Egos and testosterone don't mix well with adrenaline.
But since this was a white guy that shot a black guy, let&#8217;s string him up without a trial, so all those violent scary black people don&#8217;t use it as another excuse to tear up stuff and steal flat screen TVs. ( I believe the PC word is riot).


----------



## Darren

*Originally posted by Nevada* *"The problem I have with that is that Zimmerman is being given the benefit of the doubt,* and it's all based on his version of the story. Martin has no benefit of the doubt, and he is unable to give his version of the story. That gives the armed person a considerable advantage. Perhaps more than is reasonable.

I know that gun owners have regulations to follow, but if people see this case as an indicator that the regulations aren't strict enough then you can expect more restrictive laws. It's a natural consequence."[close quote]

*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*

Now I understand where you're coming from, Nevada. *IN THIS COUNTRY YOU ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.* Apparently you have a problem with that. Where you born in this country? Let me review how it works in this country for you.

At this point in time Zimmerman is innocent. If Zimmerman is indicted by the grand jury he is still innocent. While he is being tried in court, he is still innocent. Until he is tried by a jury of his peers and found guilty he is still innocent. Do you have a problem with that?


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> *IN THIS COUNTRY YOU ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.* Apparently you have a problem with that.


When did I say he should be found guilty?


----------



## haypoint

Darren said:


> *Originally posted by Nevada* *"The problem I have with that is that Zimmerman is being given the benefit of the doubt,* and it's all based on his version of the story. Martin has no benefit of the doubt, and he is unable to give his version of the story. That gives the armed person a considerable advantage. Perhaps more than is reasonable.
> 
> I know that gun owners have regulations to follow, but if people see this case as an indicator that the regulations aren't strict enough then you can expect more restrictive laws. It's a natural consequence."[close quote]
> 
> *---------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> 
> Now I understand where you're coming from, Nevada. *IN THIS COUNTRY YOU ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.* Apparently you have a problem with that. Where you born in this country? Let me review how it works in this country for you.
> 
> At this point in time Zimmerman is innocent. If Zimmerman is indicted by the grand jury he is still innocent. While he is being tried in court, he is still innocent. Until he is tried by a jury of his peers and found guilty he is still innocent. Do you have a problem with that?


When I was on jury duty, the lawyers explained briefly what the charges were in the case, general allegation that this guy had beat up his Ex-girlfriend after she invited him to her house. When most of the jury had been selected the guyâs lawyer asked each jury member, âBased on what you know about the case, could you find him not guilty. Most said that they needed more information. But in this country, the correct and only answer is Yes. We hadnât been given enough information to find him guilty, there for he is not guilty. There is no need to prove innocence. The burden of proof is on the Stateâs lawyer.
In this case with Zimmerman, there must be evidence that Zimmerman did not feel threatened by Martin. Hard to prove. The key witness is dead.


----------



## TNHermit

Black Reporter Joe Oliver Defends Friend George Zimmerman On Fox News

Black Reporter Joe Oliver Defends Friend George Zimmerman On Fox News Â« Pat Dollard

Video


----------



## Nevada

TNHermit said:


> Black Reporter Joe Oliver Defends Friend George Zimmerman On Fox News
> 
> Black Reporter Joe Oliver Defends Friend George Zimmerman On Fox News Â« Pat Dollard
> 
> Video


He seems to be suggesting that the gun went off accidentally.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> When did I say he should be found guilty?


"*The problem I have with that is that Zimmerman is being given the benefit of the doubt, *"

That's the whole point, Nevada. Anyone who has not been proven guilty is given the benefit of the doubt. That is the way it's done in this country. Where you born here?


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> "*The problem I have with that is that Zimmerman is being given the benefit of the doubt, *"
> 
> That's the whole point, Nevada. Anyone who has not been proven guilty is given the benefit of the doubt. That is the way it's done in this country. Where you born here?


I'm more accustomed to the police believing that a crime was probably committed, then making arrests accordingly.


----------



## Txsteader

Nevada said:


> *No, I won't believe it either.* I used to live in that area, in Deltona (the next town to the north of Sanford). Being from there, none of this is surprising. It's an extremely bigoted area, and if you were from there you would be reading between the lines and see right through it.
> 
> For example, tale a look at the SunSentinel snippet I quoted in my last post.
> 
> 
> 
> Notice in the snippet, and even throughout the rest of the article, that they always showed Zimmerman the courtesy of referring to him by his surname. But each and every time Martin was mentioned he was referred to as Trayvon; calling him by his first name. It's subtle tactic to belittle the black man, but effective none the less. It placed Mr. Zimmerman in a higher station in life than little Trayvon.
> 
> These things are not by accident.





Nevada said:


> When did I say he should be found guilty?


In your response to my post? You're indicating that, regardless of the evidence, you won't believe that Zimmerman is innocent, which is the same as saying he should be found guilty, is it not?


----------



## FeralFemale

Nevada said:


> No, I won't believe it either. I used to live in that area, in Deltona (the next town to the north of Sanford). Being from there, none of this is surprising. It's an extremely bigoted area, and if you were from there you would be reading between the lines and see right through it.
> 
> For example, tale a look at the SunSentinel snippet I quoted in my last post.
> 
> 
> 
> Notice in the snippet, and even throughout the rest of the article, that they always showed Zimmerman the courtesy of referring to him by his surname. But each and every time Martin was mentioned he was referred to as Trayvon; calling him by his first name. It's subtle tactic to belittle the black man, but effective none the less. It placed Mr. Zimmerman in a higher station in life than little Trayvon.
> 
> These things are not by accident.


This is truly a small world. I lived in Deltona for a short time -- and worked in the Sanford city govt. I don't remember it being racist. Most of my coworkers and my boss were African American, so that was my personal experience. However, it was VERY Christian, to the point even I was offended by the extent religion shoved down my throat. (I never told them I was Catholic, for fear they would discriminate against me.) Like I said, though, I only lived there for a short time -- less than a year. Anyhoo, it's cool how small a world it is.

As for your Zimmerman vs Trayvon thing -- it could also be seen another way. It might not have been about belittling Martin so much as it was to personalize him and make his murder that much more sympathetic. Also, calling Zimmerman 'Mr Zimmerman' could be seen as making Zimmerman 'The Man' and calling Martin 'Trayvon' making him just a boy -- much like the MSM keeps showing pics of Martin that are 3-4 years old...which, apparently worked with you as you call him "little Trayvon" (further belittling him, maybe?)

It always amazes me how people can read the same exact thing and come away with such different perspectives.


----------



## Nevada

Txsteader said:


> In your response to my post? You're indicating that, regardless of the evidence, you won't believe that Zimmerman is innocent, which is the same as saying he should be found guilty, is it not?


I was saying that I wasn't going to take Zimmerman's word for it when it can't be verified. Too many facts are up in the air right now, and now we even have conflicting evidence about the confrontation. That's a very bad indicator for the strength of Zimmerman's word.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> Where did you get the idea that being a member of neighborhood watch vested Zimmernam with authority?


Come on Nevada.
You messed up and believed all of the hype from the racists.
Admit you were wrong and go on with life.
Everything you have posted so far has been false.
Don't add more BS to the pile that you have already shoveled up.


----------



## Cornhusker

Nevada said:


> I'm more accustomed to the police believing that a crime was probably committed, then making arrests accordingly.


Is that how we do things here in Obamanation now?


----------



## Cornhusker

Nevada said:


> I was saying that I wasn't going to take Zimmerman's word for it when it can't be verified. Too many facts are up in the air right now, and now we even have conflicting evidence about the confrontation. That's a very bad indicator for the strength of Zimmerman's word.


Don't worry, the black panthers will kill him, and you know Holder will let them off, no questions asked.
I guess that's ok though huh?


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> Like or don't, a CNN poll shows that nearly 75% of Americans believe that Zimmerman should be charged. If he is not, those same Americans will be left with the impression that unarmed people are at risk of being shot; thereby silencing the victim and allowing the shooter to tell only his version of the story.
> 
> People are going to want some assurance that the same thing that happened to Martin won't happen to their own kids. I suspect that will take the form of regulating gun rights more closely.
> 
> People are looking at this incident as being too easy for the shooter. Expect it to get more difficult in the future.


The American people should be left with the impression that are at risk of being shot if they attack a person.

The people can be assured that the same thing won't happen to their kids if they teach them to respect other people and not attack them.

Expect people who decide to attack another person to think twice before going through with the attack.
America is becoming armed. We do not have to back up from some punk gansta.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> That's an interesting question, considering that Martin couldn't get a CCW permit. But of course Zimmerman knew that, didn't he?


How would Zimmerman know anything about Martin?
He had never seen him before.
You are just piling nonsense on top of all the nonsense you tried to get people to believe at the start of this thread.

You were proven wrong. It isn't the end of the world. It isn't the first time.
Get used to it. As long as you jump to conclusions without listening to the facts you will be proven wrong again.


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> The American people should be left with the impression that are at risk of being shot if they attack a person.
> 
> The people can be assured that the same thing won't happen to their kids if they teach them to respect other people and not attack them.
> 
> Expect people who decide to attack another person to think twice before going through with the attack.
> America is becoming armed. We do not have to back up from some punk gansta.


I'm at odds with that. I still suspect that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin, but Martin resisted. Resisting being detained is not disrespect, since Zimmerman had no right to detain him. Any injuries that Zimmerman might have sustained while trying to unlawfully detain Martin were deserved, and if Zimmerman shot Martin in anger during the scuffle then it was at least manslaughter.

You think Martin was probably a "punk gansta" while I think that Zimmerman was a badge-heavy vigilante. We'll see what falls out in the next month or so.


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> I'm at odds with that. I still suspect that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin, but Martin resisted. Resisting being detained is not disrespect, since Zimmerman had no right to detain him. Any injuries that Zimmerman might have sustained while trying to unlawfully detain Martin were deserved, and if Zimmerman shot Martin in anger during the scuffle then it was at least manslaughter.


Even IF that's exactly how it happened, if there's no evidence to prove it then he's innocent.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> I'm at odds with that. I still suspect that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin, but Martin resisted. Resisting being detained is not disrespect, since Zimmerman had no right to detain him. Any injuries that Zimmerman might have sustained while trying to unlawfully detain Martin were deserved, and if Zimmerman shot Martin in anger during the scuffle then it was at least manslaughter.
> 
> You think Martin was probably a "punk gansta" while I think that Zimmerman was a badge-heavy vigilante. We'll see what falls out in the next month or so.


Nevada, what you suspect or what you think does not matter.
There is such a thing as law. It should be the same for everybody.
I know you think Obama is above the law and anything he says is the gospel but the rest of America does not agree with you.


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> How would Zimmerman know anything about Martin?
> He had never seen him before.
> You are just piling nonsense on top of all the nonsense you tried to get people to believe at the start of this thread.


OK, we know that Zimmerman has a CCW permit, so we know that he at least knows the requirements for a CCW. That means that he knows that you need to be 21 to get a CCW in Florida. We also know that Zimmerman correctly estimated Martin's age.










So Zimmerman would have known that Martin would need to be pretty desperate to be carrying a concealed gun, since the legal risk for a teen to do so is substantial.

I think we can assume that Zimmerman was confident that Martin was unarmed.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> I'm more accustomed to the police believing that a crime was probably committed, then making arrests accordingly.


I'm still curious about where you were born, Nevada. Was it in another country besides the United States?


----------



## gapeach

Since when is a Hispanic person considered white? Zimmerman looks Hispanic but has a white sounding name so he is judged as white. Is Obama considered white? No, because he decided as a teenager to embrace his black side even though he was living with his white grandparents who adored him. So, he is black even though he lived in Hawaii which is pretty much color blind. He never embraces his white side which is half.
The whole thing is that a child is dead and there needs to be a resolution to why his death by a court of law. The police probably made a mistake by not taking Zimmerman into the police station. He is innocent til proven guilty. There are witnesses who saw what happened and many character witnesses for Z. Any time J Jackson and Al Sharpton get involved there can be big trouble. I don't want any trouble. We all are completely innocent of what happened and rabble rousing by JJ and AS plus the others is so going to make a bad situation worse.
Sanford, Florida is just 20 miles N of Orlando and close to Lake Mary. That is Central Florida.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> OK, we know that Zimmerman has a CCW permit, so we know that he at least knows the requirements for a CCW. That means that he knows that you need to be 21 to get a CCW in Florida. We also know that Zimmerman correctly estimated Martin's age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Zimmerman would have known that Martin would need to be pretty desperate to be carrying a concealed gun, since the legal risk for a teen to do so is substantial.
> 
> I think we can assume that Zimmerman was confident that Martin was unarmed.


There are a whole lot of black youth around here that carry and don't have(or care to get) ccw permits. Thousands would be my estimate!


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> I'm still curious about where you were born, Nevada. Was it in another country besides the United States?


I was born in Ohio.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> There are a whole lot of black youth around here that carry and don't have(or care to get) ccw permits. Thousands would be my estimate!


If you know that, why don't you report them to the police?


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> I think we can assume that Zimmerman was confident that Martin was unarmed.


Because young men never carry guns without permits?


----------



## Nevada

ryanthomas said:


> Because young men never carry guns without permits?


It's unlikely, particularly in a semi-rural setting like Sanford.


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> It's unlikely, particularly in a semi-rural setting like Sanford.


It's also unlikely that Zimmerman was confident Martin was unarmed. He mentioned in the call to police that Martin was reaching in his waistband. That would certainly make me cautious of the possibility of a weapon.


----------



## poppy

Nevada said:


> It's unlikely, particularly in a semi-rural setting like Sanford.


Really? The people who lived in the complex said there had been crime problems lately. Young people carrying guns illegally is a problem nationwide. I think I read 40 people were shot last weekend in Chicago alone, some fatally. I will bet they all were shot by young people carrying guns illegally.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> I was born in Ohio.


Thanks for answering my question.


----------



## poppy

Nevada said:


> He seems to be suggesting that the gun went off accidentally.


It may well have. Maybe Zimmerman had been beaten and was in fear of his life and thought just pulling his pistol would make the guy back off. It's embarrassing that so many like you are eager to convict the guy. There is zero evidence that Zimmerman was either a racist or a John Wayne type. Quite the opposite. He had called the cops on 46 previous occasions, which shows he was not a go it alone vigilante. If he had to call the cops that many times before, it is obvious it was a high crime area.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> If you know that, why don't you report them to the police?


Hey, i don't mess around with the bloods or crips. Should i tell them you want them to be turned into the police and give them your address?


----------



## Darren

For anyone that wants some insight into the dead man's life, the link goes to a website that has his tweets. The mention of Glocks is interesting but vague. The tweets can be searched.

Trayvon Martin Tweets | Twitter Account | The Daily Caller

The website below explains why Zimmerman wasn't arrested. Apparently the police need probable cause. No probable cause, no arrest.

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> I was saying that I wasn't going to take Zimmerman's word for it when it can't be verified. Too many facts are up in the air right now, and now we even have *conflicting evidence about the confrontation.* That's a very bad indicator for the strength of Zimmerman's word.


 
There is no "conflicting evidence".

You want to give what someone only THINKS they HEARD the same weight as what was actually both SEEN AND HEARD.

From the beginning you've called for his arrest and TRIAL, and now you're backpedalling


----------



## ryanthomas

> now you're backpedalling


But not enough.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I'm at odds with that. I still *suspect* that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin, but Martin resisted. Resisting being detained is not disrespect, since *Zimmerman had no right to detain him.*


More *fantasy* scenarios?

You need to look up "citizen's arrest"



> I think we can *assume* that Zimmerman was confident that Martin was unarmed.


It never ends does it?

You claim Zimmerman would ASSUME Martin wasn't "armed" because it would be "illegal"
for him to have a gun.
Wasn't it illegal for him to have the* drugs* for which he was suspended?
Wouldn't it BE legal for him to be *armed* with a knife?

You said you would *accept* the FACTS, but you keep on making up your own versions


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Notice in the snippet, and even throughout the rest of the article, that they always showed Zimmerman the courtesy of referring to him by his surname. But each and every time Martin was mentioned he was referred to as Trayvon; calling him by his first name. It's subtle tactic to belittle the black man, but effective none the less. It placed Mr. Zimmerman in a higher station in life than little Trayvon.
> 
> These things are not by accident.


You are right but for the wrong reason. By using his first name it makes the reader feel more connected to him, like they know him. It also helps to remind you he was black and the shooter wasn't. Be honest Trayvon sounds much more like a black name than Martin, doesn't it? And you don't picture someone named Zimmerman as anything but white, right?

If they wanted to belittle him they would not even use his name. Make him into an unperson.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Are you suggesting that Martin was a criminal?


Good leap froggy and a great diversion. I ask again do you have ANY data showing criminals have CCW permits for their weapons?

But back to your leap. I wasn't saying that but seeing as how he was suspended from school because a container with at least the residue of an ILLEGAL substance I'd have to say THAT suggests he was a criminal without any words from me.

Add into that the fact he was also suspended for defaced public property and was found in possession of either 'burglary tools' or a weapon (depending on how you view it), both crimes, at the time also suggest he was a criminal. 


BTW have you answered the questions I restated to you in another post? I don't remember seeing them.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> I was saying that I wasn't going to take Zimmerman's word for it when it can't be verified. Too many facts are up in the air right now, and now we even have conflicting evidence about the confrontation. That's a very bad indicator for the strength of Zimmerman's word.


Actually I see the wind blowing the other way. The more facts are released the more they confirm his account of what happened.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> You need to look up "citizen's arrest"


Arrest for what?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> OK, we know that Zimmerman has a CCW permit, so we know that he at least knows the requirements for a CCW. That means that he knows that you need to be 21 to get a CCW in Florida. We also know that Zimmerman correctly estimated Martin's age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Zimmerman would have known that Martin would need to be pretty desperate to be carrying a concealed gun, since the legal risk for a teen to do so is substantial.


You are kidding right?  The legal risk for any teen for any crime is very small. Heck the legal risk for a 25 y.o. for a crime is very small. Unless your first few crimes are really, really, really bad (i.e. makes big time news) you are going to get 'time served and probation'.




Nevada said:


> I think we can assume that Zimmerman was confident that Martin was unarmed.


So you think it would be logical for someone who thinks he is looking at a criminals to assume that possible criminal is unarmed because he guesses the possible criminal is in his "late teens"?


----------



## Cornhusker

Speaking of arrest, the Black Panther that offered the reward for Zimmerman was arrested for carrying a weapon and being a felon 
Story
More of Obama's thugs, how much you want to bet he walks?
Holder will see to it.
Thugs of a feather....................


----------



## Sonshine

Nevada said:


> It's unlikely, particularly in a semi-rural setting like Sanford.


But Martin was not from Sanford, he was from Miami, which is a huge difference.


----------



## Sonshine

poppy said:


> It may well have. Maybe Zimmerman had been beaten and was in fear of his life and thought just pulling his pistol would make the guy back off. It's embarrassing that so many like you are eager to convict the guy. There is zero evidence that Zimmerman was either a racist or a John Wayne type. Quite the opposite. He had called the cops on 46 previous occasions, which shows he was not a go it alone vigilante. If he had to call the cops that many times before, it is obvious it was a high crime area.


I don't know about now, but when I lived there it wasn't a high crime area.


----------



## Nevada

Sonshine said:


> But Martin was not from Sanford, he was from Miami, which is a huge difference.


Zimmerman couldn't have known that.


----------



## poppy

Sonshine said:


> I don't know about now, but when I lived there it wasn't a high crime area.


Things change. I still say if the neighborhood watch guy has to call the cops 46 times, it fits my definition of a high crime area. Besides, the neighbors said they have had crime problems. I think I read the neighborhood was 49% black. I would bet young blacks were responsible for the majority of the crimes. That is not racist. I would also bet that middle aged and older blacks were responsible for very few crimes.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman couldn't have known that.



Absurd. Congecture on your part. He was, after all, in the neighborhood watch. He may have known all about this young man. Maybe this Martin was in a gang and Zimmerman knew about it.
Please provide proof that Zimmerman didn't know that Martin was from Florida.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Absurd. Congecture on your part. He was, after all, in the neighborhood watch. He may have known all about this young man. Maybe this Martin was in a gang and Zimmerman knew about it.
> Please provide proof that Zimmerman didn't know that Martin was from Florida.


Talk about conjecture...


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Talk about conjecture...


Where's your proof? Or are you going to ignore my question like you normaly do when your backed into a corner? Prove my theory wrong then! :shrug:


----------



## poppy

Nevada said:


> Talk about conjecture...


Not conjecture at all. Zimmerman had been doing this for quite a while. As with any beat cop patrolling the same area, he would get to recognize people and talk to them on occasion. Even if he didn't know where he was from, he may well have known he wasn't one of the folks from the area because he didn't recognize him.


----------



## ryanthomas

Hmmm...so the whole thing started because Martin was "suspicious." What was Zimmerman's suspicion about him? That he was on drugs or "up to something." So Zimmerman suspected Martin of illegal activity, but he was confident that Martin was unarmed because it would be illegal for him to have a gun?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Pearl B. said:


> It doesnt, and if he hadnt gotten out of his vehicle and confronted the kid, like one of the 911 operators told him, this might not have happened at all


According to Zimmerman, Martin did the "confronting" aafter Zimmerman had given up looking for him.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> According to Zimmerman, Martin did the "confronting" aafter Zimmerman had given up looking for him.


Too bad we can't verify that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Arrest for what?


"Arrest" in this context means "detain" until police arrive

That's why I told you to look it up.
And while you're looking for "the truth" look at this too:


*



<H1 class="storyHeadline entry-title">Multiple suspensions paint complicated portrait of Trayvon Martin

Click to expand...

*


> By Frances Robles The Miami Herald
> 
> The Miami Gardens teen who has become a national symbol of racial injustice was suspended three times, and had a spotty school record that his family&#8217;s attorneys say is irrelevant to the facts that led up to his being gunned down on Feb. 26.
> In October, a school police investigator said he saw Trayvon on the school surveillance camera in an unauthorized area &#8220;hiding and being suspicious.&#8221; Then he said he saw Trayvon mark up a door with &#8220;W.T.F&#8221; &#8212; an acronym for &#8220;what the f---.&#8221; The officer said he found Trayvon the next day and went through his book bag in search of the graffiti marker.
> Instead the officer reported he found women&#8217;s jewelry and a screwdriver that he described as a &#8220;burglary tool,&#8221; according to a Miami-Dade Schools Police report obtained by The Miami Herald. Word of the incident came as the family&#8217;s lawyer acknowledged that the boy was suspended in February for getting caught with an empty bag with traces of marijuana, which he called &#8220;irrelevant&#8221; and an attempt to demonize a victim.
> Trayvon&#8217;s backpack contained 12 pieces of jewelry, in addition to a watch and a large flathead screwdriver, according to the report, which described silver wedding bands and earrings with diamonds.
> Trayvon was asked if the jewelry belonged to his family or a girlfriend.
> 
> &#8220;Martin replied it&#8217;s not mine


 




> That suspension was followed four months later by another one in February, in which Trayvon was caught with an empty plastic bag with traces of marijuana in it. A schools police report obtained by The Miami Herald specifies two items: a bag with marijuana residue and a &#8220;marijuana pipe.&#8221;


Read more here: Multiple suspensions paint complicated portrait of Trayvon Martin - Florida - MiamiHerald.com

</H1>


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> Too bad we can't verify that.


It is too bad, since it would be nice to know the truth without a doubt. But when there's no way to know, the accused is innocent, not the other way around.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Sonshine said:


> But Martin was not from Sanford, he was from Miami, which is a huge difference.


Good point.

Alos, people keep referring to Martin as a "skinny little kid", but the actual police report has him listed at 6 ft tall and 160 lbs.

More than a match for a 5'9" 260 lb guy almost 30 years old


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Too bad we can't verify that.


All the evidence points to that.

We can't "verify" any of your THEORIES, but you haven't let that keep you from spinning them up


----------



## Sonshine

Bearfootfarm said:


> According to Zimmerman, Martin did the "confronting" aafter Zimmerman had given up looking for him.


That doesn't sound like what I heard on one of the 911 calls.


----------



## Pearl B

FeralFemale said:


> Life is full of woulda coulda shouldas when hindsight is 20/20. The other day I saw vid of a Zimmerman friend who responded to a reporter expressing your sentiment. GZ's friend said something like, "You could also say that none of this would have happend if Martin answered George and said, "I'm staying with my parents."
> 
> Myself, I might add, none of this would have happened if Martin hadn't punched Zimmerman, jumped on top of him, slammed his head into the sidewalk several times and proceeded to pummell his face.
> 
> However, like I said, we all have 20/20 hindsight. Neither Martin nor Zimmerman were priviledged to know, at that moment, what we all know (or think we know) now. My current opinion (note, I said opinion) is that Martin was scared about someone following him and had heightened fear and adrenalin. Then during the verbal confrontation perhaps Zimmerman said something about having called the cops, and Martin went after him because he was carrying a little pot and scared to get arrested. That all is pure conjecture, though -- and a theory full of holes.
> 
> I find it (sadly) hilarious that the major MSM is now reporting that Martin attacked Zimmerman as if the this was new info. I wondered if it had to do with the New Black Panther Party's bounty they put on Zimmerman's head over the weekend (and, yes, their wanted posters said 'Dead or Alive', though the MSM did not feel the need to publish that). I don't think even the MSM wants that kind of blood on their hands, hence what appears to be the beginning of their backtracking.


That sounds like the most likely scenario to me. That would make all the pieces fit together.





watcher said:


> And if we all just sit in our homes with the doors locked the criminals have won.


 I didnt say or suggest that everyone should sit in their homes. This is the first time I have heard of a neighborhood watch person being attacked to this degree. I suspect its because most NW groups work in co-ordination with police and 911.



Bearfootfarm said:


> According to Zimmerman, Martin did the "confronting" aafter Zimmerman had given up looking for him.


 Are there any witnesses to that, or is that just the word of Zimmerman?
Zimmerman should have stopped following Martin as the 911 operator told him. Thus he wouldnt have wound up in a confrontational situation with Martin.

To me thats the whole point. Police were aware and on the way. Everything Zimmerman did after not going with the chain of command, his next higher up, in this case the 911 operator completely messed up the situation.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> That doesn't sound like what I heard on one of the 911 calls


What did you hear to make you think otherwise?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Are there any witnesses to that, or is that just the word of Zimmerman?
> Zimmerman should have stopped following Martin as the 911 operator told him. Thus he wouldnt have wound up in a confrontational situation with Martin.


It's what Zimmerman told them, and the eyewitness confirmed Martin was beating him, and it was Zimmerman yelling for help

"Following" Martin was NOT illegal in any way.

It's pretty *logical* to try and keep sight of him KNOWING the police would be there any minute looking for him too


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Everything Zimmerman did after not going with the chain of command, his next higher up, in this case the 911 operator completely messed up the situation.


A 911 operator has no "authority", so there is no "chain of command".
If Martin was "scared" he could have run, but he told his girlfriend he wasn't going to.
If Martin wasn't running, then it's doubtful Zimmerman was either.

Fat guys don't run if they aren't being chased

What "messed up the situation" was Martin beating Zimmerman AFTER knocking him down, and THAT part was witnessed


----------



## Pearl B

Bearfootfarm said:


> A 911 operator has no "authority", so there is no "chain of command".
> If Martin was "scared" he could have run, but he told his girlfriend he wasn't going to.
> If Martin wasn't running, then it's doubtful Zimmerman was either.
> 
> Fat guys don't run if they aren't being chased
> 
> What "messed up the situation" was Martin beating Zimmerman AFTER knocking him down, and THAT part was witnessed


If he would have been working in conjunction with the police and 911 it would have been. He wasnt. That was the problem. He was acting as a lone self appointed neighborhood watch captain.


----------



## haypoint

"12 pieces of jewelry, in addition to a watch and a large flathead screwdriver," Martin admits that the jewelry isn't his (stolen). The School calls the screwdriver a burglery tool. 
In the inner city, large screwdrivers are used as stabbing weapons and for breaking open the ignition lock of a car. Perhaps, if Martin had been carrying his getto sword, once he got Zimmerman on the ground, he could have killed him. Then it wouldn't be NEWS, it would just be another unsolved crime.

We can employ "what if" all we want. But until there are facts that prove Zimmerman broke the law, Zimmerman is not guilty. That's the way the system works. 

What's messed up in all this is the radically different way many Blacks react based on the simple fact that Zimmerman isn't black.


----------



## haypoint

Pearl B. said:


> If he would have been working in conjunction with the police and 911 it would have been. He wasnt. That was the problem. He was acting as a lone self appointed neighborhood watch captain.


OK. and that's a crime?

As far as I know, stupidity isn't a crime. As far as I know, a 6 foot tall, 160 pound stranger with a hooded jacket, walking through a neighborhood at night doesn't have to tell any citizen why he is there. But I also accept the fact that a concerned resident has the right to walk around and look at people and even ask questions if they want.

But when asking questions gets you a broken nose and a bloody skull, I think you can shoot the attacker.


----------



## Sonshine

Bearfootfarm said:


> What did you hear to make you think otherwise?


Ok, I went back to listen to the tapes and either I just can't find it now, or I am mistaken, so disregard this post.


----------



## Sonshine

Bearfootfarm said:


> A 911 operator has no "authority", so there is no "chain of command".
> If Martin was "scared" he could have run, but he told his girlfriend he wasn't going to.
> If Martin wasn't running, then it's doubtful Zimmerman was either.
> 
> Fat guys don't run if they aren't being chased
> 
> What "messed up the situation" was Martin beating Zimmerman AFTER knocking him down, and THAT part was witnessed


Zimmerman was chasing him, he did tell the 911 operator he was and was told not to follow him.


----------



## Sonshine

haypoint said:


> "12 pieces of jewelry, in addition to a watch and a large flathead screwdriver," Martin admits that the jewelry isn't his (stolen). The School calls the screwdriver a burglery tool.
> In the inner city, large screwdrivers are used as stabbing weapons and for breaking open the ignition lock of a car. Perhaps, if Martin had been carrying his getto sword, once he got Zimmerman on the ground, he could have killed him. Then it wouldn't be NEWS, it would just be another unsolved crime.
> 
> We can employ "what if" all we want. But until there are facts that prove Zimmerman broke the law, Zimmerman is not guilty. That's the way the system works.
> 
> What's messed up in all this is the radically different way many Blacks react based on the simple fact that Zimmerman isn't black.


The things he did prior to this night are irrelevant in this particular case, since he's not the one who killed someone else. All that matters in this case is whether Zimmerman had the right to kill him.


----------



## Sonshine

haypoint said:


> OK. and that's a crime?
> 
> As far as I know, stupidity isn't a crime. As far as I know, a 6 foot tall, 160 pound stranger with a hooded jacket, walking through a neighborhood at night doesn't have to tell any citizen why he is there. But I also accept the fact that a concerned resident has the right to walk around and look at people and even ask questions if they want.
> 
> But when asking questions gets you a broken nose and a bloody skull, I think you can shoot the attacker.


Not just asking question but following him. Since it doesn't appear that Martin was doing anything illegal at the time, why not wait for the police? It's their job, not Zimmerman's. If Zimmerman had waited for the proper authorities then he would not have been attacked (If he really was) and the kid would still be alive.


----------



## FreeRanger

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's what Zimmerman told them, and the eyewitness confirmed Martin was beating him, and it was Zimmerman yelling for help
> 
> "Following" Martin was NOT illegal in any way.
> 
> It's pretty *logical* to try and keep sight of him KNOWING the police would be there any minute looking for him too


Wait a minute....you can't have it both ways. At the beginning of this thread you kept claiming I didn't have any evidence BECAUSE I was not there. Now you are claiming 1. Zimmerman told the truth 2. Martin was "beating" Zimmerman (I am pretty sure that was self defense by Martin [see how that works?] ) 3. And then Zimmerman was yelling, not Martin. 4. you claim Martin was illegal in leaving the sidewalk, yet Zimmerman left the side walk too, hence following Martin illegally.

Gosh I didn't know you could time travel. Nor was I aware that you where there to see who's voice people heard in the dark and rain. What ever happen to your wait until trial mantra? 

Still waiting to hear the "logical" for why Zimmerman had to get out of his vehicle to give chase to a boy walking peacefully down the street at 7PM? It's not pretty logical to me.

Logic to me would have been Zimmerman rolling down the window and asking Martin if he needed help. That would have been my logical response to a stranger in my area. Common sense to help a lost person, not common sense to chase a suspicious person with a gun.


----------



## watcher

Sonshine said:


> Not just asking question but following him. Since it doesn't appear that Martin was doing anything illegal at the time, why not wait for the police? It's their job, not Zimmerman's. If Zimmerman had waited for the proper authorities then he would not have been attacked (If he really was) and the kid would still be alive.


Think about this. You see someone walking on your neighbor's property and you think, not know but just think, something isn't right so you call the cops. After you call them they guy starts walking away. You know the odds are he will be somewhere the cops can't find him by the time they get there. What do you do? 

How would you feel if your thought was correct and the guy had, let's go to the extreme here, killed your neighbor and his entire family and he got away and was never caught because you didn't keep him in sight until the cops arrived?


----------



## TNHermit

Trayvon Martin case: He was suspended from school for having a 'burglary tool' | Mail Online

Trayvon Martin was suspended from school for having a 'burglary tool' and women's jewellery in his backpack
School security report says slain teen caught with 'burglary tool' and women's jewellery months prior to his death
Was out of school on temporary suspension relating to drug find when he was shot on Feb. 26
Parents fight allegations, calling them attempts to 'demonize' the victim
Shooter George Zimmerman claims he shot the teen in self defense
New poll shows 73 percent of Americans believe Zimmerman should be arrested

By Daily Mail Reporter

PUBLISHED: 08:02 EST, 26 March 2012 | UPDATED: 07:44 EST, 27 March 2012 
Comments (70) 
Share 







Florida teenager Trayvon Martin was allegedly suspended from school after security officers found what they described as a 'burglary tool' and women&#8217;s jewellery in his backpack.

Although the school officially suspended Trayvon in October for grafitti, after he and some friends wrote &#8216;W.T.F.&#8217; on a school locker, the Miami Herald claims that the real reason was that he was caught with a 'burglary tool' - a flathead screwdriver - and 12 items of jewellery. Martin insisted that they did not belong to him. 

The revelation, in a school report obtained by the Herald, was condemned today by Trayvon's family as part of a campaign to smear their dead son.

The 17-year-old's mother, whose unarmed son was shot dead last month by neighbourhood watch captain George Zimmerman in a gated community, said: 'They killed my son and now they're trying to kill his reputation.'


----------



## watcher

Anyone else here having Tawana Brawley flash backs? For those of you too young here's a link:

Tawana Brawley rape allegations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I wonder if Rev Al might be having second thoughts about getting involved here as more and more facts come out in the press.

I wonder how much money the Black Panthers have that Mr Zimmerman might be able to win from them in his lawsuit. . .


----------



## poppy

TNHermit said:


> Martin insisted that they did not belong to him.
> 
> '


The people they need to crack down on are the ones putting incriminating things in people's backpacks and vehicles. This poor innocent boy had to be shocked when they found those items in his backpack. I've noticed the same thing happens a lot on COPS when the law finds a crack pipe or drugs in someone's pocket or vehicle. It never belongs to them and they have no idea where it came from.


----------



## haypoint

Sonshine said:


> Not just asking question but following him. Since it doesn't appear that Martin was doing anything illegal at the time, why not wait for the police? It's their job, not Zimmerman's. If Zimmerman had waited for the proper authorities then he would not have been attacked (If he really was) and the kid would still be alive.


But that's the point. You seem to understand that Martin apparently wasn't doing anything illegal, but criticize Zimmerman when it appears he didn't do anything illegal either.
A 160 pound, 6 foot tall Black man should understand that walking around at night with a hoody, makes him look like a dangerous person. Donât blame the Mexican, blame real statistics of who commits most of the violent crime in America. Young black males.
A 5â9â, 260 pound Mexican jellyroll should know better than to get too close to someone he sees as a potential criminal.
Zimmerman used poor judgment, but Martin has a history of poor judgment, too. But all that doesnât matter. What led up to it matters not. What we know to be true: Martin beat the crap out of Zimmerman. (witnessed) Zimmerman felt threatened (statement). Zimmerman shot Martin (statement). 
Cut the speculation, on both sides, and give me provable facts that Zimmerman was the aggressor; otherwise this is simply a soapbox for Jessie, Al and Barack to push their racist agenda.


----------



## haypoint

Maybe Martin had that large flatblade screwdriver in his backpack so he could fix his school desk. I doubt he knew that you cah drive a large flat blade screwdriver into a car's ignition keyhole and twist it to start a car without a key. A large flatblade screwdriver is often enough to break open a residential door, as a pry bar. A large flatblade screwdriver is more effective than a knife as an assault weapon. Goes through clothes as a puncture weapon better than a broad knife, less likely to snap off and can still serve as a slashing weapon. Large flatblade screwdrivers are the inner city's multi-purpose tool.
But that doesn't make Martin innocent or Zimmerman guilty.


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> The things he did prior to this night are irrelevant in this particular case, since he's not the one who killed someone else. All that matters in this case is whether Zimmerman had the right to kill him.


What would you suggest a person do when someone is trying to beat you to death?
Especially a person with the background like Martin had.


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> Not just asking question but following him. Since it doesn't appear that Martin was doing anything illegal at the time, why not wait for the police? It's their job, not Zimmerman's. If Zimmerman had waited for the proper authorities then he would not have been attacked (If he really was) and the kid would still be alive.


He followed him because there had been burgulaies in the area done by black men. 2 had already been arrested.
Martin was a stranger in the neighborhood and acting strange.
How could Zimmerman tell the police where Martin was without following him.
Martin may have broken into a home in the meantime. It wouldn't be out of character for him.
Martin would still be alive if he would not have attacked Zimmerman.
He chose to attack. Looking back on his history it isn't a surprise.


----------



## pancho

FreeRanger said:


> Wait a minute....you can't have it both ways. At the beginning of this thread you kept claiming I didn't have any evidence BECAUSE I was not there. Now you are claiming 1. Zimmerman told the truth 2. Martin was "beating" Zimmerman (I am pretty sure that was self defense by Martin [see how that works?] ) 3. And then Zimmerman was yelling, not Martin. 4. you claim Martin was illegal in leaving the sidewalk, yet Zimmerman left the side walk too, hence following Martin illegally.
> 
> Gosh I didn't know you could time travel. Nor was I aware that you where there to see who's voice people heard in the dark and rain. What ever happen to your wait until trial mantra?
> 
> Still waiting to hear the "logical" for why Zimmerman had to get out of his vehicle to give chase to a boy walking peacefully down the street at 7PM? It's not pretty logical to me.
> 
> Logic to me would have been Zimmerman rolling down the window and asking Martin if he needed help. That would have been my logical response to a stranger in my area. Common sense to help a lost person, not common sense to chase a suspicious person with a gun.


Remember your thread on common sense that you didn't want any person that had any to post on?
Maybe you should go back and read it again. You might get a hint of what common sense is.


----------



## pancho

haypoint said:


> Maybe Martin had that large flatblade screwdriver in his backpack so he could fix his school desk. I doubt he knew that you cah drive a large flat blade screwdriver into a car's ignition keyhole and twist it to start a car without a key. A large flatblade screwdriver is often enough to break open a residential door, as a pry bar. A large flatblade screwdriver is more effective than a knife as an assault weapon. Goes through clothes as a puncture weapon better than a broad knife, less likely to snap off and can still serve as a slashing weapon. Large flatblade screwdrivers are the inner city's multi-purpose tool.
> But that doesn't make Martin innocent or Zimmerman guilty.


Poor little black boy just trying to help out around the school.


----------



## TNHermit

Geraldo's Point - Thomas Sowell - Townhall Conservative Columnists - Page 1

Geraldo's Point
Thomas Sowell

t is not often that I agree with Geraldo Rivera, but recently he said something very practical and potentially life-saving, when he urged black and Hispanic parents not to let their children go around wearing hoodies.


There is no point in dressing like a hoodlum when you are not a hoodlum, even though that has become a fashion for some minority youths, including the teenager who was shot and killed in a confrontation in Florida. I don't know the whole story of that tragedy, any more than those who are making loud noises in the media do, but that is something that we have trials for.

People have a right to dress any way they want to, but exercising that right is something that requires common sense, and common sense is something that parents should have, even if their children don't always have it.

Many years ago, when I was a student at Harvard, there was a warning to all the students to avoid a nearby tough Irish neighborhood, where Harvard students had been attacked. It so happened that there was a black neighborhood on the other side of the Irish neighborhood that I had to pass through when I went to get my hair cut.

I never went through that Irish neighborhood dressed in the style of most Harvard students back then. I walked through that Irish neighborhood dressed like a black working man would be dressed -- and I never had the slightest trouble the whole three years that I was at Harvard.

While I had a right to walk through that tough neighborhood dressed in a Brooks Brothers suit, if I wanted to -- and if I could have afforded one, which I couldn't -- it made no sense for me to court needless dangers.

The man who shot the black teenager in Florida may be as guilty as sin, for all I know -- or he may be innocent, for all I know. We pay taxes so that there can be judges and jurors who sort out the facts. We do not need Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or the President of the United States spouting off before the trial has even begun. Have we forgotten the media's rush to judgment in the Duke University "rape" case that blew up completely when the facts came out?

If the facts show that a teenager who was no threat to anyone was shot and killed, it will be time to call for the death penalty. But if the facts show that the shooter was innocent, then it will be time to call for people in the media and in politics to keep their big mouths shut until they know what they are talking about.

Playing with racial polarization is playing with fire.

Much has been made of the fact that the teenager was unarmed. The only time I have ever pointed a loaded gun at a human being, I had no idea whether he was armed or not. All I knew was that I could hear his footsteps sneaking up behind me at night.

Fortunately for both of us, he froze in his tracks when I pointed a gun at him. If he had made a false move, I would have shot him. And if it had turned out later that he was unarmed, I would not have lost a moment's sleep over it.

You know that someone was unarmed only after it is all over. If he attacks, you have to shoot, if only to keep the attacker from getting your gun.

It so happened that the man I pointed a gun at was white. But he could have been any color of the rainbow, and it would not have made the slightest difference.

Let the specific facts come out in the Florida case. That is why we have courts.

Have we forgotten the Jim Crow era, with courts making decisions based on the race of the defendants, rather than the facts of the case? That is part of the past that we need to leave in the past, not resurrect it under new racial management.

Who is really showing concern for the well-being of minority youngsters, Geraldo Rivera who is trying to save some lives, or Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and others who are hyping this tragic episode for their own benefit?

Race hustlers who hype paranoia and belligerence are doing no favor to minority youngsters. There is no way to know how many of these youngsters' confrontations with the police or others in authority have been needlessly aggravated by the steady drumbeat of racial hype they have been bombarded with by race hustlers.


----------



## Mike in Ohio

pancho said:


> You are still using the story put out by those who had a reason to put out a false story.
> 
> Zimmerman was head of the neighborhood watch. It was his job to be on the lookout for suspicious people. Zimmerman asked a simple question, "What are you doing around here". The neighborhood had recently had a batch of crimes and home breakins. Two black men had recently been arrested for some of the recent crimes.
> 
> He did call his girlfriend, spent hours on the phone with her that same day.
> She advised him to run but he said he wasn't going to. He was young and dumb. He had been able to get away with what ever he wanted to do and say no reason to change.
> 
> Not a very strange case at all. A simple one.
> A man trying to protect his neighborhood and attacked by a wannabe gansta.


It isn't Zimmermans "job". He is a volunteer who is also a wannabe cop.


----------



## Rocktown Gal

Sonshine said:


> Zimmerman was chasing him, he did tell the 911 operator he was and was told not to follow him.


I watched a Zimmerman friend on TV last night (he was black) and he stated that the 911 operator told Zimmerman to stop chasing Martin and Zimmerman said okay...and he did...as he turned around to go back to his vehicle Martin attacked him from behind.

This is the story that is not being told. You keep saying he was chasing him...at one point he was perusing him yes...you do not know at which point he stopped...yet you can not seem to understand that.


----------



## watcher

Mike in Ohio said:


> It isn't Zimmermans "job". He is a volunteer who is also a wannabe cop.


Its EVERYONE'S job to watch out for their neighborhood. If everyone took the time to question strange people things would be much better. Criminals would know they were being watched and people would get to know their neighbors.


----------



## Mike in Ohio

watcher said:


> Its EVERYONE'S job to watch out for their neighborhood. If everyone took the time to question strange people things would be much better. Criminals would know they were being watched and people would get to know their neighbors.


If you spend your time accosting all of the "strange people" I doubt you have much time to be doing much else in life.


----------



## pancho

Mike in Ohio said:


> It isn't Zimmermans "job". He is a volunteer who is also a wannabe cop.


All across the U.S. there are neighborhood watches.
Their job is to look out for suspicious people and prevent crime in the neighborhood. Zimmerman was the head of the neighborhood watch in his neighborhood.
Martin was a thug, thief, and druggie. Just the type of people neighborhood watches are supposed to be on the lookout for.


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> Martin was a thug, thief, and druggie. Just the type of people neighborhood watches are supposed to be on the lookout for.


I knew we would get around to the "he had it coming" argument sooner or later.


----------



## Nevada

Rocktown Gal said:


> I watched a Zimmerman friend on TV last night (he was black) and he stated that the 911 operator told Zimmerman to stop chasing Martin and Zimmerman said okay...and he did...as he turned around to go back to his vehicle Martin attacked him from behind.
> 
> This is the story that is not being told. You keep saying he was chasing him...at one point he was perusing him yes...you do not know at which point he stopped...yet you can not seem to understand that.


I understand that was what Zimmerman told police, but I have to leave open the possibility that Zimmerman made than story up to save his hide. His story is consistent with the evidence, but still can't be confirmed or denied. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me so I'm skeptical.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> I knew we would get around to the "he had it coming" argument sooner or later.


I didn't say he had it coming. Again you are posting what your beliefs are.

Martin had a history of drug use, carried illegal weapons, carried burgular tools, was in possession of jewelery that was not his, and was caught doing vandalism to the school.

I did not say he deserved to be shot but he is the type that neighborhood watches were designed to be on the lookout for.
He showed for sure he was the type when he attacked Zimmerman.


----------



## 7thswan

Rocktown Gal said:


> I watched a Zimmerman friend on TV last night (he was black) and he stated that the 911 operator told Zimmerman to stop chasing Martin and Zimmerman said okay...and he did...as he turned around to go back to his vehicle Martin attacked him from behind.
> 
> This is the story that is not being told. You keep saying he was chasing him...at one point he was perusing him yes...you do not know at which point he stopped...yet you can not seem to understand that.


Yup, attacked from behind , he was banging his head against the sidewalk and tryed to take Zimmermans gun.


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> He showed for sure he was the type when he attacked Zimmerman.


Allegedly attacked...


----------



## 7thswan

Nevada said:


> I understand that was what Zimmerman told police, but I have to leave open the possibility that Zimmerman made than story up to save his hide. His story is consistent with the evidence, but still can't be confirmed or denied. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me so I'm skeptical.


There is a witness, does not want to be in the public eye.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> I understand that was what Zimmerman told police, but I have to leave open the possibility that Zimmerman made than story up to save his hide. His story is consistent with the evidence, but still can't be confirmed or denied. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me so I'm skeptical.


It makes perfect sense to me.
We have one man who is a homeowner, well thought of in his community, volunteers to help protect the neighborhood, and is well thought of by his neighbors.

On the other hand we have a kid who has been kicked out of school for several different things. We have a kid that the parents either do not care enough about to raise him right or a kid that enjoys breaking the law.
We have a kid that the parents shuffle to each other each time he gets into trouble.

Which one woukld be more likely to tell the truth?


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> Allegedly attacked...


Just like Zimmerman allegedly shot him.


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> It makes perfect sense to me.
> We have one man who is a homeowner, well thought of in his community, volunteers to help protect the neighborhood, and is well thought of by his neighbors.
> 
> On the other hand we have a kid who has been kicked out of school for several different things. We have a kid that the parents either do not care enough about to raise him right or a kid that enjoys breaking the law.
> We have a kid that the parents shuffle to each other each time he gets into trouble.
> 
> Which one woukld be more likely to tell the truth?


You suggest that it's Zimmerman's word against Martin's. We haven't heard Martin's side of the story.


----------



## ryanthomas

Zimmerman didn't break the law by getting out of his vehicle and following the kid that night, but I bet he'll regret it the rest of his life anyway.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> You suggest that it's Zimmerman's word against Martin's. We haven't heard Martin's side of the story.


Not suggesting that at all.
I am suggesting we should look at the evidence, listen to the 911 tapes, and listen to the eye witnesses.
We don't have to take the word of either. 
All of the evidence points to one thing happening. The 911 tapes back that up. The eye witnesses who SAW what happened back it up.

All you have is what you believe and we all know how accurate your beliefs are.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice in the snippet, and even throughout the rest of the article, that they always showed Zimmerman the courtesy of referring to him by his surname. But each and every time Martin was mentioned he was referred to as Trayvon; calling him by his first name. It's subtle tactic to belittle the black man, but effective none the less. It placed Mr. Zimmerman in a higher station in life than little Trayvon.
> 
> 
> 
> You are right but for the wrong reason. By using his first name it makes the reader feel more connected to him, like they know him. It also helps to remind you he was black and the shooter wasn't. Be honest Trayvon sounds much more like a black name than Martin, doesn't it? And you don't picture someone named Zimmerman as anything but white, right?
> 
> If they wanted to belittle him they would not even use his name. Make him into an unperson.
Click to expand...

That belittling tactic is more common that you think. You may recall that the same tactic was used in the film Heat of the Night.

_Gillespie: What do they call you up north? Do they call you Virgil?
Tibbs: They call me MISTER Tibbs._

That tactic was so common that the "Mr. Tibbs" quote is considered an icon moment in films. And here it is, still being used today.


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> All of the evidence points to one thing happening.


Actually, the evidence fits both theories. I'm not aware of any evidence that refutes the idea that Zimmerman approached Martin and asked him what he was doing there. In fact Zimmerman's friend even said that's what happened. Presumably his friend got that idea from Zimmerman.


----------



## Sonshine

watcher said:


> Think about this. You see someone walking on your neighbor's property and you think, not know but just think, something isn't right so you call the cops. After you call them they guy starts walking away. You know the odds are he will be somewhere the cops can't find him by the time they get there. What do you do?
> 
> How would you feel if your thought was correct and the guy had, let's go to the extreme here, killed your neighbor and his entire family and he got away and was never caught because you didn't keep him in sight until the cops arrived?


I wouldn't call the cops because the kid wasn't doing anything wrong. If I saw him trying to break into my neighbor's car or home, then I would call the cops, but not just because there's someone I had not seen before. Define something isn't right.


----------



## Sonshine

TNHermit said:


> Trayvon Martin case: He was suspended from school for having a 'burglary tool' | Mail Online
> 
> Trayvon Martin was suspended from school for having a 'burglary tool' and women's jewellery in his backpack
> School security report says slain teen caught with 'burglary tool' and women's jewellery months prior to his death
> Was out of school on temporary suspension relating to drug find when he was shot on Feb. 26
> Parents fight allegations, calling them attempts to 'demonize' the victim
> Shooter George Zimmerman claims he shot the teen in self defense
> New poll shows 73 percent of Americans believe Zimmerman should be arrested
> 
> By Daily Mail Reporter
> 
> PUBLISHED: 08:02 EST, 26 March 2012 | UPDATED: 07:44 EST, 27 March 2012
> Comments (70)
> Share
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Florida teenager Trayvon Martin was allegedly suspended from school after security officers found what they described as a 'burglary tool' and womenâs jewellery in his backpack.
> 
> Although the school officially suspended Trayvon in October for grafitti, after he and some friends wrote âW.T.F.â on a school locker, the Miami Herald claims that the real reason was that he was caught with a 'burglary tool' - a flathead screwdriver - and 12 items of jewellery. Martin insisted that they did not belong to him.
> 
> The revelation, in a school report obtained by the Herald, was condemned today by Trayvon's family as part of a campaign to smear their dead son.
> 
> The 17-year-old's mother, whose unarmed son was shot dead last month by neighbourhood watch captain George Zimmerman in a gated community, said: 'They killed my son and now they're trying to kill his reputation.'


This has nothing to do with why he was killed, so I don't see the revelance.


----------



## Sonshine

haypoint said:


> But that's the point. You seem to understand that Martin apparently wasn't doing anything illegal, but criticize Zimmerman when it appears he didn't do anything illegal either.
> A 160 pound, 6 foot tall Black man should understand that walking around at night with a hoody, makes him look like a dangerous person. Donât blame the Mexican, blame real statistics of who commits most of the violent crime in America. Young black males.
> A 5â9â, 260 pound Mexican jellyroll should know better than to get too close to someone he sees as a potential criminal.
> Zimmerman used poor judgment, but Martin has a history of poor judgment, too. But all that doesnât matter. What led up to it matters not. What we know to be true: Martin beat the crap out of Zimmerman. (witnessed) Zimmerman felt threatened (statement). Zimmerman shot Martin (statement).
> Cut the speculation, on both sides, and give me provable facts that Zimmerman was the aggressor; otherwise this is simply a soapbox for Jessie, Al and Barack to push their racist agenda.


Would a 160 pound, 6 ft white man walking around in a hoody look like a dangerous person? Just wondering what his stature and attire has to do with anything.

I don't know anything about this witness, so I can not verify if he's telling the truth or not. I don't know the mind of Zimmerman, so I don't know if he felt threatened or not, but if he did, then why? Nothing you stated has been proven, which is my point, and which is why I am glad to see someone other than Sanford's LE investigating it.


----------



## Sonshine

haypoint said:


> Maybe Martin had that large flatblade screwdriver in his backpack so he could fix his school desk. I doubt he knew that you cah drive a large flat blade screwdriver into a car's ignition keyhole and twist it to start a car without a key. A large flatblade screwdriver is often enough to break open a residential door, as a pry bar. A large flatblade screwdriver is more effective than a knife as an assault weapon. Goes through clothes as a puncture weapon better than a broad knife, less likely to snap off and can still serve as a slashing weapon. Large flatblade screwdrivers are the inner city's multi-purpose tool.
> But that doesn't make Martin innocent or Zimmerman guilty.


And none of this has anything to do with what happened the night Martin was killed, unless they found the screwdriver on him at the time.


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> What would you suggest a person do when someone is trying to beat you to death?
> Especially a person with the background like Martin had.


First of all, to my knowledge Zimmerman had no idea of what Martin's background was. Secondly, I'm not convinced Martin was trying to beat Zimmerman to death since the witness has not been vetted, how do you know if he's telling the truth? Maybe Martin and Zimmerman did get in a scuffle, but I have no idea who started it. If this witness witnessed it at the start, why didn't he intervene?


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> He followed him because there had been burgulaies in the area done by black men. 2 had already been arrested.
> Martin was a stranger in the neighborhood and acting strange.
> How could Zimmerman tell the police where Martin was without following him.
> Martin may have broken into a home in the meantime. It wouldn't be out of character for him.
> Martin would still be alive if he would not have attacked Zimmerman.
> He chose to attack. Looking back on his history it isn't a surprise.


So, because he was black he was automatically found suspect, even though he was doing nothing wrong at the time? Zimmerman had no idea what was or was not in character for Martin. Martin "may" have, but there's no proof that he did. We don't know who attacked who.


----------



## Sonshine

TNHermit said:


> Geraldo's Point - Thomas Sowell - Townhall Conservative Columnists - Page 1
> 
> Geraldo's Point
> Thomas Sowell
> 
> t is not often that I agree with Geraldo Rivera, but recently he said something very practical and potentially life-saving, when he urged black and Hispanic parents not to let their children go around wearing hoodies.
> 
> 
> There is no point in dressing like a hoodlum when you are not a hoodlum, even though that has become a fashion for some minority youths, including the teenager who was shot and killed in a confrontation in Florida. I don't know the whole story of that tragedy, any more than those who are making loud noises in the media do, but that is something that we have trials for.
> 
> People have a right to dress any way they want to, but exercising that right is something that requires common sense, and common sense is something that parents should have, even if their children don't always have it.
> 
> Many years ago, when I was a student at Harvard, there was a warning to all the students to avoid a nearby tough Irish neighborhood, where Harvard students had been attacked. It so happened that there was a black neighborhood on the other side of the Irish neighborhood that I had to pass through when I went to get my hair cut.
> 
> I never went through that Irish neighborhood dressed in the style of most Harvard students back then. I walked through that Irish neighborhood dressed like a black working man would be dressed -- and I never had the slightest trouble the whole three years that I was at Harvard.
> 
> While I had a right to walk through that tough neighborhood dressed in a Brooks Brothers suit, if I wanted to -- and if I could have afforded one, which I couldn't -- it made no sense for me to court needless dangers.
> 
> The man who shot the black teenager in Florida may be as guilty as sin, for all I know -- or he may be innocent, for all I know. We pay taxes so that there can be judges and jurors who sort out the facts. We do not need Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or the President of the United States spouting off before the trial has even begun. Have we forgotten the media's rush to judgment in the Duke University "rape" case that blew up completely when the facts came out?
> 
> If the facts show that a teenager who was no threat to anyone was shot and killed, it will be time to call for the death penalty. But if the facts show that the shooter was innocent, then it will be time to call for people in the media and in politics to keep their big mouths shut until they know what they are talking about.
> 
> Playing with racial polarization is playing with fire.
> 
> Much has been made of the fact that the teenager was unarmed. The only time I have ever pointed a loaded gun at a human being, I had no idea whether he was armed or not. All I knew was that I could hear his footsteps sneaking up behind me at night.
> 
> Fortunately for both of us, he froze in his tracks when I pointed a gun at him. If he had made a false move, I would have shot him. And if it had turned out later that he was unarmed, I would not have lost a moment's sleep over it.
> 
> You know that someone was unarmed only after it is all over. If he attacks, you have to shoot, if only to keep the attacker from getting your gun.
> 
> It so happened that the man I pointed a gun at was white. But he could have been any color of the rainbow, and it would not have made the slightest difference.
> 
> Let the specific facts come out in the Florida case. That is why we have courts.
> 
> Have we forgotten the Jim Crow era, with courts making decisions based on the race of the defendants, rather than the facts of the case? That is part of the past that we need to leave in the past, not resurrect it under new racial management.
> 
> Who is really showing concern for the well-being of minority youngsters, Geraldo Rivera who is trying to save some lives, or Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and others who are hyping this tragic episode for their own benefit?
> 
> Race hustlers who hype paranoia and belligerence are doing no favor to minority youngsters. There is no way to know how many of these youngsters' confrontations with the police or others in authority have been needlessly aggravated by the steady drumbeat of racial hype they have been bombarded with by race hustlers.


That's ridiculous! I wear hoodies and I'm not a hoodlum.


----------



## Sonshine

Rocktown Gal said:


> I watched a Zimmerman friend on TV last night (he was black) and he stated that the 911 operator told Zimmerman to stop chasing Martin and Zimmerman said okay...and he did...as he turned around to go back to his vehicle Martin attacked him from behind.
> 
> This is the story that is not being told. You keep saying he was chasing him...at one point he was perusing him yes...you do not know at which point he stopped...yet you can not seem to understand that.


Of course Zimmerman is going to say he stopped. How do any of us know if Zimmerman is telling the truth. All I'm saying is take it to court and see what happens. I'm not saying Zimmerman is guilty, but I would like the courts to decide.


----------



## Sonshine

watcher said:


> Its EVERYONE'S job to watch out for their neighborhood. If everyone took the time to question strange people things would be much better. Criminals would know they were being watched and people would get to know their neighbors.


It's not everyone's job to shoot 17 yr old kids though. Vigilante justice is never the answer.


----------



## Sonshine

7thswan said:


> Yup, attacked from behind , he was banging his head against the sidewalk and tryed to take Zimmermans gun.


And you saw this happen?


----------



## Sonshine

7thswan said:


> There is a witness, does not want to be in the public eye.


Do you know this witness? Do you know anything about him? Has he been vetted?


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> It makes perfect sense to me.
> We have one man who is a homeowner, well thought of in his community, volunteers to help protect the neighborhood, and is well thought of by his neighbors.
> 
> On the other hand we have a kid who has been kicked out of school for several different things. We have a kid that the parents either do not care enough about to raise him right or a kid that enjoys breaking the law.
> We have a kid that the parents shuffle to each other each time he gets into trouble.
> 
> Which one woukld be more likely to tell the truth?


Zimmerman was not squeaky clean either, although most on here think Martin was the only one who had criminal behavior.

George Zimmerman had felony assault on police officer charge in '05 & 2 domestic assaults
George Zimmerman had felony assault on police officer charge in '05 & 2 domestic assaults

Who is George Zimmerman? Florida Shooter Has Checkered Past Of Ã¢â¬ËVigilantismÃ¢â¬â¢ And Domestic Violence - International Business Times

So looks like they both have a history, which is why I would like to see it go to court. Martin can't defend himself from the accusations against him, he's dead. I don't trust Zimmerman because he's shown a tendency towards violence in the past.

Discussion: What Have We Learned From George Zimmerman's History Of Domestic Abuse @PolicyMic | Judith Ayers
In the light of Trayvon Martin's murder at the hands of George Zimmerman, I am interested in the fact that Zimmerman was involved in a domestic abuse incident with his ex-fiancee in 2005. Zimmerman has a violent past, and seemed unstable from other comments and incidents. As part of his neighborhood watch program, he called police at least 46 times since January 1, 2011.


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> Just like Zimmerman allegedly shot him.


Didn't Zimmerman admit to shooting him?


----------



## Sonshine

ryanthomas said:


> Zimmerman didn't break the law by getting out of his vehicle and following the kid that night, but I bet he'll regret it the rest of his life anyway.


And Martin did not break any laws by wearing a hoodie while being out at night. I'm sure if Martin was still alive he'd regret going to the store to get some skittles.


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> Not suggesting that at all.
> I am suggesting we should look at the evidence, listen to the 911 tapes, and listen to the eye witnesses.
> We don't have to take the word of either.
> All of the evidence points to one thing happening. The 911 tapes back that up. The eye witnesses who SAW what happened back it up.
> 
> All you have is what you believe and we all know how accurate your beliefs are.


Who is this witness? How do we know he's tellng the truth? Does he know Zimmerman? What do you know about him that you would believe him?


----------



## watcher

Mike in Ohio said:


> If you spend your time accosting all of the "strange people" I doubt you have much time to be doing much else in life.


I don't accost nor have I ever been accosted. I do stop and ask people if they need assistance and I have had people ask me the same when I was 'out of place'. Times people were glad to get the help, times when they were fine and other times they were evasive enough I felt they needed the assistance of a nice police officer and made sure one was summoned to help them.

I have no problem taking a few minutes out of my life to help my neighbors. This maybe shooing their horse back into the pasture and closing the gate or it may be making sure the guy walking down the road isn't someone looking for an unoccupied home to break into. In the areas I have lived in my neighbors have felt the same. Maybe that's why I can park all my vehicles in my yard with the keys in them and get up in the morning and they still be there. Or why I can leave home with my doors unlocked and come home to find all my stuff still there.

But hey, if you enjoy having to double lock your doors, put bars on your windows and having to have an alarm on your car you keep right on living the way you are.


----------



## Nevada

Sonshine said:


> Discussion: What Have We Learned From George Zimmerman's History Of Domestic Abuse @PolicyMic | Judith Ayers


Actually, any kind of domestic violence is very serious from a gun ownership standpoint. It's unfortunate that Zimmerman wasn't charged with domestic violence. It's people with exactly this kind of history that prompted laws to exist to keep guns out of their hands.


----------



## JeffreyD

Sonshine said:


> Who is this witness? How do we know he's tellng the truth? Does he know Zimmerman? What do you know about him that you would believe him?


The witness was interviewed by the police. I'll take their word for it. Do you know otherwise? Sowell is correct, if your not a criminal, why wear their clothing. 2 black men were arrested in that neighborhood for burglery, wouldn't the neighborhood watch(Zimmerman) be concerned? I do the same in our neighborhood!(along with a few others) We have caught several "kids" breaking into home here in the last several years. The last one i caught was wearing a hoody and was in communication with his friends via cell phone when i caught him, his friends ran away. Why doesn't everyone take a chill pill and let the cops do their job! None of us were there. None of us truly know what happened. It's all conjecture on our part.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Actually, any kind of domestic violence is very serious from a gun ownership standpoint. It's unfortunate that Zimmerman wasn't charged with domestic violence. It's people with exactly this kind of history that prompted laws to exist to keep guns out of their hands.


Get real. Let the cops do their jobs and stop armchair quarterbacking. None of us know what really happened. Domestic violence, that's a REAL strech even by your standards. :hysterical:


----------



## Wanderer0101

Sonshine said:


> Who is this witness? How do we know he's tellng the truth? Does he know Zimmerman? What do you know about him that you would believe him?


Why don't you just say, "I want Zimmerman tried and convicted. I don't care what the facts are because I won't believe anything that interferes with what I want." That's what your continued remarks boil down to. You simply won't accept anything that doesn't support your point of view. 

Any rational person would recognize that we've gone from an innocent, baby faced "child" to a drug using, thieving, hulking guy who recently punched out a bus driver with a history of school suspensions who calls himself No Limit N****r and who an eye witness says assaulted Zimmerman who has a broken nose plus abrasions consistent with the eye witness testimony yet you refuse to admit that it makes one bit of difference. Your comments have become nonsensical.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> Actually, the evidence fits both theories. I'm not aware of any evidence that refutes the idea that Zimmerman approached Martin and asked him what he was doing there. In fact Zimmerman's friend even said that's what happened. Presumably his friend got that idea from Zimmerman.


Zimmerman did approach Martin and asked what he was doing there.
It is in the real 911 tapes.
Does that give Martin the right to attack and try to kill Zimmerman?


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Get real. Let the cops do their jobs and stop armchair quarterbacking. None of us know what really happened. Domestic violence, that's a REAL strech even by your standards. :hysterical:


Not much of a stretch. That's exactly what his girlfriend accused him of, and a judge issued a restraining order on that information. His gun rights had a close brush with the law in 2005, since even misdemeanor domestic violence means gun ownership rights are lost for life.


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> This has nothing to do with why he was killed, so I don't see the revelance.


It shows the character of Martin.
He was a thief, druggie, and destroyed property.
He even got kicked out of school for it.


----------



## Darren

Sonshine said:


> This has nothing to do with why he was killed, so I don't see the revelance.


You're right. Those facts have nothing to do with why he was killed except possibly how he appeared to others. People can knowingly or unknowingling adopt certain mannerism's gaits, etc. That projects a message to someone else. Out of all the humor I read in Reader's Digest over the years, I can remember only one from decades ago.

A woman wrote:

*I was stopped at a red light when a car driven by a black man pulled up in the next lane and stopped. I instinctively rolled up my window. He looked over at me, smiled and did the same. I caught myself smiling in return.*

That was a man who understood life much more than Trayvon. 

While we can do all the hypothesizing we want there are some obvious factors that combined to bring the two men together and instigated an incident that claimed one life and quite possibly ruined the life of another.

I often smile at people for no reason at all except our eyes have locked for a brief moment. I usually get a smile in return. It's the way humans show each other I'm OK and I think you're OK too. Unless one's a psychopath/sociopath, I think that's a reliable sign that no one is hostile.

Trayvon Martin was a stranger to Zimmerman. You're not from around here is one of humankind's first indications of potential trouble. That is ingrained. It's a classic us versus them divider. If the previous crime incidents hadn't provided the necessity for a neighborhood watch, the young man would be alive today.

The information about Trayvon Martin that's on the internt indicates a young male trying to find his place in the world like anyone else his age. It looked like he fully embraced bravado as part of his life style. I think it's called "Putting it out there." or "Getting up in their face."

We don't know what happened that brought the two together in the scuffle. Most times a simple "How you doing?" eases the situation when two strangers come into contact. I don't think Martin was conditioned to say that to strangers. Instead I think his bravado did not serve him well. 

Martin was betrayed by a culture that taught him the wrong things to get along with any and all that he might meet. The young man who named himself no_limit_nigga found that there are indeed limits. 

In the brief moment before he died after being shot, I wonder what went through his mind. Disbelief? Shock? Anger? Sadness that he hadn't been stronger to prevail?

I doubt he had the time to think about the conditioning he had received and how it had betrayed him.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Not much of a stretch. That's exactly what his girlfriend accused him of, and a judge issued a restraining order on that information. His gun rights had a close brush with the law in 2005, since even misdemeanor domestic violence means gun ownership rights are lost for life.


Simple yes or no question. Do you know for a fact what happened?


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> Zimmerman did approach Martin and asked what he was doing there.
> It is in the real 911 tapes.
> Does that give Martin the right to attack and try to kill Zimmerman?


That's a serious problem then, because it means Zimmerman's police statement doesn't match the evidence.


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> Would a 160 pound, 6 ft white man walking around in a hoody look like a dangerous person? Just wondering what his stature and attire has to do with anything.
> 
> I don't know anything about this witness, so I can not verify if he's telling the truth or not. I don't know the mind of Zimmerman, so I don't know if he felt threatened or not, but if he did, then why? Nothing you stated has been proven, which is my point, and which is why I am glad to see someone other than Sanford's LE investigating it.


One thing is the Sharptons and Jacksons of the world have been posting these pics of many years ago. We have seen some of the more recent pics of Martin. Some were not even allowed on this forum.
Some people who support the Sharptons and Jacksons of the world have no problem with them posting inaccurate pics.


----------



## ryanthomas

Sonshine said:


> Of course Zimmerman is going to say he stopped. How do any of us know if Zimmerman is telling the truth. All I'm saying is take it to court and see what happens. I'm not saying Zimmerman is guilty, but I would like the courts to decide.


What evidence would you like the prosecution to present in court?


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> And none of this has anything to do with what happened the night Martin was killed, unless they found the screwdriver on him at the time.


Again, it shows the character of Martin.


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> First of all, to my knowledge Zimmerman had no idea of what Martin's background was. Secondly, I'm not convinced Martin was trying to beat Zimmerman to death since the witness has not been vetted, how do you know if he's telling the truth? Maybe Martin and Zimmerman did get in a scuffle, but I have no idea who started it. If this witness witnessed it at the start, why didn't he intervene?


The police and the investigators believed the eye witness.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Simple yes or no question. Do you know for a fact what happened?


Yes, we know that a woman swore-out a statement saying that he abused her.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Sonshine said:


> Zimmerman was *chasing* him, he did tell the 911 operator he was and was *told not to* follow him.


The words used were "FOLLOWING" and "we don't need you to"

*Rewording* it to make it sound more dramatic is how the media works


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Sonshine said:


> The things he did prior to this night are irrelevant in this particular case, since he's not the one who killed someone else. All that matters in this case is whether Zimmerman had the right to kill him.


Then why do they keep talking about Zimmerman's past.

I think it is VERY relevant to show Martin likely used drugs, and his parents both knew it and LIED about it


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> So, because he was black he was automatically found suspect, even though he was doing nothing wrong at the time? Zimmerman had no idea what was or was not in character for Martin. Martin "may" have, but there's no proof that he did. We don't know who attacked who.


Common sense.
Black men had been burgalizing homes in the area.
2 black men had already been caught.
Martin was not from the neighborhood.
Zimmerman was on neighborhood watch.
Martin was acting strange.

If a black man committed a crime do you think it is wise to not look at black men?

A while back the TV had to stop giving descriptions on what color a person was who had committed a crime. They were able to give approximate heighth, weight, and describe the clothing. They were not allowed to say it was a black man. They were able to say it was a white man.

Why do you think the color of a person should not be part of the description?


----------



## Sonshine

JeffreyD said:


> The witness was interviewed by the police. I'll take their word for it. Do you know otherwise? Sowell is correct, if your not a criminal, why wear their clothing. 2 black men were arrested in that neighborhood for burglery, wouldn't the neighborhood watch(Zimmerman) be concerned? I do the same in our neighborhood!(along with a few others) We have caught several "kids" breaking into home here in the last several years. The last one i caught was wearing a hoody and was in communication with his friends via cell phone when i caught him, his friends ran away. Why doesn't everyone take a chill pill and let the cops do their job! None of us were there. None of us truly know what happened. It's all conjecture on our part.


I'm not a criminal and I have a few hoodies. I wear them around the barn and out camping most of the time, but also have worn them to Universal Studios (I actually bought one there). I strongly agree with the last part of your post, it's what I've been saying all along, let the officials do their job. Let the investigation run it's course.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Yes, we know that a woman swore-out a statement saying that he abused her.


Typical of you.

I'll re-phrase it for you so you can understand better.

Simple yes or no question.

Do YOU know all the *facts* in the Zimmerman vs Martin case?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that your not going to give us an honset answer.


----------



## Sonshine

JeffreyD said:


> Get real. Let the cops do their jobs and stop armchair quarterbacking. None of us know what really happened. Domestic violence, that's a REAL strech even by your standards. :hysterical:


When did domestic violence become funny? Did you go to the links?


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> As part of his neighborhood watch program, he called police at least 46 times since January 1, 2011.


He called the police 46 times. None of these times did he resort to any kind of violence. That should be seen as a pattern.
He called the police this time also. The difference this time he was attacked.
Remember 46 times, no violence.


----------



## Sonshine

Wanderer0101 said:


> Why don't you just say, "I want Zimmerman tried and convicted. I don't care what the facts are because I won't believe anything that interferes with what I want." That's what your continued remarks boil down to. You simply won't accept anything that doesn't support your point of view.
> 
> Any rational person would recognize that we've gone from an innocent, baby faced "child" to a drug using, thieving, hulking guy who recently punched out a bus driver with a history of school suspensions who calls himself No Limit N****r and who an eye witness says assaulted Zimmerman who has a broken nose plus abrasions consistent with the eye witness testimony yet you refuse to admit that it makes one bit of difference. Your comments have become nonsensical.


Because I want the truth. I have never said I wanted Zimmerman convicted. I do want him tried though because I think that's the only way to find the truth. You are all judging Martin from what you have read online. Have you done any research on the type of man Zimmerman is? What's the harm in checking out this so called eye witness? See if he has any connections to Zimmerman. What harm can that do? If he's telling the truth, then it shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> Who is this witness? How do we know he's tellng the truth? Does he know Zimmerman? What do you know about him that you would believe him?


How do you know the eye witness isn't telling the truth?
By the way, they have more than 1 eye witness who tells the same story.
No one who say the incident tells anything different.
The only people who are spredding lies are the ones who were not there and who have a personal interest in the outcome, mostly monetary.


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> It shows the character of Martin.
> He was a thief, druggie, and destroyed property.
> He even got kicked out of school for it.


And Zimmerman has a history of domestic violence.


----------



## JeffreyD

Sonshine said:


> I'm not a criminal and I have a few hoodies. I wear them around the barn and out camping most of the time, but also have worn them to Universal Studios (I actually bought one there). I strongly agree with the last part of your post, it's what I've been saying all along, let the officials do their job. Let the investigation run it's course.


I used to make pizza's at Universal about 35 years ago, we made almost 800 pizza's in 1 shift! Had a crazy food fight on the last day we were open. Bob Hastings(from McHales Navy tv show) got me my job there. Did you go to City Walk at night? Tony Roma's is pretty good, but we won't go there any more. Many, MANY, hoodlum gang criminals there, wearing their typical hoodlum gang criminal clothing. Hoodies, long white socks, wife beater shirts, Dodger hats, etc...


----------



## JeffreyD

Sonshine said:


> When did domestic violence become funny? Did you go to the links?


The smily was directed at Nevada. Yes, i went to the links.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> That's a serious problem then, because it means Zimmerman's police statement doesn't match the evidence.


You don't even know what is on the police statement.
You get all of your info from Sharpton and Jackson.


----------



## Sonshine

Darren said:


> You're right. Those facts have nothing to do with why he was killed except possibly how he appeared to others. People can knowingly or unknowingling adopt certain mannerism's gaits, etc. That projects a message to someone else. Out of all the humor I read in Reader's Digest over the years, I can remember only one from decades ago.
> 
> A woman wrote:
> 
> *I was stopped at a red light when a car driven by a black man pulled up in the next lane and stopped. I instinctively rolled up my window. He looked over at me, smiled and did the same. I caught myself smiling in return.*
> 
> That was a man who understood life much more than Trayvon.
> 
> While we can do all the hypothesizing we want there are some obvious factors that combined to bring the two men together and instigated an incident that claimed one life and quite possibly ruined the life of another.
> 
> I often smile at people for no reason at all except our eyes have locked for a brief moment. I usually get a smile in return. It's the way humans show each other I'm OK and I think you're OK too. Unless one's a psychopath/sociopath, I think that's a reliable sign that no one is hostile.
> 
> Trayvon Martin was a stranger to Zimmerman. You're not from around here is one of humankind's first indications of potential trouble. That is ingrained. It's a classic us versus them divider. If the previous crime incidents hadn't provided the necessity for a neighborhood watch, the young man would be alive today.
> 
> The information about Trayvon Martin that's on the internt indicates a young male trying to find his place in the world like anyone else his age. It looked like he fully embraced bravado as part of his life style. I think it's called "Putting it out there." or "Getting up in their face."
> 
> We don't know what happened that brought the two together in the scuffle. Most times a simple "How you doing?" eases the situation when two strangers come into contact. I don't think Martin was conditioned to say that to strangers. Instead I think his bravado did not serve him well.
> 
> Martin was betrayed by a culture that taught him the wrong things to get along with any and all that he might meet. The young man who named himself no_limit_nigga found that there are indeed limits.
> 
> In the brief moment before he died after being shot, I wonder what went through his mind. Disbelief? Shock? Anger? Sadness that he hadn't been stronger to prevail?
> 
> I doubt he had the time to think about the conditioning he had received and how it had betrayed him.


I understand that Martin was not a choir boy, but no one has bothered to mention the faults of Zimmerman, who was also not a nice person. This is why I don't understand why so many don't want this to go to court. I want the truth of what happened. Not just speculations. Martin is being tried and convicted for doing nothing more than walking down the street in the rain wearing a hoodie. He's dead and cannot defend himself or tell his side of the story. I think the only way we'll get a glimpse of his side of the story is in a court of law.


----------



## ryanthomas

Sonshine said:


> Because I want the truth. I have never said I wanted Zimmerman convicted. I do want him tried though because I think that's the only way to find the truth.


I'll ask again because it appears you missed my post...what evidence would you like the prosecution to present at his trial?


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> Because I want the truth. I have never said I wanted Zimmerman convicted. I do want him tried though because I think that's the only way to find the truth. You are all judging Martin from what you have read online. Have you done any research on the type of man Zimmerman is? What's the harm in checking out this so called eye witness? See if he has any connections to Zimmerman. What harm can that do? If he's telling the truth, then it shouldn't be a problem.


Why put a man on trial when the only thing he did was protect himself.
Eye witnesses have stated this, The evidence shows that.

We should be calling for the parents of Martin to be on trial.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Typical of you.
> 
> I'll re-phrase it for you so you can understand better.
> 
> Simple yes or no question.
> 
> Do YOU know all the *facts* in the Zimmerman vs Martin case?
> 
> I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that your not going to give us an honset answer.


I've read about the incident. It came down to 'he said-she said', both swearing-out statements, and opposing restraining orders were issued. It sounded typical of young people with anger-management problems. We've all seen it.

I can't say fro sure how it would have gone if he had been charged, but most people in that position take a deal to plead guilty, pay a fine, and go to anger management classes. They do that because they don't want their dirty laundry aired in public, which will surely happen if it goes to trial. If that's the way it would have ended in 2005, Zimmerman wouldn't be allowed to own a gun today. I suggest that Zimmerman losing his right to own a gun might have been a good thing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> It's unfortunate that *Zimmerman wasn't charged* with domestic violence.


Then why are you making it an issue and talking about *gun control* again?


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> And Zimmerman has a history of domestic violence.


Are you saying Martin was related to Zimmerman or had a relationship with him?


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> One thing is the Sharptons and Jacksons of the world have been posting these pics of many years ago. We have seen some of the more recent pics of Martin. Some were not even allowed on this forum.
> Some people who support the Sharptons and Jacksons of the world have no problem with them posting inaccurate pics.


I don't trust Sharpton or Jackson or their ilk. I agree that they are using this situation to further their destructive agenda. Yet everyone is throwing up Martin's past, no one has mentioned the fact that Zimmerman also has a past, at least no one here. That is reason enough to at least question whether his statement is the truth or not. Yes, he has an eye witness, but how do we know whether or not this witness is a friend of Zimmerman's? I am not trying and convicting anyone, I just want to know the truth and the only way I can see getting it is through court. The media will tell us what they want us to know, they have their own agenda. I believe Zimmerman deserves a fair trial, but I also believe Martin does too.


----------



## JeffreyD

Sonshine said:


> I understand that Martin was not a choir boy, but no one has bothered to mention the faults of Zimmerman, who was also not a nice person. This is why I don't understand why so many don't want this to go to court. I want the truth of what happened. Not just speculations. Martin is being tried and convicted for doing nothing more than walking down the street in the rain wearing a hoodie. He's dead and cannot defend himself or tell his side of the story. I think the only way we'll get a glimpse of his side of the story is in a court of law.


Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the police to determine weather or not to file charges? If there was not enough evidence to file, why would anybody disagree with the police? Does anyone here know all the facts and know about all the evidence? I think not! Live with the judgement of those that are working on this case.


----------



## Sonshine

ryanthomas said:


> What evidence would you like the prosecution to present in court?


Whatever evidence they have. Get everything out in the open and let the courts decide. Instead it seems people on both sides of this issue have already tried and convicted Martin and Zimmerman. Instead of it being tried in the court of public opinion, I would like to see it done in a court of law and let the chips fall where they may.


----------



## TNHermit

Where is La Raza and the like in all this. Why aren't they speaking up. Why do people call this guy white guy. convenient! He is hispanic. And he is a registered democrat


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> Again, it shows the character of Martin.


have you researched the character of Zimmerman?


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> I don't trust Sharpton or Jackson or their ilk. I agree that they are using this situation to further their destructive agenda. Yet everyone is throwing up Martin's past, no one has mentioned the fact that Zimmerman also has a past, at least no one here. That is reason enough to at least question whether his statement is the truth or not. Yes, he has an eye witness, but how do we know whether or not this witness is a friend of Zimmerman's? I am not trying and convicting anyone, I just want to know the truth and the only way I can see getting it is through court. The media will tell us what they want us to know, they have their own agenda. I believe Zimmerman deserves a fair trial, but I also believe Martin does too.


There was more than one eye witness.
There are several. They all tell the same thing.
The 911 calls back up what they are saying.
The evidence backs up what they have said.


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> The police and the investigators believed the eye witness.


I don't trust the Sanford police. The investigators are still investigating.


----------



## ryanthomas

Sonshine said:


> Whatever evidence they have. Get everything out in the open and let the courts decide. Instead it seems people on both sides of this issue have already tried and convicted Martin and Zimmerman. Instead of it being tried in the court of public opinion, I would like to see it done in a court of law and let the chips fall where they may.


They don't have any evidence that Zimmerman committed a crime in this case, at least not that we know about. How can they take it to court without evidence? A theory is not enough.


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> have you researched the character of Zimmerman?


Zimmerman did not attack Martin.
He defended himself when he was attacked by Martin.

Are you saying Zimmerman deserved to be beaten and his head bashed against the sidewalk?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> That's exactly what his girlfriend *accused *him of, and a judge issued a restraining order *on that information*


I could go to a magistrate (judge) today,* sign a piece of paper*, and get a restraining order against you , without ever having any real PROOF at all.
I just have to SAY it happened


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> I've read about the incident. It came down to 'he said-she said', both swearing-out statements, and opposing restraining orders were issued. It sounded typical of young people with anger-management problems. We've all seen it.
> 
> I can't say fro sure how it would have gone if he had been charged, but most people in that position take a deal to plead guilty, pay a fine, and go to anger management classes. They do that because they don't want their dirty laundry aired in public, which will surely happen if it goes to trial. If that's the way it would have ended in 2005, Zimmerman wouldn't be allowed to own a gun today. I suggest that Zimmerman losing his right to own a gun might have been a good thing.


:hysterical:

Your embarassing your self here!

I knew you couldn't do it!! What does this have to do with the question i asked you? Nothing that's what. But i guess that's all you've got.

I asked about Zimmerman vs Martin, not Zimmerman vs "she"!


----------



## Wanderer0101

Sonshine said:


> And Zimmerman has a history of domestic violence.


That statement is a vast distortion of the available information. You continue to grope for something to support your point of view while denying or questioning the validity of anything that doesn't support your point of view. I think the only thing that matters to you is that a black guy was shot but someone that wasn't black. Consequently, the shooter must be guilty.


----------



## Sonshine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then why do they keep talking about Zimmerman's past.
> 
> I think it is VERY relevant to show Martin likely used drugs, and his parents both knew it and LIED about it


Today is the first time I posted about Zimmerman's past, after 20 some odd pages of everyone posting about Martin's past. As for the relevence, it would be relevent if Zimmerman knew his history, but as far as I know Zimmerman didn't know Martin, so he could not know that he used drugs or anything else, other than the fact that Martin didn't look familiar to him, Martin was black and was wearing a hoodie.


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> I don't trust the Sanford police. The investigators are still investigating.


That is the problem.
You don't trust the police.
You don't trust the eyewittnessES.
You don't trust the evidence.
You don't trust the 911 tapes.

Instead you put your trust in Sharpton and Jackson.


----------



## JeffreyD

Sonshine said:


> I don't trust the Sanford police. The investigators are still investigating.


Why don't you trust them?


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then why are you making it an issue and talking about *gun control* again?


Because it is exactly that kind of behavior that they created laws to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. Zimmerman not being charged in 2005 means that his behavior fell through the cracks, and Martin lost his life as a result.


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> Common sense.
> Black men had been burgalizing homes in the area.
> 2 black men had already been caught.
> Martin was not from the neighborhood.
> Zimmerman was on neighborhood watch.
> Martin was acting strange.
> 
> If a black man committed a crime do you think it is wise to not look at black men?
> 
> A while back the TV had to stop giving descriptions on what color a person was who had committed a crime. They were able to give approximate heighth, weight, and describe the clothing. They were not allowed to say it was a black man. They were able to say it was a white man.
> 
> Why do you think the color of a person should not be part of the description?


How was Martin acting strange? According to you black men had already been caught, so why was Zimmerman still trying to catch a black man? Sounds a bit prejudice to me. My 13 yr old son wears hoodies, guess I better not let him around any of you.


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> Common sense.
> Black men had been burgalizing homes in the area.
> 2 black men had already been caught.
> Martin was not from the neighborhood.
> Zimmerman was on neighborhood watch.
> Martin was acting strange.
> 
> If a black man committed a crime do you think it is wise to not look at black men?
> 
> A while back the TV had to stop giving descriptions on what color a person was who had committed a crime. They were able to give approximate heighth, weight, and describe the clothing. They were not allowed to say it was a black man. They were able to say it was a white man.
> 
> Why do you think the color of a person should not be part of the description?


Where did I say the color of a person should not be part of the description?


----------



## Sonshine

JeffreyD said:


> Typical of you.
> 
> I'll re-phrase it for you so you can understand better.
> 
> Simple yes or no question.
> 
> Do YOU know all the *facts* in the Zimmerman vs Martin case?
> 
> I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that your not going to give us an honset answer.


Do you know all the facts?


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> Because it is exactly that kind of behavior that they created laws to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. Zimmerman not being charged in 2005 means that his behavior fell through the cracks, and Martin lost his life as a result.


No, Martin lost his life because he attacked an armed man who defended himself.
Martin had attacked a bus driver before who was unarmed. Guess he thought he could get away with it again.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Because it is exactly that kind of behavior that they created laws to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. Zimmerman not being charged in 2005 means that his behavior fell through the cracks, and Martin lost his life as a result.


Your embarassing yourself again!


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> He called the police 46 times. None of these times did he resort to any kind of violence. That should be seen as a pattern.
> He called the police this time also. The difference this time he was attacked.
> Remember 46 times, no violence.


He does have a history of violence. Yet you are choosing to ignore that fact. I don't trust many men who beat up on women.


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> How do you know the eye witness isn't telling the truth?
> By the way, they have more than 1 eye witness who tells the same story.
> No one who say the incident tells anything different.
> The only people who are spredding lies are the ones who were not there and who have a personal interest in the outcome, mostly monetary.


I don't know, and neither do you. This is why I think it should go to court.


----------



## JeffreyD

Sonshine said:


> Do you know all the facts?


No, i don't. And neither does anyone else one this board, do they? That's why i said to leave it to the police. They have all the facts.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> That belittling tactic is more common that you think. You may recall that the same tactic was used in the film Heat of the Night.
> 
> _Gillespie: What do they call you up north? Do they call you Virgil?
> Tibbs: They call me MISTER Tibbs._
> 
> That tactic was so common that the "Mr. Tibbs" quote is considered an icon moment in films. And here it is, still being used today.


I still disagree. First off the press is trying to rise the image of Martin as a "kid", a "child". To call him by his last name raises him to the status of an adult. Then the view of him attacking Zimmerman is more logical. A "kid" attacking an adult sounds ridiculous but an adult attacking an adult sounds quite plausible.

Second, as I pointed out Martin sounds too white. When you hear someone talking about Mr Martin you don't picture a black do you. But hear someone talking about Trayvon and what picture pops into your mind?

There is another problem with your example. Its set in the 60s. Back then it was considered VERY disrespectful to address anyone but a close friend by their first name. You didn't call your coworker "Joe" unless you had worked with him for years. You called him either Mr. Smith or Smith. Today its almost an insult to fail to call someone by their last name. The term "on a first name basis" has no meaning anymore.


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> How was Martin acting strange? According to you black men had already been caught, so why was Zimmerman still trying to catch a black man? Sounds a bit prejudice to me. My 13 yr old son wears hoodies, guess I better not let him around any of you.


They had already caught 2 black men burgalizing. Why couldn't there be more than 2? Zimmerman was watching for anyone, that is what a neighborhood watch is supposed to do.
In the real 911 tape Zimmerman said Martin was acting strange, like he was on drugs or something.

Maybe you should take this incident to heart and re think your son's clothing.
Might save his life someday.


----------



## Sonshine

JeffreyD said:


> I used to make pizza's at Universal about 35 years ago, we made almost 800 pizza's in 1 shift! Had a crazy food fight on the last day we were open. Bob Hastings(from McHales Navy tv show) got me my job there. Did you go to City Walk at night? Tony Roma's is pretty good, but we won't go there any more. Many, MANY, hoodlum gang criminals there, wearing their typical hoodlum gang criminal clothing. Hoodies, long white socks, wife beater shirts, Dodger hats, etc...


We use to live in Lakeland and for Christmas we always got season's passes for Univeral Studies. I love city walk. That was just 6 years ago.


----------



## JeffreyD

Sonshine said:


> He does have a history of violence. Yet you are choosing to ignore that fact. I don't trust many men who beat up on women.


How many convictions does Zimmerman have against him? You seem to have all the answers. And i don't trust many woman that beat up on men!


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Sonshine said:


> Today is the first time I posted about Zimmerman's past, after 20 some odd pages of everyone posting about Martin's past.
> As for the relevence, it would be relevent if Zimmerman knew his history, but as far as I know *Zimmerman didn't know Martin*, so he could not know *that he used drugs* or anything else, other than the fact that *Martin didn't look familiar* to him, Martin was black and was wearing a hoodie.


 
It's not about what he "knew" , but what he *SUSPECTED*, and it turns out he was *correct*.


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> Where did I say the color of a person should not be part of the description?


The description of the men who had been burgalizing homes was black.
Do you think Zimmerman should not look at any black men?


----------



## Sonshine

ryanthomas said:


> I'll ask again because it appears you missed my post...what evidence would you like the prosecution to present at his trial?


Since I don't have access to any of the evidence it would be silly to try to answer this question. I'm sure the prosecutors will know though, that is if they get a chance to try this in a court of law instead of the media and public opinion.


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> He does have a history of violence. Yet you are choosing to ignore that fact. I don't trust many men who beat up on women.


I don't trust young punks that use drugs, vandalize schools, beat up people, and steal.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Because it is exactly that kind of behavior that they created laws to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. Zimmerman not being charged in 2005 means that his behavior fell through the cracks, and Martin lost his life as a result.


According to an EYEWITNESS, Martin lost his life for trying to beat Zimmerman's head into a sidewalk

You can pretend otherwise, but your version is pure fantasy


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> I don't know, and neither do you. This is why I think it should go to court.


We don't have to know. The police will decide what is right.
Not the black panthers, not Sharpton, and not Jackson.


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> Why put a man on trial when the only thing he did was protect himself.
> Eye witnesses have stated this, The evidence shows that.
> 
> We should be calling for the parents of Martin to be on trial.


Again, I don't know who these so called eye witnesses are and know nothing about them. Are they friend's of Zimmerman's? Live in his neighborhood? Are they racists? The evidence can show different things depending on how you're looking at it. I'm not a lawyer, but why on earth should Martin's parents be on trial?

If the only thing Zimmerman did was protect himself then why not go on trial to prove it and clear up everything?


----------



## JeffreyD

Sonshine said:


> We use to live in Lakeland and for Christmas we always got season's passes for Univeral Studies. I love city walk. That was just 6 years ago.


My how things have changed for the worse! Try going there now! Fights every night. Ambulances on standby. Universal tried to enforce a dress code, but the aclu got involved and they were forced to recant their position and hire more security. For the most part, everyone is safe, mostly! Same with Magic Mountain! Sad that these hoodlums get their way at the expense of the public at large.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Sonshine said:


> He does have a *history of violence*. Yet you are choosing to ignore that fact. I don't trust many men who *beat up on women*.


He wasn't *charged* or convicted.


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> Are you saying Martin was related to Zimmerman or had a relationship with him?


HUH???? How in the world did you get that out of what I said???


----------



## watcher

Sonshine said:


> I wouldn't call the cops because the kid wasn't doing anything wrong. If I saw him trying to break into my neighbor's car or home, then I would call the cops, but not just because there's someone I had not seen before. Define something isn't right.


You see a guy dressed in all black walking through your neighborhood at 0200 who seems to be looking into the windows of the cars he's passing. Do you call the cops? Why the guy isn't doing anything wrong. He's just walking. Its not illegal to walk down the street is it? Its not even illegal to look into a car parked on a public street, right? It'd be wrong of you to judge him based on his actions. After all he _might_ not be looking for a car to break into. Heck, maybe he's an undercover cop checking to see of some drug dealer left his stash laying on the front seat of his car. Let's go with that one so you can go home and get a good night's sleep.

I've had the cops called on me. It ain't no big deal. They come up, ask if I have a problem, I tell them what's happening and they move on. To be honest with you I'm glad someone did it. It means they care about their neighborhood enough to protect it.


----------



## Sonshine

JeffreyD said:


> Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the police to determine weather or not to file charges? If there was not enough evidence to file, why would anybody disagree with the police? Does anyone here know all the facts and know about all the evidence? I think not! Live with the judgement of those that are working on this case.


I've stated it before, I do not trust the Sanford PD. I am glad that outsiders have come in to investigate and I agree, leave the judgement to those who are working on the case, but it's obvious that no one wants to do that. The case is not closed yet.


----------



## JeffreyD

Sonshine said:


> Again, I don't know who these so called eye witnesses are and know nothing about them. Are they friend's of Zimmerman's? Live in his neighborhood? Are they racists? The evidence can show different things depending on how you're looking at it. I'm not a lawyer, but why on earth should Martin's parents be on trial?
> 
> If the only thing Zimmerman did was protect himself then why not go on trial to prove it and clear up everything?


If the police felt they had enough evidence to arrest Zimmerman, they would have. If the DA feels that there is enough evidence, he/she will prosicute. It really is that simple. No amount of conjecture on our part will change that.


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> HUH???? How in the world did you get that out of what I said???


You keep bringing up domestic violence.
Doesn't someone have to know the person if they are accused of domestic violence?


----------



## watcher

Sonshine said:


> This has nothing to do with why he was killed, so I don't see the revelance.


It sure puts a bugger in the "he was an innocent child who would do no wrong and was just skipping home with his skittles" pie doesn't it?


----------



## JeffreyD

Sonshine said:


> I've stated it before, *I do not trust the Sanford PD.* I am glad that outsiders have come in to investigate and I agree, leave the judgement to those who are working on the case, but it's obvious that no one wants to do that. The case is not closed yet.


Why not?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> If the only thing Zimmerman did was protect himself then *why not go on trial* to prove it and clear up everything?


Because there is NO TRIAL without a* CRIME.*

This event took place a MONTH ago, and they haven't found enough evidence to make an arrest, even with the Feds sticking their noses where they don't belong.


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> There was more than one eye witness.
> There are several. They all tell the same thing.
> The 911 calls back up what they are saying.
> The evidence backs up what they have said.


Then why not let the investigation continue to it's conclusion? Since this case has not been closed yet, I would like to see ALL the evidence. I'm not saying that Martin didn't do exactly as you think he did, but I'm not saying Zimmerman didn't do what you think he did either. In other words, none of us has all the evidence, yet it seems many have already made their decision.


----------



## ryanthomas

Sonshine said:


> Since I don't have access to any of the evidence it would be silly to try to answer this question. I'm sure the prosecutors will know though, that is if they get a chance to try this in a court of law instead of the media and public opinion.


So you don't even know if there's any evidence, but you want a trial to hear the evidence? By that logic, we could charge you with any crime we feel like and let the courts sort it out.


----------



## JeffreyD

pancho said:


> You keep bringing up domestic violence.
> Doesn't someone have to know the person if they are accused of domestic violence?


Yes, they do, otherwise it's assualt and battery.


----------



## watcher

Sonshine said:


> Would a 160 pound, 6 ft white man walking around in a hoody look like a dangerous person? Just wondering what his stature and attire has to do with anything.


Depends. If I saw him walking around my neighborhood late at night I'd classify him as a threat until proven otherwise. If you came home say at midnight and someone like that started waking up your drive toward you what would go through your mind? Would your alert status go up a notch?


----------



## Sonshine

watcher said:


> You see a guy dressed in all black walking through your neighborhood at 0200 who seems to be looking into the windows of the cars he's passing. Do you call the cops? Why the guy isn't doing anything wrong. He's just walking. Its not illegal to walk down the street is it? Its not even illegal to look into a car parked on a public street, right? It'd be wrong of you to judge him based on his actions. After all he _might_ not be looking for a car to break into. Heck, maybe he's an undercover cop checking to see of some drug dealer left his stash laying on the front seat of his car. Let's go with that one so you can go home and get a good night's sleep.
> 
> I've had the cops called on me. It ain't no big deal. They come up, ask if I have a problem, I tell them what's happening and they move on. To be honest with you I'm glad someone did it. It means they care about their neighborhood enough to protect it.


I must have missed the article that said Martin was looking in car windows.


----------



## Sonshine

JeffreyD said:


> If the police felt they had enough evidence to arrest Zimmerman, they would have. If the DA feels that there is enough evidence, he/she will prosicute. It really is that simple. No amount of conjecture on our part will change that.


I agree, well, except for the police part. I'm glad they brought in an investigator. If the investigator doesn't think there's enough evidence then that will be that. But right now this is still under investigation.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> In other words, none of us has* all the evidence*, yet it seems many have already made their decision.


The police have all the evidence, and they have so far chosen to NOT make an arrest, no matter how loudly the "public" screams for a trail and conviction


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> You keep bringing up domestic violence.
> Doesn't someone have to know the person if they are accused of domestic violence?


I still don't see what your point is, but whatever.


----------



## Sonshine

watcher said:


> It sure puts a bugger in the "he was an innocent child who would do no wrong and was just skipping home with his skittles" pie doesn't it?


Yep, just like Zimmerman having a restraining order against him for domestic violence gives me a different perspective of the conerned citizen bit.


----------



## JeffreyD

Sonshine said:


> I agree, well, except for the police part. I'm glad they brought in an investigator. If the investigator doesn't think there's enough evidence then that will be that. But right now this is still under investigation.


Why do you distrust the Sanford PD, their DA, and any of their own detectives?


----------



## Sonshine

JeffreyD said:


> Why not?


I've lived there and saw enough to not trust them.


----------



## Sonshine

ryanthomas said:


> So you don't even know if there's any evidence, but you want a trial to hear the evidence? By that logic, we could charge you with any crime we feel like and let the courts sort it out.


I want to see what the investigators find.


----------



## watcher

Sonshine said:


> So, because he was black he was automatically found suspect, even though he was doing nothing wrong at the time? Zimmerman had no idea what was or was not in character for Martin. Martin "may" have, but there's no proof that he did. We don't know who attacked who.


Like or not being black does carry some baggage with it. IIRC, even the great Jessie Jackson admits he's more scared of BLACKS of whites. 

"_There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.... _ Jessie Jackson 27 November 1993


----------



## Sonshine

watcher said:


> Depends. If I saw him walking around my neighborhood late at night I'd classify him as a threat until proven otherwise. If you came home say at midnight and someone like that started waking up your drive toward you what would go through your mind? Would your alert status go up a notch?


Not usually.


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> Then why not let the investigation continue to it's conclusion? Since this case has not been closed yet, I would like to see ALL the evidence. I'm not saying that Martin didn't do exactly as you think he did, but I'm not saying Zimmerman didn't do what you think he did either. In other words, none of us has all the evidence, yet it seems many have already made their decision.


Why don't you ask that question to the people who don't want the investigation to go on.
The people who put out a dead or alive poster.
Hy not ask Sharpton or Jackson, or any of the groups of people gathering?
Almost everyone here has been saying let them investigate.
Some don't want that, they want a trial and conviction.
They don't even know if a crime was committed or by whom.
They just want Zimmerman convicted.


----------



## Sonshine

JeffreyD said:


> Why do you distrust the Sanford PD, their DA, and any of their own detectives?


I didn't say I didn't trust the DA, just don't trust their police. And I have my own reasons for that.


----------



## JeffreyD

Sonshine said:


> I've lived there and saw enough to not trust them.


Ok, so it's your opinion that they are not qualified for their jobs. I feel the same way about the LAPD, well most of them anyway! I know a few that are good, and a lot that aren't.


----------



## watcher

Sonshine said:


> It's not everyone's job to shoot 17 yr old kids though. Vigilante justice is never the answer.


You are so right. I wonder if any of the people involved in this were ever tried.

Battle of Athens (1946) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They should be ashamed for taking the law into their own hands.


----------



## Sonshine

watcher said:


> Like or not being black does carry some baggage with it. IIRC, even the great Jessie Jackson admits he's more scared of BLACKS of whites.
> 
> "_There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.... _ Jessie Jackson 27 November 1993


I know very well that being black carries baggage. Just because it does, doesn't make it right. I'm not sure why Jackson is afraid of blacks more than whites, but that's his problem.


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> Why don't you ask that question to the people who don't want the investigation to go on.
> The people who put out a dead or alive poster.
> Hy not ask Sharpton or Jackson, or any of the groups of people gathering?
> Almost everyone here has been saying let them investigate.
> Some don't want that, they want a trial and conviction.
> They don't even know if a crime was committed or by whom.
> They just want Zimmerman convicted.


Those people aren't on here and I doubt if they would answer an email from me.


----------



## ryanthomas

Sonshine said:


> I want to see what the investigators find.


That's reasonable, but demanding a trial without evidence is not. I think maybe what you really want is a grand jury. Their job is to decide if there's enough evidence to have a trial. The prosecutor can choose not to take it to a grand jury if he/she doesn't think there's enough evidence, but this will almost certainly go to a grand jury now.


----------



## Sonshine

JeffreyD said:


> Ok, so it's your opinion that they are not qualified for their jobs. I feel the same way about the LAPD, well most of them anyway! I know a few that are good, and a lot that aren't.


There are areas that the bad outweigh the good.


----------



## Sonshine

ryanthomas said:


> That's reasonable, but demanding a trial without evidence is not. I think maybe what you really want is a grand jury. Their job is to decide if there's enough evidence to have a trial. The prosecutor can choose not to take it to a grand jury if he/she doesn't think there's enough evidence, but this will almost certainly go to a grand jury now.


Yes!!! Thank you!!


----------



## JeffreyD

Sonshine said:


> We use to live in Lakeland and for Christmas we always got season's passes for Univeral Studies. I love city walk. That was just 6 years ago.


OT:

Where the boyz are: gang activity in Los Angeles metropolitan area

A lazy urban sociologist hoping to observe the panoply of L.A. gang culture would be wise to visit Universal City Walk: On weekends, *members of 30 to 40 gangs can be seen cruising the faux boulevards and shoplifting in the faux boutiques.*


----------



## watcher

JeffreyD said:


> Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the police to determine weather or not to file charges? If there was not enough evidence to file, why would anybody disagree with the police? Does anyone here know all the facts and know about all the evidence? I think not! Live with the judgement of those that are working on this case.


Not quite. The police decide to arrest or not. Its up the the DA's office to file or not. Then its up to the grand jury to try or not.


----------



## watcher

Sonshine said:


> He does have a history of violence. Yet you are choosing to ignore that fact. I don't trust many men who beat up on women.


Another thread but if someone hits me the odds are they are going to get hit back. I don't care about skin color or what gender they are.


----------



## Sonshine

Were any of you aware that Zimmerman's Dad is a retired Judge from Orange county? I don't know if he's pulling strings or not, but there is always that possibility. Could also be why he's allowed to carry a concealed weapon after he got in an altercation with LE while resisting arrest.


----------



## Sonshine

JeffreyD said:


> OT:
> 
> Where the boyz are: gang activity in Los Angeles metropolitan area
> 
> A lazy urban sociologist hoping to observe the panoply of L.A. gang culture would be wise to visit Universal City Walk: On weekends, *members of 30 to 40 gangs can be seen cruising the faux boulevards and shoplifting in the faux boutiques.*


Well, as of 6 yrs ago I didn't see gang activity in Orlando's Universal City Walk.


----------



## JeffreyD

Sonshine said:


> Well, as of 6 yrs ago I didn't see gang activity in Orlando's Universal City Walk.


My appoligies. I thought we were talking about Universal Studios in Los Angeles.


----------



## Hollowdweller

Has the peanut gallery come to a conclusion yet?:happy:


----------



## JeffreyD

Hollowdweller said:


> Has the peanut gallery come to a conclusion yet?:happy:


Let the local authorities handle it.


----------



## Txsteader

Sonshine said:


> Because I want the truth. I have never said I wanted Zimmerman convicted. I do want him tried though because I think that's the only way to find the truth.


And what if the Grand Jury refuses to issue an indictment based on lack of evidence? Could you accept that?


----------



## Darren

Sonshine said:


> I've stated it before, I do not trust the Sanford PD. I am glad that outsiders have come in to investigate and I agree, leave the judgement to those who are working on the case, but it's obvious that no one wants to do that. The case is not closed yet.


The Sanford police department had already turned the results of the investigation over to the state attorney. It's up to the state attorney to make a decision on whether to present it to the grand jury in April. 

*Here's the link again.* Read it for yourself. http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf

"The Sanford Police Department has conducted a complete and fair investigation of this incident. We have provided the results of our investigation to the Office of the State Attorney for their review and consideration for possible criminal prosecution."


----------



## Sonshine

Txsteader said:


> And what if the Grand Jury refuses to issue an indictment based on lack of evidence? Could you accept that?


Yes, I could.


----------



## Sonshine

Darren said:


> The Sanford police department had already turned the results of the investigation over to the state attorney. It's up to the state attorney to make a decision on whether to present it to the grand jury in April.
> 
> *Here's the link again.* Read it for yourself. http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf
> 
> "The Sanford Police Department has conducted a complete and fair investigation of this incident. We have provided the results of our investigation to the Office of the State Attorney for their review and consideration for possible criminal prosecution."


Complete and fair by who's standards?


----------



## ryanthomas

Sonshine said:


> Yes, I could.


We should have an answer in about 2 weeks.


----------



## Darren

Sonshine said:


> Complete and fair by who's standards?


That was the written statement from the* Black* city manager, Norton Bonaparte. All city departments report to him which is typical for cities with a city manager.

The other aspect in today's legal environment is no one in their right mind is going to be caught not crossing the T's and dotting the I's and subject themselves to a civil lawsuit. 

Even as a volunteer fire department we use a standard report form (which is reviewed) and have been trained by the state fire marshal's office, the state department of forestry and another state/federal agency on what to do in suspicious circumstances.

Everything is documented and reported to a federal database.

I would expect no less of a police department that reports to an experienced city manager such as Mr. Bonaparte. I strongly suggest you follow the link I have provided and read the information for yourself. I don't believe Mr. Bonaparte is going to allow any bogus investigation especially considering how the incident has polarized this country.

After looking at his experience, I do not believe the man is a fool.


----------



## pancho

It really won't matter what the results of the investigation shows.
When a group of people are allowed to put out a dead or alive wanted poster on a person that usually meant they will not abide by any results but their own.


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> It really won't matter what the results of the investigation shows.
> When a group of people are allowed to put out a dead or alive wanted poster on a person that usually meant they will not abide by any results but their own.


Which is wrong. Black Panthers have always been nothing but trouble. They're the equivalent of the KKK, both groups are nothing but trouble.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

No matter what the final conclusion of the investigations, some will NOT accept the facts, and there will be riots


----------



## Sonshine

Darren said:


> The Sanford police department had already turned the results of the investigation over to the state attorney. It's up to the state attorney to make a decision on whether to present it to the grand jury in April.
> 
> *Here's the link again.* Read it for yourself. http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf
> 
> "The Sanford Police Department has conducted a complete and fair investigation of this incident. *We have provided the results of our investigation to the Office of the State Attorney for their review and consideration for possible criminal prosecution."[/*QUOTE]
> 
> According to this they have called in the US Attorney General. So it seems that the investigation isn't over yet.


----------



## Sonshine

Bearfootfarm said:


> No matter what the final conclusion of the investigations, some will NOT accept the facts, and there will be riots


Which is what Sharpton and his ilk want.


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> Which is wrong. Black Panthers have always been nothing but trouble. They're the equivalent of the KKK, both groups are nothing but trouble.


Notice sometimes when the KKK does something. It is news all over the country. People demonstrate, block parade routes, and attack them.

No look at the black panther crew. They are allowed to put out a reward, dead or alive, on a man and no one says a thing.

If the results of the investigation is allowed to be overrun by a large group of racists it is very likely we will see a return of the KKK.


----------



## ryanthomas

> No look at the black panther crew. They are allowed to put out a reward, dead or alive, on a man and no one says a thing.


They weren't allowed to do it. They did it and there's an investigation ongoing. And lots of people have said things against it.


----------



## pancho

ryanthomas said:


> They weren't allowed to do it. They did it and there's an investigation ongoing. And lots of people have said things against it.


Sort of a little late when they have already put the reward out.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> 
> That belittling tactic is more common that you think. You may recall that the same tactic was used in the film Heat of the Night.
> 
> _Gillespie: What do they call you up north? Do they call you Virgil?
> Tibbs: They call me MISTER Tibbs._
> 
> That tactic was so common that the "Mr. Tibbs" quote is considered an icon moment in films. And here it is, still being used today.
> 
> 
> 
> I still disagree. First off the press is trying to rise the image of Martin as a "kid", a "child". To call him by his last name raises him to the status of an adult. Then the view of him attacking Zimmerman is more logical. A "kid" attacking an adult sounds ridiculous but an adult attacking an adult sounds quite plausible.
> 
> Second, as I pointed out Martin sounds too white. When you hear someone talking about Mr Martin you don't picture a black do you. But hear someone talking about Trayvon and what picture pops into your mind?
> 
> There is another problem with your example. Its set in the 60s. Back then it was considered VERY disrespectful to address anyone but a close friend by their first name. You didn't call your coworker "Joe" unless you had worked with him for years. You called him either Mr. Smith or Smith. Today its almost an insult to fail to call someone by their last name. The term "on a first name basis" has no meaning anymore.
Click to expand...

The thing is that I lived in that region of Florida in the 1990s and it was still that way.

But I'm finding more wrong with the Orlando SunSentinal article than just surname courtesy. The article offers information without sources or qualification, giving the impression that they were undisputed facts. At best it's poor journalism.


----------



## Darren

Sonshine said:


> Darren said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Sanford police department had already turned the results of the investigation over to the state attorney. It's up to the state attorney to make a decision on whether to present it to the grand jury in April.
> 
> *Here's the link again.* Read it for yourself. http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf
> 
> "The Sanford Police Department has conducted a complete and fair investigation of this incident. *We have provided the results of our investigation to the Office of the State Attorney for their review and consideration for possible criminal prosecution."[/*QUOTE]
> 
> According to this *they have called in the US Attorney General.* So it seems that the investigation isn't over yet.
> 
> 
> 
> *No! That is not correct.* Apparently according to procedure, *the results of the police investigation were turned over to the Florida state attorney. The federal government is not involved.* Nor would they be unless the incident can be construed as a hate crime. They do not have jurisdiction at this point. Given the inaction of Eric Holder in other situations, I doubt the federal government is going to touch this, especially since it involves an Hispanic. That could be radioactive for Obama in an election year.
> 
> Obama's stupid. He isn't stupid enough to cut his own throat. If the federal government gets involved it would not be until after the grand jury proceeding, a possible trial, and if Zimmerman is acquited.
> 
> Is Obama that stupid? We'll soon find out. The Justice Department might do something to divert attention from fast and furious in an election year. If they do they're messing with a double edged sword.
Click to expand...


----------



## ryanthomas

pancho said:


> Sort of a little late when they have already put the reward out.


So what do you think should have happened? Arrest them before they committed the crime?


----------



## pancho

ryanthomas said:


> So what do you think should have happened? Arrest them before they committed the crime?


Have they arrested any of them for the reward poster?


----------



## JeffreyD

Sonshine said:


> Which is wrong. Black Panthers have always been nothing but trouble. They're the equivalent of the KKK, both groups are nothing but trouble.


Except that the black panthers and the new black panthers are old time friends of Obama. Why do you think Malik Shabaz and his friend were not prosicuted for voter intimidation? Obama! Obama is clearly a racist and a biggot!


----------



## ryanthomas

pancho said:


> Have they arrested any of them for the reward poster?


Do you want them to start arresting people before the investigation is complete? Sounds like the mob demanding Zimmerman be arrested. The leader who offered the bounty was arrested yesterday on a weapons charge, though.


----------



## pancho

ryanthomas said:


> Do you want them to start arresting people before the investigation is complete? Sounds like the mob demanding Zimmerman be arrested. The leader who offered the bounty was arrested yesterday on a weapons charge, though.


Yes, a weapons charge. That is a step in the right direction.


----------



## JeffreyD

ryanthomas said:


> Do you want them to start arresting people before the investigation is complete? Sounds like the mob demanding Zimmerman be arrested. *The leader who offered the bounty was arrested yesterday on a weapons charge, though*.


Interesting that it doesn't appear to be too news worthy! I'm pretty sure that no charges will be filed and he will be let go!


----------



## ryanthomas

> I'm pretty sure that no charges will be filed and he will be let go!


Maybe, but what makes you so sure?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> The thing is that I lived in that region of Florida in the 1990s and it was still that way.
> 
> But I'm finding more wrong with the Orlando SunSentinal article than just surname courtesy. The article offers *information without sources or qualification*, giving the impression that they were undisputed facts. At best it's poor journalism.


 
Got examples?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> According to this *they have called in the US Attorney General*. So it seems that the investigation isn't over yet.


The Feds involvement is NOT at the request of the State.
It's from the family trying to make it a civil rights case.

The Feds have no jurisdiction for anything else


----------



## JeffreyD

ryanthomas said:


> Maybe, but what makes you so sure?


FOO. Friends of Obama! Just like before, no charges were files against Malik Shabaz and his friend, even though there was video evidence, Holder would not prosicute black friends of Obama. Same goes for the black Professer!


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> Notice sometimes when the KKK does something. It is news all over the country. People demonstrate, block parade routes, and attack them.
> 
> No look at the black panther crew. They are allowed to put out a reward, dead or alive, on a man and no one says a thing.
> 
> If the results of the investigation is allowed to be overrun by a large group of racists it is very likely we will see a return of the KKK.


In my lifetime I have seen the results of both the KKK and the Black Panthers. Both are dangerous, but I agree, the Black Panthers seem to get a free ride these days.


----------



## Sonshine

ryanthomas said:


> They weren't allowed to do it. They did it and there's an investigation ongoing. And lots of people have said things against it.


Even though, this administration have already proven they won't do much to the BP's. Look what happened during the election.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Got examples?


Interestingly, since posting that I found a clip where Lawrence O'Donnell is grilling the journalist who wrote the story on that point. She doesn't agree with O'Donnell's argument, but he still makes his point. The interview with the journalist starts at 2:30 in this clip.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAKD4-d0skc]Trayvon Martin Lynching: Lawrence O&#39;Donnell Challenges Orlando Sentinel Report - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Sonshine

Darren said:


> Sonshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No! That is not correct.* Apparently according to procedure, *the results of the police investigation were turned over to the Florida state attorney. The federal government is not involved.* Nor would they be unless the incident can be construed as a hate crime. They do not have jurisdiction at this point. Given the inaction of Eric Holder in other situations, I doubt the federal government is going to touch this, especially since it involves an Hispanic. That could be radioactive for Obama in an election year.
> 
> Obama's stupid. He isn't stupid enough to cut his own throat. If the federal government gets involved it would not be until after the grand jury proceeding, a possible trial, and if Zimmerman is acquited.
> 
> Is Obama that stupid? We'll soon find out. The Justice Department might do something to divert attention from fast and furious in an election year. If they do they're messing with a double edged sword.
> 
> 
> 
> This is on the link you provided: The City of Sanford is
> committed to insuring that justice is served and, therefore, the City of Sanford has
> contacted the United States Attorney Generalâs Office for assistance in this matter.
Click to expand...


----------



## Sonshine

JeffreyD said:


> Except that the black panthers and the new black panthers are old time friends of Obama. Why do you think Malik Shabaz and his friend were not prosicuted for voter intimidation? Obama! Obama is clearly a racist and a biggot!


I never stated otherwise. In fact in several threads I have commented that Obama has caused more racial divisions in this country than I have seen in a long time.


----------



## Sonshine

Bearfootfarm said:


> The Feds involvement is NOT at the request of the State.
> It's from the family trying to make it a civil rights case.
> 
> The Feds have no jurisdiction for anything else


This is according to the link:

Fellow Citizens:
There has been a lot of media attention to the recent incident where George
Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. This is indeed a tragic situation and has
caused a flood of questions and strong emotions from within our community, the region
and nation. On behalf of the employees of the City of Sanford, Our deepest sympathy
and prayers go out to the family and friends of Trayvon Martin. As a father, I can only
image the pain Trayvonâs family must be going through. The City of Sanford is
committed to insuring that justice is served and, therefore, *the City of Sanford has
contacted the United States Attorney Generalâs Office for assistance in this matter.*http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf

Doesn't say anything about the parents, it says the City of Sanford contacted them.


----------



## haypoint

Affirmative action has been used to get more minorities into jobs that they had previously and wrongfully been excluded. It is a widespread way of trying to right 200 years of injustices. Many times white males were passed over for a less qualified minority, in an attempt to tip the scales back. Most people of all colors must admit it has had some successes and a few failures, but we are moving ahead no matter.
Perhaps it is time that we further expand this &#8220;righting of past wrongs&#8221; at the expense of the white guys. We must admit that our history has far too many cases of racial hatred against Blacks. We have read history books about wrongful hangings and imprisonment for false charges. Today we have the chance to erase our shame for the actions of our white ancestors against the ancestors of manchild Martin.
The Black Panther Party has offered a million dollar Dead or Alive bounty on the (sort of) white guy, Zimmerman. Let&#8217;s re-balance the scales of justice by lynching Zimmerman without trial. Let Jessie Jackson bask in the joy all white people have felt when a Black man was dragged behind a pickup truck by some drunken Crackers.
Instead of a timely court process, let&#8217;s drag every white guy out onto the street and let the &#8220;No Justice, No Peace&#8221; mob settle it their way. 
Then our first Black president can finally give us the Change he promised us all and Michele can, for the first time, be proud of this formerly racist country.


----------



## Sonshine

haypoint said:


> Affirmative action has been used to get more minorities into jobs that they had previously and wrongfully been excluded. It is a widespread way of trying to right 200 years of injustices. Many times white males were passed over for a less qualified minority, in an attempt to tip the scales back. Most people of all colors must admit it has had some successes and a few failures, but we are moving ahead no matter.
> Perhaps it is time that we further expand this ârighting of past wrongsâ at the expense of the white guys. We must admit that our history has far too many cases of racial hatred against Blacks. We have read history books about wrongful hangings and imprisonment for false charges. Today we have the chance to erase our shame for the actions of our white ancestors against the ancestors of manchild Martin.
> The Black Panther Party has offered a million dollar Dead or Alive bounty on the (sort of) white guy, Zimmerman. Letâs re-balance the scales of justice by lynching Zimmerman without trial. Let Jessie Jackson bask in the joy all white people have felt when a Black man was dragged behind a pickup truck by some drunken Crackers.
> Instead of a timely court process, letâs drag every white guy out onto the street and let the âNo Justice, No Peaceâ mob settle it their way.
> Then our first Black president can finally give us the Change he promised us all and Michele can, for the first time, be proud of this formerly racist country.


Or better yet, how bout we let the justice system work and see where it leads. Maybe Zimmerman will get one of his daddy's fellow judges to try the case.  I know what you're saying and I get tired of the reverse racism and the increase of racism that I'm seeing. To me it's not about the color of skin in either Zimmerman or Martin. It's about finding the truth. There's been a few of us here that have, at one time, lived in Sanford. I am one of them, and it's because of that that I have some concerns regarding how the police handled this. If there are outside investigators, then I will take their word for whatever they decide, or if it goes before the grand jury. Until then, I'm so tired of all the racism surrounding this case.


----------



## ryanthomas

JeffreyD said:


> FOO. Friends of Obama! Just like before, no charges were files against Malik Shabaz and his friend, even though there was video evidence, Holder would not prosicute black friends of Obama. Same goes for the black Professer!





Sonshine said:


> Even though, this administration have already proven they won't do much to the BP's. Look what happened during the election.


Holder and Obama have no jurisdiction over any state crimes.


----------



## InvalidID

haypoint said:


> Affirmative action has been used to get more minorities into jobs that they had previously and wrongfully been excluded. It is a widespread way of trying to right 200 years of injustices. Many times white males were passed over for a less qualified minority, in an attempt to tip the scales back. Most people of all colors must admit it has had some successes and a few failures, but we are moving ahead no matter.
> Perhaps it is time that we further expand this ârighting of past wrongsâ at the expense of the white guys. We must admit that our history has far too many cases of racial hatred against Blacks. We have read history books about wrongful hangings and imprisonment for false charges. Today we have the chance to erase our shame for the actions of our white ancestors against the ancestors of manchild Martin.
> The Black Panther Party has offered a million dollar Dead or Alive bounty on the (sort of) white guy, Zimmerman. Letâs re-balance the scales of justice by lynching Zimmerman without trial. Let Jessie Jackson bask in the joy all white people have felt when a Black man was dragged behind a pickup truck by some drunken Crackers.
> Instead of a timely court process, letâs drag every white guy out onto the street and let the âNo Justice, No Peaceâ mob settle it their way.
> Then our first Black president can finally give us the Change he promised us all and Michele can, for the first time, be proud of this formerly racist country.


 I don't think everyone gets the sarcasm... It's a shame really, I laughed till my sides hurt reading this one and the Blue Eyed Devil post...


----------



## haypoint

Sonshine said:


> Or better yet, how bout we let the justice system work and see where it leads. Maybe Zimmerman will get one of his daddy's fellow judges to try the case.  I know what you're saying and I get tired of the reverse racism and the increase of racism that I'm seeing. To me it's not about the color of skin in either Zimmerman or Martin. It's about finding the truth. There's been a few of us here that have, at one time, lived in Sanford. I am one of them, and it's because of that that I have some concerns regarding how the police handled this. If there are outside investigators, then I will take their word for whatever they decide, or if it goes before the grand jury. Until then, I'm so tired of all the racism surrounding this case.


I'm going to have to call BS on this one. 

If truth were the focus, why hasn't the Black Panthers put out a $100 bounty on the black guy that shot the white college student? There is truth there too, isn't there? How about a bounty on the guys that stuffed two black ladies into the trunk of a stolen car in Hamtramck a month ago. Bodies found two days ago. Bounty on the killer of two babies during a drive by shooting in Detroit a few weeks ago. Justice? Hardly.

A million dollar âDead or Aliveâ bounty doesnât sound like a cry for justice to me. It is racism that our president has gone strangely silent on.


----------



## haypoint

InvalidID said:


> I don't think everyone gets the sarcasm... It's a shame really, I laughed till my sides hurt reading this one and the Blue Eyed Devil post...


It is an IQ test. You passed.:clap:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Interestingly, since posting that I found a clip where Lawrence O'Donnell is grilling the journalist who wrote the story on that point. She doesn't agree with O'Donnell's argument, but he still makes his point. The interview with the journalist starts at 2:30 in this clip.
> 
> Trayvon Martin Lynching: Lawrence O'Donnell Challenges Orlando Sentinel Report - YouTube


Got examples FROM THE STORY ITSELF?

I don't want more opinions from *someone else*


----------



## haypoint

ryanthomas said:


> Holder and Obama have no jurisdiction over any state crimes.


Then why did Obama say that he wanted a full investigation on that case?
Plus he's just fanning the flames of racial hatred when he said " If I had a son, he would look like Martin."?


----------



## Nevada

haypoint said:


> A million dollar âDead or Aliveâ bounty doesnât sound like a cry for justice to me. It is racism that our president has gone strangely silent on.


Maybe there's something different out there, but the bounty I heard about on the news was a $10K bounty for a citizens arrest on Zimmerman.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Got examples FROM THE STORY ITSELF?
> 
> I don't want more opinions from *someone else*


Didn't he read the examples?


----------



## ryanthomas

haypoint said:


> Then why did Obama say that he wanted a full investigation on that case?
> Plus he's just fanning the flames of racial hatred when he said " If I had a son, he would look like Martin."?


He says a lot of things. It doesn't change the fact that he has no jurisdiction on state crimes.


----------



## Darren

Sonshine said:


> Darren said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is on the link you provided: The City of Sanford is
> committed to insuring that justice is served and, therefore, the City of Sanford has
> contacted the United States Attorney Generalâs Office for assistance in this matter.
> 
> 
> 
> *The decision to prosecute still lies with the Florida state attorney which received the investigation results.* It's very obvious that the city has a hot issue on their hands. Mishandling this can in itself lead to more deaths. If I was the city manager I would be looking at anyway to cover all the bases to diffuse the situation. Obama by getting his mouth involved may have taken this country down a very dangerous path.
> 
> This site is a mini sample of what is going on all over the country. At least here, people have the opportunity to learn more about the situation and not go off half-cocked with partial or misrepresented information.
> 
> A lot of people out there will not consider the possibility that the killing was justified in the legal sense. They've already tried, judged and convicted Zimmerman in their minds.
> 
> There are already too many incidents of Black on White crime in this country. Get ****** may be very close to coming to a neighborhood near you or someone you know. If you or they are lucky, either may survive the knockdown game. If not you'll be badly disabled or killed. We're still seeing gangs of Blacks looting stores. It's going to be a bad summer.
> 
> What I find astounding are the ones on this site that do not understand how our legal system is supposed to work.
Click to expand...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *the City of Sanford has
> contacted the United States Attorney General&#8217;s Office for assistance in this matter.*http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigati...n_shooting.pdf
> 
> Doesn't say anything about the parents, it says the City of Sanford contacted them.


Notice that's dated *3-23*, which is AFTER the Feds were already investigating, and AFTER BO said he had sent them


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Didn't he read the examples?


I've told you many time, it takes FOREVER for Youtubes to download.

So far all I've seen is a lot of* ranting* about "justice" and "slander"

Show me in PRINT form the part YOU disagree with, and I can then show you how you're wrong


----------



## Nevada

ryanthomas said:


> haypoint said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why did Obama say that he wanted a full investigation on that case?
> Plus he's just fanning the flames of racial hatred when he said " If I had a son, he would look like Martin."?
> 
> 
> 
> He says a lot of things. It doesn't change the fact that he has no jurisdiction on state crimes.
Click to expand...

The feds are looking into whether this might have been a racially motivated hate crime, which the federal government has jurisdiction over.


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> The feds are looking into whether this might have been a *racially motivated hate crime*, which the federal government has jurisdiction over.


Which is NOT a state crime. Incidentally, I wasn't even talking about the Martin shooting. I was talking about the bounty put on Zimmerman. No need for the feds to be involved. The state can prosecute the guy if he committed a crime.


----------



## Sonshine

haypoint said:


> I'm going to have to call BS on this one.
> 
> If truth were the focus, why hasn't the Black Panthers put out a $100 bounty on the black guy that shot the white college student? There is truth there too, isn't there? How about a bounty on the guys that stuffed two black ladies into the trunk of a stolen car in Hamtramck a month ago. Bodies found two days ago. Bounty on the killer of two babies during a drive by shooting in Detroit a few weeks ago. Justice? Hardly.
> 
> A million dollar âDead or Aliveâ bounty doesnât sound like a cry for justice to me. It is racism that our president has gone strangely silent on.


Just what part of my post are you calling BS on?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> The feds are looking into whether this might have been a racially motivated hate crime,


And STILL no arrests.
If they had *any evidence*, he's be in jail so BO could play "hero" again


----------



## Sonshine

Darren said:


> Sonshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The decision to prosecute still lies with the Florida state attorney which received the investigation results.* It's very obvious that the city has a hot issue on their hands. Mishandling this can in itself lead to more deaths. If I was the city manager I would be looking at anyway to cover all the bases to diffuse the situation. Obama by getting his mouth involved may have taken this country down a very dangerous path.
> 
> This site is a mini sample of what is going on all over the country. At least here, people have the opportunity to learn more about the situation and not go off half-cocked with partial or misrepresented information.
> 
> A lot of people out there will not consider the possibility that the killing was justified in the legal sense. They've already tried, judged and convicted Zimmerman in their minds.
> 
> There are already too many incidents of Black on White crime in this country. Get ****** may be very close to coming to a neighborhood near you or someone you know. If you or they are lucky, either may survive the knockdown game. If not you'll be badly disabled or killed. We're still seeing gangs of Blacks looting stores. It's going to be a bad summer.
> 
> What I find astounding are the ones on this site that do not understand how our legal system is supposed to work.
> 
> 
> 
> I have been seeing some of those who want Zimmerman strung up on here, but mainly I've been seeing people who want to put all the blame on the kid while the investigation is still ongoing. I'd rather wait to see what the investigation shows. And you're right, there's too many incidents of black on white, black on black, white on black and white on white. There is a lot of racism in the world and those who in the recent past figured it was inappropriate to bring up the color of a person's skin are now stepping up and showing their true colors (no pun intended) Yes, I imagine this is going to be a bad summer. Not just because of this, but this is one of a few fires that are smoldering. Then you have the OWS folks on another side of the coin. You have a dysfunctional government that seems it's just trying to fan the flames. I said before this ever came up that I believed we would see our major cities in flames before long. Now it looks like it's even more of a possibility.
Click to expand...


----------



## Sonshine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Notice that's dated *3-23*, which is AFTER the Feds were already investigating, and AFTER BO said he had sent them


I didn't know BO said they had been sent and didn't know when the Feds started investigating, but not really sure what the point is you're trying to make. I never stated when they were asked to come, just that they were.


----------



## haypoint

Nevada said:


> Maybe there's something different out there, but the bounty I heard about on the news was a $10K bounty for a citizens arrest on Zimmerman.


As of today, it was announced that the BP have upped it to a million.


----------



## haypoint

Sonshine said:


> Just what part of my post are you calling BS on?


You said you wanted to let justice work, but then suggested Zimmerman would have his daddy select the Judge. BS

Then, âTo me it's not about the color of skin in either Zimmerman or Martin. It's about finding the truth.â BS 

This isnât about truth. It is about pointing away from all the violence perpetrated by young black men and convicting a white guy without a trial.
Pick any Black man and see what happens when a group puts out a Wanted Dead or Alive bounty on his head. Just wouldnât happen. But three days have gone on and I havenât heard Jessie or Louis or Al condemn the promotion of racial violence. 

Do you understand that it is perceived by many Blacks that Whites commit just as many crimes as Blacks, but Whites get away with it? There is seldom a shred of evidence, but this case has possibilities. That is why they are running this case so hard. Unicorns exist and White guys kill black children with impunity. :smack


----------



## JeffreyD

ryanthomas said:


> Holder and Obama have no jurisdiction over any state crimes.


That's true they don't, but they have friends that do! And they have used that influence before!


----------



## Sonshine

haypoint said:


> You said you wanted to let justice work, but then suggested Zimmerman would have his daddy select the Judge. BS
> 
> Then, âTo me it's not about the color of skin in either Zimmerman or Martin. It's about finding the truth.â BS
> 
> This isnât about truth. It is about pointing away from all the violence perpetrated by young black men and convicting a white guy without a trial.
> Pick any Black man and see what happens when a group puts out a Wanted Dead or Alive bounty on his head. Just wouldnât happen. But three days have gone on and I havenât heard Jessie or Louis or Al condemn the promotion of racial violence.
> 
> Do you understand that it is perceived by many Blacks that Whites commit just as many crimes as Blacks, but Whites get away with it? There is seldom a shred of evidence, but this case has possibilities. That is why they are running this case so hard. Unicorns exist and White guys kill black children with impunity. :smack


Well, my reply to this post is, ....... the same as yours towards mine.


----------



## Sonshine

I've seen enough of this thread and the racism. So, I'll excuse myself from any further comments on it.


----------



## FeralFemale

Sonshine said:


> I've seen enough of this thread and the racism. So, I'll excuse myself from any further comments on it.


So, you're taking your ball and going home? (not that it isn't your right as I, too, see some racism in the posts in this thread)

Just to set the record straight, you said that no one on this thread mentioned GZ's history. That's not true. I did. And I said that I am still waiting for more facts to come out because I am not comfortable with GZ's history. 

I am also not comfortable with TM's history - a history that you state as not relevant. I disagree. Both men's history is important in putting context to the known facts. To state otherwise is being deliberately obtuse.

When this story first made national news I was appalled that a man would gun down a little boy in cold blood because of the color of his skin. This opinion was something I felt was bolstered by GZ's history of violence. Then more came out about TM. Particularly his hefty suspension and the fact that he was not a little boy as the MSM's pics would have you believe. So, I decided to hang back and see what all came out. Much more has come out regarding his background including drug use (possibly dealing) and theft. I am still willing to wait on the whole, accurate, story to come out.

You obviously have an emotional investment in this. Is it wrong to suggest that your emotion is clouding your judgment as the facts of the case come out? It seems that it is.


----------



## watcher

Sonshine said:


> I must have missed the article that said Martin was looking in car windows.


Maybe I missed read. . .I was using a hypothetical situation to say what would be considered suspicious activity. AFAIK, nothing has been released stating what strange or suspicious activity Zimmerman saw.


----------



## watcher

Sonshine said:


> Not usually.


I'm sorry but I find that hard to believe. Someone approaching you at your own home, unannounced, in the dark, at a time when most people are in bed and your alert level doesn't go up a notch?


----------



## watcher

Sonshine said:


> I know very well that being black carries baggage. Just because it does, doesn't make it right. I'm not sure why Jackson is afraid of blacks more than whites, but that's his problem.


Care to speculate WHY it carries baggage?


----------



## Nevada

haypoint said:


> As of today, it was announced that the BP have upped it to a million.


Someone can't just go out and do a citizens arrest. The person making the arrest has to have actually witnessed the suspect committing a crime. Otherwise it's abduction.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Someone can't just go out and do a citizens arrest. The person making the arrest has to have actually witnessed the suspect committing a crime. Otherwise it's abduction.


There you go guessing again when you could simply look up the truth

Florida Citizen's Arrest Laws | eHow.com
*



<H2 class="header Heading3">Arrest

Click to expand...

*


> When someone has the *reasonable suspicion* that a felony has been committed, a citizen's arrest might be made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The arrest is no different than any other police arrest. All relevant laws apply. Excessive force cannot be used, for example. But the general concept is that any citizen has the right to stop another who has committed a felony.


</H2>


----------



## haypoint

FeralFemale said:


> So, you're taking your ball and going home? (not that it isn't your right as I, too, see some racism in the posts in this thread)
> 
> Just to set the record straight, you said that no one on this thread mentioned GZ's history. That's not true. I did. And I said that I am still waiting for more facts to come out because I am not comfortable with GZ's history.
> 
> I am also not comfortable with TM's history - a history that you state as not relevant. I disagree. Both men's history is important in putting context to the known facts. To state otherwise is being deliberately obtuse.
> 
> When this story first made national news I was appalled that a man would gun down a little boy in cold blood because of the color of his skin. This opinion was something I felt was bolstered by GZ's history of violence. Then more came out about TM. Particularly his hefty suspension and the fact that he was not a little boy as the MSM's pics would have you believe. So, I decided to hang back and see what all came out. Much more has come out regarding his background including drug use (possibly dealing) and theft. I am still willing to wait on the whole, accurate, story to come out.
> 
> You obviously have an emotional investment in this. Is it wrong to suggest that your emotion is clouding your judgment as the facts of the case come out? It seems that it is.


In a court of law, the past histories are not parts of the case. So, if we are talking about guilt, we have to stick to the facts of the incident. Sadly for Martin, he wonât be able to tell his version of the facts. We have Zimmermanâs broken nose and bloody scalp and a legal gun.

If we want to create a story in our minds, we must gather every bit of information, no matter how irrelevant. In this day and age, we have Martinâs Twitter messages, total number of times Zimmerman called 911, stolen jewelry inventory, pot record and information about a burglary tool/weapon. We can recreate our stereotype of a wannabe cop trying to put a hooded stranger on the run. We can put ourselves in Martinâs perception of what Zimmerman was up to. Just because Zimmerman was told not to follow Martin does not mean he is guilty of murder. Just because Martin broke Zimmermanâs nose does not mean he should die. 

The real armchair quarterbacks are busy telling what should have been done, now that the outcome is known. Hindsight is always 20/20. If Zimmerman had known Martin was going to jump him, maybe he would have stayed in his SUV. If Martin had known Zimmerman was packing heat, maybe he would have answered Zimmermanâs question or at least not knocked Zimmerman down.

I have gathered all the information available to me and I think (IMHO) a young man that was not evil, yet far from perfect, didnât like what Zimmerman said to him and figured he could take Zimmerman. Zimmerman got caught up in the moment, let himself get too emotional, said too much and couldnât get back to the safety of his SUV. He is lucky Martin didnât get his gun. If he had, Zimmerman would be just another unsolved murder and Martin could add a pistol to his backpack of burglary tools.


----------



## haypoint

Nevada said:


> Someone can't just go out and do a citizens arrest. The person making the arrest has to have actually witnessed the suspect committing a crime. Otherwise it's abduction.


I guess I wasn't thinking that the Black Panthers Million dollar bounty, Wanted Dead or Alive was going to result in a citizen's arrest? In my mind, I pictured a gang of Bounty Hunters bringing him in for an afternoon of Mob Justice. Yea, I think you used the right term: abduction. Just like what the KKK did to black men for looking at a white woman.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Sonshine said:


> I didn't know BO said they had been sent and didn't know when the Feds started investigating, but not really sure what the point is you're trying to make. I never stated when they were asked to come, just that they were.


My point is the town didn't ask for them* first, *and they really have no jurisdiction over anything other than civil rights violations.

The idea that "no investigation was done" originally is simply false


----------



## TheMartianChick

haypoint said:


> As of today, it was announced that the BP have upped it to a million.


The New Black Panther Party likely doesn't even have a million dollars to be able to pay out that kind of bounty. They really are that unpopular in the black community and no one is going to give them any money.


----------



## FreeRanger

watcher said:


> I'm sorry but I find that hard to believe. Someone approaching you at your own home, unannounced, in the dark, at a time when most people are in bed and your alert level doesn't go up a notch?


Watcher, just how old are you? I realize BF and P are older HT members. I don't think even they go to bed at 7PM. At that time of year the sun had just barely set, a term most would call dusk. ANd since it was raining that day it was most likely pretty dark, earlier than usual. BUT still who would have gone to bed? 

So who are these MOST PEOPLE ARE IN BED?


----------



## TheMartianChick

Clearly, I've missed a lot in 2 days, but I wanted to address a few things that were mentioned (I don't know how many pages back). 

*The Twitter account:* Is not Trayvon Martin's. The Martin family attorney has contacted Twitter and had it confirmed that the account isn't his. In fact, tweets were being sent on the account even after his death. Anyone can create a Twitter account with any name. In fact, there is a tweet going around that is attributed to actor Will Smith regarding the case comparing Zimmerman to a woman that threw flour on Kim Khardashian. The only problem is that Will Smith doesn't have a twitter account and the actual account owner is a man in another state. 

http://todayentertainment.today.msn...rdashian-goes-viral?gt1=43001&ocid=ansmsnbc11

*Manslaughter Charge* Yesterday's breaking news was that the lead detective wanted to press charges against Zimmerman but was overruled. Sanford Police Department has a history of protecting the children of their own as was shown in the case of the police chief's son beating up the homeless man. Zimmerman is the son of a retired judge and it is possible that this protection would extend to him, as well.

*Friends/Defenders of Zimmerman* Last night, Lawrence O'Donnell, Jonathan Capeheart and Charles Blow interviewed Joe Oliver about the case and his connection to Zimmerman. Oliver is the black friend and former CNN reporter that has been all over the airwaves speaking to the character of George Zimmerman. 

He was grilled thoroughly by O'Donnell, Capeheart and Blow as to his relationship with Zimmerman. They felt that there was a lot that didn't make sense because they couldn't find much evidence of a relationship other than the fact that the two used to work at the same place. Oliver finally admitted that he really didn't know Zimmerman much beyond a passing acquaintance. The really interesting thing is that Oliver has quit his job to spend his time defending Zimmerman in the media. It sounds as though he is just trying to capitalize on the case and gain fame. I will try to find the video and post it. As it was, I only saw the last half of the interview because my husband got me out of bed to see it.

Here is the video and an article about the video for those on dial-up. Please note that there is another video at the bottom of the page relating to Zimmerman's attorney:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/28/joe-oliver-the-last-word_n_1384419.html

Here is another video from Lawrence O'Donnell where he talks about the interview with Joe Oliver. He sort of sums up the interview and provides additional information relating to the research that his team has done.

[ame]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755883/vp/46875981#46875981[/ame]


----------



## tkrabec

Im not sure if anyone has brought this up or not, but wouldn't the castle law also apply to trevon, even tho he did not have a gun. From, the information I've seen on the news (and I try not to watch too much). Trevon could have assumed that he was being stalked by Zimmerman. Since Trevon was living with his father I assume the castle doctrine would also apply to him since he had a right to be there.


----------



## Txsteader

TheMartianChick said:


> *Manslaughter Charge* Yesterday's breaking news was that the lead detective wanted to press charges against Zimmerman but was overruled. Sanford Police Department has a history of protecting the children of their own as was shown in the case of the police chief's son beating up the homeless man. *Zimmerman is the son of a retired judge and it is possible that this protection would extend to him, as well*.


Now _this_ does put a different perspective on the investigation and causes me to question the outcome.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> Now _this_ does put a different perspective on the investigation and causes me to question the outcome.


Here is a story about the police asking for charges to be filed.

Sanford cops wanted to charge Zimmerman in Trayvon Martin case - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com

Looks like it is a good thing the Police Chief stepped down. His public statements about lack of evidence might be wrong.


----------



## watcher

haypoint said:


> In a court of law, the past histories are not parts of the case. So, if we are talking about guilt, we have to stick to the facts of the incident. Sadly for Martin, he won&#8217;t be able to tell his version of the facts. We have Zimmerman&#8217;s broken nose and bloody scalp and a legal gun.


Not true, at least in the state of GA. I was just on a jury and we were specifically told by the defense lawyer that the character of the defendant could be used as evidence in the case. That it, in the eyes of the law, carried the same weight as physical evidence and as jurors we were to treat it that way. I'm not sure if that only applies if the defense wishes to enter it or if the prosecution could have done it as well. I remember it because I was so surprised.


----------



## watcher

FreeRanger said:


> Watcher, just how old are you? I realize BF and P are older HT members. I don't think even they go to bed at 7PM. At that time of year the sun had just barely set, a term most would call dusk. ANd since it was raining that day it was most likely pretty dark, earlier than usual. BUT still who would have gone to bed?
> 
> So who are these MOST PEOPLE ARE IN BED?


<SIGH> Please go back and read my org post on this. You will then see I was putting a hypothetical case to someone who stated they would, IIRC, never assume someone is a threat (or something like that). In that case they were just arriving at home after midnight when they noticed someone walking up their drive toward them. I asked them if that would cause their alert state to rise.


----------



## pancho

TheMartianChick said:


> The New Black Panther Party likely doesn't even have a million dollars to be able to pay out that kind of bounty. They really are that unpopular in the black community and no one is going to give them any money.


Would their ability to pay matter when someone brought them the body of Zimmerman?


----------



## TheMartianChick

pancho said:


> Would their ability to pay matter when someone brought them the body of Zimmerman?


You've got a point... I was just commenting on the fact that they are all hat :lonergr: and no cattle! :cow:

I already condemned their actions several pages back.


----------



## Wanderer0101

TheMartianChick said:


> Clearly, I've missed a lot in 2 days, but I wanted to address a few things that were mentioned (I don't know how many pages back).
> 
> *The Twitter account:* Is not Trayvon Martin's. The Martin family attorney has contacted Twitter and had it confirmed that the account isn't his. In fact. Tweets were being sent on the account even after his death. Anyone can create a Twitter account with any name. In fact, there is a tweet going around that is attributed to actor Will Smith regarding the case comparing Zimmerman to a woman that threw flour on Kim Khardashian. The only problem is that Will Smith doesn't have a twitter account and the actual account owner is a man in another state.
> 
> TODAY Entertainment - Fake Will Smith tweet about Trayvon Martin, Kim Kardashian goes viral
> 
> *Manslaughter Charge* Yesterday's breaking news was that the lead detective wanted to press charges against Zimmerman but was overruled. Sanford Police Department has a history of protecting the children of their own as was shown in the case of the police chief's son beating up the homeless man. Zimmerman is the son of a retired judge and it is possible that this protection would extend to him, as well.
> 
> *Friends/Defenders of Zimmerman* Last night, Lawrence O'Donnell, Jonathan Capeheart and Charles Blow interviewed Joe Oliver about the case and his connection to Zimmerman. Oliver is the black friend and former CNN reporter that has been all over the airwaves speaking to the character of George Zimmerman.
> 
> He was grilled thoroughly by O'Donnell, Capeheart and Blow as to his relationship with Zimmerman. They felt that there was a lot that didn't make sense because they couldn't find much evidence of a relationship other than the fact that the two used to work at the same place. Oliver finally admitted that he really didn't know Zimmerman much beyond a passing acquaintance. The really interesting thing is that Oliver has quit his job to spend his time defending Zimmerman in the media. It sounds as though he is just trying to capitalize on the case and gain fame. I will try to find the video and post it. As it was, I only saw the last half of the interview because my husband got me out of bed to see it.
> 
> Here is the video and an article about the video for those on dial-up. Please note that there is another video at the bottom of the page relating to Zimmerman's attorney:
> 
> Joe Oliver, Friend Of George Zimmerman: 'My Role In This Just Doesn't Make Any Sense' (VIDEO)


Not much love lost between the police and judges usually. I'd say this is a null set.

At least Oliver knew the guy, unlike the thousands that have already convicted him including bigots like Lawrence O'Donnell, Jonathan Capeheart and Charles Blow whose leftist ideology governs every word that comes out of their mouths.


----------



## painterswife

Wanderer0101 said:


> Not much love lost between the police and judges usually. I'd say this is a null set.
> 
> At least Oliver knew the guy, unlike the thousands that have already covicted him including bigots like Lawrence O'Donnell, Jonathan Capeheart and Charles Blow whose leftist ideology governs every word that comes out of their mouths.


He is an acquaintance, nothing more. Who quits their job to be the self imposed media spokesperson for someone? That is suspect in itself. Watch the whole interview and you just might have a different view of Oliver and his connection to this case.


----------



## sweetbabyjane

pancho said:


> Would their ability to pay matter when someone brought them the body of Zimmerman?


Or some other unfortunate white-hispanic male...

Well, it looked like him. Where's my money?
SBJ


----------



## trulytricia

Please give a listen to Jesse Peterson here.

Bond Info - home


----------



## trulytricia

Speaking of threats. A woman here in Wis said to a judge, "we know where you live and we burn things down"

She's just been convicted for it. Woman convicted of threatening judge - WSAU News/Talk 550AM 99.9FM


----------



## Nevada

tkrabec said:


> Im not sure if anyone has brought this up or not, but wouldn't the castle law also apply to trevon, even tho he did not have a gun. From, the information I've seen on the news (and I try not to watch too much). Trevon could have assumed that he was being stalked by Zimmerman. Since Trevon was living with his father I assume the castle doctrine would also apply to him since he had a right to be there.


That's true. Depending on what happened leading up to the altercation, which we only have the shooter's word on, Martin could have been legally justified in standing his own ground. That would be consistent with what I suggest might have happened, where Zimmerman tried to interrogate or detain Martin but Martin resisted.


----------



## pancho

tkrabec said:


> Im not sure if anyone has brought this up or not, but wouldn't the castle law also apply to trevon, even tho he did not have a gun. From, the information I've seen on the news (and I try not to watch too much). Trevon could have assumed that he was being stalked by Zimmerman. Since Trevon was living with his father I assume the castle doctrine would also apply to him since he had a right to be there.


The castle law would apply to just about anyone.
One thing to remember, if you decide to use the castle law you should be willing to take it to the finish. If not the other person can use the same law to do what you failed to do.

Like the old saying, do not bring a knife to a gun fight.


----------



## TheMartianChick

trulytricia said:


> Please give a listen to Jesse Peterson here.
> 
> Bond Info - home


No offense but Jesse Peterson is trying to raise $200,000 in the first blog post on the page that you linked to. I haven't listened to him yet to ascertain his views, but that was the first thing that I noticed.

Edited to ask: What would you like us to view on the site? There are numerous commercials and podcasts, etc... on the site.

Another Edit: Okay, I watched the 3 minute commercial for Peterson's youth program and found an audio that was far more interesting by Rev. Jesse Peterson on another topic. Kirsten West Savali is an actual acquaintance of mine and is the Editor of Your Black World. ( I've written for Your Black World and its affiliated sites in the past under my own name and a pseudonym) I recognized her face on the screen once I finished watching the commercial. (Youtube often recommends other videos that have a similar theme once the video that you are watching has ended). Anyway, I clicked to hear the video and listened to the exchange and found that I really don't agree with any of Peterson's views at all. Was my impression of him tainted by the fact that I know Kirsten? Possibly, but only because I know how meticulous she is in her research and Rev. Peterson was increasingly condescending in his remarks to her, even suggesting that her education was somehow lacking until she pointed out that she did not attend the college that he disparaged in his remarks.


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> The castle law would apply to just about anyone.
> One thing to remember, if you decide to use the castle law you should be willing to take it to the finish. If not the other person can use the same law to do what you failed to do.
> 
> Like the old saying, do not bring a knife to a gun fight.


But with Zimmerman's gun concealed, Martin may have thought he was bringing fists to a fist fight.


----------



## Wanderer0101

painterswife said:


> He is an acquaintance, nothing more. Who quits their job to be the self imposed media spokesperson for someone? That is suspect in itself. Watch the whole interview and you just might have a different view of Oliver and his connection to this case.


Since when do the parents of dead kids trademark their names? Is that suspicious?


----------



## Nevada

Wanderer0101 said:


> Since when do the parents of dead kids trademark their names? Is that suspicious?


Suspicion of what, and what relevance does it have to the shooting?


----------



## painterswife

Wanderer0101 said:


> Since when do the parents of dead kids trademark their names? Is that suspicious?


There are problems on both sides of this situation.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Zimmerman is the son of a retired judge and it is possible that this protection would extend to him, as well.


Zimmerman's father was a judge in *Virginia*


----------



## TheMartianChick

Wanderer0101 said:


> Since when do the parents of dead kids trademark their names? Is that suspicious?


That isn't the kind of thing that grieving parents think of, but it is something that a lawyer would come up with. There is a history of things being co-opted for other purposes... especially in the black community. This will help to avoid that. Beyonce and Jay Z were said to be doing the same thing with their daughter's name for the same reason.

Think of all of the t-shirts and hoodies that are being printed relating to this case... Someone is making money off of the Trayvon Martin case just as plenty of street venodors and bootleggers made money off of Obama merchandise during the 2008 election.

A good example of this would be those spinning hubcaps and wheels that people buy to trick out a car. They are known on the street as Sprewells because the basketball player Latrell Sprewell popularized them by having them on his car. However, he doesn't own the company and didn't make a dime for promoting them. Now, his name is inextricably linked to merchandise that doesn't benefit him in any way.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> But with Zimmerman's gun concealed, Martin may have thought he was bringing fists to a fist fight.


Turns out that wasn't a very decision. Not at all like the bus driver incident.


----------



## TheMartianChick

pancho said:


> Turns out that wasn't a very decision. Not at all like the bus driver incident.


There was no bus driver punching incident. That story came from the Twitter account that did NOT belong to Trayvon Martin.

I have also learned that the family applied for trademarks for two phrases: Justice for Trayvon and another one that I cannot remember. The money raised will be used to start a fund to help other victims of racial crimes.


----------



## tkrabec

haypoint said:


> In a court of law, the past histories are not parts of the case. So, if we are talking about guilt, we have to stick to the facts of the incident. Sadly for Martin, he wonât be able to tell his version of the facts. We have Zimmermanâs broken nose and bloody scalp and a legal gun.
> 
> If we want to create a story in our minds, we must gather every bit of information, no matter how irrelevant. In this day and age, we have Martinâs Twitter messages, total number of times Zimmerman called 911, stolen jewelry inventory, pot record and information about a burglary tool/weapon. We can recreate our stereotype of a wannabe cop trying to put a hooded stranger on the run. We can put ourselves in Martinâs perception of what Zimmerman was up to. Just because Zimmerman was told not to follow Martin does not mean he is guilty of murder. Just because Martin broke Zimmermanâs nose does not mean he should die.
> 
> The real armchair quarterbacks are busy telling what should have been done, now that the outcome is known. Hindsight is always 20/20. If Zimmerman had known Martin was going to jump him, maybe he would have stayed in his SUV. If Martin had known Zimmerman was packing heat, maybe he would have answered Zimmermanâs question or at least not knocked Zimmerman down.
> 
> I have gathered all the information available to me and I think (IMHO) a young man that was not evil, yet far from perfect, didnât like what Zimmerman said to him and figured he could take Zimmerman. Zimmerman got caught up in the moment, let himself get too emotional, said too much and couldnât get back to the safety of his SUV. He is lucky Martin didnât get his gun. If he had, Zimmerman would be just another unsolved murder and Martin could add a pistol to his backpack of burglary tools.


Trevon was being Followed/Threatened by Zimmerman, what if he perceived this as a threat and acted accordingly, albeit with out a gun. Since he was living with his father, did that not give him the same castle law protections as Zimmerman? Who is to say Trevon was not defending himself?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by *tkrabec*
> _Im not sure if anyone has brought this up or not, but wouldn't the *castle law* also apply to trevon, even tho he did not have a gun. From, the information I've seen on the news (and I try not to watch too much). *Trevon could have assumed that he was being stalked by Zimmerman.* Since Trevon was living with his father I assume the *castle doctrine* would also apply to him since he *had a right to be there*._


"Castle Doctrine" *only* applies in the HOME.

"Stand your ground" applies anywhere you have a legal right to be, but only applies if you are ATTACKED, not "stalked" or "confronted" or "interrogated"

Martin was never scared enough to run or call for help, or even tell his girlfriend he was afraid. He only told her he was being "followed"

He had no "right" to be cutting through anyone's yards or behind houses


----------



## TheMartianChick

Bearfootfarm said:


> He had no "right" to be cutting through anyone's yards or behind houses


The area where he was walking is a sidewalk that runs through the development. It is there to provide access to the back doors of the properties. He had every right to follow that sidewalk.

Edited to add: This was an area with townhouses. These were not the private yards that many might be used to. This was a housing development/complex with rental dwellings that were attached to eachother.


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> Turns out that wasn't a very decision. Not at all like the bus driver incident.


He didn't really have the same choice. Martin was too young for a CCW.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Martin was too young for a *CCW*


What does that have to do with anything?


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> What does that have to do with anything?


How was he going to bring a gun to a gun fight if he was too young for a CCW?


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> How was he going to bring a gun to a gun fight if he was too young for a CCW?


In his pocket or waistband of course! That's how most of the "young folks" around here do it! It's really easy!


----------



## big rockpile

I'm really thinking we should have thousands march in support of Zimmerman considering he did nothing wrong but just because it was a Black they are ready to Lynch him either way. :grumble:

big rockpile


----------



## poppy

Bearfootfarm said:


> Zimmerman's father was a judge in *Virginia*


There's those pesky facts again. Looks like that strawman argument is now being ignored and they have moved on to other ones.


----------



## poppy

A dem congresswoman who thinks he is guilty wants him arrested for his own safety. I'm shocked she doesn't want him hung so he wouldn't have to worry about someone killing him.

Democrat Congresswoman: Arrest Zimmerman &#8216;For His Own Safety' 

by Ben Shapiro 

At a Congressional forum on the Hill yesterday at which killed Florida teenager Trayvon Martin&#8217;s parents were asked to testify, Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL) took center stage. She claimed first that Martin had been victimized by racial profiling and a &#8220;botched police investigation.&#8221; But she went even further: George Zimmerman, the shooter in the case, she said, should be arrested &#8220;immediately for his own safety.&#8221;


----------



## TNHermit

poppy said:


> A dem congresswoman who thinks he is guilty wants him arrested for his own safety. I'm shocked she doesn't want him hung so he wouldn't have to worry about someone killing him.
> 
> Democrat Congresswoman: Arrest Zimmerman âFor His Own Safety'
> 
> by Ben Shapiro
> 
> At a Congressional forum on the Hill yesterday at which killed Florida teenager Trayvon Martinâs parents were asked to testify, Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL) took center stage. She claimed first that Martin had been victimized by racial profiling and a âbotched police investigation.â But she went even further: George Zimmerman, the shooter in the case, she said, should be arrested âimmediately for his own safety.â




Poppy 
Your posts are getting old and tiring. Facts. Common sense, truth, all that stuff went out of style back in the 60's and 70's. Ya gott aget with it man!!:hysterical:


----------



## Wanderer0101

Nevada said:


> Suspicion of what, and what relevance does it have to the shooting?


This thread is a perfect example of why it is a complete waste of time to engage you on any level. You live on a unicorn ranch and don't want to leave.


----------



## SteveD(TX)

Nevada said:


> He didn't really have the same choice. Martin was too young for a CCW.


And we all know that young black (or white, etc.) men NEVER carry a gun without the benefit of a CCW (CHL), right?


----------



## pancho

tkrabec said:


> Trevon was being Followed/Threatened by Zimmerman, what if he perceived this as a threat and acted accordingly, albeit with out a gun. Since he was living with his father, did that not give him the same castle law protections as Zimmerman? Who is to say Trevon was not defending himself?


He may have been defending himself.
He sure didn't do a very good job.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> He didn't really have the same choice. Martin was too young for a CCW.


Come on down to Jackson and tell a few of the gangbangers here they need a CCW. I think you might be in for a surprise.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> How was he going to bring a gun to a gun fight if he was too young for a CCW?


I don't have a CCW.
I carry a gun everytime I leave the house.
It is just as much a part of my clothing as a shirt.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> How was he going to bring a gun to a gun fight if he was *too young for a CCW*?


You're kidding , right?
Was he "old enough" to have drugs?

Add to that the fact that being FOLLOWED does not justify the use of force


----------



## TheMartianChick

Let's go back to the reason for Zimmerman's call to 911... He said that there had been break ins in the neighborhood and that Trayvon Martin looked suspicious.

He never told the 911 operator about any illegal activity that was observed, just about prior events (burglaries). When I call 911, I only call for an emergency situation or a crime in progress. There was no emergency situation, nor a crime in progress. If there had been, then Zimmerman should have told the operator what kind of bad act was being committed.

Let's leave color/race out of this for a moment. Does this really mean that we should all start calling the police everytime we see someone that we don't recognize walking along the sidewalk in our neighborhoods? Would you be ticked off that someone endeavors to report you to the authorities everytime you are exercising your right to talk on a cell phone? What about your right to dress as you please? Should the police (other than the fashion police) be called if someone doesn't like the clothing that you chose to put on? Should you to have to alert all of the residents in your neighborhood that you have guests in your home to keep them from being targeted by Neighborhood Watch or even just the neighborhood busybody? 

I ask these questions because I believe that I have the right to walk anywhere, wear whatever clothing that I want (as long as I'm not naked), talk to whomever I want on my cell phone and invite my friends & relatives over to my home without sending out a press release first. This IS America, right?


----------



## pancho

TheMartianChick said:


> Let's go back to the reason for Zimmerman's call to 911... He said that there had been break ins in the neighborhood and that Trayvon Martin looked suspicious.
> 
> He never told the 911 operator about any illegal activity that was observed, just about prior events (burglaries). When I call 911, I only call for an emergency situation or a crime in progress. There was no emergency situation, nor a crime in progress. If there had been, then Zimmerman should have told the operator what kind of bad act was being committed.
> 
> Let's leave color/race out of this for a moment. Does this really mean that we should all start calling the police everytime we see someone that we don't recognize walking along the sidewalk in our neighborhoods? Would you be ticked off that someone endeavors to report you to the authorities everytime you are exercising your right to talk on a cell phone? What about your right to dress as you please? Should the police (other than the fashion police) be called if someone doesn't like the clothing that you chose to put on? Should you to have to alert all of the residents in your neighborhood that you have guests in your home to keep them from being targeted by Neighborhood Watch or even just the neighborhood busybody?
> 
> I ask these questions because I believe that I have the right to walk anywhere, wear whatever clothing that I want (as long as I'm not naked), talk to whomever I want on my cell phone and invite my friends & relatives over to my home without sending out a press release first. This IS America, right?


You have that right.
Martin had the same rights.
His rights ended at the tip of Zimmerman's nose.
He did not have the right to beat him.
You don't have that right either.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Let's go back to the reason for Zimmerman's call to 911... He said that there had been break ins in the neighborhood and that Trayvon Martin looked suspicious.
> 
> He never told the 911 operator about any illegal activity that was observed, just about prior events (burglaries). When I call 911, I only call for an emergency situation or a crime in progress. There was no emergency situation, nor a crime in progress. If there had been, then *Zimmerman should have told the operator what kind of bad act was being committed*.


All early reports said that call was made to a NON emergency number.
Later they all called it "911" because thats more *dramatic*

And he DID report suspected ILLEGAL activity:



> On one call to a *non-emergency* dispatch number, according to Julison, Zimmerman says, "He's checking me out," and then, "*This guy looks like he's on drugs*, he's definitely messed up."
> "These a**holes always get away," he adds.
> The dispatcher is heard trying to discourage Zimmerman, asking, "Are you following him?.. Okay, we don't need you to do that."


Trayvon Martin Family Seeks FBI Investigation of Killing - ABC News

It's REALLY not hard to find the truth if you take a few minutes to look for it 

Turn on a scanner in *any* area, and you'll hear LOTS of "suspicious person" calls.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Bearfootfarm said:


> All early reports said that call was made to a NON emergency number.
> Later they all called it "911".
> 
> Turn on a scanner in *any* area, and you'll hear LOTS of "suspicious person" calls.


I do have a scanner and live in a city. The "suspicious person" calls that I hear cite a person trespassing, a person breaking in cars, a drunken person mooning cars, etc... A suspicious person walking down the sidewalk? Even the non-emergency police dispatcher would tell me that there was nothing that the police could do if the person wasn't breaking any laws.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> A suspicious person *walking down the sidewalk*? Even the non-emergency police dispatcher *would tell me that there was nothing that the police could do* if the person wasn't breaking any laws.


You're not using the entire description Zimmerman used to describe what he saw, and the dispatcher thought it *was* serious enough to send officers.


----------



## fantasymaker

TheMartianChick said:


> . The money raised will be used to start a fund to help other victims of racial crimes.


So Thats it its a racial crime? Who decided that? Was it Zimmerman that called the cops or "No limits *****" that decided to attack a innocent non black?
( I hate to but its only polite to use the name he chose)




TheMartianChick said:


> Does this really mean that we should all start calling the police everytime we see someone that we don't recognize walking along the sidewalk in our neighborhoods?


 Well of course we should.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

CBS news just came on.
They didn't mention Trayvon in the "headline" for the first time in a couple of weeks


----------



## tkrabec

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Castle Doctrine" *only* applies in the HOME.
> 
> "Stand your ground" applies anywhere you have a legal right to be, but only applies if you are ATTACKED, not "stalked" or "confronted" or "interrogated"
> 
> Martin was never scared enough to run or call for help, or even tell his girlfriend he was afraid. He only told her he was being "followed"
> 
> He had no "right" to be cutting through anyone's yards or behind houses


Duh, Thanks for the correction.

From what I've heard so far, mostly from the news. I believe that Zimmerman was the aggressor, and that Trevon was trying to flee, at least initially. I think the case will get interesting once more facts & "facts" come out, and witnesses or no witness come forth. The only thing I'm currently sure of is the situation got escalated well beyond where it should have. IMHO the events should have gone something like this
Z: what are you doing here I'm Z, on the neighborhood patrol
T: I'm T and I'm Going to my dad's house
Z: where is that
T: over on X street
Z: I'll follow you there, we've had some problems lately with break-ins and other problems recently.
T: ok, but Don't get too close Stranger Danger and such
{arrive home}
Z: Mr Martin is this your son
MM: Yes
Z: thanks have a nice night


----------



## pancho

tkrabec said:


> Duh, Thanks for the correction.
> 
> From what I've heard so far, mostly from the news. I believe that Zimmerman was the aggressor, and that Trevon was trying to flee, at least initially. I think the case will get interesting once more facts & "facts" come out, and witnesses or no witness come forth. The only thing I'm currently sure of is the situation got escalated well beyond where it should have. IMHO the events should have gone something like this
> Z: what are you doing here I'm Z, on the neighborhood patrol
> T: I'm T and I'm Going to my dad's house
> Z: where is that
> T: over on X street
> Z: I'll follow you there, we've had some problems lately with break-ins and other problems recently.
> T: ok, but Don't get too close Stranger Danger and such
> {arrive home}
> Z: Mr Martin is this your son
> MM: Yes
> Z: thanks have a nice night


How do you get shot in the chest if you are running away?
How did Zimmerman get a broken nose and injuries to the back of his head?


----------



## TheMartianChick

MSNBC just had an interview with the mother of the 13 year old (almost) eyewitness whose older sister called 911 the night of the shooting.

- The police never tried to talk to her son until days later, though there was a 911 call from her house that indicated that her son had witnessed the events preceding the shooting and that he had also witnessed the immediate aftermath, though he missed the gunshot.

- The mother says that the lead investigator said that the case was not one of self defense and they were looking for additional information.

-She admitted that she didn't know anything about questioning witnesses, but felt that one of the investigators was trying to lead her son to give certain answers.

I left the house after that interview but was listening to a Florida congresswoman (on XM radio while driving) who said that Trayvon was pronounced dead by paramedics and that it was against Florida law. She indicated that the law states that there should have been resuscitation efforts all the way to the hospital and that a doctor should have been the one to pronounce him dead. (This might have been Congresswoman Frederica Wilson. Since it was radio, I can't be sure but the voice seemed to be the same.)


----------



## TheMartianChick

pancho said:


> How do you get shot in the chest if you are running away?
> How did Zimmerman get a broken nose and injuries to the back of his head?


According to Congresswoman Frederica Wilson, Trayvon Martin's nose was broken and she cited the autopsy report as being her source. She was just on the Jane Velez Mitchell show on Headline News.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Just found this... It is surveillance video from the night of the shooting and shows Zimmerman with no discernible injuries. My husband spotted a clip of the video as he was flipping channels past Current TV, so I searched for it and found this article. The actual video can be found by clicking on the words *surveillance video *in the article or by clicking the big arrow at the top of the article.

Trayvon Martin Case: Exclusive Surveillance Video of George Zimmerman - ABC News

There are no bruises and no gash on the back of his head. His shirt is clean with no blood stains or any other sign of trauma. We've been led to believe that he had a gash on the back of his head that was so severe that he required stitches but neglected to get them until the next day. Was he roughed up by the Sanford Police Department?


----------



## painterswife

TheMartianChick said:


> Just found this... It is surveillance video from the night of the shooting and shows Zimmerman with no discernible injuries. My husband spotted a clip of the video as he was flipping channels past Current TV, so I searched for it and found this article. The actual video can be found by clicking on the words *surveillance video *in the article or by clicking the big arrow at the top of the article.
> 
> Trayvon Martin Case: Exclusive Surveillance Video of George Zimmerman - ABC News
> 
> There are no bruises and no gash on the back of his head. His shirt is clean with no blood stains or any other sign of trauma. We've been led to believe that he had a gash on the back of his head that was so severe that he required stitches but neglected to get them until the next day. Was he roughed up by the Sanford Police Department?


Yes it is looking very plausible that Zimmerman very may well be tarring Trayvon with his own actions in an effort to look innocent. We only have his story not both sides of the story.


----------



## TheMartianChick

MSNBC is reporting that there are several problems with the police report.

The police report has Trayvon's complete name, phone number, date of birth, etc. and was purportedly completed at 3am, 8 hours after the shooting. However, Trayvon was listed as a John Doe because the police didn't know who he was. Clearly the report has been altered since then and we don't know what else was changed on the report.

The fact that Trayvon was listed as a John Doe caused the majority of the problems that the parents had in gaining custody of the body. The coroner couldn't release the body until he was no longer listed as a John Doe. As a result, the family didn't get the body until he'd been dead for 3 days.


----------



## FeralFemale

TheMartianChick said:


> Just found this... It is surveillance video from the night of the shooting and shows Zimmerman with no discernible injuries. My husband spotted a clip of the video as he was flipping channels past Current TV, so I searched for it and found this article. The actual video can be found by clicking on the words *surveillance video *in the article or by clicking the big arrow at the top of the article.
> 
> Trayvon Martin Case: Exclusive Surveillance Video of George Zimmerman - ABC News
> 
> There are no bruises and no gash on the back of his head. His shirt is clean with no blood stains or any other sign of trauma. We've been led to believe that he had a gash on the back of his head that was so severe that he required stitches but neglected to get them until the next day. Was he roughed up by the Sanford Police Department?


Holy carp. That does NOT look like he had any wounds or injuries, whatsoever. 

However, since there has been so much bull put out there by the MSM, I'll wait. We had pics out there of T that turned out not to be him. This could be just some hispanic guy in a red shirt. There could have been injuries that you could see when you look more closely that you can't see because of the distance and poor vid quality, etc, etc, etc.

All I am saying is that we all need to step the heck back and wait for all the facts to come out. I'm with Sonshine on this one. We need a grand jury to go over all the evidence.


----------



## ryanthomas

There has been so much misinformation about this case that everything presented is suspicious. I was suspicious of everything out there from the beginning, but even more so now. For example, it was originally believed that his family wasn't even notified until three days later. We have since found out his dad was notified the next day. That's one of MANY examples.


----------



## Darren

TheMartianChick said:


> Just found this... It is surveillance video from the night of the shooting and shows Zimmerman with no discernible injuries. My husband spotted a clip of the video as he was flipping channels past Current TV, so I searched for it and found this article. The actual video can be found by clicking on the words *surveillance video *in the article or by clicking the big arrow at the top of the article.
> 
> Trayvon Martin Case: Exclusive Surveillance Video of George Zimmerman - ABC News
> 
> There are no bruises and no gash on the back of his head. His shirt is clean with no blood stains or any other sign of trauma. We've been led to believe that he had a gash on the back of his head that was so severe that he required stitches but neglected to get them until the next day. Was he roughed up by the Sanford Police Department?


The police report which is availble on the internet specifically notes that Zimmerman's coat was wet and had grass on the back. The officer also noted that Zimmerman was bleeding from his nose and scalp. I believe Zommerman was treated at the scene by a paramedic. 

I looked at the video also. I don't think the qualitry is such that you can tell whether Zimmerman was bleeding or not. The view from above didn't allow a good look at Zimmerman's face.

Do you think the officer lied on his police report when there was a paramedic on the scene?


----------



## ryanthomas

Darren said:


> The police report which is availble on the internet specifically notes that Zimmerman's coat was wet and had grass on the back. The officer also noted that Zimmerman was bleeding from his nose and scalp. I believe Zommerman was treated at the scene by a paramedic.
> 
> I looked at the video also. I don't think the qualitry is such that you can tell whether Zimmerman was bleeding or not. The view from above didn't allow a good look at Zimmerman's face.
> 
> Do you think the officer lied on his police report when there was a paramedic on the scene?


Yeah, the video quality and lighting was poor. Minor lacerations wouldn't be visible at that distance unless there was blood around them, which the paramedics would have cleaned up.


----------



## FeralFemale

Wait a second...isn't GZ supposed to be a fatty -- 5'9" and two hundred something according to the police report. This guy in the vid is not fat. 

Like I said...I'm waiting.


----------



## pancho

TheMartianChick said:


> According to Congresswoman Frederica Wilson, Trayvon Martin's nose was broken and she cited the autopsy report as being her source. She was just on the Jane Velez Mitchell show on Headline News.


You can choose where you get your info and I will choose where I get my info.
I don't get mine from some racist congressman, black panthers, Sharpton, or Jackson.

You are free to look at them for your info.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> The police never tried to talk to her son until days later, though there was a 911 call from her house that indicated that *her son had witnessed the events preceding the shooting *and that he had also witnessed the immediate aftermath, though he missed the gunshot.


He's probably the one who was walking his dog.
He said all he *saw* was "someone *on the ground* fighting" and he didn't see it when the shot was fired

If you look at the order in which the calls came in, it seems this call came AFTER the police had arrived. 
They had already talked to witnesses who were closer and had seen more

Many said there was "no investigation", but you're saying they were *still* doing interviews at least 3 days later


*



Neighbor:
My brother saw it.
911 dispatcher:
OK. Is your brother there right now?
Neighbor:
He&#8217;s next to me.
911 dispatcher:
OK, can you give him the phone?
Neighbor:
Yeah.
Brother:
Hello.
911 dispatcher:
Sir, what exactly did you see?
Brother:
I saw a man laying on the ground and he was held down screaming and I was gonna go over there and try to help him but my dog ran off the leash so I went and got my dog and then I heard a loud sound and then the screaming stopped. [34:10]
911 dispatcher:
OK, then did you see the person get shot?
Brother:
No.

Click to expand...

*Continue reading on Examiner.com Neighbors' 911 calls before, during shooting death of Trayvon Martin transcribed - National unsolved cases | Examiner.com Neighbors' 911 calls before, during shooting death of Trayvon Martin transcribed - National unsolved cases | Examiner.com

​


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FeralFemale said:


> Wait a second...isn't GZ supposed to be a fatty -- 5'9" and two hundred something according to *the police report*. This guy in the vid is not fat.
> 
> Like I said...I'm waiting.


The police report lists his height as 5'9", and gives NO weight

The MEDIA kept saying he "outweighed Trayvon by 100 lbs", but didn't tell anyone the picture of Zimmerman was several years old

I see nothing notable in this video, since his injuries had already been treated

Also, there are *6 witnesses* listed on the police report, 5 adults and one juvenile

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin%20Lakes%20Shooting%20Initial%20Report.pdf


----------



## FeralFemale

Bearfootfarm said:


> The police report lists his height as 5'9", and gives NO weight
> 
> The MEDIA kept saying he "outweighed Trayvon by 100 lbs", but didn't tell anyone the picture of Zimmerman was several years old
> 
> I see nothing notable in this video, since his injuries had already been treated


Aaah...ok..


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Holy carp. That does NOT look like he had any wounds or injuries, whatsoever.


Watch at about 1:06, when he turns his back to the camera and you can see a streak at the crown of his head that could be a cut


----------



## TheMartianChick

According to the original reports, the back of Zimmerman's head had a laceration that required stitches because it continued to bleed. Zimmerman supposedly did not get stitches until the next day. If the wound kept bleeding and needed stitches, then there should be visible blood in one of the closer images (at least) on the end portion of the video when Zimmerman walks into the police station itself. At the very least, I'd expect to see a bandaid to keep the blood in check.

I had a nasty bloody nose a couple of weeks ago. It lasted for nearly 40 minutes and I actually became lightheaded from it. At the time, I joked with my hubby that if I called the police they would take him directly to jail because it would look as though I had been badly beaten! Zimmerman had no blood, no grass stains and his jeans look great for someone who has supposedly been rolling around in the wet grass fighting with someone. The video is the police department's own surveillance video and if you blow it up to full screen, you can clearly see that there are no injuries.


----------



## ryanthomas

> According to the original reports


Which original reports? Many have been wrong so far.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I left the house after that interview but was listening to a Florida congresswoman (on XM radio while driving) who said that Trayvon was *pronounced dead by paramedics and that it was against Florida law*. She indicated that the law states that there should have been resuscitation efforts all the way to the hospital and that a doctor should have been the one to pronounce him dead. (This might have been Congresswoman Frederica Wilson. Since it was radio, I can't be sure but the voice seemed to be the same.)


 



> According to the original reports, the back of Zimmerman's head had a laceration that required stitches because it *continued to bleed*.


It's entirely possible it reopened. The police noted it on the report, and you saw the cop look at the back of his head. He must have had a *REASON *to look



> I had a nasty bloody nose a couple of weeks ago. It lasted for nearly 40 minutes and I actually became lightheaded from it. At the time, I joked with my hubby that if I called the police they would take him directly to jail because it would look as though I had been badly beaten! Zimmerman had no blood, no grass stains and his jeans look great for someone who has supposedly been rolling around in the wet grass fighting with someone. The video is the police department's own surveillance video.


*How long exactly* was it from the time they treated him until the time of the video?

How much blood do you expect to see on a red jacket?



> As a result, the family didn't get the body until he'd been dead for 3 days.


Trayvon Martin rumors abound, but here are facts<p></p> - Tampa Bay Times



> "The Volusia County medical examiner refused to release Martin's body to his family for three days, an unusually long wait"
> 
> *Not true*, according to the medical examiner.
> 
> It picked up the body at the scene just after 10 p.m. Feb. 26 and notified a Fort Lauderdale funeral home 39 hours later that the body was ready.
> 
> The funeral home, Roy Mizell and Kurtz, did not pick up the body for an additional 24 hours, the medical examiner reported.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

ryanthomas said:


> *Which original reports*? Many have been wrong so far.


Good question, which is why* links* mean a lot in these discussions


----------



## watcher

TheMartianChick said:


> Let's go back to the reason for Zimmerman's call to 911... He said that there had been break ins in the neighborhood and that Trayvon Martin looked suspicious.
> 
> He never told the 911 operator about any illegal activity that was observed, just about prior events (burglaries). When I call 911, I only call for an emergency situation or a crime in progress. There was no emergency situation, nor a crime in progress. If there had been, then Zimmerman should have told the operator what kind of bad act was being committed.


Different locales do things differently. Where I used to live they had a seperate number to call to report a non-emergency police matter. Here if you call the non-911 number to report something they put you on hold and transfer you to the 911 operator.




TheMartianChick said:


> Let's leave color/race out of this for a moment. Does this really mean that we should all start calling the police everytime we see someone that we don't recognize walking along the sidewalk in our neighborhoods? Would you


Isn't that what we are told to do? 




TheMartianChick said:


> be ticked off that someone endeavors to report you to the authorities everytime you are exercising your right to talk on a cell phone? What about your right to dress as you please? Should the police (other than the fashion police) be called if someone doesn't like the clothing that you chose to put on? Should you to have to alert all of the residents in your neighborhood that you have guests in your home to keep them from being targeted by Neighborhood Watch or even just the neighborhood busybody?


As of right now we don't know just what made Zimmerman think he should call the cops. For all we know Martin could have been doing his version of the dance scene from "Singin' in the Rain" and that lead Zimmerman to think he was high.




TheMartianChick said:


> I ask these questions because I believe that I have the right to walk anywhere, wear whatever clothing that I want (as long as I'm not naked), talk to whomever I want on my cell phone and invite my friends & relatives over to my home without sending out a press release first. This IS America, right?


And anytime you are in public others have the right to call the cops about your behavior. Freedom can be a pain some times.


----------



## watcher

TheMartianChick said:


> I do have a scanner and live in a city. The "suspicious person" calls that I hear cite a person trespassing, a person breaking in cars, a drunken person mooning cars, etc... A suspicious person walking down the sidewalk? Even the non-emergency police dispatcher would tell me that there was nothing that the police could do if the person wasn't breaking any laws.


Actually if you report something the police have a duty, but not a responsibility, to check it out. If you call the police and report you have seen someone who doesn't look like he should be in the area, i.e. is suspicious, that is usually good enough for the department to send a LEO to the scene if there is one available. Police know a lot of times its very productive to respond to these calls.


----------



## watcher

TheMartianChick said:


> MSNBC just had an interview with the mother of the 13 year old (almost) eyewitness whose older sister called 911 the night of the shooting.
> 
> - The police never tried to talk to her son until days later, though there was a 911 call from her house that indicated that her son had witnessed the events preceding the shooting and that he had also witnessed the immediate aftermath, though he missed the gunshot.


Not uncommon. Its my understanding they had several witnesses and the evidence at the scene supported Zimmerman's account of what happened. Following up on all the 911 calls can take days.




TheMartianChick said:


> - The mother says that the lead investigator said that the case was not one of self defense and they were looking for additional information.
> 
> -She admitted that she didn't know anything about questioning witnesses, but felt that one of the investigators was trying to lead her son to give certain answers.


If the investigator said that to her and acted like that if Zimmerman is charged he's going to have a real strong defense. 




TheMartianChick said:


> I left the house after that interview but was listening to a Florida congresswoman (on XM radio while driving) who said that Trayvon was pronounced dead by paramedics and that it was against Florida law. She indicated that the law states that there should have been resuscitation efforts all the way to the hospital and that a doctor should have been the one to pronounce him dead. (This might have been Congresswoman Frederica Wilson. Since it was radio, I can't be sure but the voice seemed to be the same.)


Reminds me of Missouri. I don't know if it has changed but in MO only a doctor could say you were dead. Therefore no one ever died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital but a lot of people died at the hospital.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

TheMartianChick said:


> According to Congresswoman Frederica Wilson, Trayvon Martin's nose was broken and *she cited the autopsy report as being her source*. She was just on the Jane Velez Mitchell show *on Headline News*.


Why is she on TV discussing evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation in which SHE has no jursidiction?

Because she's another *politician *using this death to get her face on TV while up for reelection









EXCLUSIVE: Trayvon Martin Autopsy Status Discussed By Florida Officials - International Business Times




> Jackelyn Barnard, spokeswoman for State Attorney Angela Corey's office, addressed her office's position via e-mail to the IBTimes on Wednesday:
> 
> "*The autopsy report cannot be released* at this time," she wrote.
> 
> *"By law, we are not allowed to release any information/documents involved in the investigation."*


Either she lied, or someone broke the law


----------



## Darren

I don't know how Wilson could get access to the autopsy while the state attorney is still reviewing the case especially with how the media has turned this into a circus.

I was curious about what Sanford put out as guidance for neighborhood watches. Here's a link to the document. Any unknown individual in the neighborhood would be regarded as suspicious. I'm surprised Martin's father's girlfriend didn't tell someone, the kid was going to be staying there. When they left him alone, they set the stage for disaster.

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/NWProgramHandbook.pdf


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I left the house after that interview but was listening to a Florida congresswoman (on XM radio while driving) who said that Trayvon was *pronounced dead by paramedics and that it was against Florida law.*
> 
> She indicated that the *law states that there should have been resuscitation efforts all the way to the hospital* and that a doctor should have been the one to pronounce him dead.
> 
> (This might have been *Congresswoman Frederica Wilson*. Since it was radio, I can't be sure but the voice seemed to be the same.)


The more she talks the more she shows she really doesn't know much at all
There is no law that "requires" resuscitation beyond a reasonable effort

She's too hung up on the word "*pronounce"* when common sense tells you when someone is dead, and there is no hope of reviving them

*



In fact, no statute speaks to the subject of mere official declaration or pronouncements of death as such.

Click to expand...

* 



> *While Chs. 382 and 406, F. S., do not speak to the subject of mere official declaration or pronouncement of death as such, those chapters imply that persons required by law to complete and sign certifications of cause of death necessarily also perform the function of officially declaring or pronouncing persons dead (*if, indeed, the function of merely pronouncing a person dead is required by law*).*



*



However, a sheriff, deputy sheriff, or emergency medical technician having knowledge of a death occurring without medical attendance (as prescribed by ss. 382.081, 382.10, 406.11, and 406.12, supra) is a person who becomes aware of a death (to whose knowledge a death may come) within the purview of ss. 382.10 and 406.12, respectively, and is accordingly required by law to notify the local registrar of such death and to report such death and related circumstances to the medical examiner. 

Click to expand...

*


> *Neither the local registrar or the local health officer, nor the medical examiner, as the case may be, is authorized by law to decline to perform his or her prescribed duties or functions under s. 382.081, s. 382.10, s. 406.11, or s. 406.13 once such official is notified of an unattended death.
> 
> *




Advisory Legal Opinion - Authority to pronounce someone dead

Unless the EMT's filled out a Death Certificate they broke no laws at all


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> How was he going to bring a gun to a gun fight if he was *too young* for a CCW?





> Taquanda Baker doesn't remember the suspect saying anything. She just remembers seeing *his gun*.
> 
> I was standing here," she said, pointing to a spot near her cash register. "As I saw him coming,* he already had the gun up*."
> 
> Baker pulled her gun out of her pocket, misfiring a shot into the wall, then aimed and shot again.
> 
> "He stumbled about 3 feet back, hit the floor, and I shot out the door," she recalls.
> 
> Baker ran outside her convenience store to Armenia Avenue and flagged down a TPD cruiser.
> 
> "I was like, 'I just shot somebody. Help me! Help me! Help me!"
> 
> While paramedics raced the suspect to the hospital, police put Baker in handcuffs and in the backseat of a patrol car.
> 
> She told them she not only knew the person she shot -- she knew
> * he was only 16.*


http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/new...se-killing-him


----------



## vicker

Meanwhile, in other news...
911 Caller Arrested After California Cops Shoot Dead Alleged Armed Robber | Fox News


----------



## Wanderer0101

TheMartianChick said:


> Let's leave color/race out of this for a moment. Does this really mean that we should all start calling the police everytime we see someone that we don't recognize walking along the sidewalk in our neighborhoods? Would you be ticked off that someone endeavors to report you to the authorities everytime you are exercising your right to talk on a cell phone? What about your right to dress as you please? Should the police (other than the fashion police) be called if someone doesn't like the clothing that you chose to put on? Should you to have to alert all of the residents in your neighborhood that you have guests in your home to keep them from being targeted by Neighborhood Watch or even just the neighborhood busybody?


Yes, that is exactly what we should do. The police substation in my subdivision puts out a monthly report of criminal activity and it always includes a very considerable number of "suspicious person" and "suspicious vehicle" reports, in fact they are by far the largest number of items on the list. The police have no problem with such calls. I have called this stuff in and they thank you for calling and they show up very quickly and check the people out. It's called being a responsible citizen.


----------



## Pearl B

somehow Zimmerman reminds me of this vid. Just change the name Jannie for zimmerman, just a small paranoid little man,run away from the pain[YOUTUBE]o_KytLO2WME[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## TNHermit

Only 94 post to go. Lets keep it up gang.


----------



## Pearl B

I remember when for whatever reason God sentenced me to live in California.
There were people that would paint up cop looking cars, and buy uniforms, official ones,pull over women rape them and toss the body off a cliff.

So ya I can totally understand Martins reaction, if he,after being followed by z, decided to fight for his life and put that guy at the very least in an er department


----------



## TheMartianChick

Pearl B. said:


> I remember when for whatever reason God sentenced me to live in California.


ound: I'm sorry, but I just found this to be extremely funny!


----------



## TheMartianChick

Wanderer0101 said:


> Yes, that is exactly what we should do. The police substation in my subdivision puts out a monthly report of criminal activity and it always includes a very considerable number of "suspicious person" and "suspicious vehicle" reports, in fact they are by far the largest number of items on the list. The police have no problem with such calls. I have called this stuff in and they thank you for calling and they show up very quickly and check the people out. It's called being a responsible citizen.


I live in what is classified as a mid-sized city. We have several colleges and universities. Should I really call the cops everytime that someone I don't know goes past or if my neighbor leaves their garage door open?

Sanford is in Central Florida and Zimmerman lived in a gated community. Many people that own properties in gated communities in Florida rent or sublet them to vacationers who may only stay there for a week or two. We've rented lots of homes in gated communities in Florida and we haven't been hassled by a Zimmerman-type. 

We are sometimes checked in at the gate if we are staying at an actual timeshare resort and given a hang tag/parking tag for the mirror, but that is because they operate more like a hotel. We've never gone through that at a regular gated community.


----------



## TNHermit

I got a question. We got almost 1000 posts of people pontificating about something we don't really know a dang thing about. Mark Levin will barely comment on this thing because of that. he is Americas premier constitutional lawyer.

Beyond the fact that this kid was probably wearing the hoodie as a sign. This was a GATED community. Maybe not your normal kind due to economic structure. If he was around there did he not KNOW it was a gated community. Did he not know there was a reason for a gated community and the possibilities. Why then did he go through. This was not the FIRST night of the "watch" Could he have done it on a dare to himself, lack of concern about others rights. Could it have been a gang initiation requirement. They do that and worse.

Why was he in a place AT night with a known watch?


----------



## tkrabec

pancho said:


> How do you get shot in the chest if you are running away?
> How did Zimmerman get a broken nose and injuries to the back of his head?


I said "that Trevon was trying to flee, at least initially."

I also said "The only thing I'm currently sure of is the situation got escalated well beyond where it should have."

I do not know how Zimmerman got a broken nose, I can only speculate that Trevon had something to do with it, or that it was self inflicted, or happened accidentally when he was following following Trevon. I do not know. I'm holding my judgment on the guilt of the parties until I hear more evidence, which some will come out at the time of the trial. Until then I still believe that this situation got way out of hand.


----------



## Hollowdweller

New twist in the plot

Video shows Zimmerman without obvious injuries - CBS News


----------



## pancho

tkrabec said:


> I said "that Trevon was trying to flee, at least initially."
> 
> I also said "The only thing I'm currently sure of is the situation got escalated well beyond where it should have."
> 
> I do not know how Zimmerman got a broken nose, I can only speculate that Trevon had something to do with it, or that it was self inflicted, or happened accidentally when he was following following Trevon. I do not know. I'm holding my judgment on the guilt of the parties until I hear more evidence, which some will come out at the time of the trial. Until then I still believe that this situation got way out of hand.


Sure, the broken nose was self inflicted. Why don't you go with that story. Whatever you need to change the facts around.
Have you been listening to Sharpton and Jackson?

Why couldn't Martin have shot himself?


----------



## Darren

TNHermit said:


> I got a question. We got almost 1000 posts of people pontificating about something we don't really know a dang thing about. Mark Levin will barely comment on this thing because of that. he is Americas premier constitutional lawyer.
> 
> Beyond the fact that this kid was probably wearing the hoodie as a sign. This was a GATED community. Maybe not your normal kind due to economic structure. If he was around there did he not KNOW it was a gated community. Did he not know there was a reason for a gated community and the possibilities. Why then did he go through. This was not the FIRST night of the "watch" Could he have done it on a dare to himself, lack of concern about others rights. Could it have been a gang initiation requirement. They do that and worse.
> 
> Why was he in a place AT night with a known watch?


There's an long chain of events that ended in Martin's death.

If his parents hadn't gotten divorced, he wouldn't have been sent to his father's girlfriend's home in a community where he wasn't known.

If he hadn't gotten in trouble at school he'd probably be alive today.

If Martin's role models were those that did accept being a self described ***** who from his tweets put out the impression he'd would be able to kill someone, he'd quite possibly be alive and looking forward to more March Madness.

If he'd been much younger, maybe he would have not been left alone. That one's a stretch.

If there had been no criminal activity within the community, there would not have been a need for a neighborhood watch. Zimmerman would not have been out patroling the neighborhood.

If the neighbors in that community did not care enough about each other, there would not have been a neighborhood watch.

We've already discussed the affects of testosterone and peer pressure on a young man at that age.

We don't know if Martin knew about the knockdown game. Given his tweets what better way to get the approval of his peers if not by taking a picture of a ****** on the ground.

If Martin had backed off after knocking Zimmerman down, would Zimmerman have shot him? 

Perceived disrespect is getting people killed. Did that aspect of Martin's culture play a part?

Any of us could add to the list.

If you're still with me, I'm off on a tangent I haven't seen mentioned. For those that think the police report was bogus, remember *there's another report by the paramedics that would have described Zimmerman's wounds.* Unless things are different in Florida, the paramedics talked to a medical director who was radioed the medical evaluation of Martin's body.

For all of the conjecture, we'll never know exactly what happened. I'm waiting on what Martin's girlfriend heard that night during the phone call he made before the altercation. Unless she implicates Zimmerman, she may have problems of her own.

Last, I wonder if the NSA has a recording of that phone call.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Darren said:


> There's an long chain of events that ended in Martin's death.
> 
> If his parents hadn't gotten divorced, he wouldn't have been sent to his father's girlfriend's home in a community where he wasn't known.
> 
> If he hadn't gotten in trouble at school he'd probably be alive today.
> 
> If Martin's role models were those that did accept being a self described ***** who *from his tweets *put out the impression he'd would be able to kill someone, he'd quite possibly be alive and looking forward to more March Madness.
> 
> If he'd been much younger, maybe he would have not been left alone. That one's a stretch.
> 
> If there had been no criminal activity within the community, there would not have been a need for a neighborhood watch. Zimmerman would not have been out patroling the neighborhood.
> 
> If the neighbors in that community did not care enough about each other, there would not have been a neighborhood watch.
> 
> We've already discussed the affects of testosterone and peer pressure on a young man at that age.
> 
> We don't know if Martin knew about the knockdown game. Given his tweets what better way to get the approval of his peers if not by taking a picture of a ****** on the ground.
> 
> If Martin had backed off after knocking Zimmerman down, would Zimmerman have shot him?
> 
> Perceived disrespect is getting people killed. Did that aspect of Martin's culture play a part?
> 
> Any of us could add to the list.
> 
> If you're still with me, I'm off on a tangent I haven't seen mentioned. For those that think the police report was bogus, remember *there's another report by the paramedics that would have described Zimmerman's wounds.* Unless things are different in Florida, the paramedics talked to a medical director who was radioed the medical evaluation of Martin's body.
> 
> *For all of the conjecture, we'll never know exactly what happened. I'm waiting on what Martin's girlfriend heard that night during the phone call he made before the altercation. Unless she implicates Zimmerman, she may have problems of her own.*Last, I wonder if the NSA has a recording of that phone call.


A couple of things... The Twitter account did not belong to Trayvon Martin. Someone else was tweeting under that name and uploaded a photo after Trayvon died. The tweets even continued after his death.

Also, the girlfriend has already been heard from. Her voice has been on 2 different tv interviews where she recounts the events. Though the story remained the same, she used slightly different wording in each interview, so I knew that it was two different interviews. Her call ended about 1 minute prior to the shooting. She has implicated Zimmerman.

Lastly, what is the NSA? Are you implying that all private cell phone calls are recorded?


----------



## JeffreyD

TheMartianChick said:


> A couple of things... The Twitter account did not belong to Trayvon Martin. Someone else was tweeting under that name and uploaded a photo after Trayvon died. The tweets even continued after his death.
> 
> Also, the girlfriend has already been heard from. Her voice has been on 2 different tv interviews where she recounts the events. Though the story remained the same, she used slightly different wording in each interview, so I knew that it was two different interviews. Her call ended about 1 minute prior to the shooting. She has implicated Zimmerman.
> 
> Lastly, *what is the NSA? Are you implying that all private cell phone calls are recorded*?


NSA= National Security Agency, and yes all private communications including cell phones, and the interweb, are recorded and kept for 2 years.(it may be 5 years now). Their building a HUGE facility in Utah right now just for this very purpose.


----------



## tkrabec

pancho said:


> Sure, the broken nose was self inflicted. Why don't you go with that story. Whatever you need to change the facts around.
> Have you been listening to Sharpton and Jackson?
> 
> Why couldn't Martin have shot himself?


I do not listen to those fools, not the talking heads for that matter.

as I've said before and will repeat again I DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

And yes Martin Could have shot himself, over the struggle for Zimmerman's gun.
WHAT BEARS REPEATING IS THE SITUATION ON THAT NIGHT GOT WAY OUT OF HAND, IT SHOULD HAVE NEVER ESCALATED TO A SHOOTING. LET ALONE A DEATH/MURDER.


----------



## TheMartianChick

JeffreyD said:


> NSA= National Security Agency, and yes all private communications including cell phones, and the interweb, are recorded and kept for 2 years.(it may be 5 years now). Their building a HUGE facility in Utah right now just for this very purpose.


 I need to get to work crocheting a tinfoil covering for my cell phone now?Eeek! :runforhills:


----------



## TheMartianChick

This is the audio of an interview with Trayvon Martin's girlfriend DeeDee.

Trayvon Martin's girlfriend talks about final moments before slaying | Audio


----------



## pancho

tkrabec said:


> I do not listen to those fools, not the talking heads for that matter.
> 
> as I've said before and will repeat again I DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.
> 
> And yes Martin Could have shot himself, over the struggle for Zimmerman's gun.
> WHAT BEARS REPEATING IS THE SITUATION ON THAT NIGHT GOT WAY OUT OF HAND, IT SHOULD HAVE NEVER ESCALATED TO A SHOOTING. LET ALONE A DEATH/MURDER.


And it could have so easily been avoided.


----------



## Txsteader

TheMartianChick said:


> Lastly, what is the NSA? Are you implying that all private cell phone calls are recorded?


Girl, you need to keep up with the news (). The initial story broke in 2006. The story about the center being built in Utah was all over the headlines a couple of weeks ago.

The NSA Is Building the Country's Biggest Spy Center (Watch What You Say) | Threat Level | Wired.com


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> And it could have so easily been avoided.


How could it have been avoided?


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> How could it have been avoided?


If Mr. Martin had not gone to the store, this would have been avoided!


----------



## chickenista

Hollowdweller said:


> New twist in the plot
> 
> Video shows Zimmerman without obvious injuries - CBS News



I watched this last night.

What got me was the neatly tucked in shirt. Yes.. lack of blood etc.. that would accompany a bloody nose, but neatly tucked in??

If he had been in a fight where he was on the ground with a kid kneeling on his arms etc.. you would not expect the shirt to be neatly tucked.
After a shooting death, you would not expect someone to stop and tuck in their shirt.
You would not expect the police officers to allow him to reach into his waistband to tuck in his shirt after a fight and a shooting death either.

It would seem to me that after the evening that he had caring about a tucked in shirt would be the least of it all.
It leads to reason that his shirt was never mussed and untucked....
thus, no life threatening fist fight while rolling around on the ground.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> If Mr. Martin had not gone to the store, this would have been avoided!


How about if Zimmerman had not gone to the store?


----------



## TheMartianChick

Txsteader said:


> Girl, you need to keep up with the news (). The initial story broke in 2006. The story about the center being built in Utah was all over the headlines a couple of weeks ago.
> 
> The NSA Is Building the Country's Biggest Spy Center (Watch What You Say) | Threat Level | Wired.com


I didn't start reading on HT until 2008 and didn't join until 2009. I think that you don't have access to General Chat until you become a member and that you can't post in GC until you've been around for awhile.

(I'm gonna go crochet a tinfoil suit to protect me!)


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> How about if Zimmerman had not gone to the store?


How about if Florida had slid off into the gulf the day before?


----------



## TraderBob

Wow...jump on Zimmerman and call it murder without having all the facts. 
Orlando Sentinel has some information that sheds a different light on it.

Trayvon Martin: George Zimmerman's account to police of the Trayvon Martin shooting. - Orlando Sentinel

Why wait for the police to do their job...just go hang him now...there is a reward dead or alive you know...why get all the facts before providing street justice? Typical.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> How about if Zimmerman had not gone to the store?


Did he? I didn't know that!


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Also, the girlfriend has already been heard from. Her voice has been on 2 different tv interviews where she recounts the events. Though the story remained the same, *she used slightly different wording in each interview*, so I knew that it was two different interviews. Her call ended about 1 minute prior to the shooting. *She has implicated Zimmerman.
> 
> *


She assuredly had been *coached* by lawyers before giving any interviews, and OF COURSE she "implicated Zimmerman"

Reality is she doesn't KNOW what happened.
She just heard some sounds and ASSUMED she knew what happened

Trayvon Martin girlfriend speaks detail: Trayvon Martin's girlfriend speaks out with details of teen's death. - Orlando Sentinel



> She told attorneys she then heard the 17-year-old ask "What are you following me for?"
> Then a man, presumably Zimmerman, replied: "What are you doing around here?"
> The girl said Trayvon *must have been* pushed because his headset fell off and the phone call ended.


----------



## J.T.M.

Wanderer0101 said:


> Yes, that is exactly what we should do. The police substation in my subdivision puts out a monthly report of criminal activity and it always includes a very considerable number of "suspicious person" and "suspicious vehicle" reports, in fact they are by far the largest number of items on the list. The police have no problem with such calls. I have called this stuff in and they thank you for calling and they show up very quickly and check the people out. It's called being a responsible citizen.


 Perhaps you should read your own siggy .
folÂ·ly (fl)
n. pl. folÂ·lies
1. A lack of good sense, understanding, or foresight.
2.
a. An act or instance of foolishness: regretted the follies of his youth.
b. A costly undertaking having an absurd or ruinous outcome.
3. follies (used with a sing. or pl. verb) An elaborate theatrical revue consisting of music, dance, and skits.
4. Obsolete
a. Perilously or criminally foolish action.
b. Evil; wickedness.
c. Lewdness; lascivious


----------



## Bearfootfarm

chickenista said:


> I watched this last night.
> 
> What got me was the neatly tucked in shirt. Yes.. lack of blood etc.. that would accompany a bloody nose, but neatly tucked in??
> 
> *If he had been in a fight* where he was on the ground with a kid kneeling on his arms etc.. you would not expect the shirt to be neatly tucked.
> After a shooting death, you would not expect someone to stop and tuck in their shirt.
> You would not expect the police officers to allow him to reach into his waistband to tuck in his shirt after a fight and a shooting death either.
> 
> It would seem to me that after the evening that he had caring about a tucked in shirt would be the least of it all.
> It leads to reason that his shirt was never mussed and untucked....
> *thus, no life threatening fist fight* while rolling around on the ground.


 
Why keep ignoring that *two witnesses SAW* them fighting?
It's on the 911 transcripts that have been linked to several times already


----------



## pancho

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why keep ignoring that *two witnesses SAW* them fighting?
> It's on the 911 transcripts that have been linked to several times already


That doesn't fit into any of the scenes some people want to believe.
Much better to take the view of some that were in a completely different city or even state.
You know you can't trust an eye witness but someone in a different state is always right.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about if Zimmerman had not gone to the store?
> 
> 
> 
> Did he? I didn't know that!
Click to expand...

He claims that he was not on neighborhood watch patrol, but on his way back from the store.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> He claims that he was not on *neighborhood watch* patrol, but on his way back from the store.


The MEDIA hyped up the "neighborhood watch" aspect.
It really makes no difference, although it could negate the complaints he carried his gun WHILE on "patrol"

It was no big secret:

Here's their main gate:


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> It really makes no difference, although it could negate the complaints he carried his gun WHILE on "patrol"


My mother lives in the area and told me that the locals are saying that he wasn't supposed to carry a firearm while on patrol. I haven't been able to confirm that with a reference.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> My mother lives in the area and told me that the locals are saying that he wasn't supposed to carry a firearm while on patrol. I haven't been able to confirm that with a reference.


I thought you said he wasn't on patrol at that time.


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> I thought you said he wasn't on patrol at that time.


That's why his claim that he was coming back from the store is significant.

The only way it might make a difference is if the homeowners association sanctions the neighborhood watch, which might introduce a deep pocket that can be sued. I also read that the neighborhood watch wasn't really organized or sanctioned by anyone. I don't know as much about the neighborhood watch as I would like to know.

Interestingly, I have a neighborhood watch sign on a light pole in my front yard, yet I've never heard of an organized neighborhood watch around here. The city might put them up to curb crime, I don't know.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why keep ignoring that *two witnesses SAW* them fighting?
> It's on the 911 transcripts that have been linked to several times already


I don't doubt that there was a fight, but I'm not sure how that proves who might have been at fault.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> That's why his claim that he was coming back from the store is significant.
> 
> The only way it might make a difference is if the homeowners association sanctions the neighborhood watch, which might introduce a deep pocket that can be sued. I also read that the neighborhood watch wasn't really organized or sanctioned by anyone. I don't know as much about the neighborhood watch as I would like to know.
> 
> Interestingly, I have a neighborhood watch sign on a light pole in my front yard, yet I've never heard of an organized neighborhood watch around here. The city might put them up to curb crime, I don't know.


Any of those signs are the end result of someone or a group going through a validation process. I've already posted a link to Sanford's neighborhood watch guidelines. Once the conditions are met, a government entity places the signs. 

The most common examples here are signs that indicate someone has committed to picking up litter. There are a few watch signs in an adjacent county which were sponsored by the sheriff's dept.

If you're legally licensed to carry concealed and you comply with the state law, I don't think a law enforcement agency can make up new rules that are more restrictive. They can recommend for obvious reasons just like the dispatcher did not order Zimmerman not to find Martin. The dispatcher said we don't need you to do that or words to that effect. The dispatcher did not have the authority to order Zimmerman to do anything.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> I don't doubt that there was a fight, but I'm not sure how that proves who might have been at fault.


What we know for sure about the fight is that at some point Zimmerman ended up lying on the ground with Martin beating him. The witness who had their dog break loose should have stayed. That would have provided the information on how Martin got shot. The fact that the semiauto did not cycle is still a red flag. 

The two men could have been fighting for the gun, the gun could have been squeezed between them so tight the slide couldn't move, or Zimmerman limp wristed the gun when it fired. I don't see Zimmerman limp wristing the gun if the two were fighting over it, or if it was jammed between the two men.


Zimmerman also said he shot Martin. So far we haven't heard anything about a struggle for the gun from Zimmerman. I'm wondering if Zimmerman pulled the gun out and shot Martin in the side and limp wristed then. The autopsy report would help clarify that.


----------



## TNHermit

Alveda King: Sharpton, Jackson should stop &#8216;playing race card&#8217; over Trayvon Martin

Alveda King | Trayvon Martin | Jesse Jackson | Al Sharpton | The Daily Caller


----------



## painterswife

Darren said:


> What we know for sure about the fight is that at some point Zimmerman ended up lying on the ground with Martin beating him.


How do we know that for sure? We know there was a fight. We don't know that Martin was beating him.( or on top)


----------



## Wanderer0101

J.T.M. said:


> Perhaps you should read your own siggy .
> folÂ·ly (fl)
> n. pl. folÂ·lies
> 1. A lack of good sense, understanding, or foresight.
> 2.
> a. An act or instance of foolishness: regretted the follies of his youth.
> b. A costly undertaking having an absurd or ruinous outcome.
> 3. follies (used with a sing. or pl. verb) An elaborate theatrical revue consisting of music, dance, and skits.
> 4. Obsolete
> a. Perilously or criminally foolish action.
> b. Evil; wickedness.
> c. Lewdness; lascivious


Sounds like a personal attack to me. Rather strange after a simple declaration of the facts. I take it you are for criminal empowerment or perhaps just spineless behaviour in general.


----------



## pancho

painterswife said:


> How do we know that for sure? We know there was a fight. We don't know that Martin was beating him.( or on top)


You keep forgetting about the eye witnesses.
They saw Martin on top beating Zimmermen.
They heard Zimmermen calling for help.

It must be nice to be able to not believe the eye witnesses and believe people who were in other cities and even other states.
There shouldn't be any trial, why not just shoot him and be over with it?


----------



## painterswife

I am not forgetting. I have not seen any report of that.

Please don't read judgement into my posts. I have not seen all the evidence and I keep trying to find more.


----------



## pancho

painterswife said:


> Where is that report. The eye witness reports that I read about said that they did not know who was on top or who was screaming.


Maybe you would be much better off reading the real reports and not those made up by others.


----------



## pancho

Guess I had better say good bye to you people.
I have been warned to take a post down.
I mentioned the sales of white sheets have surged in the neighborhood.
Maybe there will be a post of the dead or alive poster the black panthers put up.
That will probably be allowed to stay.
Can't make the blacks mad.


----------



## painterswife

pancho said:


> Maybe you would be much better off reading the real reports and not those made up by others.


Maybe you should stop judging what you don't know. I have read all the real reports I can. There is no police report or video on this particular witness statement.

Your jumping on people with assumptions about what you think they know is just as bad as all the rush to judgments. You are no expert source yourself.


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> You keep forgetting about the eye witnesses.
> They saw Martin on top beating Zimmermen.


I don't think there is any question that there was a struggle, but all I can conclude from Zimmerman being at the bottom at some point is that Martin was getting the best of him. Even if that were true I don't see how it establishes fault, it only suggests that Martin may have been a better fighter. That adds nothing to the discussion about who might have instigated the fight. There are just too many ways the struggle could have started.


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> Maybe you should stop judging what you don't know. I have read all the real reports I can. There is no police report or video on this particular witness statement.
> 
> Your jumping on people with assumptions about what you think they know is just as bad as all the rush to judgments. You are no expert source yourself.


There seems to be more information everyday including a video of a reporter with the witness. Look up either 911 transcript or second witness. I'm getting tired of posting links that folks don't bother to read.


----------



## SteveD(TX)

YouTube video link of a reporter interviewing the eyewitness claiming Martin was beating Zimmerman:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEDBqvEauYU]Trayvon Martin was punching Neighborhood Watchman when he was shot.flv - YouTube.flv - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Nevada

SteveD(TX) said:


> YouTube video link of a reporter interviewing the eyewitness claiming Martin was beating Zimmerman:
> 
> Trayvon Martin was punching Neighborhood Watchman when he was shot.flv - YouTube.flv - YouTube


Again, I'm not sure what to take away from that. We already knew there was a struggle.


----------



## SteveD(TX)

Nevada said:


> Again, I'm not sure what to take away from that. We already knew there was a struggle.


Either you believe him or not. He clearly described Martin beating Zimmerman. This was before the national media and black leaders made all the hoopla about race, etc.. What would be his motive to lie?


----------



## Nevada

SteveD(TX) said:


> Either you believe him or not. He clearly described Martin beating Zimmerman. This was before the national media and black leaders made all the hoopla about race, etc..


My last post didn't accuse anyone of lying. My point was that Zimmerman being on the bottom at some point during the struggle doesn't contribute anything to the question of who might have started it. It only demonstrates that Zimmerman was losing the fight at one point.

Zimmerman's story about how the altercation started is suspect for lack of motivation, since Martin allegedly attacked Zimmerman without provocation. I think that's unlikely, and it's unverified, so I have to question the story.



SteveD(TX) said:


> What would be his motive to lie?


This is a very serious situation, and Zimmerman knows it. At the very least he's going to give his story a positive slant. Depending on what really happened his life could depend on telling a lie. Do you really think he wouldn't?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> My mother lives in the area and told me that the locals are saying that he wasn't supposed to carry a firearm *while on patrol.* I haven't been able to confirm that with a reference.


You just said he WASN'T on "patrol".
Reality is there were no binding rules and he could* legally* carry his handgun


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *I don't doubt that there was a fight*, but I'm not sure how that proves who might have been at fault.


Evidently some so since *they* can't see injuries.
The *witnesses* said Martin was on top and Zimmerman was calling for help


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> How do we know that for sure? We know there was a fight. *We don't know that Martin was beating him.( or on top*)


*Two eyewitnesses* said that is what they saw.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Evidently some so since *they* can't see injuries.


I can't see injuries either, but that doesn't mean there was no fight. What it means is that Zimmerman's injuries weren't nearly as serious as they were first purported to be.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I am not forgetting. *I have not seen* any report of that.


Links have been posted to the reports *and* transcripts of the 911 calls.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> *I can't see injuries* either, but that doesn't mean there was no fight. What it means is that *Zimmerman's injuries weren't nearly as serious* as they were first purported to be.


NO.
What it "means" is you CAN'T SEE the injuries
Nothing more

"Serious" is a relative term.

The use of deadly force is allowed specifically to PREVENT "serious bodily injury" 
If Martin was on top (as *witnessed*) , beating Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk, then the shooting would be justified.

Zimmerman had no motive to "attack" Martin, knowing the police were minutes away


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> The *eye witness* reports that I read about said that they did not know who was on top or who was screaming.


Neither of the two *eye*witnesses said that.

The 911 callers who only HEARD it said they didn't know who was yelling

Neighbors' 911 calls before, during shooting death of Trayvon Martin transcribed - National unsolved cases | Examiner.com


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> NO.
> What it "means" is you CAN'T SEE the injuries
> Nothing more


I admit that a broken nose might be difficult to see in a clip like that, but a deep gash on the back of the head should have been visible. I didn't see any sign of a wound, or even a bandaid.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Zimmerman had no motive to "attack" Martin, knowing the police were minutes away


From Zimmerman's call to police, it was clear that he was concerned that Martin would get away. I believe Zimmerman wanted to detain Martin so the police could question him. If Zimmerman tried to interrogate or detain Martin himself, then Martin would most likely have felt threatened and resisted.

I think that Zimmerman had a strong motivation to interrogate or detain Martin, while nobody alleges that Martin had any motive to attack Zimmerman. The logical choice is to either believe that Zimmerman tried to interrogate or detain Martin and he resisted, or that Martin went berserk for no reason at all. Which is more believable?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I admit that a broken nose might be difficult to see in a clip like that, but a deep gash on the back of the head should have been visible. I didn't see any sign of a wound, or even a bandaid.


Who said "deep gash"?
The report said "bleeding"
Maybe they superglued it shut since it's hard to bandage a head



> From Zimmerman's call to police, it was clear that he was concerned that Martin would get away.
> *I believe* Zimmerman wanted to detain Martin so the police could question him. If Zimmerman tried to *interrogate or detain* Martin himself, then Martin would most likely have felt threatened and resisted.


Your beliefs are guesses.
Neither of those things would justify Martin to attack or *continue* beating once Zimmerman was knocked to the ground


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Neither of those things would justify Martin to attack or *continue* beating once Zimmerman was knocked to the ground


Sure it would. If Zimmerman was forcibly trying to detain Martin, then Martin had every justification to fight back.


----------



## FeralFemale

Here is a youtube of ABC's Zimmerman arrest. Keep your eye on the bottom left of the screen, just below Zimmerman's right elbow. At the :34 second mark...what...what is that? It looks like a date and time stamp that clearly says DEC....as in December. Zimmerman was arrested in December. The shooting was in February. 

[YOUTUBE]5uvZUXuK090[/YOUTUBE]

You can see it better at the youtube page [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uvZUXuK090&feature=related]!!TRAYVON MARTIN VIDEO SHOWS NO BLOOD OR BRUISES ON GEORGE ZIMMERMAN!! - YouTube[/ame]

You can also see it on the abcnews website's version

George Zimmerman on Police Surveillance | Video - ABC News

Is this just an incorrect time stamp or is it a vid of a different GZ arrest? Or does it say DFC, like Dept of Florida Corrections -- though it looks like it is followed by a day and year. I can't tell. Can anyone else with better eyes look at this?

ETA: NEVERMIND

I found a full, uncropped vid at cbsnews.com and it says PSC or something like that.


----------



## J.T.M.

Wanderer0101 said:


> Sounds like a personal attack to me. Rather strange after a simple declaration of the facts. I take it you are for criminal empowerment or perhaps just spineless behaviour in general.


You took me posting the definition on a word in your siggy as a personal attack ...........really ?:grin:
If I was spineless, I would consider your post a personal attack ( read into that what you will ) 
What kind of person calls the law because someone is not dressed as he thinks one should be ?

And you question if I have a spine ~ rolls eyes ~


----------



## Nevada

FeralFemale said:


> Here is a youtube of ABC's Zimmerman arrest. Keep your eye on the bottom left of the screen, just below Zimmerman's right elbow. At the :34 second mark...what...what is that? It looks like a date and time stamp that clearly says DEC....as in December. Zimmerman was arrested in December. The shooting was in February.


Most likely nobody is maintaining the camera like it should be. I can't imagine a grand conspiracy behind it. 9/11, JFK or Elvis maybe, but not Zimmerman's video.

There's no way they would pass-off an old video without anybody, including Zimmerman's lawyer, saying anything about it.


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> How do we know that for sure? We know there was a fight. We don't know that Martin was beating him.( or on top)


911 dispatcher:

OK. Did you hear the shot?

Neighbor:

I heard something then my brother ran in the house.

911 dispatcher:

OK. And your brother didnât see anything else?

Neighbor:

My brother saw it.

911 dispatcher:

OK. Is your brother there right now?

Neighbor:

Heâs next to me.

911 dispatcher:

OK, can you give him the phone?

Neighbor:

Yeah.

Brother:

Hello.

911 dispatcher:

Sir, what exactly did you see?

Brother:

I saw a man laying on the ground and he was held down screaming and I was gonna go over there and try to help him but my dog ran off the leash so I went and got my dog and then I heard a loud sound and then the screaming stopped. [34:10]

911 dispatcher:

OK, then did you see the person get shot?

Brother:

No.

911 dispatcher:

OK. Do you know the person who was shot or did you see the person who had the gun?

Brother:

No, I just heard a loud gunshot sound and then the screaming stopped.

Neighbors' 911 calls before, during shooting death of Trayvon Martin transcribed - National unsolved cases | Examiner.com


----------



## painterswife

Darren said:


> 911 dispatcher:
> 
> OK. Did you hear the shot?
> 
> Neighbor:
> 
> I heard something then my brother ran in the house.
> 
> 911 dispatcher:
> 
> OK. And your brother didnât see anything else?
> 
> Neighbor:
> 
> My brother saw it.
> 
> 911 dispatcher:
> 
> OK. Is your brother there right now?
> 
> Neighbor:
> 
> Heâs next to me.
> 
> 911 dispatcher:
> 
> OK, can you give him the phone?
> 
> Neighbor:
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> Brother:
> 
> Hello.
> 
> 911 dispatcher:
> 
> Sir, what exactly did you see?
> 
> Brother:
> 
> I saw a man laying on the ground and he was held down screaming and I was gonna go over there and try to help him but my dog ran off the leash so I went and got my dog and then I heard a loud sound and then the screaming stopped. [34:10]
> 
> 911 dispatcher:
> 
> OK, then did you see the person get shot?
> 
> Brother:
> 
> No.
> 
> 911 dispatcher:
> 
> OK. Do you know the person who was shot or did you see the person who had the gun?
> 
> Brother:
> 
> No, I just heard a loud gunshot sound and then the screaming stopped.
> 
> Neighbors' 911 calls before, during shooting death of Trayvon Martin transcribed - National unsolved cases | Examiner.com


Where does it say he identified who was on top or who was on the bottom?


----------



## TNHermit

Top Democrats &#8212; including President Barack Obama&#8217;s re-election team &#8212; are now keeping their distance from the Trayvon Martin uproar, as each day reveals more facts about the teen&#8217;s slaying.

&#8220;As more facts come out, it&#8217;s more confusing for folks,&#8221; Sharon Gilpin, a Democratic political consultant, told The Daily Caller.

&#8220;There was a pretty intense rush to judgment &#8230; [but] it is important to get all your facts before you cement your feet in the sidewalk,&#8221; said Gilpin, who has worked on numerous Democratic campaigns and ballot initiatives.

&#8220;As tragic as this death is, there obviously is another side to the story,&#8221; former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis told TheDC. &#8220;We would all do well to wait for the facts to emerge.&#8221;

At today&#8217;s White House press conference, spokesman Jay Carney dismissed the only question about the controversy. He was asked about Obama&#8217;s response to Rep. Bobby Rush appearing on the House floor wearing a hoodie. Rush represents an African-American district in Obama&#8217;s hometown of Chicago.

&#8220;I haven&#8217;t discussed that with him,&#8221; Carney said, six days after the president amplified a media firestorm by using a Rose Garden event to announced that &#8220;if I had a son, he&#8217;d look like Trayvon.

Democrats Lay Low | Trayvon Martin Story | The Daily Caller


----------



## JeffreyD

Just saw this on google news. Link to cnn.

What the "witness saw".

Witness details Trayvon Martin's killing - CNN.com

The witness recounted seeing two men on the grass, one on top of the other. "And at that point, not looking out the window, I heard the yell for help, one yell for help, and then I heard another ... excruciating type of yell. It didn't almost sound like 'help.' It just sounded so painful. But I wasn't watching out the window during that. And then the next time I looked out the window, there's the same thing: two men on the grass, one on top of each other. I couldn't see a lot of movement. It was very dark, but I felt like they were scuffling. And then I heard the gunshots, which, to me, were more like pops than they were like a bang."


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Just saw this on google news. Link to cnn.
> 
> What the "witness saw".
> 
> Witness details Trayvon Martin's killing - CNN.com
> 
> The witness recounted seeing two men on the grass, one on top of the other. "And at that point, not looking out the window, I heard the yell for help, one yell for help, and then I heard another ... excruciating type of yell. It didn't almost sound like 'help.' It just sounded so painful. But I wasn't watching out the window during that. And then the next time I looked out the window, there's the same thing: two men on the grass, one on top of each other. I couldn't see a lot of movement. It was very dark, but I felt like they were scuffling. And then I heard the gunshots, which, to me, were more like pops than they were like a bang."


Still, nobody can confirm how the altercation started.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Still, nobody can confirm how the altercation started.


This is true. We only have Zimmermans word for it. Indeed he may have said something derogatory that set Martin off. OR Martin could have gotten po'd at Zimmerman and confronted him and started a fight. We may never know the truth.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Where does it say he identified who was on top or who was on the bottom?


Links to ALL the reports and calls* have been given*.
Go read them and then you will find the information.


> *911 dispatcher:*
> OK.
> *Neighbor:*
> Oh, my God! *The guy on top has a white t-shirt*. [11:51]
> *911 dispatcher:*
> What do you mean guy on top? Did you see a fight? [11:59]
> *Neighbor:*
> I don&#8217;t know. I just looked out my window and *the guy on top has a white t-shirt*.
> *911 dispatcher:*
> A white t-shirt. Did you see what kind of pants?
> *Neighbor:*
> No.
> *911 dispatcher:*
> OK, he&#8217;s on top of what?
> *Neighbor:*
> I couldn&#8217;t see the other thing. *I couldn&#8217;t see the person he was on*. [12:16]
> *911 dispatcher:*
> But *he&#8217;s on top of a person*? [12:18]
> *Neighbor:*
> *Uh, huh.*
> *911 dispatcher:*
> OK, is he, the guy with the white t-shirt, did he get up and run?
> *Neighbor:*
> I don&#8217;t know &#8211; I came to the phone and called you. [12:29
> 
> 
> ​


Continue reading on Examiner.com Neighbors' 911 calls before, during shooting death of Trayvon Martin transcribed - National unsolved cases | Examiner.com Neighbors' 911 calls before, during shooting death of Trayvon Martin transcribed - National unsolved cases | Examiner.com




> According to Tampa Bay Fox affiliate WTVT-TV, what the witness says he saw could bolster Zimmerman&#8217;s claim that he shot Martin in self-defense:
> 
> &#8220;*The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: &#8216;help, help*&#8230;and I told him to stop and I was calling 911,&#8221; he said.
> Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; *Zimmerman was in red*.
> 
> The witness only wanted to be identified as &#8220;John,&#8221; and didn&#8217;t not want to be shown on camera.
> 
> His statements to police were instrumental, because police backed up Zimmerman&#8217;s claims, saying those screams on the 911 call are those of Zimmerman. &#8220;When I got upstairs and looked down, *the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass*, and I believe he was dead at that point,&#8221; John said.


 Witness Says Trayvon Martin Attacked George Zimmerman


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> Still, nobody can confirm how the altercation started.


And in this country "nobody can confirm" equals innocent.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

ryanthomas said:


> And in this country "nobody can confirm" equals innocent.


Dead people don't talk.
I hope whoever does forensics on this boy, can tell his story, for him.


----------



## ryanthomas

Unfortunately, the forensic evidence probably will not prove or disprove any version of events in this case. It isn't nearly as definitive as many people expect it to be. I think TV crime shows like Law & Order and CSI have really given people a skewed view of how suspected crimes are investigated and prosecuted. On a TV show, there can be a crime, arrest, indictment, trial, conviction, and sentencing all shown in one hour, so people are outraged that this case hasn't been closed in less than a month.


----------



## Wanderer0101

J.T.M. said:


> What kind of person calls the law because someone is not dressed as he thinks one should be ?


A rational person who has read the actual FBI crime statistics and is very familiar with who commits the majority of crimes in this country. A person whose life has been threatened three times by gangsta'd up gentlemen from the hood. A gun, a knife and a gang have been involved in the three incidents. One I ran off with a dog and a shotgun, the other two I was able to run away from. 

I absolutely reserve my right to call the police when I see someone that looks suspicious to me. Maybe I should just shoot them instead. Would that make you happy?


----------



## Darren

ryanthomas said:


> Unfortunately, the forensic evidence probably will not prove or disprove any version of events in this case. It isn't nearly as definitive as many people expect it to be. I think TV crime shows like Law & Order and CSI have really given people a skewed view of how suspected crimes are investigated and prosecuted. On a TV show, there can be a crime, arrest, indictment, trial, conviction, and sentencing all shown in one hour, so people are outraged that this case hasn't been closed in less than a month.


Forensic evidence can add or confirm some details such as:

Where the two men close to each other when the gun was fired? The fact the semiauto did not loac another cartridge into the chamber may help answer that.

Where any of Martin's fingerprints on the gun? Maybe relevant. Maybe not depending on how they were positioned on the gun if anything can be retrieved.

Did they find powder burns on Martin's clothes?

What did the paramedic's examination of Zimmerman show? Was there any of Zimmerman's blood on the ground or concrete. The rain may have affected the evidence.

Was Zimmerman's back wet as described by the police report? The police should have taken pictures.

Did the bullet enter Martin's body from the front or back? Did the track indicate he was standing up while Zimmerman was lying down?

Why was Martin found lying face down? What sequence of events resulted in that? How close to where the men were struggling did they find Martin's body. 

Who was screaming on the 911 tapes? Info on the internet indicates those are being analyzed. Was that Zimmerman as some reports indicate?

Was Martin on drugs? Apparently they didn't test Zimmerman for drugs.

Zimmerman claimed via his brother that Martin said he was going to kill him. Did Martin have a weapon? Did Zimmerman see anything he thought was a weapon. 
*Note to readers:* If you're ever in a fight don't tell your adversary you're going to kill them. That may have sealed Martin's doom.

What happened to Martin's cellphone? Where was it found?

The investigators have a lot of information to process. Does any of it not support what Zimmerman's told the police. Up to this point, it seems it does or Zimmerman would have been arrested for inconsistencies in his answers unless Florida law prevented that.

This may be one of the most important trials in this country's recent history. The question is can the media report it impartially. So far that hasn't happened.


----------



## ryanthomas

> This may be one of the most important trials in this country's recent history. The question is can the media report it impartially. So far that hasn't happened.


The real question for justice sake should be if a jury will be able to decide impartially. I have serious doubts about that possibility. Most forensic evidence is open to interpretation, just as everything else. It will give little pieces of the puzzle, but the whole picture probably still won't be clear. The media's reporting will certainly play a big part in the reaction among the rest of us.


----------



## J.T.M.

Wanderer0101 said:


> A rational person who has read the actual FBI crime statistics and is very familiar with who commits the majority of crimes in this country. A person whose life has been threatened three times by gangsta'd up gentlemen from the hood. A gun, a knife and a gang have been involved in the three incidents. One I ran off with a dog and a shotgun, the other two I was able to run away from.
> 
> I absolutely reserve my right to call the police when I see someone that looks suspicious to me. Maybe I should just shoot them instead. Would that make you happy?


Here let me translate this for ya.
" An irrational paranoid  person who feels threatened by people who don't look - or dress like themselves ". :kiss:
Would you be threatened by someone who looks like Ted Bundy?


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> The investigators have a lot of information to process. Does any of it not support what Zimmerman's told the police.


In this case guilt doesn't depend on what happened. We know what happened, there was an altercation and Zimmerman shot Martin. Guilt will be determined on the basis of who started it. If Martin attacked Zimmerman unprovoked, as Zimmerman claims, then he acted in self defense. If the altercation started because Zimmerman tried to forcibly detain or interrogate Martin, which he had no right to do, then Zimmerman didn't act in self defense.


----------



## SteveD(TX)

painterswife said:


> Where does it say he identified who was on top or who was on the bottom?


I am sure that all witnesses didn't say that. But at least one did. See my post #953.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

ryanthomas said:


> The real question for justice sake should be if a jury will be able to decide impartially. I have serious doubts about that possibility. Most forensic evidence is open to interpretation, just as everything else. It will give little pieces of the puzzle, but the whole picture probably still won't be clear. The media's reporting will certainly play a big part in the reaction among the rest of us.


Other than myself, I wonder if there are 12 folks out there that do not spend hours and hours in front of a tv / radio / internet news?? 
Me thinks the media saturates so that THEY can skew the outcome?


----------



## SteveD(TX)

I am pretty sure that the recent photo of Treyvon in this link is a real one:

Second Trayvon Martin Twitter Feed | The Daily Caller


----------



## Nevada

SteveD(TX) said:


> painterswife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say he identified who was on top or who was on the bottom?
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure that all witnesses didn't say that. But at least one did. See my post #953.
Click to expand...

It's a moot point anyway. Who was on top at any given moment is only an indicator of who was prevailing in the fight. There is no way to determine who started a fight by who happens to be on top.


----------



## SteveD(TX)

Nevada said:


> It's a moot point anyway. Who was on top at any given moment is only an indicator of who was prevailing in the fight. There is no way to determine who started a fight by who happens to be on top.


I only posted this because some posters here seem to be selectively reading this thread. 

You sure do seem to be hung up on who started it; we may never know. So if Zimmerman started it but ended up on the bottom fighting for his life, was he unjustified in defending himself with his gun?


----------



## Nevada

SteveD(TX) said:


> You sure do seem to be hung up on who started it; we may never know. So if Zimmerman started it but ended up on the bottom fighting for his life, was he unjustified in defending himself with his gun?


No. Losing a fight that you started does not justify self defense. In a case where Zimmerman started the fight because he was trying to detain or interrogate Martin against his will, Martin would have been perfectly justified in defending himself.


----------



## SteveD(TX)

Nevada said:


> No. Losing a fight that you started does not justify self defense. In a case where Zimmerman started the fight because he was trying to detain or interrogate Martin against his will, Martin was perfectly justified in defending himself.


No one here can even speculate on where the line is drawn between merely defending yourself, and killing someone. If Zimmerman thought he might die at the hands of someone bashing his skull into the concrete, he was justified; anyone in their right mind would do the same thing. Does it make him more of a jerk/bully/idiot for starting it? Yep.


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> In this case guilt doesn't depend on what happened. We know what happened, there was an altercation and Zimmerman shot Martin. Guilt will be determined on the basis of who started it. If Martin attacked Zimmerman unprovoked, as Zimmerman claims, then he acted in self defense. If the altercation started because Zimmerman tried to forcibly detain or interrogate Martin, which he had no right to do, then Zimmerman didn't act in self defense.


That's almost correct. Guilt depends on PROOF that Zimmerman started it. As far as we know, nobody saw the start of the fight.


----------



## Nevada

SteveD(TX) said:


> No one here can even speculate on where the line is drawn between merely defending yourself, and killing someone.


That's exactly what's being done by not charging Zimmerman. Not charging Zimmerman makes a determination that he was acting in self defense and was justified in shooting Martin.



SteveD(TX) said:


> If Zimmerman thought he might die at the hands of someone bashing his skull into the concrete, he was justified; anyone in their right mind would do the same thing. Does it make him more of a jerk/bully/idiot for starting it? Yep.


Why is Zimmerman entitled to act in self defense but not Martin? If Zimmerman tried to detain Martin against his will, wouldn't Martin be justified in using deadly force in self defense?


----------



## SteveD(TX)

Nevada said:


> That's exactly what's being done by not charging Zimmerman. Not charging Zimmerman makes a determination that he was acting in self defense and was justified in shooting Martin.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is Zimmerman entitled to act in self defense but not Martin? *If *Zimmerman tried to detain Martin against his will, wouldn't Martin be justified in using deadly force in self defense?


That's a big IF. The fact that Zimmerman was being severely beaten has been corroborated by witness accounts. The fact that Treyvon was defending himself after Zimmerman attacked first, has not. Yes, it makes a difference.


----------



## Nevada

ryanthomas said:


> That's almost correct. Guilt depends on PROOF that Zimmerman started it. As far as we know, nobody saw the start of the fight.


Not playing the devil's advocate after an unwitnessed shooting sets a dangerous precedent. People could quite literally get away with murder as a matter of course. After all, the shooting victim can't tell his side of the story so we would always have to take the shooter's word for it. It would get to the point where we solved all our problems with guns, killing off annoying neighbors, competitive co-workers, and even spouses to avoid divorce. Just shoot them all behind closed doors and claim you felt threatened.


----------



## Nevada

SteveD(TX) said:


> That's a big IF. The fact that Zimmerman was being severely beaten has been corroborated by witness accounts. The fact that Treyvon was defending himself after Zimmerman attacked first, has not. Yes, it makes a difference.


Martin attacking Zimmerman unprovoked is a pretty big "if" also, but you have no difficulty taking Zimmerman at his word. Why is it easier to believe that Martin attacked unprovoked than it is to believe that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin?


----------



## ryanthomas

> Not playing the devil's advocate after an unwitnessed shooting sets a dangerous precedent.


Excellent point. But playing devil's advocate doesn't necessarily mean filing charges.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> If Zimmerman tried to* detain* Martin against his will, wouldn't Martin be justified in using deadly force in self defense?


No. Once the threat is *stopped*, you cannot use deadly force,
Martin was SEEN on top of Zimmerman, beating his head into the sidewalk.

There is NO *evidence* Zimmerman attacked Martin in any way.
Other than the gunshot wound, Martin had no injuries


----------



## ryanthomas

> Martin attacking Zimmerman unprovoked is a pretty big "if" also, but you have no difficulty taking Zimmerman at his word. Why is it easier to believe that Martin attacked unprovoked than it is to believe that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin?


It's not a matter of taking sides. Only one person is at risk of going to prison in this case. It sounds horrible, but Martin has no rights at this point. He's gone.


----------



## SteveD(TX)

Nevada said:


> Martin attacking Zimmerman unprovoked is a pretty big "if" also, but you have no difficulty taking Zimmerman at his word. Why is it easier to believe that Martin attacked unprovoked than it is to believe that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin?


I never said that. No one KNOWS who started it or exactly what happened, but we do have an eyewitness account of Zimmerman being beaten.

Moral of story - if you beat up a guy with a gun, you can expect to get shot, right or wrong. Make sure you disarm him before you beat him.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Why is it easier to believe that Martin attacked unprovoked than it is to believe that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin?


Because he had no reason to "detain" him.
All he needed to do was keep sight of him since he knew the police would be there any minute



> Not playing the devil's advocate after an unwitnessed shooting sets a dangerous precedent.


Ignoring the evidence to advance an agenda is even more dangerous


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is NO *evidence* Zimmerman attacked Martin in any way.


But here's the problem, there is no evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman. Evidence shows that there was a fight, but there is no evidence to establish who started it.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because he had no reason to "detain" him.
> All he needed to do was keep sight of him since he knew the police would be there any minute


I disagree. Zimmerman was obviously frustrated that "they always get away", from his remarks on the telephone. I think it's not only possible that Zimmerman felt justified in detaining Martin, but judging by the outcome I believe it's probable.

Would you really rather believe that Martin attacked Zimmerman for no reason?


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> But here's the problem, there is no evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman.


Zimmerman's statement is a form of evidence. It's weak, but it's all they have to go on as far as we know.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> But here's the problem, there is no evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman. Evidence shows that there was a fight, but there is no evidence to establish who started it.


But there IS evidence Martin was trying to severely injure Zimmerman.

The *available* evidence fits Zimmerman's version, since he claims to have gone down on the first punch, and Martin had no injuries at all



> Would you really rather believe that Martin attacked Zimmerman for no reason?


There is no evidence of any "reason"
Even Martin's girlfriend said she only heard Zimmerman ASK what Martin was doing there


----------



## FreeRanger

Bearfootfarm said:


> No. Once the threat is *stopped*, you cannot use deadly force,
> Martin was SEEN on top of Zimmerman, beating his head into the sidewalk.
> 
> There is NO *evidence* Zimmerman attacked Martin in any way.
> Other than the gunshot wound, Martin had no injuries


stories coming out this week: the wittnesses say they weren't on the sidewalk, only in the grass. HMMMM. There goes them facts again....

How does anyone know that the "threat is stopped?" Zimmerman was still alive, hence Martin had not yet neutralized the threat. Was Martin still in "self defense mode?" Beating someones head into the sidewalk is not deadly force, since clearly Zimmerman is alive and looks fine in the police videos.

How do you know Martin had no injuries? HMMM. There goes them facts again.....

Then there is Zimmerman's own words that he was following Martin. That puts the evidence strongly that the aggression was Zimmerman. Martin was moving away from Zimmerman, according to Zimmerman's own confession.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> But here's the problem, there is no evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman. Evidence shows that there was a fight, but there is no evidence to establish who started it.


It will never be known. So, it's a mute point now. Witness evidence proves that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, beating on him. That's all they've got. That's all YOU'VE got. So, at that point, Zimmerman felt the need to protect himself as best he could so he shot Martin. He didn't unload on him, he could have, but he didn't. He stayed at the scene for the police to show up. He was treated for for some type of injury.

Let me ask you this, do you know for a fact that Martin didn't start the fight?


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> But there IS evidence Martin was trying to severely injure Zimmerman.


Again, martin could have been doing it in self defense.



Bearfootfarm said:


> Even Martin's girlfriend said she only heard Zimmerman ASK what Martin was doing there


But Zimmerman says he didn't ask. He says that Martin spoke first, asking if there was a problem, then attacked him. That's a pretty severe inconsistency in the story.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FreeRanger said:


> stories coming out this week: *the wittnesses say they weren't on the sidewalk, only in the grass*. HMMMM. There goes them facts again....
> 
> How does anyone know that the "threat is stopped?" Zimmerman was still alive, hence Martin had not yet neutralized the threat. Was Martin still in "self defense mode?" *Beating someones head into the sidewalk is not deadly force,* since clearly Zimmerman is alive and looks fine in the police videos.
> 
> *How do you know Martin had no injuries? HMMM. There goes them facts again.....*
> 
> Then there is Zimmerman's own words that he was *following *Martin. That puts the evidence strongly that the aggression was Zimmerman. *Martin was moving away *from Zimmerman, according to Zimmerman's own confession.


Witnesses only know the *PORTION* they saw.
Feel free to link to those reports

Beating someones' head into a sidewalk *IS* "deadly force"

I know Martin had no injuries because I *keep up* with the news.
Google it and you can find that it's true

If Martin had KEPT moving away, nothing would have happened.
It never sounded like Zimmerman was *running* on the audio tapes, and Martin wasn't *scared e*nough to run, as he told his girlfriend.

To use deadly force there has to be FEAR


----------



## Cornhusker

Has there been a toxicology report released on Martin, or is that being suppressed also?
I wonder if he was hopped up on goofballs? (or whatever the term is these days)


----------



## Nevada

Cornhusker said:


> Has there been a toxicology report released on Martin, or is that being suppressed also?
> I wonder if he was hopped up on goofballs? (or whatever the term is these days)


Aren't you concerned about Zimmerman's toxicology report?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Again, martin could have been doing it in self defense.
> 
> But Zimmerman says he didn't ask. *He says that Martin spoke first*, asking if there was a problem, then attacked him. That's a pretty severe *inconsistency* in the story.


 
There is NO "inconsistency"
His girlfriend said *Martin spoke first* too. (In one version of her statements)
You REALLY need to *pay attention* to the DETAILS

Trayvon Martin Shooter Says Teenager Went for His Gun - ABC News



> Martin's girlfriend had said in a recording obtained exclusively by ABC News that *she heard Martin ask Zimmerman "why are your following me, and then the man asked, what are you doing around here.*" She then heard a scuffle break out and the line went dead.


Her statement might NOT be "word for word":



> . Martin's girlfriend came forward, identifying herself as the other person in that conversation; *she was interviewed by an attorney, who has made a statement,* and her parents have requested her anonymity. The girl said that Martin expressed concern about a strange man following him, and she advised him to run.
> 
> *She says she heard Martin say "What are you following me for?" followed by a man's voice responding "What are you doing here?"*
> 
> She said that she heard the sound of pushing and that Martin's headset suddenly went silent, leading her to believe that he had been knocked down. She attempted to call him back immediately, but was unable to reach him.[55]


Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Cornhusker said:


> Has there been a toxicology report released on Martin, or is that being suppressed also?
> I wonder if he was hopped up on goofballs? (or whatever the term is these days)


 
State law says the autopsy results can't be released if there is an ongoing investigation, unless the State Atty General makes an exception


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> *She says she heard Martin say "What are you following me for?" followed by a man's voice responding "What are you doing here?"*


That's VERY different from Zimmerman's account.
_
Zimmerman claims he was returning to his car when Martin confronted him and asked "Do you have a problem?" He says he replied "No", and reached for his cell phone. Zimmerman says Martin then punched him in the face, knocking him down, and began beating his head against the ground._
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Zimmerman.27s_account_of_events


----------



## Sonshine

Bearfootfarm said:


> But there IS evidence Martin was trying to severely injure Zimmerman.
> 
> The *available* evidence fits Zimmerman's version, since he claims to have gone down on the first punch, and Martin had no injuries at all
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of any "reason"
> Even Martin's girlfriend said she only heard Zimmerman ASK what Martin was doing there


I have yet to see pictures of a beaten up Zimmerman. There's no doubt they were fighting but if his head was being banged down on the ground and his nose was broken, where's the pictures of him bruised and battered?


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> It's a moot point anyway. Who was on top at any given moment is only an indicator of who was prevailing in the fight. There is no way to determine who started a fight by who happens to be on top.


Who started it goes back to grade school. I don't think it matters who started it from the point of who spoke first. What matters is did one or the other say something that was an assault (verbal). And who began the battery. 

Personally I'm not going to swing at a person I don't know especially at night. For young Black men the knock out game has become a rite of passage. 

Martin's passage into adulthood has some troubling signs. The main problem is attitude. When he went the gangsta wannabe route, he may have started the chain of events. Martin didn't necessarily have an appointment with the grim reaper. But it sure looks like he, in his youthful ignorance, took advantage of a walk in.

It looks like Zimmerman lost sight of Martin when he was distracted by the dispatcher. Dispatchers try to keep people on the line so they don't get involved especially if they are someplace safe. Martin told his girlfriend someone was following him.

Then it seems Martin surprised Zimmerman by walking back to him. I'm curious if Zimmerman was back at his SUV or near to it when that happened. Whatever happened after that we only have the eyewitness reports, Zimmerman's story and the evidence.


----------



## Sonshine

JeffreyD said:


> It will never be known. So, it's a mute point now. Witness evidence proves that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, beating on him. That's all they've got. That's all YOU'VE got. So, at that point, Zimmerman felt the need to protect himself as best he could so he shot Martin. He didn't unload on him, he could have, but he didn't. He stayed at the scene for the police to show up. He was treated for for some type of injury.
> 
> Let me ask you this, do you know for a fact that Martin didn't start the fight?


Where are the pictures of Zimmerman's injuries?


----------



## Sonshine

Cornhusker said:


> Has there been a toxicology report released on Martin, or is that being suppressed also?
> I wonder if he was hopped up on goofballs? (or whatever the term is these days)


I doubt it. I don't think they did any testing on Zimmerman either.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Sonshine said:


> I have yet to see pictures of a beaten up Zimmerman. There's no doubt they were fighting but if his head was being banged down on the ground and his nose was broken, *where's the pictures* of him bruised and battered?


*No pictures* of him have been shown other than the one video taken AFTER he was cleaned up.

Bruises often don't appear until hours or even days later.

Even the "mug shot" used by the media is several years old


----------



## Darren

Sonshine said:


> I have yet to see pictures of a beaten up Zimmerman. There's no doubt they were fighting but if his head was being banged down on the ground and his nose was broken, where's the pictures of him bruised and battered?


I've been in car wrecks where other than feeling sore, I didn't have any major complaint. The next morning when certain body parts had swollen up it was obvious something had happened. Sometimes it takes awhile for bruising and swelling to appear. 

The first officer on the scene stated Zimmerman was bleeding from his nose and head. Do you think the officer lied on an official report?


----------



## Aintlifegrand

I don't think people understand how hard this case will be for the prosecutor... the burden will be on her to prove that Zimmerman did not act in self defense..He does not have to prove that he did... how impossible is that going to be...then add to that witness saying there was a scuffle with Martin on top.. I do not see how the prosecution will ever be able to proove without a doubt that Zimmerman did not act in self defense...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> That's VERY different from Zimmerman's account.
> 
> _Zimmerman claims he was returning to his car when Martin confronted him and asked "Do you have a problem?" He says he replied "No", and reached for his cell phone. Zimmerman says Martin then punched him in the face, knocking him down, and began beating his head against the ground._
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shootin...ount_of_events


Yes, "her's" IS "different"

It's a statement given by MARTIN'S FAMILY'S *ATTORNEY *

*Details* again

The fact that Martin had NO INJURIES supports Zimmerman's version


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> Who started it goes back to grade school. I don't think it matters who started it from the point of who spoke first. What matters is did one or the other say something that was an assault (verbal). And who began the battery.


Exactly how the altercation started is central to this case because Zimmerman's self defense claim requires that Martin be the aggressor. If the altercation was started by something Zimmerman said or did, then Martin may have acted in self defense.


----------



## JeffreyD

Sonshine said:


> Where are the pictures of Zimmerman's injuries?


I don't know that there are any! I'm not sure that anyone took any! All i have to go by is the police report that said he recieved some type of treatment in a police car.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> If the altercation was started *by something Zimmerman said* or did, then Martin may have acted in self defense.


That is simply not true.
Martin NEVER expressed any feelings of "fear" to his girlfriend, even when she urged him to run


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by *Sonshine*
> _Where are the pictures of Zimmerman's injuries?_


Those would be *evidence* and most likely would not be released before a hearing


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, "her's" IS "different"
> 
> It's a statement given by MARTIN'S FAMILY'S *ATTORNEY *
> 
> *Details* again


If I was investigating this case, this is a detail that I would want to resolve.



Bearfootfarm said:


> The fact that Martin had NO INJURIES supports Zimmerman's version


I don't see that it supports anything except that maybe Martin was better at taking care of himself in a fight.


----------



## Aintlifegrand

Nevada said:


> Exactly how the altercation started is central to this case because Zimmerman's self defense claim requires that Martin be the aggressor. If the altercation was started by something Zimmerman said or did, then Martin may have acted in self defense.


I don't see any way in which that can be known can you?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I don't see that is supports anything except that maybe Martin was better at taking care of himself in a fight.


You keep claiming Zimmerman started it. He would have had to *physically* ATTACK Martin *first *for "self defense" to be justified by Martin

It will be hard to *prove* an attack when there are no injuries



> If I was investigating this case, this is a detail that I would want to resolve.


There's no way to resolve it.
The call wasn't recorded, and it's natural to assume she will NOT say anything against Martin, so her testimony is suspect due to that bias. 
It will have to be decided based on PHYSICAL evidence and IMPARTIAL witnesses


----------



## JeffreyD

Darren said:


> I've been in car wrecks where other than feeling sore, I didn't have any major complaint. *The next morning when certain body parts had swollen up it was obvious something had happened*. Sometimes it takes awhile for bruising and swelling to appear.
> 
> The first officer on the scene stated Zimmerman was bleeding from his nose and head. Do you think the officer lied on an official report?


I had a car turn right in front of me when i was riding my motorcycle. I locked up the rear brake and slid into him sideways, flew across his hood and landed on someone's front lawn. I got up, checked myself and my bike(which was not badly damaged) exchanged information and went home. The next day, my left leg was swollen and brused. Went to the doctor and found i had fractured it along with damageing my spleen, so sometimes things don't show up right away.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> I don't know that there are any! I'm not sure that anyone took any! All i have to go by is the police report that said he recieved some type of treatment in a police car.


I'm not accustomed to that. I know that when police respond to domestic violence scenes its routine for them to take photos of injuries (black eyes, and the like). I would expect police to do the same at a fatal shooting. I'm wondering why not.


----------



## FreeRanger

Darren said:


> Martin's passage into adulthood has some troubling signs. The main problem is attitude. When he went the gangsta wannabe route, he may have started the chain of events. Martin didn't necessarily have an appointment with the grim reaper. But it sure looks like he, in his youthful ignorance, took advantage of a walk in.


Could everyone say the same about Zimmerman? He DOES have a police record *AS AN ADULT.* Clearly Zimmerman has a history showing his attitude "problem." He went farther than the "gangsta" route, he carried a gun while actively looking for a problem with children, took advantage of an un-armed person. He created the problem. 

People, you really are creeping me out with your justification of a grown man (not police) carrying a gun following people around the neighborhood. No matter who started or finished the "fight", that's just wrong in my world. (No he was not doing his job!)


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> He DOES have a police record *AS AN ADULT*


Got any proof of any *convictions*?
Got links to the "new stories" saying they were never on the sidewalk?


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> You keep claiming Zimmerman started it. He would have had to *physically* ATTACK Martin *first *for "self defense" to be justified by Martin


Not really. If Zimmerman attempted to detain Martin for police questioning then that could be considered an assault, although no injuries would have occurred. In that case Martin would have been perfectly justified in defending himself against unlawful detainment.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> I'm not accustomed to that. I know that when police respond to domestic violence scenes its routine for them to take photos of injuries (black eyes, and the like). I would expect police to do the same at a fatal shooting. *I'm wondering why not*.


Where's your proof they didn't?


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> Not playing the devil's advocate after an unwitnessed shooting sets a dangerous precedent. People could quite literally get away with murder as a matter of course. After all, the shooting victim can't tell his side of the story so we would always have to take the shooter's word for it. It would get to the point where we solved all our problems with guns, killing off annoying n*eighbors, competitive co-workers, and even spouses to avoid divorce. Just shoot them all behind closed doors and claim you felt threatened.*


Around here they don't bother to shoot the murderees indoors. Why would you want to mess up the house? The killings I know about have always been outside. Typically near or on a road. That way if the gunshot didn't finish them, the shooter can run over them with the car. 

This area is the epitome of an armed society is a polite society. The worse punishment that was handed out by a jury was misdemeanor manslaughter in the case where a county resident shot and killed a man who wasn't from around here in the road. The others got off. That claim they felt threatened obviously worked.

My impression of Zimmerman was he wanted to help others. But he was a fool. He should have never let Martin get close to him.

Martin was a fool too. The neighborhood watch sign was obvious. He wasn't from there. He should have had the good sense to understand he might be regarded as suspicious. I certainly know that when I'm in a strange area.

You're not from around here goes back to mankind's early beginnings as a danger signal. We tell our kids not to talk to strangers. Did someone tell that to Martin? Did he forget? It still applies to adults in some situations.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Not really. If Zimmerman attempted to detain Martin for police questioning then that could be considered an assault, although no injuries would have occurred. In that case Martin would have been perfectly justified in defending himself against unlawful detainment.


Again, there is *no evidence* of any attempt to PHYSICALLY "detain".


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> I'm not accustomed to that. I know that when police respond to domestic violence scenes its routine for them to take photos of injuries (black eyes, and the like). I would expect police to do the same at a fatal shooting. I'm wondering why not.


First, this is not a domestic violence case. Second, we don't know if the police took pictures of any kind as they would be evidence. But, same as you, i would expect the police to take pictures of everything, and i mean everything! Living in Los Angeles(near it anyways) we do know that the police can and do make mistakes as the city and county pay out millions in settelments for botched investigations every year. Last year i think it was around 25 million or so.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Again, there is *no evidence* of any attempt to PHYSICALLY "detain".


There's evidence that Zimmerman wanted to detain Martin, since he was disturbed that "they always get away."


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> There's evidence that Zimmerman wanted to detain Martin, since he was disturbed that "they always get away."


While it's true that Zimmerman told the police "they always get away", there's no proof that Zimmerman actually tried to detain Martin, he may have wanted too, but no proof that he did. Know one knows how the fight started, but we all know that it ended badly for the both of them with Martin loosing his life. I'm sure that there will be charges filed against Zimmerman, but weather or not he is convicted is a different story.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> Exactly how the altercation started is central to this case because Zimmerman's self defense claim requires that Martin be the aggressor. If the altercation was started by something Zimmerman said or did, then Martin may have acted in self defense.


Just because someone assaults you, meaning threatens you verbally, doesn't mean you get to react physically. Assault legally is verbal. If you tell me you're going to kill me but do nothing, you've still assaulted me. If you lay a hand on me, that's battery.

If you call me a name, whatever it might be, AFAIK it is not assault.

I can't believe Zimmerman during the neighborhood watch training wasn't told do not try to apprehend someone. I would be very surprised if he did anything prior to the struggle except follow the script.

If Martin didn't display all of the signs of a gangsta wannabe, I'd be more willing to feel as you do.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> There's evidence that Zimmerman wanted to detain Martin, since he was disturbed that "they always get away."


That's no evidence, 
That's you trying to be a mind reader


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's no evidence,
> That's you trying to be a mind reader


You can bet that a prosecutor will use it in court to establish his state of mind.


----------



## FreeRanger

Bearfootfarm said:


> Got any proof of any *convictions*?
> Got links to the "new stories" saying they were never on the sidewalk?


Why do you need proof of convictions? The police are the ones that charge him in the one incident: wasn't that resisting arrest? Oh yes it was, HMMM that doesn't sound too good. Yes the charges were dropped. What does that matter? 

It was on Foxnews, so it must not be true?
Trayvon Martin Witness Casts Doubt On Shooter&#39;s Self-defense Claims | Fox News 

And Darren and Jeffry: There is proof that he tried to detain Martin. Why else would he have done any of the actions after calling 911? If you believe Zimmerman was following the "script", then why did he have a gun? Why did he following in the car/truck? Why did he get out to follow (stalk)? According to the Watch program, those three things are all a NO-NO.


----------



## JeffreyD

FreeRanger said:


> Why do you need proof of convictions? The police are the ones that charge him in the one incident: wasn't that resisting arrest? Oh yes it was, HMMM that doesn't sound too good. Yes the charges were dropped. What does that matter?
> 
> It was on Foxnews, so it must not be true?
> Trayvon Martin Witness Casts Doubt On Shooter's Self-defense Claims | Fox News
> 
> And Darren and Jeffry: There is proof that he tried to detain Martin. Why else would he have done any of the actions after calling 911? If you believe Zimmerman was following the "script", then why did he have a gun? Why did he following in the car/truck? Why did he get out to follow (stalk)? According to the Watch program, those three things are all a NO-NO.


What is "the proof" that Zimmerman tried/did contain Martin? Why do millions of folks carry a gun? And yes, it was foolish of Zimmerman to continue to follow Martin, but there's no law that say's you can't. This was not a "stalking" scenerio at all. He had already called the police and wanted to keep the "suspect" in sight. Maybe Martin after telling his girlfriend that he wasn't going to run, turned around and went affter Zimmerman. Do you have evidence to the contrary? I think we all agree that Zimmerman used poor judgement, and that Trayvon paid for it with his life.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> You can bet that a *prosecutor* will use it in court to establish his state of mind.


The prosecutor is the one who decided there was not enough evidence for even an arrest.

Don't you think he listened to that call before making that decision?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FreeRanger said:


> Why do you need proof of convictions? The police are the ones that charge him in the one incident: wasn't that resisting arrest? Oh yes it was, HMMM that doesn't sound too good. Yes *the charges were dropped. What does that matter?*
> 
> It was on Foxnews, so it must not be true?
> Trayvon Martin Witness Casts Doubt On Shooter's Self-defense Claims | Fox News
> 
> And Darren and Jeffry: *There is proof that he tried to detain Martin*. Why else would he have done any of the actions after calling 911? If you believe Zimmerman was following the "script", then why did he have a gun? Why did he following in the car/truck? Why did he get out to follow (stalk)? *According to the Watch program, those three things are all a NO-NO*.


If the charges were DROPPED, that is *ALL* that matters
No conviction, no crime, no "police record"

Where's your "proof" he tried to *detain* Martin?

You keep making *claims you can't back up*, and then having to admit they are false

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/2...-casts-doubt-on-shooters-self-defense-claims/


> Trayvon Martin Witness Casts Doubt On Shooter's Self-defense Claims | Fox News


Do you READ your own sources?
It says the PART they saw was only on the grass.
It doesn't say they saw the whole encounter



> An unnamed witness speaking on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" said *the entirety of the scuffle he saw* between the two took place on grass, challenging Zimmerman's claim that Martin had smashed his head against a sidewalk after punching him in the face -- causing him to shoot the 17-year-old dead in self-defense.​






> Zimmerman "*didn't appear* hurt" as he walked away, he added, and he *didn't see* any blood on him.


Read more: Trayvon Martin Witness Casts Doubt On Shooter's Self-defense Claims | Fox News​​



What they *DIDN'T SEE* is not evidence of anything
There were lots of things they *didn't see*
It was dark and raining

The Mom's statements as to what her son said he saw *contradict* the 911 *transcripts. *
For her version to be true, *911* would have to be lying.


----------



## Sonshine

Bearfootfarm said:


> *No pictures* of him have been shown other than the one video taken AFTER he was cleaned up.
> 
> Bruises often don't appear until hours or even days later.
> 
> Even the "mug shot" used by the media is several years old


I understand they cleaned up his wounds, but if he had been bleeding it would have gotten on his clothes. Rain might explain a limited amount of blood, but no blood? And if Martin was banging his head on the ground while sitting on top of Zimmerman, wouldn't Zimmerman's clothes have been rumpled? Especially if they had been fighting in the rain.


----------



## Sonshine

Darren said:


> I've been in car wrecks where other than feeling sore, I didn't have any major complaint. The next morning when certain body parts had swollen up it was obvious something had happened. Sometimes it takes awhile for bruising and swelling to appear.
> 
> The first officer on the scene stated Zimmerman was bleeding from his nose and head. Do you think the officer lied on an official report?


I've already stated my feelings about LE in this particular town. If Zimmerman was bleeding, where are the blood stains on his clothes? Also, if he was on the ground with Martin on top of him when the shot happened, wouldn't blood have splattered from the gunshot wound?


----------



## Sonshine

JeffreyD said:


> I don't know that there are any! I'm not sure that anyone took any! All i have to go by is the police report that said he recieved some type of treatment in a police car.


The police video showed Zimmerman, but I saw no signs of blood. Also, isn't it SOP to get crime scene pictures?


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> If the charges were DROPPED, that is *ALL* that matters
> No conviction, no crime, no "police record"


Oh, he has a police record, just not a conviction record. He has had a lot more contact with the police than the average person, and each time it's for either poor judgment or difficulty controlling his emotions.

After seeing his arrest record I'm not totally comfortable with his owning a gun. I think society (and certainly Trayvon Martin) would be better off if he had been charged & convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence seven years ago. It is exactly people like Zimmerman that laws against gun ownership for domestic abusers were created for.


----------



## SteveD(TX)

That video of his arrest was poor quality and I can't tell if he is bruised and bleeding or not. I'm sure the medical attention he got at the scene included cleaning the blood off of him. No reason to assume that he would be bleeding bad enough to get it all over his clothes.

These assumptions as to his condition in the video will NEVER hold up in court.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Sonshine said:


> I understand they cleaned up his wounds, but if he had been bleeding it would have gotten on his clothes. Rain might explain a limited amount of blood, but no blood? And if Martin was banging his head on the ground while sitting on top of Zimmerman, wouldn't Zimmerman's clothes have been rumpled? Especially *if they had been fighting in the rain*.


There is no "IF they were fighting"
Witnesses *saw* Martin on top of Zimmerman


Wet clothes don't necessarily get "rumpled"
Tucking in a wet knit shirt removes all wrinkles

It's entirely possible to have a nose bleed without getting blood all over a shirt


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Sonshine said:


> I've already stated my feelings about LE in this particular town. If Zimmerman was bleeding, where are the blood stains on his clothes? Also, if he was on the ground with Martin on top of him when the shot happened, wouldn't blood have splattered from the gunshot wound?


Blood spatter would have been INSIDE Martin's clothes
According to witnesses and the 911 timelines, the ENTIRE incident from beginning to end only lasted a few minutes. 

The fight itself was only about ONE minute

The EMT's treated Zimmerman's wounds.
The police SAW wounds and bleeding.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Oh, he has a police record, just not a conviction record. He has had a lot more contact with the police than the average person, and each time it's for either poor judgment or difficulty controlling his emotions.
> 
> After seeing his arrest record I'm not totally comfortable with his owning a gun. I think society (and certainly Trayvon Martin) would be better off if he had been charged & convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence seven years ago. It is exactly people like Zimmerman that *laws against gun ownership for domestic abusers *were created for.


More "IFS"

There were *no convictions*


----------



## Nevada

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of self defense. Self defense is what's called an affirmative defense.

An insanity defense is another example of an affirmative defense, but is perhaps a little easier to understand. The state might prove that you committed a crime, but you could claim that it wasn't your fault because aliens were controlling your mind. While you are allowed to assert that defense, you have the burden of proving that aliens were in fact controlling your mind (or that you were crazy enough to believe that aliens were controlling your mind).

So in Zimmerman's case, the State of Florida does not have the burden of proving that it was not self-defense. Instead, Zimmerman has the burden of proving that it was. A jury will either buy it or they won't. That's simply how an affirmative defense works.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> So in Zimmerman's case, the State of Florida does not have the burden of proving that it was not self-defense





> Instead, Zimmerman has the burden of proving that it was.


Which explains why there has been NO ARREST, based on the evidence

(But I don't agree with your LEGAL THEORY about the burden of proof)


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> Exactly how the altercation started is central to this case because Zimmerman's self defense claim requires that Martin be the aggressor. If the altercation was started by something Zimmerman said or did, *then Martin may have acted in self defense.*


It's hard to sell self defense on Martin's part when the kid had Zimmerman on the ground beating him to the point Zimmerman was screaming for help. Martin thought he was a tough guy. No one's tougher than a bullet. Lead beats flesh everytime.

Martin should have done what his girl friend said.

Even if he had stopped after knocking Zimmerman down, he might have lived. Zimmerman would have been clearly wrong if he had shot the kid after the fight ended. With the kid on top beating him, I'm leaning towards a justified killing if Zimmerman felt his own life was in jeopardy.

At this point people are trying to tear down the reputation of the person they feel is wrong. I think they were possibly both wrong. Zimmerman had the right under law to carry a firearm. Maybe he was more lucky than not that night.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Oh, he has a police record, just not a conviction record. He has had a lot more contact with the police than the average person, and each time it's for either poor judgment or difficulty controlling his emotions.
> 
> *After seeing his arrest record *I'm not totally comfortable with his owning a gun. I think society (and certainly Trayvon Martin) would be better off if he had been charged & convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence seven years ago. It is exactly people like Zimmerman that laws against gun ownership for domestic abusers were created for.


Got a link to this? And really, it doesn't matter if YOUR not comfortable with him owning a gun, does it? Remember the 2nd amendment, or are you not comfortable with that either?


----------



## FeralFemale

Why is everyone still arguing about this, for 36 flippin' pages? 

I like to point out the MSM's manipulation of this story and that's about it. Other than that, we have no idea what really happened. We can't even say what the evidence shows because we, because of the MSM manipulation, are not getting accurate information about the shooting.

Everything is speculation at this point. Even arguing about how the law would be applied is speculation because we do not know all the facts.

At this point, even if GZ did nothing wrong, we are going to need a grand jury to satisfy the masses on both sides. Let's just wait for that.


----------



## Txsteader

FeralFemale said:


> Why is everyone still arguing about this, for 36 flippin' pages?
> 
> I like to point out the MSM's manipulation of this story and that's about it. Other than that, we have no idea what really happened. We can't even say what the evidence shows because we, because of the MSM manipulation, are not getting accurate information about the shooting.
> 
> Everything is speculation at this point. Even arguing about how the law would be applied is speculation because we do not know all the facts.


True, but when people are putting innocents in danger (Spike's tweets re: Zimmerman's addy), issuing bounties (NBP), etc., then it NEEDS to be discussed.


----------



## FeralFemale

Txsteader said:


> True, but when people are putting innocents in danger (Spike's tweets re: Zimmerman's addy), issuing bounties (NBP), etc., then it NEEDS to be discussed.


That goes to the MSM's (and the hollyweird folks) manipulation of the incident.

Talk about the manipulation, fine. But arguing about what did or didn't occur or who was or wasn't guilty is just falling into the trap they want us to all to fall into.


----------



## Cornhusker

Nevada said:


> I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of self defense. Self defense is what's called an affirmative defense.


Everyone is entitled to defend themselves.
Just because it's a 17 year old black kid beating your head on a sidewalk doesn't mean you have to let him do it.
Is the entitlement mentality so deep now that we have to lay down and let some kill us without defending?
That's what Obama wants, but that don't make it right.
I guarantee if someone was beating your head on a sidewalk, you'd do what you had to do to survive..
If Martin had killed Zimmerman, none of the hypocrites would have cared one bit.
Jackson and Sharpton wouldn't have left their house, and Obama wouldn't even notice.
It's nothing but politics, and if you think your idiot king cares beyond creating division and attacking gun ownership, then you are too far gone to help


----------



## Cornhusker

FeralFemale said:


> That goes to the MSM's (and the hollyweird folks) manipulation of the incident.
> 
> Talk about the manipulation, fine. But arguing about what did or didn't occur or who was or wasn't guilty is just falling into the trap they want us to all to fall into.


Don't forget Jesse, Al and Barry, they helped make it a big mess.


----------



## Darren

FeralFemale said:


> Why is everyone still arguing about this, for 36 flippin' pages?
> 
> I like to point out the MSM's manipulation of this story and that's about it. Other than that, we have no idea what really happened. We can't even say what the evidence shows because we, because of the MSM manipulation, are not getting accurate information about the shooting.
> 
> Everything is speculation at this point. Even arguing about how the law would be applied is speculation because we do not know all the facts.
> 
> At this point, even if GZ did nothing wrong, we are going to need a grand jury to satisfy the masses on both sides. Let's just wait for that.


Since Obama and the media got involved even if the grand jury refuses to indict Zimmerman, people in this country will still believe that Martin was murdered. Even if Zimmerman is tried and acquited people in this country will still believe that Martin was murdered.

People have already made up their minds that Zimmerman is guilty. You can see that on this board.


----------



## FeralFemale

Darren said:


> Since Obama and the media got involved even if the grand jury refuses to indict Zimmerman, people in this country will still believe that Martin was murdered. Even if Zimmerman is tried and acquited people in this country will still believe that Martin was murdered.
> 
> People have already made up their minds that Zimmerman is guilty. You can see that on this board.


What's sad is that the grand jury finding GZ did not commit a crime makes me frightened. Why should we have to worry about riots and the like if that comes to be? Or am I racist (seriously, not being sarcastic, am I racist?) because I assume that there will be riots if GZ is let off by a grand jury?


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Got a link to this? And really, it doesn't matter if YOUR not comfortable with him owning a gun, does it? Remember the 2nd amendment, or are you not comfortable with that either?


It's been posted before, but here it is again.

U.S. News - Zimmerman accused of domestic violence, fighting with a police officer

Anyone who is convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence has no gun ownership rights in this country.


----------



## unregistered41671

Nevada said:


> It's been posted before, but here it is again.
> 
> U.S. News - Zimmerman accused of domestic violence, fighting with a police officer
> 
> Anyone who is convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence has no gun ownership rights in this country.


He must have not been not convicted because he has a concealed weapons permit.


----------



## Nevada

Possum Belly said:


> He must have not been not convicted because he has a concealed weapons permit.


He wasn't charged, but it sounds like there could have been a good case. The whole idea of the law is to keep guns out of the hands of people who behave the way he did.


----------



## Sonshine

JeffreyD said:


> Got a link to this? And really, it doesn't matter if YOUR not comfortable with him owning a gun, does it? Remember the 2nd amendment, or are you not comfortable with that either?


I had posted a link about the two domestic violence charges as well as his resisting arrest.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *We can't even say what the evidence shows* because we, because of the MSM manipulation, are not getting accurate information about the shooting.


Police reports and 911 transcripts are pretty reliable evidence, and seem to back Zimmerman's story


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *Anyone who is convicted* of misdemeanor domestic violence has no gun ownership rights in this country.


But he was *NOT convicted* of anything at all.
You keep repeating that straw man argument as a distraction



> *He wasn't charged*, but it sounds like there could have been a good case. The whole idea of the law is to keep guns out of the hands of people *who behave the way he did*.


There must not have been enough evidence to PROVE he "behaved that way".
Why keep making what you already know is a* false* argument?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Sonshine said:


> I had posted a link about the two domestic violence charges as well as his resisting arrest.


All those charges were *dismissed.*


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> He wasn't charged, but it sounds like there could have been a good case. The whole idea of the law is to keep guns out of the hands of people who behave the way he did.


You said he was convicted, now your saying he wasn't charged? Which is it?

The msnbc link you provided locks up my computer.


----------



## JeffreyD

Sonshine said:


> I had posted a link about the two domestic violence charges as well as his resisting arrest.


So what was he convicted of? Or is this just a court of public opinion? If he wasn't convicted of anything, shouldn't he have the right to bear arms?


----------



## poppy

JeffreyD said:


> You said he was convicted, now your saying he wasn't charged? Which is it?
> 
> The msnbc link you provided locks up my computer.


Sometimes the Voice of Reason isn't too reasonable.:grin:


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> He wasn't charged, but it sounds like there could have been a good case. The whole idea of the law is to keep guns out of the hands of people who behave the way he did.


I don't understand why you seem to have a problem with the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Zimmerman was never convicted of anything. 

He's, according to the law, innocent. He is not an ex-convict. BTW, even with a misdemeanor such as a traffic ticket or, in WV, the lowest count of manslaughter, you're still permitted to own firearms from both the state and federal points of view.

Now if you get convicted of a felony or domestic violence, yes, you no longer have the right to own a firearm. Zimmerman is innocent of any previous charges and is innocent of anything right now. 

No matter what comes out in the media tomorrow, the next day, or the next day, etc. he is still innocent. Until he is found guilty by a jury, he is innocent.

I cannot believe the lynch mob mentality. That is going to end up getting more people killed.


----------



## JeffreyD

darren said:


> i don't understand why you seem to have a problem with the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Zimmerman was never convicted of anything.
> 
> He's, according to the law, innocent. He is not an ex-convict. Btw, even with a misdemeanor such as a traffic ticket or, in wv, the lowest count of manslaughter, you're still permitted to own firearms from both the state and federal points of view.
> 
> Now if you get convicted of a felony or domestic violence, yes, you no longer have the right to own a firearm. Zimmerman is innocent of any previous charges and is innocent of anything right now.
> 
> No matter what comes out in the media tomorrow, the next day, or the next day, etc. He is still innocent. Until he is found guilty by a jury, he is innocent.
> 
> I cannot believe the lynch mob mentality. That is going to end up getting more people killed.


^^^^^^this^^^^^^


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> You said he was convicted


It wasn't me who said he was convicted. I just said that I was uncomfortable with someone with his past behavior carrying a gun.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I just said that I was uncomfortable with someone with his past behavior carrying a gun.


What "past behavior"?

Some *accusations* from an EX girlfriend, that didn't result in any charges?


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Some *accusations* from an EX girlfriend, that didn't result in any charges?


Those allegations are exactly the behavior that the domestic violence gun restrictions were put in place for. In my opinion, he shouldn't be a gun owner.


----------



## Narshalla

Nevada said:


> Those allegations are exactly the behavior that the domestic violence gun restrictions were put in place for. In my opinion, he shouldn't be a gun owner.


And what if she lied? It wouldn't be the first time an XGF (or XBF) lied on the way out of the relationship.

There clearly wasn't enough evidence to sustain the charges, and he got a restraining order against her at the same time, for the same incident. Afterwords, as near as I can tell, they had nothing to do with each other; the relationship was over and they both moved on with their lives. Domestic abusers generally follow a pattern; there should be at least one more incident before or after this before he stopped. There isn't . . . and charges were dropped.

To me, this doesn't indicate a pattern of behavior in any way, shape, or form.

And yes, I'm well aware that she said . . . but she never told anyone because she was afraid . . . It might even be true, but you've convicted someone of charges that didn't even reach trial when you say he shouldn't be a gun owner.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Those allegations are exactly the behavior that the *domestic violence gun restrictions* were put in place for. In my opinion, he shouldn't be a gun owner.


There was no "domestic violence" or he would have been *charged and convicted.*

You're entitled to your opinion, but it means nothing in these circumstances since *legally *he has no restrictions, and that is ALL that matters.

Why not just admit you just want the man punished for* something*, no matter what


----------



## fantasymaker

Cornhusker said:


> I guarantee if someone was beating your head on a sidewalk, you'd do what you had to do to survive..


 Um I think you might be wrong on that one there are just way to many people that would have simply and bewilderedly died.


----------



## Nevada

Narshalla said:


> And yes, I'm well aware that she said . . . but she never told anyone because she was afraid . . . It might even be true, but you've convicted someone of charges that didn't even reach trial when you say he shouldn't be a gun owner.


I'm not convicting him, I'm just not comfortable with him carrying a firearm.


----------



## fantasymaker

How come theres no dislike button?


----------



## unregistered41671

Nevada said:


> I'm not convicting him, I'm just not comfortable with him carrying a firearm.


If he were to read your posts, he might say, 'I am not convicting him or her, I'm just not comfortable with him or her voting.' The law says you can vote and the law says that he can carry a firearm. It does not matter what we think. We live by the rule of law.


----------



## Nevada

Possum Belly said:


> If he were to read your posts, he might say, 'I am not convicting him or her, I'm just not comfortable with him or her voting.' The law says you can vote and the law says that he can carry a firearm. It does not matter what we think. We live by the rule of law.


My problem with him goes beyond the domestic violence allegations. I'm also concerned about his being charged with resisting an officer with violence, and battery of a law enforcement officer.

_In 2005, Zimmerman, then 20, was arrested and charged with &#8220;resisting officer with violence&#8221; and &#8220;battery of law enforcement officer,&#8221; both which are third-degree felonies. The charge was reduced to &#8220;resisting officer without violence&#8221; and then waived when he entered an alcohol education program. Contemporaneous accounts indicate he shoved an officer who was questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking at an Orange County bar._
U.S. News - Zimmerman accused of domestic violence, fighting with a police officer

There is clearly a pattern of violent behavior, along with a show of poor judgment. Alcohol may also be a problem. But complimenting his violent behavior and poor judgment with a firearm should concern everyone.

From hearing the charges in 2005, it's no wonder that Zimmerman didn't follow the police dispatcher's suggestion to not follow Martin. Zimmerman is evidently not good about respecting police authority.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I'm also concerned about his *being charged* with resisting an officer with violence, and battery of a law enforcement officer.


He was NOT CHARGED.

The case was DISMISSED

Do you even read your own sources?

He "pushed" an undercover cop, NOT in uniform cop who he thought was attacking his buddy in a bar.

Your credibility is lacking when you continually and purposely ignore the whole truth


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> He was NOT CHARGED.


The article says he was charged.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> The article says he was charged.


The article says the charges were dropped too.

The bottom line is still NO *CONVICTIONS, *and in the end, that is all that matters


----------



## Wanderer0101

Nevada said:


> Those allegations are exactly the behavior that the domestic violence gun restrictions were put in place for. In my opinion, he shouldn't be a gun owner.


Pretty clearly your opinion is worth a bucket of warm spit.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> The article says the charges were dropped too.
> 
> The bottom line is still NO *CONVICTIONS, *and in the end, that is all that matters


How is that supposed to make me feel any better about that guy carrying a firearm?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> How is that supposed to make me feel any better about that guy carrying a firearm?


It really makes no difference how you "feel" since it's based on half truths and outright misinformation.

"Feeling" that way doesn't mean it's *justified.*


----------



## watcher

TheMartianChick said:


> This is the audio of an interview with Trayvon Martin's girlfriend DeeDee.
> 
> Trayvon Martin's girlfriend talks about final moments before slaying | Audio


Interesting question. If Martin felt threatened why didn't he hang up and call 911?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> I admit that a broken nose might be difficult to see in a clip like that, but a deep gash on the back of the head should have been visible. I didn't see any sign of a wound, or even a bandaid.


Maybe not. My son busted the back of his head open. At the ER the doc stapled it back together. No shaving the hair off around the wound or such. When he walked out the ER you'd never know he had been hurt by looking at him.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Maybe not. My son busted the back of his head open. At the ER the doc stapled it back together. No shaving the hair off around the wound or such. When he walked out the ER you'd never know he had been hurt by looking at him.


Maybe so, but Zimmerman appears to shave his head.


----------



## Darren

It does look like Zimmerman keeps his hair cut close. BTW, a neighbor saw his bandages later.

"The neighbor is talking for the first time about what he saw on George Zimmerman's face less than 24-hours after Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin.

"*I saw George. He was banged up. His head had two big bandages, that weren't flat, had a bump on them,*" the neighbor, who did not want to be identified, said.

He described where the injuries were.

"*I seen him have a big bandage on his nose and his nose swollen. On the side, where his eyes were at, it was swollen,*" he said.

He points out exactly where on a picture.

"I seen the bandage right here, and this side of his nose and this side of his nose was swollen."

Neighbor defends George Zimmerman


----------



## Pearl B

TNHermit said:


> I got a question. We got almost 1000 posts of people pontificating about something we don't really know a dang thing about. Mark Levin will barely comment on this thing because of that. he is Americas premier constitutional lawyer.
> 
> Beyond the fact that this kid was probably wearing the hoodie as a sign. This was a GATED community. Maybe not your normal kind due to economic structure. If he was around there did he not KNOW it was a gated community. Did he not know there was a reason for a gated community and the possibilities. Why then did he go through. This was not the FIRST night of the "watch" Could he have done it on a dare to himself, lack of concern about others rights. Could it have been a gang initiation requirement. They do that and worse.
> 
> Why was he in a place AT night with a known watch?


Off track perhaps but when the 911 operator told him not to follow, I wondered if it was perhaps the police already were.

Maybe some of his best customers were in that community and some had made a game of throwing barney fife off -track of where the real action was.
Meanwhile the real cops did know what was going on and were waiting.
And things just took a wrong turn when the Zimmerman kept at it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Off track perhaps but when the 911 operator told him not to follow, I wondered if it was perhaps the police already were.


The police arrived about 2 minutes after the actual shooting.
The first eyewitness was still on the phone reporting it to 911 when he saw them arrive.

Several of those calls were taking place as, or after the police arrived

The officers were dispatched at 7:17, and the EMT's said Martin was dead at 7:30, so it was only 13 minutes total from the beginning of Zimmerman's call until multiple people were on scene


----------



## Pearl B

Bearfootfarm said:


> The police arrived about 2 minutes after the actual shooting.
> The first eyewitness was still on the phone reporting it to 911 when he saw them arrive.
> 
> Several of those calls were taking place as, or after the police arrived
> 
> The officers were dispatched at 7:17, and the EMT's said Martin was dead at 7:30, so it was only 13 minutes total from the beginning of Zimmerman's call until multiple people were on scene


Well ya after the actual shooting. Their may have been something going on and Zimmerman accidentally got in the way of it, changing a specific outcome to a probable one.


----------



## Darren

The problem in that neighborhood was the number of burglaries and at least one home invasion. It wasn't an exclusive, ritzy community the word gated would have you believe. The woman who described men breaking into her house while she and her child ran and hid in a bedroom shows the terror some experienced.

It got so bad some folks who lived there expected to find their homes burglarized when they returned from work.

That is the backdrop for what happened when Martin accompanied his father when the two visited the father's fiance that day. Martin's history, his age, the community's experiences and Martin's being left alone set the stage for his death.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> The woman who described men breaking into her house while she and her child ran and hid in a bedroom shows the terror some experienced.


George Zimmerman: Friend defends Neighborhood Watch volunteer's efforts - latimes.com




> For many Americans, George Zimmerman has become the face of barbarous vigilante justice. For Olivia Bertalan, he was the face of compassion &#8212; a neighbor of consummate graciousness and low-key gallantry.
> 
> Roughly six months before Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed black teenager in his gated Florida townhouse complex, he was standing in Bertalan&#8217;s doorway, asking what he could do to help her. A group of young men had just broken into Bartalan&#8217;s townhouse as she and her infant cowered in a locked bedroom. The intruders had stolen a $600 camera and a laptop.
> 
> After the police had come and gone, the doorbell rang, and there was Zimmerman: 5-foot-9, in a shirt and tie, his body a little doughy, his demeanor gentle. He introduced himself. He gave her a list of phone numbers where she could reach him at any time. He gave her a heavy-duty lock to bolster the sliding-glass door that the suspects had forced open. He told her she could go stay with his wife down the street if she ever felt scared again.
> 
> &#8220;That first impression was really sweet,&#8221; Bartalan, 21, told the Los Angeles Times. &#8220;It really does break my heart how they&#8217;re portraying him as coldblooded murderer.&#8221;


----------



## Narshalla

Pearl B. said:


> Off track perhaps but when the 911 operator told him not to follow, I wondered if it was perhaps the police already were.
> 
> Maybe some of his best customers were in that community and some had made a game of throwing barney fife off -track of where the real action was.
> Meanwhile the real cops did know what was going on and were waiting.
> And things just took a wrong turn when the Zimmerman kept at it.


Most of the ideas forwarded so far have been pretty good at sticking to the facts, albeit interpreting them differently or putting more or less weight in one place or another.

Your idea, however, really doesn't have any facts to support it at all.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Woke up to this story on the homepage of MSN this morning:

U.S. News - Trayvon Martin case audio: Screams were not George Zimmerman's, 2 experts say



> The Sentinel said it contacted Owen, who it described as a court-qualified expert witness and former chief engineer for the New York Public Library's Rodgers and Hammerstein Archives of Recorded Sound. He told the newspaper he used software called Easy Voice Biometrics to compare Zimmerman's voice to the 911 call screams.
> 
> Owen told the newspaper that the software compared the screams to Zimmerman's voice and returned a 48 percent match. He said he would expect a match of higher than 90 percent, considering the quality of the audio.
> 
> "As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it's not Zimmerman," Owen told the Sentinel.
> 
> But he also said he could not confirm the voice as Trayvon's, because he didn't have a sample of the teen's voice.
> 
> The Sentinel said that Ed Primeau, a Michigan-based audio engineer and forensics expert, used audio enhancement and human analysis and came to the same conclusion.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> I'm not convicting him, I'm just not comfortable with him carrying a firearm.


And why is that? Paranoia? I really dont think his handgun has the range to hurt you.... If I recall my high school geography correctly Florida is a pretty good distance from Las Vegas.


----------



## Pearl B

Narshalla said:


> Most of the ideas forwarded so far have been pretty good at sticking to the facts, albeit interpreting them differently or putting more or less weight in one place or another.
> 
> Your idea, however, really doesn't have any facts to support it at all.


I know it doesnt, its just speculation on my part.

If Martin hadnt been suspended from school for an empty baggie the idea wouldnt have occurred to me. I still cant help but wonder if the police had a sting operation going on, and thats part of why they told Z to back off. They would have told him that anyway, for his safety. It just makes we wonder at times though.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Pearl B. said:


> I know it doesnt, its just speculation on my part.
> 
> If Martin hadnt been suspended from school for an empty baggie the idea wouldnt have occurred to me. I still cant help but wonder if the police had a sting operation going on, and thats part of why they told Z to back off. They would have told him that anyway, for his safety. It just makes we wonder at times though.


The police don't want average citizens to put themselves in danger. What if the person that Zimmerman followed had been armed? By following, he's putting himself at risk of a confrontation and injury. If he himself is armed, then there is a risk of escalating the situation, possibly to the point of the whole vigilante thing.


----------



## Darren

I'm glad the prosecutor stopped the release of any information from official sources. I read that expert's opinion on whose voice was on the tapes. That doesn't match the eye witness report of who was beating who unless you believe that someone beating the crap out of someone was screaming for help. It's possible I guess.

It doesn't make sense if Zimmerman was knocked down for him not to scream for help from people in his community. The incident was in people's backyards not far from their doors. Likewise it fits with his comment later that no one would help him. The analysis also doesn't fit with the racial curse that Zimmerman was supposed to have uttered and which the FBI is trying to find. It's generally agreed there is only one voice on the 911 tape. So was Martin calling Zimmerman a ****?

My guess is we have another individual looking for their 15 minutes of fame. They didn't help defuse the situation. They just made things worse when they took a copy of a copy of a recording off the internet and added their two cents. At least the FBI probably has the original tape to analyize.


----------



## Evons hubby

TheMartianChick said:


> The police don't want average citizens to put themselves in danger. What if the person that Zimmerman followed had been armed? By following, he's putting himself at risk of a confrontation and injury. If he himself is armed, then there is a risk of escalating the situation, possibly to the point of the whole vigilante thing.


Yep, following a suspicious character can get one hurt.... even if they are not "armed". I have heard that some folks have been beaten up pretty good, and suffered serious injury by unarmed attackers.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Darren said:


> It doesn't make sense if Zimmerman was knocked down for him not to scream for help from people in his community. The incident was in people's backyards not far from their doors. Likewise it fits with his comment later that no one would help him. The analysis also doesn't fit with the racial curse that Zimmerman was supposed to have uttered and which the FBI is trying to find. It's generally agreed there is only one voice on the 911 tape. So was Martin calling Zimmerman a ****?


The 911 tape of Zimmerman's call was compared to one or more of the other 911 calls from the "ear" witnesses. Zimmerman's voice on his 911 call doesn't match the screams/yells for help. Both of the experts are known to be experts in voice analysis. I believe that the first expert cited (in particular) framed his analysis well by citing the methods that he used.


----------



## Pearl B

TheMartianChick said:


> The police don't want average citizens to put themselves in danger. What if the person that Zimmerman followed had been armed? By following, he's putting himself at risk of a confrontation and injury. If he himself is armed, then there is a risk of escalating the situation, possibly to the point of the whole vigilante thing.


I know they would have told him that as a matter of course. I wonder if the operator was trying to get through to him, like hint hint, go away, we got it.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Darren said:


> My guess is we have another individual looking for their 15 minutes of fame. They didn't help defuse the situation. They just made things worse when they took a copy of a copy of a recording off the internet and added their two cents. At least the FBI probably has the original tape to analyize.


I found this link about Tom Owens of Owens Forensic Services. He is the man that did the analysis.

Owen Forensic Services, LLC

Here is a quote from the site:



> Thomas J. Owen also serves as the Chairman of the Audio Engineering Society's Standards Group SC-03-WG-12 on Forensic Audio. Mr. Owen is also the Chairman Emeritus of The American Board of Recorded Evidence.
> 
> Mr. Owen Worked at New York City's Lincoln Center Archives for eleven years as Chief Engineer. He has appeared on network television and on radio discussing audio and video matters. Mr. Owen Lectures extensively in the United States and has numerous publications in the Forensic Examiner.
> 
> Mr. Owen's qualifications as an expert witness have been demonstrated in more than thirty-five states for both prosecution and defense.
> 
> Organizations Mr. Owen has diligently and comprehensively examined the areas of Forensic Audio, Video, and Voice Identification in great detail since 1981. There are over seventy-five publications, presentations, and recordings available from the Audio Engineering Society, The American College of Forensic Examiners and others.
> 
> Mr. Owen has appeared as a Consultant to ABC Nightline, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, FOX 5 NY, NPR Radio, NOVA, Taipei, Chinese Television, Dateline, 60 Minutes, Law & Order, Forensic Files, CSI, CSI Miami, Lie to Me, Access Hollywood, 48 Hours, 20/20 and other Networks and Television Programs.


Edited to add Info about the other voice analyst:

http://edprimeau.com/


----------



## Pearl B

TheMartianChick said:


> The police don't want average citizens to put themselves in danger. What if the person that Zimmerman followed had been armed? By following, he's putting himself at risk of a confrontation and injury. If he himself is armed, then there is a risk of escalating the situation, possibly to the point of the whole vigilante thing.


I know they would have told him that as a matter of course. I wonder if the operator was trying to get through to him, like hint hint, go away, we got it.


----------



## Darren

TheMartianChick said:


> The 911 tape of Zimmerman's call was compared to one or more of the other 911 calls from the "ear" witnesses. Zimmerman's voice on his 911 call doesn't match the screams/yells for help. Both of the experts are known to be experts in voice analysis. I believe that the first expert cited (in particular) framed his analysis well by citing the methods that he used.


Did the expert find evidence of the racial curse that the others thought they heard early in the media cycle? That is supposedly why the FBI got the tape so they could analyze it for evidence of a hate crime.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Darren said:


> Did the expert find evidence of the racial curse that the others thought they heard early in the media cycle? That is supposedly why the FBI got the tape so they could analyze it for evidence of a hate crime.


I don't know yet... The MSNBC article was the first one that I saw. Watching the cable news channels this morning, the story is starting to spread to the other networks. I just heard on CNN (I think) that the EMS report also doesn't support Zimmerman's account either. I'm going to look for a link there, too.

The information that I'm finding about the EMS report is a bit sketchy and I don't like the sourcing so I won't post it. I will check back in an hour. Everything that I'm finding refers to the NY Daily News and none have a complete article about it.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> Did the expert find evidence of the racial curse that the others thought they heard early in the media cycle? That is supposedly why the FBI got the tape so they could analyze it for evidence of a hate crime.


No reaction at all to the voice on the tape not being Zimmerman?


----------



## Darren

If the medical report was released, someone is in trouble. That is definitely prohibited by law. I can't imagine a professional doing that. There's to be absolutely no release to the public. What you're putting out is innuendo. As far as the report on Zimmerman's voice, I'm still wondering about the early reports of a racial curse. What did the expert find? We also seem to belive that anything computerized is absolutely reliable and not subject to fault or failure. There's our predjudice acting again.

Do people under extreme stress sound like normal? The analysis also needs to take into account the effect of an injury to Zimmerman's nose. Do any of us sound normal when our nasal cavities are inflamed by a cold or filled with a fluid like blood?

It's interesting how divisive this is just on this board. Based on what I've seen here, more people are going to die because of this incident and the polarization that has occurred. People will react across this nation because they are only going to hear what they want to hear.

There is no innocent until proven guilty any more at least for Zimmerman. As one blogger put it, all we have to do is take a poll. Remember that if you become a media target. We're all armchair judge, juries and executioners. We, as a society, will pay dearly for this.

It's interesting that when we claim to be interested in survival, we unknowingly work towards bringing on mini-Armageddons in our society. Later this year I'm on track to make a decison on whether to leave this country. With the lynch mob actions toward Zimmerman, a now "white" Hispanic, our country may be too far gone. 

The message and direction is all too clear at this point.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> There is no innocent until proven guilty any more at least for Zimmerman.


It's all about the evidence. I'm happy with where the evidence leads us. Can you say the same?


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> It's all about the evidence. I'm happy with where the evidence leads us. Can you say the same?


I have no problem if the evidence is viewed impartially and ALL of the evidence is considered AND it goes through the legal process. I have serious concerns about trying Zimmerman in public by the public. That can only make things worse for this country. 

I despise the media for what they've done. They are not working for the best interests of Americans.


----------



## Pearl B

Martins brother was on Piers Morgan last night and he didnt seem to help George out much.
Piers caught him in a couple of contradictions, and just generally not having his story straight.

At one time he seemed like he was trying to suggest Martin shot himself. 

Piers kept on him about a few things he said, and he decided to get quit, like shoulda talked to a lawyer first kind of quit


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> I have no problem if the evidence is viewed impartially and ALL of the evidence is considered AND it goes through the legal process. I have serious concerns about trying Zimmerman in public by the public. That can only make things worse for this country.


The question before the public isn't Zimmerman's guilt, but whether there is enough evidence for a trail.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Pearl B. said:


> *Martins brother *was on Piers Morgan last night and he didnt seem to help George out much.
> Piers caught him in a couple of contradictions, and just generally not having his story straight.
> 
> At one time he seemed like he was trying to suggest Martin shot himself.
> 
> Piers kept on him about a few things he said, and he decided to get quit, like shoulda talked to a lawyer first kind of quit


I think that you mean Zimmerman's brother... I saw that interview when it first aired on Thursday. The interesting thing is that Zimmerman's father is an attorny that eventually became a judge. I believe that the Zimmerman family is putting out the information that they are to suit an agenda in the event that George Zimmerman has to go to trial.

The new detail that I gleaned from that interview was that he said that his brother was barely conscious when he managed to get to his gun. I'm no attorney, but it seems as though that would set the stage for a defense that he (Zimmerman) was out of his mind at the time of the shooting.


----------



## TheMartianChick

MSNBC is interviewing Tom Owen the voice analyst right now.


----------



## Pearl B

TheMartianChick said:


> I think that you mean Zimmerman's brother... I saw that interview when it first aired on Thursday. The interesting thing is that Zimmerman's father is an attorny that eventually became a judge. I believe that the Zimmerman family is putting out the information that they are to suit an agenda in the event that George Zimmerman has to go to trial.
> 
> The new detail that I gleaned from that interview was that he said that his brother was barely conscious when he managed to get to his gun. I'm no attorney, but it seems as though that would set the stage for a defense that he (Zimmerman) was out of his mind at the time of the shooting.


:doh: Yes your right, thank you. He was spacy and all over the place. It was late and I was tired. I would really like to see that interview again. Did you see the guy that tried to tell Piers that since he wasnt an American he couldnt understand how painful this was to the black community and the ensuing :catfight:


----------



## TheMartianChick

Pearl B. said:


> :doh: Yes your right, thank you. He was spacy and all over the place. It was late and I was tired. I would really like to see that interview again. Did you see the guy that tried to tell Piers that since he wasnt an American he couldnt understand how painful this was to the black community and the ensuing :catfight:


I did! That man was Toure'. A bit of history on him (from my perspective) was that he was the kind of person that tended to do social commentary of all kinds. He used to be on the Today Show about once a week talking about pop culture. I don't consider him to be a journalist at all and now he seems to be moving into black social commentary.

I did think that Piers Morgan took the high road and was correct in his treatment of Zimmerman's brother. (Toure's assertion was that Morgan allowed him to continue to tell lies and didn't challenge any of his answers.)

Piers actually did the kind of traditional interview that I prefer. If he was going to grill the Zimmerman family, then he would also have to grill anyone that was supporting the Martin family. It would have been pretty cruel to grill a family that has lost a child. Instead, he treated both sides fairly and merely asked questions and waited for their answers. I believe that there is a lot of power in truthful statements. By allowing all guests to say their piece, those that lie will incriminate themselves and the truth will come to light.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

TheMartianChick said:


> The 911 tape of Zimmerman's call was compared to one or more of the other 911 calls from the* "ear" witnesses*.
> *Zimmerman's voice on his 911 call doesn't match the screams/yells for help. *
> Both of the *experts* are known to be* experts* in voice analysis. I believe that the first *expert *cited (in particular) framed his analysis well by citing the methods that he used.


So you'e going to believe some "expert" obviously *hired by Martin's family* over the *EYEWITNESS* that both SAW and heard Zimmerman screaming?



> Mr. Owen has appeared as *a Consultant* to ABC Nightline, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, FOX 5 NY, NPR Radio, NOVA, Taipei, Chinese Television, Dateline, 60 Minutes, Law & Order, Forensic Files, CSI, CSI Miami, *Lie to Me*, Access Hollywood, 48 Hours, 20/20 and other Networks and Television Programs.


He gets *paid* to give an OPINION.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you'e going to believe some "expert" obviously *hired by Martin's family* over the *EYEWITNESS* that both SAW and heard Zimmerman screaming?


Tom Owens and the other forensic audio expert were hired by the Orlando Sentinel. The interview will probably end up on MSNBC's site soon. Owen was grilled pretty hard by Alex Witt as to the methods that he used and how long he spent doing the analysis. He mentioned that the equipment and comparative voice analysis techniques that he used are the same ones that are used around the world to track terrorists. It is particularly helpful when all that is available for identification is a voice on a phone call.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Bearfootfarm said:


> He gets *paid* to give an OPINION.


He gets paid to provide a service and he is considered to be tops in his field from what I can see.


----------



## Darren

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you'e going to believe some "expert" obviously *hired by Martin's family* over the *EYEWITNESS* that both SAW and heard Zimmerman screaming?assigned to this has a
> 
> 
> 
> He gets *paid* to give an OPINION.


I don't know that the expert was hired by Martin's family. What I see is experts coming out of the woodwork and making things worse. The prosecutor assigned to the case is really in the hot seat because she has to follow the law when considering the evidence.

What some seem to be overlooking is that even if Zimmerman touched Martin in any way, Martin's response possibly knocking Zimmerman down and then continuing to beat him crossed the line. Zimmerman it could be argued, should have tried to hold on knowing the police were on the way. If he was in genuine fear for his life, that's it. The killing was justified.

Then we need to go back and look at history and see what can be done, if anything, to prevent similar incidents.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you'e going to believe some "expert" obviously *hired by Martin's family* over the *EYEWITNESS* that both SAW and heard Zimmerman screaming?


I knew that evidence wasn't going to matter. How do you suppose I knew that?


----------



## TheMartianChick

Darren said:


> What some seem to be overlooking is that *even if Zimmerman touched Martin in any way, Martin's response possibly knocking Zimmerman down and then continuing to beat him crossed the line. *Zimmerman it could be argued, should have tried to hold on knowing the police were on the way. If he was in genuine fear for his life, that's it. The killing was justified.
> 
> Then we need to go back and look at history and see what can be done, if anything, *to prevent similar incidents*.


The only problem with the idea of Zimmerman touching Martin is that he had no right to touch someone else. A hairdresser has the right to touch a customer because the cosmetology license covers that. There is nothing that I've seen that allows a regular person to just randomly put his or her hands on someone else.

If I were walking down the street at night and felt that someone was following me, I might react strongly if someone puts a hand on me.

I'm all for prevention. Being proactive beats being reactive!


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> I knew that evidence wasn't going to matter. How do you suppose I knew that?


Probably coz there is very little "evidence" that is being released by the investigation? A tremendous amount of speculation going on by the press... and nearly all of it is based on imagination.


----------



## fantasymaker

Ive got a question rolling around in my mind. Isnt The miller family calling for Mr Zimmerman to be arrested? If there is a tape of Mr Z being taken into the cop shop wasnt he arrested befor being transported there?


----------



## fantasymaker

TheMartianChick said:


> The only problem with the idea of Zimmerman touching Martin is that he had no right to touch someone else. . There is nothing that I've seen that allows a regular person to just randomly put his or her hands on someone else.
> !



WOW I think you better check again. A simple non threatening touch is perfectly legal in most places.


----------



## Evons hubby

TheMartianChick said:


> The only problem with the idea of Zimmerman touching Martin is that he had no right to touch someone else.


Another small problem with it is that I dont recall hearing any of the witnesses say that Zimmerman touched Martin first. :shrug: more hypothetical speculation... not necessarily what is needed in this particular case.


----------



## TheMartianChick

fantasymaker said:


> Ive got a question rolling around in my mind. Isnt The miller family calling for Mr Zimmerman to be arrested? If there is a tape of Mr Z being taken into the cop shop wasnt he arrested befor being transported there?


One of the theories that is "out there" is that since Zimmerman was transported in handcuffs, his attorney could say that he was actually under arrest. This is critical because once you've been "arrested" you must be charged within something like 180 days. With that thought in mind, the clock would have started ticking with Zimmerman's "arrest" on February 26th.


----------



## TheMartianChick

fantasymaker said:


> WOW I think you better check again. A simple non threatening touch is perfectly legal in most places.


But in Florida, a simple non-threatening touch might be construed as a threat by the person on the receiving end.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> It's all about the evidence. *I'm happy with where the evidence leads us*. Can you say the same?


And yet you dispute what the evidence is showing


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> I knew that evidence wasn't going to matter. How do you suppose I knew that?


An *eyewitness *is "evidence"

An audio comparison is an "opinion"


----------



## big rockpile

TheMartianChick said:


> One of the theories that is "out there" is that since Zimmerman was transported in handcuffs, his attorney could say that he was actually under arrest. This is critical because once you've been "arrested" you must be charged within something like 180 days. With that thought in mind, the clock would have started ticking with Zimmerman's "arrest" on February 26th.


ound: Man if every time I was in Cuffs I was arrested I would never get out.They had me in Cuffs one time to question me about my Chickens.Another time I was in their face pointing my finger.Told me if I didn't quit they would Cuff me.Still didn't keep me out of their face :grin:

No most times being brought in like that its required for Insurance.

big rockpile


----------



## Evons hubby

TheMartianChick said:


> But in Florida, a simple non-threatening touch might be construed as a threat by the person on the receiving end.


Apparently some folks feel threatened pretty easily. Not so sure a person even has to touch someone.... a mean look could cause some folks to perceive a threat.


----------



## big rockpile

Zimmerman is guilty until proven innocent like most in Jail,thing is he isn't in Jail or has done a thing wrong.

big rockpile


----------



## TheMartianChick

big rockpile said:


> ound: Man if every time I was in Cuffs I was arrested I would never get out.They had me in Cuffs one time to question me about my Chickens.Another time I was in their face pointing my finger.Told me if I didn't quit they would Cuff me.Still didn't keep me out of their face :grin:
> 
> No most times being brought in like that its required for Insurance.
> 
> big rockpile


I hear you, but this is one of the concerns out there right now. I've never been in a police cruiser, but I was in a police helicopter once as a kid.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Bearfootfarm said:


> An *eyewitness *is "evidence"
> 
> An audio comparison is an "opinion"


Actually, eyewitnesses can be pretty unreliable due to the excitement of the moment. When you add in the passage of time in some cases, witness testimony can often be unreliable.

Here is a piece from 2007 that explains it a bit better:

http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/05/unreliable_eyewitness_testimon.php

Here is a more scholarly piece that is transcribed from a lecture given by a Psychology Professor and a Law Professor:

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm


----------



## Evons hubby

TheMartianChick said:


> Actually, eyewitnesses can be pretty unreliable due to the excitement of the moment. When you add in the passage of time in some cases, witness testimony can often be unreliable.
> 
> Here is a piece from 2007 that explains it a bit better:
> 
> Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony : The Frontal Cortex
> 
> Here is a more scholarly piece that is transcribed from a lecture given by a Psychology Professor and a Law Professor:
> 
> The Problem With Eyewitness Testimony


This one of the reasons I tend to give a bit more credibility to the stories told by those at the scene as opposed to those told a month or two later after they have had a chance to be swayed by all of the nonsense in the media. It is amazing at the amount of bias the press puts on these stories..... before they have ANY of the facts whatsoever. I think a real good example of this would be as close as the title of this thread.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Actually, eyewitnesses can be pretty unreliable due to the excitement of the moment. When you add in *the passage of time* in some cases, witness testimony can often be unreliable.


There was no "passage of time"
His call was recorded, and he was interviewed that night.

A second eyewitness also saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, and that call was recorded too


----------



## Pearl B

fantasymaker said:


> WOW I think you better check again. A simple non threatening touch is perfectly legal in most places.


The problem I see with that theory is that a person doesnt know if its going to be a threatening touch or not until it lands. At that point it may be an incapacitating or last fatal touch as well.

So ya Im probably one of those that wouldnt take well to that kind of gesture at night after being followed.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that evidence wasn't going to matter. How do you suppose I knew that?
> 
> 
> 
> An *eyewitness *is "evidence"
> 
> An audio comparison is an "opinion"
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. But deciding how much weight to give to which evidence is something we let a judge or jury decide.

An "eyewitness" to audio evidence? Don't you mean earwitness?


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> A second eyewitness also saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, and that call was recorded too


Why does it matter who was on top during the struggle? Is that supposed to prove something?


----------



## FeralFemale

During the investigation, Martin's father was played the audio tape and he said it wasn't his son's voice yelling for help. I'll try to google a link. It was in the orlando sentinel a couple of weeks ago when the police gave a bunch of info about the case to the newspaper.


----------



## TheMartianChick

FeralFemale said:


> During the investigation, Martin's father was played the audio tape and he said it wasn't his son's voice yelling for help. I'll try to google a link. It was in the orlando sentinel a couple of weeks ago when the police gave a bunch of info about the case to the newspaper.


I didn't hear that one, but I did see an interview with the mother insisting that it was Trayvon. I wonder if the family has any audio of Trayvon that could be used for voice analysis. Maybe a voicemail message or something. At this point, the data excludes the screams as not coming from Zimmerman, but cannot match them to Trayvon without another recording to compare them to. Maybe this is one of those situations where that giant government repository of data that TXsteader mentioned many posts back can help to shed light on this.

The NSA Is Building the Country's Biggest Spy Center (Watch What You Say) | Threat Level | Wired.com


----------



## FeralFemale

This took a LOT of googling for some reason.

Trayvon Martin shooting 911 calls: Sanford Police to release 911 calls in Trayvon Martin shooting - Page 2 - Orlando Sentinel



> Serino said Trayvon's father, Tracy Martin, listened to all of the 911 calls in the case before the entire family convened at City Hall to listen Friday night. When asked if the voice on one, a male calling for help was his son, told Serino no.
> 
> Police lied Friday, Crump said, when they said Tracy Martin said the voice crying for help was not his son. What Tracy Martin told police, Crump said, was that "he couldn't tell, that it was too distorted."
> 
> The audio has since been cleaned up, and now Tracy Martin has no doubt but that the voice is his son, Crump said.


----------



## TheMartianChick

FeralFemale said:


> This took a LOT of googling for some reason.
> 
> Trayvon Martin shooting 911 calls: Sanford Police to release 911 calls in Trayvon Martin shooting - Page 2 - Orlando Sentinel


Thanks for posting the link! It can be hard to find specific information about the case because there is so much info and pseudo-info about it on the web.


----------



## Narshalla

Pearl B. said:


> I know it doesn't, its just speculation on my part.
> 
> If Martin hadn't been suspended from school for an empty baggie the idea wouldn't have occurred to me. I still cant help but wonder if the police had a sting operation going on, and thatch part of why they told Z to back off. They would have told him that anyway, for his safety. It just makes we wonder at times though.


Respectfully, I understand this, but it is a _huge_ jump from using to dealing, especially since the only evidence is one empty baggie.

I have my own opinions on marijuana which I will not go into here, but sufficed to say, the marijuana itself isn't a big deal for me.

Also, the idea that, even if he was a dealer, he had some customers in the neighborhood is rather farfetched; after all, he lived many miles away, had no car, and visited the area so infrequently that most in the neighborhood would have been hard pressed to recognize him and in fact _couldn't_ recognize him.



Nevada said:


> It's all about the evidence. I'm happy with where the evidence leads us. Can you say the same?





Nevada said:


> I knew that evidence wasn't going to matter. How do you suppose I knew that?


These two statements seem to be in conflict with each other.



TheMartianChick said:


> Actually, eyewitnesses can be pretty unreliable due to the excitement of the moment. When you add in the passage of time in some cases, witness testimony can often be unreliable.
> 
> Here is a piece from 2007 that explains it a bit better:
> 
> Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony : The Frontal Cortex
> 
> Here is a more scholarly piece that is transcribed from a lecture given by a Psychology Professor and a Law Professor:
> 
> The Problem With Eyewitness Testimony


Very, very good points, TMC!



Darren said:


> I'm glad the prosecutor stopped the release of any information from official sources. I read that expert's opinion on whose voice was on the tapes. That doesn't match the eye witness report of who was beating who unless you believe that someone beating the crap out of someone was screaming for help. It's possible I guess.


It depends on how manipulative a person is. If Martin was smart enough and manipulative enough (but there is no evidence to support this idea), then yes, he might have been the one screaming in 'fear' while also being the one doing all the hitting. That way, when the time came that he was being questioned about the screamer hitting the silent person, the screamer can claim to be in fear of his life and just fighting back, and that the other person was the aggressor, the dangerous one.

This only works if there are no witnesses, though, and it is a stretch, I fully admit. There is also no evidence to support the idea that Martin was clever or manipulative enough to have this tactic on standby.

The only reason I bring this up is to point out that there _are _situations where the screamer is also the attacker; it can happen, but I don't think this is the case here.



Darren said:


> It doesn't make sense if Zimmerman was knocked down for him not to scream for help from people in his community. The incident was in people's backyards not far from their doors. Likewise it fits with his comment later that no one would help him. The analysis also doesn't fit with the racial curse that Zimmerman was supposed to have uttered and which the FBI is trying to find. It's generally agreed there is only one voice on the 911 tape. So was Martin calling Zimmerman a ****?


I've listened to the tapes, and so far, I have not been able to hear a racial slur coming from Zimmerman. It seems to me that most of the people who talk about the racial slur fall into two groups.

The first, and by far the largest, is those who have heard others say that they heard it, but can't find it themselves (I belong to this group.) Some of this group believe that it was said, but the tapes are for some reason being hidden or something like that; it's there, they heard it, they just can't find it again.

The other group has tried to find it and can't, and wants more evidence that it even exists (that's where I am.)



Darren said:


> My guess is we have another individual looking for their 15 minutes of fame. They didn't help defuse the situation. They just made things worse when they took a copy of a copy of a recording off the internet and added their two cents. At least the FBI probably has the original tape to analyze.


A third person, or the "second gunman" (JFK reference, for those of us who were too young,) so to speak . . .

Maybe. Maybe not. The one thing that makes me think that this might be true is the level of idiocy in the world; given the size of the neighborhood, I'm sure that there is at least one person who would hear screaming and scream back instead of helping. Some people are just that stupid, unfortunately.


----------



## watcher

Sonshine said:


> The police video showed Zimmerman, but I saw no signs of blood. Also, isn't it SOP to get crime scene pictures?


Yes but its against SOP to release them BEFORE the investigation is complete.


----------



## Nevada

Narshalla said:


> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all about the evidence. I'm happy with where the evidence leads us. Can you say the same?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Narshalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that evidence wasn't going to matter. How do you suppose I knew that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These two statements seem to be in conflict with each other.
Click to expand...

Well, the evidence matters to me, but Bearfootfam doesn't see very interested in evidence. This issue is being treated like politics, since any evidence that doesn't support Zimmerman is going to be attacked.

This isn't about which side wins, it's about accountability.


----------



## Pearl B

> Narshalla
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Pearl B. View Post
> I know it doesn't, its just speculation on my part.
> 
> If Martin hadn't been suspended from school for an empty baggie the idea wouldn't have occurred to me. I still cant help but wonder if the police had a sting operation going on, and thatch part of why they told Z to back off. They would have told him that anyway, for his safety. It just makes we wonder at times though.
> Respectfully, I understand this, but it is a huge jump from using to dealing, especially since the only evidence is one empty baggie.
> 
> I have my own opinions on marijuana which I will not go into here, but sufficed to say, the marijuana itself isn't a big deal for me.
> 
> Also, the idea that, even if he was a dealer, he had some customers in the neighborhood is rather farfetched; after all, he lived many miles away, had no car, and visited the area so infrequently that most in the neighborhood would have been hard pressed to recognize him and in fact couldn't recognize him.


As far as Im concerned weed is a nothing crime. You would be surprised how fast kids can make friends, and infrequently still means he could have known the area well enough. Its just the 911 operator that bugs me. Im really surprised the operator didnt say more forcefully to Z to quit following M.

I just dont see how being suspicious of someone, without some kind of evidence gives one individual the right to follow another individual to the degree that Zimmerman followed Martin.


Zimmerman had no police or emt training. He had nothing that would put his suspicions as reasonably a higher probability.(thats the best I can think to say that)

Unless Z had been standing real close to Martin he would have no valid evidence, reason or training to assert that Martin was on drugs or drunk. I have a bad hip, Im sure from a distance, I look like a drunken sailer when I walk. Doesnt mean I am. 

Thats what bugs me, Z is just a common average citizen with no police or emt training, so he has no real valid ability to tell if someone is high or crippled. 

What if it was a mentally retarded person, who after being followed freaked out and fought back. 

And I havent heard that he actually witnessed any crime being committed, or had any knowledge of a crime having just been committed. Just because crime may be up in the area, doesnt automatically make Martin the criminal, or validate, or give reason to another individual to treat another person as such, to the heightened degree of following his every move, and then the confrontation.

Which leads me back to wondering why the 911 operator wasnt more forceful about telling him to stop following him. We dont need you to follow him sounds pretty wimpy to me. Im surprised he didnt say for the safety of yourself and others thats really a bad idea.

I hope the SYG law doesnt get repealed, and I bet it will. A law like that would greatly help a woman if she was in reasonable fear of being raped.

Just my thoughts on this, the whole thing is just strange.


----------



## poppy

Pearl B. said:


> As far as Im concerned weed is a nothing crime. You would be surprised how fast kids can make friends, and infrequently still means he could have known the area well enough. Its just the 911 operator that bugs me. Im really surprised the operator didnt say more forcefully to Z to quit following M.
> 
> I just dont see how being suspicious of someone, without some kind of evidence gives one individual the right to follow another individual to the degree that Zimmerman followed Martin.
> 
> 
> Zimmerman had no police or emt training. He had nothing that would put his suspicions as reasonably a higher probability.(thats the best I can think to say that)
> 
> Unless Z had been standing real close to Martin he would have no valid evidence, reason or training to assert that Martin was on drugs or drunk. I have a bad hip, Im sure from a distance, I look like a drunken sailer when I walk. Doesnt mean I am.
> 
> Thats what bugs me, Z is just a common average citizen with no police or emt training, so he has no real valid ability to tell if someone is high or crippled.
> 
> What if it was a mentally retarded person, who after being followed freaked out and fought back.
> 
> And I havent heard that he actually witnessed any crime being committed, or had any knowledge of a crime having just been committed. Just because crime may be up in the area, doesnt automatically make Martin the criminal, or validate, or give reason to another individual to treat another person as such, to the heightened degree of following his every move, and then the confrontation.
> 
> Which leads me back to wondering why the 911 operator wasnt more forceful about telling him to stop following him. We dont need you to follow him sounds pretty wimpy to me. Im surprised he didnt say for the safety of yourself and others thats really a bad idea.
> 
> I hope the SYG law doesnt get repealed, and I bet it will. A law like that would greatly help a woman if she was in reasonable fear of being raped.
> 
> Just my thoughts on this, the whole thing is just strange.


The operator had no legal right to tell him to stop following the guy. Following someone is not illegal and happens all the time. I've done it myself when an unknown vehicle drives down our private road. Lots of speculation on this event based on nothing but feelings. The only evidence we've seen has been posted and discounted by some. I'll wait and see. I fail to see what good a neighborhood watch is if they can't even call the cops on a suspicious person and watch to see where he goes until the cops arrive.


----------



## Narshalla

Pearl B. said:


> As far as I'm concerned weed is a nothing crime. You would be surprised how fast kids can make friends, and infrequently still means he could have known the area well enough. Its just the 911 operator that bugs me. Im really surprised the operator didn't say more forcefully to Z to quit following M.
> 
> I just don't see how being suspicious of someone, without some kind of evidence gives one individual the right to follow another individual to the degree that Zimmerman followed Martin.
> 
> 
> Zimmerman had no police or EMT training. He had nothing that would put his suspicions as reasonably a higher probability.(that's the best I can think to say that)
> 
> Unless Z had been standing real close to Martin he would have no valid evidence, reason or training to assert that Martin was on drugs or drunk. I have a bad hip, I'm sure from a distance, I look like a drunken sailor when I walk. Doesn't mean I am.
> 
> That's what bugs me, Z is just a common average citizen with no police or EMT training, so he has no real valid ability to tell if someone is high or crippled.
> 
> What if it was a mentally retarded person, who after being followed freaked out and fought back.
> 
> And I haven't heard that he actually witnessed any crime being committed, or had any knowledge of a crime having just been committed. Just because crime may be up in the area, doesn't automatically make Martin the criminal, or validate, or give reason to another individual to treat another person as such, to the heightened degree of following his every move, and then the confrontation.
> 
> Which leads me back to wondering why the 911 operator wasnt more forceful about telling him to stop following him. We don't need you to follow him sounds pretty wimpy to me. I'm surprised he didn't say for the safety of yourself and others that's really a bad idea.
> 
> I hope the SYG law doesn't get repealed, and I bet it will. A law like that would greatly help a woman if she was in reasonable fear of being raped.
> 
> Just my thoughts on this, the whole thing is just strange.


I agree completely with most of your post, but would like to add a little bit about the operator. First, everyone says "911 operator," but in reality it was the non-emergency line. I believe that this is relevant because by calling the non-emergency line, Zimmerman was showing a modicum of sense, but at the same time it also shows that he knew Martin's presence wasn't an emergency.

Next, the operators have no legal standing to tell anyone to do anything, but they do have a legal liability if they say something that can be perceived to escalate the situation. "For the safety of yourself and others that's really a bad idea to follow him" could be skewed by some blood-sucking lawyer to show that Martin was reasonably perceived to be a threat and result in a suit against the operator and the city.

I just want to repeat one part of your post:



> And I haven't heard that he actually witnessed any crime being committed, or had any knowledge of a crime having just been committed. Just because crime may be up in the area, doesn't automatically make Martin the criminal, or validate, or give reason to another individual to treat another person as such, to the heightened degree of following his every move, and then the confrontation.


I could not agree more!


----------



## big rockpile

Well I've been both sides.Back in '70's I was USMC MP for a short time and I worked Security for a Large Company in Springfield,Mo. It gave me authority and I admit I would get Cocky,bad thing is it gave me a Bad attitude dealing with Law Enforcement years later.I didn't feel they were any better than me,which I still feel that way.

I had Long Hair dressed in Ragged Clothes.If I found someone Following me or just found me disgusting I couldn't help but mess with their Heads. :grin:

big rockpile


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Maybe, maybe not. But deciding how much weight to give to which evidence is something we let a judge or jury decide.
> 
> An "eyewitness" to *audio evidence*? Don't you mean earwitness?


No I mean an EYEwitness who SAW that it was Zimmerman yelling, as he told the police.




> I saw a man laying on the ground and *he was held down screaming* and I was gonna go over there and try to help him but my dog ran off the leash so I went and got my dog and then I heard a loud sound and then the screaming stopped.


Continue reading on Examiner.com Neighbors' 911 calls before, during shooting death of Trayvon Martin transcribed - National unsolved cases | Examiner.com Neighbors' 911 calls before, during shooting death of Trayvon Martin transcribed - National unsolved cases | Examiner.com




> âThe *guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling* to me: âhelp, helpâ¦and I told him to stop and I was calling 911,â he said




Eye Witness Says Trayvon Martin Was Attacking George Zimmerman; Narrative Changer? (Video)
​The others only HEARD the yelling and made assumptions as to who it was

The so called "experts" only heard a tape made from a phone call

Did you also notice they didn't mention anything about "racial slurs" on the tapes?


----------



## Darren

poppy said:


> The operator had no legal right to tell him to stop following the guy. Following someone is not illegal and happens all the time. I've done it myself when an unknown vehicle drives down our private road. Lots of speculation on this event based on nothing but feelings. The only evidence we've seen has been posted and discounted by some. I'll wait and see. I fail to see what good a neighborhood watch is if they can't even call the cops on a suspicious person and watch to see where he goes until the cops arrive.


I do the same thing all of the time. A company not far from here had ten aluminum wheels with tires stolen off a Peterbilt one night. The next time I went by at night and saw someone at the truck, I stopped and walked over. Turned out to be an employee that I knew that had got back around nine.

About a week later a friend and I stopped late at night at the local convenience store which is really out in the sticks because that's where I had parked my truck when we met that morning. The store was closed. While we were setting there talking, my friend noticed a dark truck parked at the end of the lot. When it moved closer to the store, I got out and went over to see who it was. It turned out to be one of the sons of the owner.

In a community, I believe you should look out for your neighbors. If there's someone I don't know doing something some place and some time strange, I'm going to find out what's going on.

Changing subject: it looks like the media, at least *MNBC, is now saying there are visible wounds on Zimmerman's head on the video tape made the night of the incident.* That means there may be two medical reports since Zimmerman was treated by a fire department paramedic and if his neighbor is correct about the bandages, Zimmerman may have been examined and treated someplace else later. 

MSNBC Concedes Injury To Back Of Zimmerman's Head Apparent On Police VIdeo


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Well, *the evidence matters to me*, but *Bearfootfam doesn't see very interested in evidence*. This issue is being treated like politics, since any evidence that doesn't support Zimmerman is going to be attacked.
> 
> This isn't about which side wins, it's about accountability.


LOL
Who are you trying to kid?

I'm happy to let everyone decide on their own which one of us tends to stick more to the facts


----------



## Darren

TheMartianChick said:


> I hear you, but this is one of the concerns out there right now. I've never been in a police cruiser, but I was in a police helicopter once as a kid.


I would have been surprised if Zimmerman had not been handcuffed at the scene of the incident. Handcuffing him was SOP. The police report stated that Zimmerman complied with the officer's commands. When the officer got to the scene Zimmerman also told the officer that he had a firearm.

If I was arrested locally, even though I know all of the LEOs, I would also expect to be handcuffed for their safety until there was some resolution and I was either locked up or released to go home.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> When the officer got to the scene Zimmerman also told the officer that he had a firearm.


If you read the police report, you'll see the officer retrieved that gun from the *INSIDE* of Zimmerman's *WAISTBAND*.

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin%20Lakes%20Shooting%20Initial%20Report.pdf

Some were making a big deal about his shirt being tucked in, but he obviously took the time to return the gun *to his waistband*, and it seems 100% natural to me to tuck in your shirt when you do that.

It's something guys do without even thinking about it


----------



## Darren

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you read the police report, you'll see the officer retrieved that gun from the *INSIDE* of Zimmerman's *WAISTBAND*.
> 
> http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin%20Lakes%20Shooting%20Initial%20Report.pdf
> 
> Some were making a big deal about hos shirt being tucked in, but he obviously took the time to return the gun *to his waistband*, and it seems 100% natural to me to tuck in your shirt when you do that.
> 
> It's something guys do without even thinking about it


That's true.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> *Why does it matter who was on top* during the struggle? Is that supposed to prove something?


Why does it matter?

Think about it

If you read what the witnesses said, it proves *who was yelling for help*, since he stated it was* the one on the bottom, being held down.*

It's really not that complicated


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Why does it matter who was on top during the struggle? Is that supposed to prove something?


It lends a great deal of credibility to Zimmerman's account of what happened. If Martin was indeed on top of him, it creates the "threat of imminent danger" situation that the Florida law looks at as justifiable for self defense.


----------



## poppy

Darren said:


> I do the same thing all of the time. A company not far from here had ten aluminum wheels with tires stolen off a Peterbilt one night. The next time I went by at night and saw someone at the truck, I stopped and walked over. Turned out to be an employee that I knew that had got back around nine.
> 
> About a week later a friend and I stopped late at night at the local convenience store which is really out in the sticks because that's where I had parked my truck when we met that morning. The store was closed. While we were setting there talking, my friend noticed a dark truck parked at the end of the lot. When it moved closer to the store, I got out and went over to see who it was. It turned out to be one of the sons of the owner.
> 
> In a community, I believe you should look out for your neighbors. If there's someone I don't know doing something some place and some time strange, I'm going to find out what's going on.
> 
> Changing subject: it looks like the media, at least *MNBC, is now saying there are visible wounds on Zimmerman's head on the video tape made the night of the incident.* That means there may be two medical reports since Zimmerman was treated by a fire department paramedic and if his neighbor is correct about the bandages, Zimmerman may have been examined and treated someplace else later.
> 
> MSNBC Concedes Injury To Back Of Zimmerman's Head Apparent On Police VIdeo


Yes, MSNBC owned up. They even show the injury in a zoomed in picture. Did you happen to see what the black reporter said next? I think this is a direct quote, "Now the question becomes how much bodily harm a person has to endure before they can shoot someone". LOL. They keep moving the goalpost. I can answer that question real quick. Little to none, depending on the situation.


----------



## Darren

Now we're faced with how Zimmerman's account is going to be perceived. The man has been vilified in the media. It's going to be very difficult for someone to put themselves in Zimmerman's shoes given the heart strings that the media and the media whores have plucked. Yeah I know. That gives real whores a bad name.

You're right about the goal posts being moved. When you're involved in what you feel is a life and death struggle, you're going to pull the trigger. Like it or not, if it was Martin on top still beating Zimmerman when Zimmerman was lying on the ground on his back, Martin crossed a line.

The expression is you don't kick a man when he's down. If that happened, Martin crossed a line. Did he deserve to die? None of us can know what went through Zimmerman's mind that night or the fear he may have felt. Nor can we know the possible outcome if Martin had not been killed. Would Zimmerman have ended up dead?

If he was close to passing out and an enraged Martin proceeded to start kicking him in the head, Zimmerman might not have survived. I think the fact that the firearm did not cycle and load another cartridge is critical to understanding what happened. *Something interfered with the normal operation of that firearm.*

I don't know of any circumstance which legally justifies continuing to beat a man when he's on the ground.


----------



## SteveD(TX)

Nevada said:


> Why does it matter who was on top during the struggle? Is that supposed to prove something?


You never watch MMA on TV? - listen for the term "ground and pound".

Here's a hint....the guy on top is the guy beating the crap out of the guy on the bottom.


----------



## poppy

Darren said:


> Now we're faced with how Zimmerman's account is going to be perceived. The man has been vilified in the media. It's going to be very difficult for someone to put themselves in Zimmerman's shoes given the heart strings that the media and the media whores have plucked. Yeah I know. That gives real whores a bad name.
> 
> You're right about the goal posts being moved. When you're involved in what you feel is a life and death struggle, you're going to pull the trigger. Like it or not, if it was Martin on top still beating Zimmerman when Zimmerman was lying on the ground on his back, Martin crossed a line.
> 
> The expression is you don't kick a man when he's down. If that happened, Martin crossed a line. Did he deserve to die? None of us can know what went through Zimmerman's mind that night or the fear he may have felt. Nor can we know the possible outcome if Martin had not been killed. Would Zimmerman have ended up dead?
> 
> If he was close to passing out and an enraged Martin proceeded to start kicking him in the head, Zimmerman might not have survived. I think the fact that the firearm did not cycle and load another cartridge is critical to understanding what happened. *Something interfered with the normal operation of that firearm.*
> 
> I don't know of any circumstance which legally justifies continuing to beat a man when he's on the ground.


I agree totally. When one removes their "feelings" from the story and relies on the known facts it appears Zimmerman's account is true. Consider the accounts of witnesses, Zimmerman's injuries, and other things and a picture should take shape in your mind. Add to that the fact that Martin was on his cell phone with his girlfriend and I have seen no evidence that he either told her he had to hang up and call 911 or asked her to call. The rush to judgement in this case has been terrible. No evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman has any racial tendencies and yet the race warlords were quick to convict him of racism.


----------



## poppy

SteveD(TX) said:


> Here's a hint....the guy on top is the guy beating the crap out of the guy on the bottom.


Got any proof of that? I have a feeling that Zimmerman was laying on his back holding that sweet young man on top of him so that when he shot him the bullet would go into the air if it went through him so the cops couldn't find it for evidence. I know that doesn't sound logical but I am trying to fill in for Nevada till he shows up.:nanner:


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It lends a great deal of credibility to Zimmerman's account of what happened. If Martin was indeed on top of him, it creates the "threat of imminent danger" situation that the Florida law looks at as justifiable for self defense.


Let's say someone assaulted you and a struggle followed because you were defending yourself. Let's also say that you were better at taking care of yourself, so you were on top during the struggle. Does the fact that you were on top at some point of the struggle forfeit your claim of self-defense?


----------



## Nevada

poppy said:


> I agree totally. When one removes their "feelings" from the story and relies on the known facts it appears Zimmerman's account is true. Consider the accounts of witnesses, Zimmerman's injuries, and other things and a picture should take shape in your mind. Add to that the fact that Martin was on his cell phone with his girlfriend and I have seen no evidence that he either told her he had to hang up and call 911 or asked her to call. The rush to judgement in this case has been terrible.


That's a mischaracterization if the evidence. With respect to how the struggle started the evidence is inconclusive. To suggest that the evidence confirms Zimmerman's account of how the struggle started is outright false.



poppy said:


> No evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman has any racial tendencies and yet the race warlords were quick to convict him of racism.


There is evidence of racism, but probably not strong enough to support a hate crime. There were a few things he said in his call to police that might be racist. The racial remark for one, although unclear, and who he was referring to when he said "they" always get away. He could have meant perpetrators when he said "they", but he could have also meant blacks. We don't know.


----------



## ryanthomas

> He could have meant perpetrators when he said "they", but he could have also meant blacks. We don't know.


As if your arguments weren't ridiculous enough already.


----------



## Nevada

ryanthomas said:


> As if your arguments weren't ridiculous enough already.


As I said it's not enough to charge him, but the evidence nevertheless supports the possibility of racism.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *There is evidence of racism,* but probably not strong enough to support a hate crime. There were a few things he said in his call to police that might be racist. *The racial remark* for one, although unclear, and who he was referring to when he said "they" always get away. He could have meant perpetrators when he said "they", but he could have also meant blacks. *We don't know*.


"We don't know" is NOT evidence.

There is no "racial remark"
You've seen the transcripts


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *Let's say* someone assaulted you and a struggle followed because you were defending yourself


Let's just make up a scenario


----------



## gideonprime

Bearfootfarm said:


> Let's just make up a scenario


Well you seem to be making up one of your own. Theis happened this didn;t as if you were the expert here or even in some way involved.

Why can't the rest of the thread put in their 2 cents?

Oh right because you disagree.:huh:

Please back to your:catfight:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gideonprime said:


> *Well you seem to be making up one* of your own. Theis happened this didn;t as if you were the expert here or even in some way involved.
> 
> Why can't the rest of the thread put in their 2 cents?
> 
> Oh right because you disagree.:huh:
> 
> Please back to your:catfight:


Feel free to point out anything I've "made up".

I'm betting you can't, and you won't even try


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> As I said it's not enough to charge him, but the evidence nevertheless supports the possibility of racism.


He could have been talking about space aliens. We don't know. The possibility of racism exists for all people, but this is not evidence of it.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Let's say someone assaulted you and a struggle followed because you were defending yourself. Let's also say that you were better at taking care of yourself, so you were on top during the struggle. Does the fact that you were on top at some point of the struggle forfeit your claim of self-defense?


That would be interesting.... if any one actually knew who started what. Other than some eyewitnesses and the survivor himself... nobody else can say what happened. According to "those" accounts... which is really all anyone has to go on.... Martin confronted and attacked Zimmerman as Zimmerman was returning to his truck. The physical evidence so far tends to support those accounts. Me? I am waiting to hear more evidence before I form preconceived notions. So far I have seen nor heard nothing to discount what Zimmerman and other eyewitnesses told the officers at the scene.... who ultimately made the decision to release him rather than charge him. A lot of things are always "possible", but its best not to form conclusions one way or the other until we have the facts.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That would be interesting.... if any one actually knew who started what. Other than some eyewitnesses and the survivor himself... nobody else can say what happened. According to "those" accounts... which is really all anyone has to go on.... Martin confronted and attacked Zimmerman as Zimmerman was returning to his truck. The physical evidence so far tends to support those accounts. Me? I am waiting to hear more evidence before I form preconceived notions. So far I have seen nor heard nothing to discount what Zimmerman and other eyewitnesses told the officers at the scene.... who ultimately made the decision to release him rather than charge him. A lot of things are always "possible", but its best not to form conclusions one way or the other until we have the facts.


Let me ask it another way.

If Martin attacked Zimmerman unprovoked, as Zimmerman claims, then a struggle followed to defend himself, as Zimmerman also claims, would Zimmerman lose his claim to self-defense if someone saw him on top at some point of the struggle? I don't see why that would follow.


----------



## Hollowdweller

Too many twists so far to know the whole story.

Right now I think what we know supports the shooter but that could change with the next revelation.


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> quoted post was deleted by Chuck]


Correction: alleged racial remark. We don't know what he said anymore than we know what he meant by "they."


----------



## Evons hubby

ryanthomas said:


> Correction: alleged racial remark. We don't know what he said anymore than we know what he meant by "they."


This is true. I have listened to the segment referred to, and its quite possible that those words were said... but we do NOT know by whom, or in what context they were being used. 
Lets play Nevada's game and make some presumptions here. Lets presume that it was the officer that made the comment instead of Zimmerman.
Or lets presume it was indeed Zimmerman who uttered the words.... what difference does his "racist" attitude make when hes on the ground with Martin beating his head into the concrete?
Heres another hypothetical presumption...
Lets say that we believe that Zimmerman uttered those words.... very softly I might add... after stepping in some fecal matter left by the local raccoon population.
Or maybe we should just presume the tape was edited and that portion of it was slipped in.... kinda the reverse of what was done to the other one where context was removed in order to make this a racial issue.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Let me ask it another way.
> 
> If Martin attacked Zimmerman unprovoked, as Zimmerman claims, then a struggle followed to defend himself, as Zimmerman also claims, would Zimmerman lose his claim to self-defense if someone saw him on top at some point of the struggle? I don't see why that would follow.


The problem with this is that there was no witnesses who claimed Zimmerman was ever on top that night.

But... ifn such a thing did happen... its my understand that once the victim has accomplished gaining control of the situation... self defense would no longer apply to their actions "AFTER" they had subdued the attacker. No... he would not be justified in shooting anyone as long as that person remained subdued and was no longer a threat.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The problem with this is that there was no witnesses who claimed Zimmerman was ever on top that night.


My point is that from a self-defense standpoint it doesn't matter who was on top.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> My point is that from a self-defense standpoint it doesn't matter who was on top.


Of course it makes a difference. If your attacker is on top, thumping your head into the concrete..... you are NOT in control of the situation and are therefor completely justified in protecting yourself.


----------



## fantasymaker

Pearl B. said:


> The problem I see with that theory is that a person doesnt know if its going to be a threatening touch or not until it lands. At that point it may be an incapacitating or last fatal touch as well.
> 
> So ya Im probably one of those that wouldnt take well to that kind of gesture at night after being followed.


 LOL a Touch doesnt "Land":catfight:


----------



## SteveD(TX)

Nevada said:


> My point is that from a self-defense standpoint it doesn't matter who was on top.


Unless you were the one on the bottom getting your head bashed in. I'd think it would matter to that person.


----------



## fantasymaker

TheMartianChick said:


> One of the theories that is "out there" is that since Zimmerman was transported in handcuffs, his attorney could say that he was actually under arrest. This is critical because once you've been "arrested" you must be charged within something like 180 days. With that thought in mind, the clock would have started ticking with Zimmerman's "arrest" on February 26th.


Well yes handcuffs are pretty arresting.


TheMartianChick said:


> But in Florida, a simple non-threatening touch might be construed as a threat by the person on the receiving end.


You contradict yourself.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Of course it makes a difference. If your attacker is on top, thumping your head into the concrete..... you are NOT in control of the situation and are therefor completely justified in protecting yourself.


That makes no sense at all. If you are defending yourself from a assault you are not required to lose the fight in order to maintain your claim of self-defense.


----------



## Aintlifegrand

Nevada said:


> Let's say someone assaulted you and a struggle followed because you were defending yourself. Let's also say that you were better at taking care of yourself, so you were on top during the struggle. Does the fact that you were on top at some point of the struggle forfeit your claim of self-defense?


Yes.. at that point... once that person begans to lose the fight then yes becomes in a defensive position and yes it is self defense at that point.


----------



## Aintlifegrand

Nevada said:


> As I said it's not enough to charge him, but the evidence nevertheless supports the possibility of racism.


Possibility is not evidence


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> That makes no sense at all. If you are defending yourself from a assault you are not required to lose the fight in order to maintain your claim of self-defense.


Nope, yer not required to lose the fight in order to maintain your claim of self defense. You are however not allowed to use deadly force once you are in control of the situation. Sorry Nevada... you cant shoot the guy in self defense if you already have him in cuffs secured to a tree. (youve already "won" the fight!)


----------



## Evons hubby

Aintlifegrand said:


> Possibility is not evidence


Thats true... and racism isnt a crime either. Actions based on racist beliefs can be.... but there is no law that I know of against not liking someone of any particular race.


----------



## Nevada

Aintlifegrand said:


> Possibility is not evidence


Sure it is. A possibility is not proof, but showing that the evidence is consistent with the theory is certainly evidence. Where would Zimmerman be today without his theory being possible?


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> My point is that* from a self-defense standpoint it doesn't matter who was on top.*


*It certainly matters to the person on the bottom who can't backup and escape up at that point.* That is covered by Florida's Stand Your Ground law. If hypothetically Martin was on top of Zimmerman which the eye witness reports seem to support,* AND HAD STOPPED BEATING ZIMMERMAN* then I don't see how self defense can be claimed. Once the threat is over in most states you have a duty to back off. In some states you have to retreat in the face of danger. Not Florida.

If Zimmerman's statement that Martin said, "I'm going to kill you." is true, then that sets a different stage.

Regardless of what was said, when Martin continued beating Zimmerman while Zimmerman was lying on the ground, *Martin crossed the line* which IMO justified the shooting. Martin dying after getting shot once, was the luck of the draw.

What you're up against, Nevada is the law. As long as Zimmerman's actions were within the law, he is innocent.* Martin on top of Zimmerman continuing to beat him was not legally acceptable.*

We are supposed to conduct our affairs according to the rule of law in this country, Nevada. Those laws vary from state to state. You seem to have a problem understanding that. *The law is the law.* 

No matter what the media says or you think doesn't matter if it doesn't match the law. Only Florida law or possibly federal law in the case of a hate crime is relevant.

*The big story now is not Martin or Zimmerman, it's the media's role in knowingly altering facts to support an effort to incriminate Zimmerman. That has far more dire implications for this country.*

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/trayvon-martin-case-exposes-worst-media-210020839.html


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thats true... and racism isnt a crime either.


By federal law a racially motivated crime can be much more serious than the underlying crime. Even a minor charge of misdemeanor assault can carry a long prison term if it is prosecuted as a hate crime in federal court.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Sure it is. A possibility is not proof, but showing that the evidence is consistent with the theory is certainly evidence. Where would Zimmerman be today without his theory being possible?


Ok, now which "theory" is this? I wasnt aware that Zimmerman was proposing any theories. He gave statements which are consistent with the existing evidence.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> If hypothetically Martin was on top of Zimmerman which the eye witness reports seem to support,* AND HAD STOPPED BEATING ZIMMERMAN* then I don't see how self defense can be claimed. Once the threat is over in most states you have a duty to back off.


That's exactly what I believe happened. Then Zimmerman shot Martin.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> By federal law a racially motivated crime can be much more serious than the underlying crime. Even a minor charge of misdemeanor assault can carry a long prison term if it is prosecuted as a hate crime in federal court.


Hate takes many forms.... perhaps you can provide a link to a single criminal prosecution based solely on some ones racial attitude.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> That's exactly what I believe happened. Then Zimmerman shot Martin.


Hmmm, and you believe this because of what?


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, now which "theory" is this? I wasnt aware that Zimmerman was proposing any theories. He gave statements which are consistent with the existing evidence.


Zimmerman's self-defense theory.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Hmmm, and you believe this because of what?


For one thing, it's consistent with the evidence.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman's self-defense theory.


I think you are confusing things a bit. Zimmerman made official statements to the officers... the officers compared those statements to the physical evidence.. and other witnesses on the scene... and then the officers formed an opinion (theory if you like) and opted to release Zimmerman because there was NO evidence to the contrary. IE... the officers believed it was self defense. It was their "theory" if it belongs to anyone. Mostly I think they were following the law as it exists in the state of Fl.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> For one thing, it's consistent with the evidence.


Oh, please please enlighten us all with which evidence it is consistent with. The witnesses who claim otherwise? or your psychic intuition perhaps? Maybe it was the screams for help just before the shot was heard?


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> and then the officers formed an opinion (theory if you like) and opted to release Zimmerman because there was NO evidence to the contrary. IE... the officers believed it was self defense.


Actually, that's not what happened and you know it. The lead police detective didn't buy Zimmerman's story. He wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter, but the prosecutor overruled him.

I know that you're aware of that too, since we discussed it earlier in the thread.


----------



## chamoisee

If the kid had been on top he would have bled out all over Zimmerman. Zimmerman's jacket would be dripping with blood. 

But just because I'm curious, let's take color out of this situation entirely. Say you're walking home and some guy is staring at you, following you in a vehicle. This makes you nervous, so you pick up your pace a bit, but he still follows. Then you see him get out of his vehicle and start chasing you! You run. He catches up to you. He has a loaded gun. You have no idea why this man is out to get you, but clearly, he is. What do you do? 

Dollars to doughnuts any of us would try as hard as we could to defend ourselves in this situation. We raise our kids to be aware of creeps following them in cars, trying to get them into cars, etc. We teach them to try to get away from such people at any cost, or to fight them off if that fails. How was this kid supposed to know whether or not this guy was some kind of a pervert intent on kidnapping and raping or killing him??


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> By federal law a racially motivated crime can be much more serious than the underlying crime. Even a minor charge of misdemeanor assault can carry a long prison term if it is prosecuted as a hate crime in federal court.


Don't you just the idea of policing thoughts?


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of self defense. Self defense is what's called an affirmative defense.
> 
> An insanity defense is another example of an affirmative defense, but is perhaps a little easier to understand. The state might prove that you committed a crime, but you could claim that it wasn't your fault because aliens were controlling your mind. While you are allowed to assert that defense, you have the burden of proving that aliens were in fact controlling your mind (or that you were crazy enough to believe that aliens were controlling your mind).
> 
> So in Zimmerman's case, the State of Florida does not have the burden of proving that it was not self-defense. Instead, Zimmerman has the burden of proving that it was. A jury will either buy it or they won't. That's simply how an affirmative defense works.
> 
> 
> 
> Which explains why there has been NO ARREST, based on the evidence
> 
> (*But I don't agree with your LEGAL THEORY about the burden of proof*)
Click to expand...

I got sidetracked after posting that, so I didn't reply sufficiently. But I think it's an important enough point to defend. Here is more information on "affirmative defense".

******
_*Description*

In an affirmative defense, the defendant affirms that the condition is occurring or has occurred but offers a defense that bars, or prevents, the plaintiff's claim. An affirmative defense is known, alternatively, as a justification, or an excuse, defense. Consequently, affirmative defenses limit or excuse a defendant's criminal culpability or civil liability.

A clear illustration of an affirmative defense is self defense. In its simplest form, a criminal defendant may be exonerated if he can demonstrate that he had an honest and reasonable belief that another's use of force was unlawful and that the defendant's conduct was necessary to protect himself.

<snip>

*Burden of Proof*

Because an affirmative defense requires an assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the plaintiff, generally the party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof._
Affirmative defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> That's exactly what I believe happened. Then Zimmerman shot Martin.


The malfunction of the firearm doesn't support that theory. *Note that the firearm did not jam. Instead it did not cycle.* That's a big difference. That argues for extremely close proximity of the two men or a greatly weakened or close to unconscious Zimmerman who limp wristed it when it was fired. That may be the most single important detail in the evidence. It would also explain why Martin was shot only once. Pulling the trigger at that point would have not fired the handgun.

Many defensive handgun courses call for two shots, the double tap, to help ensure the attacker goes down. Instead the evidence points to a struggle between the two men with Zimmerman on his back and defenseless and/or weakened and close to unconsciousness when the firearm was fired.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> By federal law a racially motivated crime can be much more serious than the underlying crime. Even a minor charge of misdemeanor assault can carry a long prison term if it is prosecuted as a hate crime in federal court.


And yet there have been no FEDERAL charges, even though you claim a "racial slur" is "clear" on the tapes


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman's self-defense *theory*.


You keep saying that, but self defense is not a "theory"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Actually, that's not what happened and you know it. The lead police detective didn't buy Zimmerman's story. He wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter,* but the prosecutor overruled him.*
> 
> I know that you're aware of that too, since we discussed it earlier in the thread.


Due to *LACK OF EVIDENCE*, which you are aware of also


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> If the kid had been on top he would have bled out all over Zimmerman. Zimmerman's jacket would be dripping with blood.


Pure speculation

Bleeding is often internal, and mere seconds passed from the shot to the time Zimmerman got up

Read the 911 transcripts agaiin


----------



## ryanthomas

chamoisee said:


> If the kid had been on top he would have bled out all over Zimmerman. Zimmerman's jacket would be dripping with blood.


Not necessarily. I've seen over two hundred gunshot wounds up close and personal, and many do not bleed the way you would expect.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> But just because I'm curious, let's take color out of this situation entirely. Say you're walking home and some guy is staring at you, following you in a vehicle. This makes you nervous, so you pick up your pace a bit, but he still follows. Then you see him get out of his vehicle and start chasing you! *You run. He catches up to you. He has a loaded gun*. You have no idea why this man is out to get you, but clearly, he is. What do you do?


The tapes say Zimmerman lost sight of Martin, and Martin couldn't have known he had a gun

You're speculating again


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I got sidetracked after posting that, so I didn't reply sufficiently. But I think it's an important enough point to defend. Here is more information on "affirmative defense".


_



In its simplest form, a criminal defendant may be exonerated

Click to expand...

_


> *if he can demonstrate that he had an honest and reasonable belief*_ that another's use of force was unlawful and that the defendant's conduct was necessary to protect himself.
> 
> _






> _Because an affirmative defense requires an assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the plaintiff, generally the party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof._


Obviously he proved it well enough that they didn't even arrest him


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> For one thing, it's consistent with the evidence.


Which evidence leads you to believe that Martin stopped beating Zimmerman before he was shot? I can't think of any off the top of my head. Your information about the affirmative defense may be valid. The burden of proof does vary somewhat from state to state, but I don't know about Florida law. But it's possible that Zimmerman may not use self-defense as his legal defense. There seems to be some suggestions from his family that it may have been an accidental shooting in the struggle or something like that. That's where the "wait and see" approach pays off.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> The malfunction of the firearm doesn't support that theory. *Note that the firearm did not jam. Instead it did not cycle.* That's a big difference. That argues for extremely close proximity of the two men or a greatly weakened or close to unconscious Zimmerman who limp wristed it when it was fired. That may be the most single important detail in the evidence. It would also explain why Martin was shot only once. Pulling the trigger at that point would have not fired the handgun.
> 
> Many defensive handgun courses call for two shots, the double tap, to help ensure the attacker goes down. Instead the evidence points to a struggle between the two men with Zimmerman on his back and defenseless and/or weakened and close to unconsciousness when the firearm was fired.


I didn't mention handgun malfunction.


----------



## TheMartianChick

fantasymaker said:


> Well yes handcuffs are pretty arresting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by TheMartianChick
> But in Florida, a simple non-threatening touch might be construed as a threat by the person on the receiving end.
> 
> 
> 
> You contradict yourself.
Click to expand...

Actually... I think that I just wasn't quite as clear as I meant to be. Two people can have an entirely different impression of what a non-threatening touch is. Someone could clap me on the back because I am their friend. That is a pretty non-threatening gesture.

However, that same clap on the back might cause me to take a swing because I didn't realize that someone was right behind me. I might perceive it to be a threat, though the intention was completely inocuous.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I didn't mention handgun malfunction


You also didn't mention any* evidence* that Martin had stopped beating Zimmerman
All you have is theories that don't FIT the *actual* evidence


----------



## Nevada

ryanthomas said:


> Which evidence leads you to believe that Martin stopped beating Zimmerman before he was shot? I can't think of any off the top of my head.


Zimmerman was not blood-splattered from the gunshot. I suspect he shot from a standing position.



ryanthomas said:


> But it's possible that Zimmerman may not use self-defense as his legal defense. There seems to be some suggestions from his family that it may have been an accidental shooting in the struggle or something like that.


I don't think claiming the shooting was accidental would be wise at this point. It would give the appearance of changing the story to save his neck. Zimmerman's people have too much already invested in the self-defense theory to get away with changing his story at this late stage of the drama.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *Zimmerman was not blood-splattered* from the gunshot. I suspect he shot from a standing position.


Spatter could have been contained by the multiple layers of clothing.
You wouldn't have SEEN it even if it was there, and there have been no reports to confirm it's presence or absence.

Once more, you are MAKING it up as you go


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman was not blood-splattered from the gunshot. I suspect he shot from a standing position.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think claiming the shooting was accidental would be wise at this point. It would give the appearance of changing the story to save his neck. Zimmerman's people have too much already invested in the self-defense theory to get away with changing his story at this late stage of the drama.


How do we know what Zimmerman has invested in the self-defense "theory"? We haven't heard him speak, and I'm sure we won't until after the legal proceedings. All those speaking for him have been intentionally vague with details and the police have not released everything he said to them.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> 
> By federal law a racially motivated crime can be much more serious than the underlying crime. Even a minor charge of misdemeanor assault can carry a long prison term if it is prosecuted as a hate crime in federal court.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet there have been no FEDERAL charges, even though you claim a "racial slur" is "clear" on the tapes
Click to expand...

Current news headline at MSNBC.

FBI questions people in Trayvon Martin case, begins 'parallel investigation'

The FBI evidently sees enough probable cause to open a civil rights investigation.


----------



## ryanthomas

They don't need probable cause to open an investigation. All they need is an order from their boss.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Actually, that's not what happened and you know it. The lead police detective didn't buy Zimmerman's story. He wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter, but the prosecutor overruled him.
> 
> I know that you're aware of that too, since we discussed it earlier in the thread.


You are probably about as aware of what went on that night as you are as to what "we" supposedly discussed earlier in this thread. I came in a bit late.... somewhere in the 11hundred post range. My apologies for not having read each and every post between the first couple pages and the point that I entered the discussion. I was not, and still am not aware of any evidence that the police wanted to charge Zimmerman. That detail has been somewhat absent in the news.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Current news headline at MSNBC.
> 
> FBI questions people in Trayvon Martin case, begins 'parallel investigation'
> 
> The FBI evidently sees enough probable cause to open a civil rights investigation.


ok, I found what you were referring to.... skimpy, and from the same news outfit that blatantly edited one of the tapes to make it "appear" racist. :shrug:


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman was not blood-splattered from the gunshot. I suspect he shot from a standing position.


And we acquire this tidbit of evidence from what source? Your speculations are overwhelming based on what little information has actually surfaced. Just because there have been no headlines proclaiming blood spatter does not mean diddly squat.... I feel pretty comfortable that a lot of the details that the police have on file have not yet been released to the public.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You are probably about as aware of what went on that night as you are as to what "we" supposedly discussed earlier in this thread. I came in a bit late.... somewhere in the 11hundred post range. My apologies for not having read each and every post between the first couple pages and the point that I entered the discussion. I was not, and still am not aware of any evidence that the police wanted to charge Zimmerman. That detail has been somewhat absent in the news.


Then take a look at this.

******
_Sanford, Fla. - Chris Serino, the lead homicide detective with the Sanford Police Department, wanted George Zimmerman arrested and charged for killing Florida teen Trayvon Martin, the night of the tragic incident.

According to ABC News, Serino &#8220;expressed doubt&#8221; regarding Zimmerman's explanation regarding the shooting and his self-defense claim. Thus, the investigator wanted Zimmerman arrested and charged with manslaughter, but the office of the Florida State Attorney's Office disagreed, says the report.

In addition, the Miami Herald said police applied to obtain a warrant for Zimmerman's arrest, describing Trayvon's shooting as &#8220;homicide/negligent manslaughter.&#8221;_
Homicide detective wanted Zimmerman charged in Trayvon Martin killing - National Crime | Examiner.com
******

Knowing that, there is no way you can claim that the Sanford police believed Zimmerman's story. I don't know what the prosecutor's motive to not bring charges were, since he hasn't spoken on the issue.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> After reading this article thoroughly... twice... I can find no mention of a civil rights investigation. Where am I not looking?


You have evidently followed the wrong link. The article I linked to was all about racial profiling and civil rights.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Knowing that, there is no way you can claim that the Sanford police believed Zimmerman's story. I don't know what the prosecutor's motive to not bring charges were, since he hasn't spoken on the issue.


The EVIDENCE overrules "doubt", and the prosecutors MOTIVE was to follow the law, which says there can be no arrest when there is not enough evidence

Detective always want someone charged.
It makes their arrest record look better


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> You have evidently followed the wrong link. The article I linked to was all about racial profiling and civil rights.


I followed the link you posted.... not much there about civil rights.... only that their opening of a parallel investigation "confirms" NBC's opinion that they are looking into civil rights violations.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Then take a look at this.
> 
> ******
> _Sanford, Fla. - Chris Serino, the lead homicide detective with the Sanford Police Department, wanted George Zimmerman arrested and charged for killing Florida teen Trayvon Martin, the night of the tragic incident.
> 
> According to ABC News, Serino âexpressed doubtâ regarding Zimmerman's explanation regarding the shooting and his self-defense claim. Thus, the investigator wanted Zimmerman arrested and charged with manslaughter, but the office of the Florida State Attorney's Office disagreed, says the report.
> 
> In addition, the Miami Herald said police applied to obtain a warrant for Zimmerman's arrest, describing Trayvon's shooting as âhomicide/negligent manslaughter.â_
> Homicide detective wanted Zimmerman charged in Trayvon Martin killing - National Crime | Examiner.com
> ******
> 
> Knowing that, there is no way you can claim that the Sanford police believed Zimmerman's story. I don't know what the prosecutor's motive to not bring charges were, since he hasn't spoken on the issue.


Ok I read it... not sure I put much credibility in it as a news source, although it would explain some of your arguments here.... they are also very biased and a lot of opinion presented as "fact".


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> The EVIDENCE overrules "doubt", and the prosecutors MOTIVE was to follow the law, which says there can be no arrest when there is not enough evidence
> 
> Detective always want someone charged.
> It makes their arrest record look better


I didn't expect you to believe it. But you can scratch one more claim off the list, since the police were obviously not buying Zimmerman's story.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> I didn't mention handgun malfunction.


*That is correct, you didn't mention the handgun malfunction. That is why I explained it to show the problems with some of your beliefs.* As I said. the handgun malfunction may be the most important piece of evidence to backup Zimmerman's account of what happened. Your theorizing ignores the handgun malfunction.

The presence of powder residue on either Martin's hands or clothing will also indicate how close the two were when the gun was fired. The bullet trajectory will also help verify what happened.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> I didn't expect you to believe it. But you can scratch one more claim off the list, since the police were obviously not buying Zimmerman's story.


Thats a pretty big claim in itself.... its one journalists "opinion" so far. I would love to hear some direct quotes from the officers themselves.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> I didn't expect you to believe it. But you can scratch one more claim off the list, *since the police were obviously not buying Zimmerman's story.*


How do you explain the police releasing Zimmerman after they questioned him for several hours if they didn't believe him?


----------



## Evons hubby

Darren said:


> *That is correct, you didn't mention the handgun malfunction. That is why I explained it to show the problems with some of your beliefs.* As I said. the handgun malfunction may be the most important piece of evidence to backup Zimmerman's account of what happened. Your theorizing ignores the handgun malfunction.
> 
> The presence of powder residue on either Martin's hands or clothing will also indicate how close the two were when the gun was fired. The bullet trajectory will also help verify what happened.


This is also something that I have rattling around in my head... I have heard nothing about where Martin was shot... physically... in the back? stomach? face? :shrug: Lotta details missing to be forming any logical conclusions at this point.


----------



## Guest

Darren said:


> How do you explain the police releasing Zimmerman after they questioned him for several hours if they didn't believe him?


Happens often, when collection of evidence takes more time than detention is allowed by law or procedures. If the preliminary evidence was presented to a prosecutor and it was determined by that person, that probable cause was lacking they would be released until further evidence is gathered.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> *That is correct, you didn't mention the handgun malfunction. That is why I explained it to show the problems with some of your beliefs.* As I said. the handgun malfunction may be the most important piece of evidence to backup Zimmerman's account of what happened. Your theorizing ignores the handgun malfunction.


It could be a lot of hooey. I used to have a small caliber semi-automatic that failed to automatically chamber a new shell all the time. The guy at the gun store told me to expect it to work well immediately after cleaning & oiling the mechanism, but that it was going to be inherently unreliable due to having a light recoil.

I wasn't surprised in the least when I heard a new round wasn't chambered automatically in Zimmerman's 9mm.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> It could be a lot of hooey. I used to have a small caliber semi-automatic that failed to automatically chamber a new shell all the time. The guy at the gun store told me to expect it to work well immediately after cleaning & oiling the mechanism, but that it was going to be inherently unreliable due to having a light recoil.
> 
> I wasn't surprised in the least when I heard a new round wasn't chambered automatically in Zimmerman's 9mm.


I was surprised since it was a Kel-Tec. I don't buy the reliability excuse. Even Massad Ayoob, an expert, thinks the gun was prevented from cycling. He didn't include reliability as a reason.

"The death weapon was a Kel-Tec PF9 semiautomatic 9mm pistol. It has been reported that the gun was recovered with a full magazine and that only the chambered round had been fired. This is a condition we associate with something preventing the gun from cycling a fresh round from the magazine into the chamber after the shot was discharged. One thing that can cause that is another manâs hand wrapped around the pistol, retarding its slide mechanism. This would indicate, as could certain gunshot residue patterns or cuts in certain places if found on Trayvon Martinâs hand(s), that a struggle for a gun was taking place when the fatal shot was fired. This would clearly change the shape of the case. But â WE DONâT KNOW YET."

Massad Ayoob Â» Blog Archive Â» GEORGE ZIMMERMAN AND TRAYVON MARTIN: WHAT WE DON


----------



## Darren

dlmcafee said:


> Happens often, when collection of evidence takes more time than detention is allowed by law or procedures. If the preliminary evidence was presented to a prosecutor and it was determined by that person, that probable cause was lacking they would be released until further evidence is gathered.


I understand. Now that a month has passed, you'd think they would have found something to justifying arresting Zimmerman and requiring bail if he wants to remain free before a trial. What's keeping Zimmerman from leaving the country?

By now they should have the autopsy results and possibly some other test reports. Martin has already been buried.


----------



## Darren

Yvonne's hubby said:


> This is also something that I have rattling around in my head... I have heard nothing about where Martin was shot... physically... in the back? stomach? face? :shrug: Lotta details missing to be forming any logical conclusions at this point.


One shot to the chest.


----------



## Evons hubby

Darren said:


> One shot to the chest.


Thanks, that tells me that at least he wasnt running away.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> As I said it's not enough to charge him, but the evidence nevertheless supports the possibility of racism.


My long time friend David Oakleaf, 74, 5'7", 145lbs, was killed in a walmart store in Lakewood California by a 6'6" black man. Dave was hit in the head multiple times with an aluminium baseball bat that the murderer pick up in the sporting goods isle. He went hunting for someone to kill, and kill someone is what he did. He picked an elderly white man, he could have choosen from many black folks, but he chose 74 year old Dave. When the brutal murder was over, the murderer went outside and waited for police. He was arrested, but even though witnesses said the killer used racial slurs while he was killing Dave, the police didn't add the witness accounts to the police report, and the media excluded the fact too. We were told this at the funeral by 2 witnesses that came to express their condolences to Dave's family. Where was outrage from Sharpton, Jackson, and Obama then?

Do you think that this may have been racially motivated? Lakewood is predominatly black, yet the killer chose an elderly white man!

Sheriff: Walmart Killing Most Brutal We&#8217;ve Seen Â« CBS Los Angeles

"Sheriff&#8217;s investigators Wednesday reviewed store security video. They say shortly before 5 p.m. Tuesday a male shopper was beaten to death in the sporting goods section by a man with a baseball bat.

The victim was 74-year-old Dave Oakleaf, of Long Beach.

Investigators call the attack one of the most brutal killings they&#8217;ve seen."


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> I didn't expect you to believe it. But you can scratch one more claim off the list, since *the police* were obviously not buying Zimmerman's story.


One cop is not "the police"
Enough bought it that he wasn't charged with anything


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Yvonne's hubby said:


> This is also something that I have rattling around in my head... I have heard nothing about where Martin was shot... physically... in the back? stomach? face? :shrug: Lotta details missing to be forming any logical conclusions at this point.


He was shot "in the chest"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by *Nevada*
> _As I said it's not enough to charge him, but the *evidence nevertheless supports the possibility of racism.*_


You keep repeating that, and yet you can't show *any* evidence to back it up.
All you have is some *indecipherable* sounds on an audio tape


----------



## chamoisee

JeffreyD said:


> My long time friend David Oakleaf, 74, 5'7", 145lbs, was killed in a walmart store in Lakewood California by a 6'6" black man.
> Do you think that this may have been racially motivated? Lakewood is predominantly black, yet the killer chose an elderly white man!


Definitely a hate crime and should be prosecuted as such. 

I am so sorry about your friend, that is horrible.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

*Biometric voice analysis* doesn't meet Federal standards to be admissable as evidence:

Voice Biometrics Conference Convenes in NY - TalkLeft: The Politics Of Crime


> The first agreement was on the meaning of the phrase - âinvestigatory voice biometricsâ. The first word of this phrase, âinvestigatoryâ, was taken to encompass *the use of speaker recognition technology in criminal and intelligence investigations and analysis*.
> 
> 
> In US Federal Courts, the admissibility of scientific evidence is determined by the presiding judge, who is guided by Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) 104 [2] and 702 [3], among others. FRE 702 notes the Daubert Criteria, which states *the following factors must be met*: the technique has been tested and subjected to peer review and publication; *has a known error rate and standards controlling its use*; is generally accepted in the scientific community [4].
> 
> 
> The Symposium committee members believe that *automatic speaker recognition technology has not yet reached the maturity to satisfy the Daubert Criteria..*.Future research and evaluation are needed to advance speaker recognition technology to satisfy scientific-evidence admissibility requirements for the US Federal Courts​





> In addition, there is a common consensus about the *uncertainty of the error rates of the speaker recognition performance when operating under variations due to the speaker (e.g., stress) and variations not due to the speaker (e.g., channel distortion).*





> Currently automated comparison is* performed in criminal cases solely for research purposes* and only if the evidence is deemed sufficient for such an examination.


 


> On his own website, Primeau cautions that his opinion is not for legal purposes.
> As an audio forensic expert I want to make clear that this is not formal voice identification and not meant for legal purposes​


​


----------



## haypoint

If the story would have been released with the facts that were known at the time, I think some folks would have seen it for what it is. Instead we get 4 year old school photos.
Martin was 6&#8217; 3&#8221; tall, 170 pounds, walking along the back of the Townhouses (next to the houses, not on the sidewalk) in the rain at night. Any good Neighborhood Watch Volunteer would see that as suspect and call the police. It is not Black profiling. 
Zimmerman&#8217;s Dad says that his son explained what happened. After he called 911, he walked to the front of the Townhouses to get an address and on the way back, Martin assaulted him. 

Let&#8217;s imagine it didn&#8217;t go down like that. Let&#8217;s pretend (no facts to support) that Zimmerman approached Martin (against the suggestion of the 911 operator) and questioned him. Let&#8217;s go so far as to say Zimmerman called him a &#8220;N&#8221; (not likely because Zimmerman and his wife do tutoring/mentoring Black youth). Martin, who goes by the name No Limit Nig** on his Twitter account, punched this 5&#8217;9&#8221; overweight Zimmerman. Possible that he knocked Zimmerman down? Yup. In Florida, is it legal and just to shoot a person that punches you to the ground? Yup.

The outrageous thing is that we have dozens of Black people, men women and children killed every week and no one speaks out, because they are killed by young Black men. Is it that the Politically Correct media is too intimidated to call out this hypocrisy? 


You can believe that this 17 year old, 6'3" man that was recently caught at school with jewelry and burglary tools went out in the rain to get his brother Skittles? You can believe that he was walking close to those houses, in the dark and only a murderous racist would profile Martin as a suspicious person?


----------



## TheMartianChick

haypoint said:


> Letâs imagine it didnât go down like that. Letâs pretend (no facts to support) that Zimmerman approached Martin (against the suggestion of the 911 operator) and questioned him. Letâs go so far as to say Zimmerman called him a âNâ (not likely because Zimmerman and his wife do tutoring/mentoring Black youth).* Martin, who goes by the name No Limit Nig** on his Twitter account*, punched this 5â9â overweight Zimmerman. Possible that he knocked Zimmerman down? Yup. In Florida, is it legal and just to shoot a person that punches you to the ground? Yup.


That Twitter account does not belong to Trayvon Martin. Twitter and the family have confirmed it.


----------



## Darren

The fed's problem is Zimmerman's history of working with and helping Blacks especially the homeless man who was beat up by the son of a Sandford policeman. It doesn't take much research to find out that Zimmerman doesn't have a racist bone in his body. The real outrage should be directed towards the media which has tried to instigate a modern day atrocity. Add in Sharpton and the new improved Black Panthers and you have the beginnings of a much wider conflict.

People are already buying guns at rates so great one manufacturer, Ruger, had to suspend taking orders. Blacks howling for an innocent man's blood, and that is how it will be perceived, will not help the Black cause in this country. What you're seeing is mob action being encouraged.

Fortunately the state attorney in Florida knows how to do their job. That is exactly why they have not arrested Zimmerman. If they act prematurely without enough evidence to satisfy a judge, they risk the case being dismissed. Then Zimmerman is free unless the feds can find evidence of a hate crime. At this point, that is doubtful. 

*The responses to this incident on HT provide a case study in prejudice.* I've mentioned this on HT before. *Predjudice is a natural human trait.* People showcase their predjudice by the comments that indicate disregard for some facts and over emphasis of others.

Even the use of the word stalking can be considered predjudicial. Generally a stalker is fixated on a person. The most common example is someone who is fixated on some Hollywood celebrity. The other use can be considered when hunting if the hunter actively searches for prey, finds something and then closes in for the kill.

Using stalking to describe Zimmerman's actions that night is highly predjudicial since it has the connotation of hunting. Do we apply the term stalking to police that find and question people?


----------



## Darren

TheMartianChick said:


> That Twitter account does not belong to Trayvon Martin. Twitter and the family have confirmed it.


There were two or possibly three accounts involved including the one not associated with Martin. I found it interesting that Martin's nickname showed up in the the feed and the self proclaimed change he made. Some of the other names mentioned make it easy to track the owner.

The picture associated with one of the accounts may or may not be proof. Is the dental work definitive? The other issue is the tattoo showing the name Sybrina. Sybrina Fulton is the name of Martin's mother. Supposedly some of the same pictures were on Martin's Facebook account.

I can understand the parent's desire to project a wholesome viewpoint of their son. The truth is probably different. Not as bad as some think, but certainly not a choirboy either. Because of the internet, some of Martin's social media conversations are now public. Zimmerman did not encounter a choirboy that night. Until fate brought them togther, Zimmerman had no understanding of the young man's attitudes or previous issues at school.


----------



## Hollowdweller

I think here is where it gets confusing:



> She says Martin told her, "I think this dude is following me," thought heâd lost Zimmerman, and then said, "He is right behind me again. I'm not going to run, I'm going to walk fast." The girlfriend claims she next heard another voice say, âWhat are you doing around here?â to which Martin answered, âWhy are you following me?" She then heard Martin get pushed and sounds as if his phone was hitting the ground.


Florida&rsquo;s Stand Your Ground law doesn&rsquo;t prohibit that they arrest George Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin. - Slate Magazine


Then you have Zimmerman saying he actually was going back to his car and the kid comes up to him and says the thing about "you got a problem" "you do now"

So it's like you got 2 difft accounts there.


----------



## Darren

Zimmerman didn't get back to his car. The altercation started in the backyard behind the houses.


----------



## haypoint

TheMartianChick said:


> That Twitter account does not belong to Trayvon Martin. Twitter and the family have confirmed it.


OK. Let's leave that out. How about the rest of what i wrote? Does the lack of a angry black man's twitter account change any of the rest?


----------



## haypoint

Hollowdweller said:


> I think here is where it gets confusing:
> 
> 
> 
> Florida&rsquo;s Stand Your Ground law doesn&rsquo;t prohibit that they arrest George Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin. - Slate Magazine
> 
> 
> Then you have Zimmerman saying he actually was going back to his car and the kid comes up to him and says the thing about "you got a problem" "you do now"
> 
> So it's like you got 2 difft accounts there.


Does the sound of Martin getting shoved sound different from a Mexican getting shoved?

âWhat are you doing around here?â, âWhy are you following me?" "you got a problem" "you do now".

Any of these comments are legal, sort of typical confrontational guy talk. 

Who shoved who first? A 5â9â jelly roll or a 6â3â 17 year old with a history of anger issues? I guess weâll never know. The only story we have to go on is the Neighborhood Watch guyâs version.

If Martin had the gun, it would just be another unsolved murder and Jessie and Al could have stayed home.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> She says Martin told her, "I think this dude is following me," thought he&#8217;d lost Zimmerman, and then said, "He is right behind me again. I'm not going to run, I'm going to walk fast." The girlfriend *claims she next heard another voice say, &#8220;What are you doing around here?*&#8221; to which Martin answered, &#8220;Why are you following me?" She then heard Martin get pushed and sounds as if his phone was hitting the ground.


 
In the original version, she said MARTIN spoke first
She's* changing her story* to make it sound better for Martin:

http://globalgrind.com/news/trayvon-martins-girlfriend-speaks-out-details



> Phone records have shown that DeeDee called Trayvon at 7:12 p.m., five minutes before police arrived, and remained on the phone with Martin until moments before he was shot.
> 
> DeeDee said *Martin turned around and asked Zimmerman why he was following him*. "The man said what are you doing around here?" DeeDee recalled Zimmerman saying.


----------



## Sonshine

haypoint said:


> Does the sound of Martin getting shoved sound different from a Mexican getting shoved?
> 
> âWhat are you doing around here?â, âWhy are you following me?" "you got a problem" "you do now".
> 
> Any of these comments are legal, sort of typical confrontational guy talk.
> 
> Who shoved who first? A 5â9â jelly roll or a 6â3â 17 year old with a history of anger issues? I guess weâll never know. The only story we have to go on is the Neighborhood Watch guyâs version.
> 
> If Martin had the gun, it would just be another unsolved murder and Jessie and Al could have stayed home.


The thing is, both of these guys had anger issues and run ins with the law. This is why I believe it's important to take it to the grand jury with all the evidence and see what happens. None of us here on HT knows all the evidence. Yet everyone is arguing about this that or the other, when I think we're all really wanting the same thing, the truth and the end of it being tried in the media.


----------



## Darren

Sonshine said:


> The thing is, both of these guys had anger issues and run ins with the law. This is why I believe it's important to take it to the grand jury with all the evidence and see what happens. None of us here on HT knows all the evidence. Yet everyone is arguing about this that or the other, when I think we're all really wanting the same thing, the truth and the end of it being tried in the media.


We have a far greater issue which is the media's distortion of the story. The fallout will be the others who die later because their beliefs are being reinforced because of their innate predjudice.

As far as anger issues, I haven't seen evidence of that. Of course I don't consider attitude to be anger.


----------



## haypoint

A 6'4" man, walking next to the back of some homes in an area fighting crime, with a hood covering his idenity must never be asked, "Hey, what are you doing around here?"

Anyone seen creeping around behind houses should be ignored. That shadowy figure is likely just a boy getting Skittles for his brother.

Let's go with this version: Martin, walking next to the back of a group of Condos, in the dark, sees a guy get out of his car and use his cell phone. Then he loses sight of the guy. DeeDee calls, Martin says a guy is following him. DeeDee says "Run, Martin, run!" But Martin says he'll just walk fast. zimmerman stepped out in front of the Condos to get an address for 911 Operator. Then Zimmerman heads back to his car, behind the Condos. Martin, sees Zimmerman and asks, "why you following me?" Zimmerman replies, " What are you doing around here?"

Then we don't know if 5'9" Zimmerman, armed with a semi-automatic pistol shoved Martin, or while DeeDee listened on, 6'3" Martin shoved/slugged Zimmerman.

Anyone can speculate anything. Ever see how 17 year old boys/men act in confrontations while their girlfriends are watching/listening? Hint; they very, very seldom back down. They show their perceived manhood by being aggressive. 

IF Zimmerman had gone directly back to his car he wouldn't have been attacked. If Martin had stayed on the sidewalk, he wouldn't have looked so suspicous. If Martin wasn't 17, he might have understood how the rest of the world looks at people creeping around next to someone's house at night. If the world had less racism, Martin wouldn't have assumed that he was being picked on for being black, so his communication with Zimmerman wouldn't have escalated so quickly. If Zimmerman had pulled his pistol before Martin got close, maybe Martin wouldn't have attacked Zimmerman. If 70% of FL violent crime wasn't done by young black men, perhaps, Zimmerman wouldn't have been as suspicous when Martin approached him.

If the Black community spent as much time and effort addressing the run away Black on Black violent crime in their own communities as they have publicly convicting Zimmerman, they could be a help to society as a whole.


----------



## Evons hubby

haypoint said:


> A 6'4" man, walking next to the back of some homes in an area fighting crime, with a hood covering his idenity must never be asked, "Hey, what are you doing around here?"
> 
> Anyone seen creeping around behind houses should be ignored. That shadowy figure is likely just a boy getting Skittles for his brother.
> 
> Let's go with this version: Martin, walking next to the back of a group of Condos, in the dark, sees a guy get out of his car and use his cell phone. Then he loses sight of the guy. DeeDee calls, Martin says a guy is following him. DeeDee says "Run, Martin, run!" But Martin says he'll just walk fast. zimmerman stepped out in front of the Condos to get an address for 911 Operator. Then Zimmerman heads back to his car, behind the Condos. Martin, sees Zimmerman and asks, "why you following me?" Zimmerman replies, " What are you doing around here?"
> 
> Then we don't know if 5'9" Zimmerman, armed with a semi-automatic pistol shoved Martin, or while DeeDee listened on, 6'3" Martin shoved/slugged Zimmerman.
> 
> Anyone can speculate anything. Ever see how 17 year old boys/men act in confrontations while their girlfriends are watching/listening? Hint; they very, very seldom back down. They show their perceived manhood by being aggressive.
> 
> IF Zimmerman had gone directly back to his car he wouldn't have been attacked. If Martin had stayed on the sidewalk, he wouldn't have looked so suspicous. If Martin wasn't 17, he might have understood how the rest of the world looks at people creeping around next to someone's house at night. If the world had less racism, Martin wouldn't have assumed that he was being picked on for being black, so his communication with Zimmerman wouldn't have escalated so quickly. If Zimmerman had pulled his pistol before Martin got close, maybe Martin wouldn't have attacked Zimmerman. If 70% of FL violent crime wasn't done by young black men, perhaps, Zimmerman wouldn't have been as suspicous when Martin approached him.
> 
> If the Black community spent as much time and effort addressing the run away Black on Black violent crime in their own communities as they have publicly convicting Zimmerman, they could be a help to society as a whole.


Very well said. I have only one small detail to add.. "Martin may well be alive today had he not taken skittles to a gunfight."


----------



## Nevada

haypoint said:


> A 6'4" man, walking next to the back of some homes in an area fighting crime, with a hood covering his idenity must never be asked, *"Hey, what are you doing around here?"*
> 
> Anyone seen creeping around behind houses should be ignored. That shadowy figure is likely just a boy getting Skittles for his brother.
> 
> Let's go with this version: Martin, walking next to the back of a group of Condos, in the dark, sees a guy get out of his car and use his cell phone. Then he loses sight of the guy. DeeDee calls, Martin says a guy is following him. DeeDee says "Run, Martin, run!" But Martin says he'll just walk fast. zimmerman stepped out in front of the Condos to get an address for 911 Operator. Then Zimmerman heads back to his car, behind the Condos. *Martin, sees Zimmerman and asks, "why you following me?" Zimmerman replies, " What are you doing around here?"*


Neither of those examples describe Zimmerman's account. Zimmerman claims that he DID NOT ask Martin what he was doing there (that claim was made by Martin's girlfriend). Zimmerman alleges the following exchange:

Martin: Do you have a problem?
Zimmerman: No.
Martin: Well you do now. [Martin attacks Zimmerman at this point]

If Zimmerman is changing his story we need to know that.


----------



## Darren

haypoint said:


> OK. Let's leave that out. How about the rest of what i wrote? Does the lack of a angry black man's twitter account change any of the rest?


One or more of the accounts belonged to Martin. The picture of the tatoo and the other pictures that match his Facebook account are proof.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> Neither of those examples describe Zimmerman's account. Zimmerman claims that he DID NOT ask Martin what he was doing there (that claim was made by Martin's girlfriend). Zimmerman alleges the following exchange:
> 
> *Martin: Do you have a problem?
> Zimmerman: No.
> Martin: Well you do now. [Martin attacks Zimmerman at this point]*
> 
> If Zimmerman is changing his story we need to know that.


Where did those words come from come from? Is that from the another police report? Or is that more media "interpretation"?


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> Where did those words come from come from? Is that from the another police report? Or is that more media "interpretation"?


Where did you get your account? Mine was from the Orlando Sentinel.

_Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose, according to the account he gave police._
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com..._1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager

I'm not aware of anyone refuting that account.

So what reference do you rely upon for Zimmerman asking Martin what he was doing there? You must have gotten it from someplace.


----------



## Sonshine

Darren said:


> We have a far greater issue which is the media's distortion of the story. The fallout will be the others who die later because their beliefs are being reinforced because of their innate predjudice.
> 
> As far as anger issues, I haven't seen evidence of that. Of course I don't consider attitude to be anger.


There is a history in the past in both of these men's lives. Even though Zimmerman was not convicted, he has a few charges of anger issues in domestic violence and even violence against law enforcement while resisting arrest. Just because the charges were later dropped, doesn't mean he doesn't have issues with anger.


----------



## Sonshine

haypoint said:


> A 6'4" man, walking next to the back of some homes in an area fighting crime, with a hood covering his idenity must never be asked, "Hey, what are you doing around here?"
> 
> Anyone seen creeping around behind houses should be ignored. That shadowy figure is likely just a boy getting Skittles for his brother.
> 
> Let's go with this version: Martin, walking next to the back of a group of Condos, in the dark, sees a guy get out of his car and use his cell phone. Then he loses sight of the guy. DeeDee calls, Martin says a guy is following him. DeeDee says "Run, Martin, run!" But Martin says he'll just walk fast. zimmerman stepped out in front of the Condos to get an address for 911 Operator. Then Zimmerman heads back to his car, behind the Condos. Martin, sees Zimmerman and asks, "why you following me?" Zimmerman replies, " What are you doing around here?"
> 
> Then we don't know if 5'9" Zimmerman, armed with a semi-automatic pistol shoved Martin, or while DeeDee listened on, 6'3" Martin shoved/slugged Zimmerman.
> 
> Anyone can speculate anything. Ever see how 17 year old boys/men act in confrontations while their girlfriends are watching/listening? Hint; they very, very seldom back down. They show their perceived manhood by being aggressive.
> 
> IF Zimmerman had gone directly back to his car he wouldn't have been attacked. If Martin had stayed on the sidewalk, he wouldn't have looked so suspicous. If Martin wasn't 17, he might have understood how the rest of the world looks at people creeping around next to someone's house at night. If the world had less racism, Martin wouldn't have assumed that he was being picked on for being black, so his communication with Zimmerman wouldn't have escalated so quickly. If Zimmerman had pulled his pistol before Martin got close, maybe Martin wouldn't have attacked Zimmerman. If 70% of FL violent crime wasn't done by young black men, perhaps, Zimmerman wouldn't have been as suspicous when Martin approached him.
> 
> If the Black community spent as much time and effort addressing the run away Black on Black violent crime in their own communities as they have publicly convicting Zimmerman, they could be a help to society as a whole.


The sidewalks were behind the condos.


----------



## Darren

Sonshine said:


> There is a history in the past in both of these men's lives. Even though Zimmerman was not convicted, he has a few charges of anger issues in domestic violence and even violence against law enforcement while resisting arrest. Just because the charges were later dropped, doesn't mean he doesn't have issues with anger.


I don't see that as definitive proof that Zimmerman had anger issues. Normally people are referred to counseling. There was no information Zimmerman went through a class.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> I don't see that as definitive proof that Zimmerman had anger issues. Normally people are referred to counseling. There was no information Zimmerman went through a class.


He went through an alcohol abuse class, but I'm not aware of him attending an anger management class.


----------



## Evons hubby

Listening to the tape of his call in to report a suspicious person... I did not detect anger in his voice. He seemed quite calm and collected while that call was being made. Also one might note that he actually called the police... he did NOT just take matters into his own hands.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> He went through an alcohol abuse class, but I'm not aware of him attending an anger management class.


Why would he be sent to an anger management class? The charges of his resisting arrest were dropped. As I read that story he had pushed a plain clothes detective... before the detective identified himself... but calmed right down when he found out who it was.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Listening to the tape of his call in to report a suspicious person... I did not detect anger in his voice. He seemed quite calm and collected while that call was being made. Also one might note that he actually called the police... he did NOT just take matters into his own hands.


Oh, I don't believe that Zimmerman would have just walked up to Martin and shot him. I believe that Zimmerman became enraged during the scuffle, since a black kid had the audacity to strike him.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> Where did you get your account? Mine was from the Orlando Sentinel.
> 
> _Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose, according to the account he gave police._
> Trayvon Martin: George Zimmerman's account to police of the Trayvon Martin shooting. - Orlando Sentinel
> 
> I'm not aware of anyone refuting that account.
> 
> So what reference do you rely upon for Zimmerman asking Martin what he was doing there? You mush have gotten it from someplace.


All we have to go on is Martin's girfriend's account of their telephone conversation and most recently a leaked account of Zimmerman's statement to the police which I just found. If Martin had gone for Zimmerman's handgun, it would explain why the Kel Tec did not cycle. 

Now we know that, at least according to Zimmerman, there was a struggle for the gun. I find it odd that the two men ended up in close proximity to each other. I generally don't get that close to someone I don't know under strange circumstances. 

Perhaps Zimmerman did lose sight of Martin as mentioned on the 911 tape only to have him show up much closer from behind. Zimmerman would have had to turn around and leave the area to return to his vehicle.

"George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch crime captain who shot dead 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, originally told police in a written statement that Martin knocked him down with a punch to the nose, repeatedly slammed his head on the ground and tried to take his gun, a police source told ABC News."

George Zimmerman Says Trayvon Martin Went For His Gun After Attacking Him; Martin Was Suspended For Possession of Marijuana and for Graffiti | TheBlaze.com


----------



## copperkid3

Bearfootfarm said:


> In the original version, she said MARTIN spoke first
> *She's changing her story to make it sound better for Martin:*
> 
> Trayvon Martin's Girlfriend Speaks Out! (DETAILS) | Global Grind


******************************************************
or the lamestream media is *STILL *playing free and easy with the 'truth'......


Whatever stokes the flames a little bit higher.....


----------



## copperkid3

Nevada said:


> Oh, I don't believe that Zimmerman would have just walked up to Martin and shot him.
> *I believe that Zimmerman became enraged during the scuffle, since a black kid had the audacity to strike him*.


*************************************************
racist beliefs rearing their ugly little heads.......
how _*VERY *_sweet of you to 'project' them onto Mr. Zimmerman. 
And without *EVEN* asking for his permission to do so.....

I'm sure he appreciates all that you've done for him.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> Oh, I don't believe that Zimmerman would have just walked up to Martin and shot him. *I believe that Zimmerman became enraged during the scuffle, since a black kid had the audacity to strike him.*


*Are you saying Martin knocked Zimmerman down just because he was following him?* That's one interpretation of what happened. But he also set himself up for Zimmerman justifiably acting in self defense when he continued beating Zimmerman as reported by a witness.

All Martin had to do was explain why he was in the neighborhood and lead Zimmerman to where he was staying. Everything would have been fine.


----------



## Evons hubby

Darren said:


> *Are you saying Martin knocked Zimmerman down just because he was following him?* That's one interpretation of what happened. But he also set himself up for Zimmerman justifiably acting in self defense when he continued beating Zimmerman as reported by a witness.
> 
> All Martin had to do was explain why he was in the neighborhood and lead Zimmerman to where he was staying. Everything would have been fine.


Bingo and even Nevada says this is what he thinks happened. Turn the guy loose and quit playing Sharptons race baiting game.


----------



## Darren

copperkid3 said:


> *************************************************
> racist beliefs rearing their ugly little heads.......
> how _*VERY *_sweet of you to 'project' them onto Mr. Zimmerman.
> And without *EVEN* asking for his permission to do so.....
> 
> I'm sure he appreciates all that you've done for him.


It never occurred to me that Zimmerman would have become enraged at a Black kid especailly given the cries for help. No one said anything about anger on the tapes.

It's very obvious now that some here have not looked into Zimmerman's background beyond what they could misinterpret to support their conclusions. We've regressed to an eye for an eye. 

Let's just hang the "white" guy and pay tribute to the choir boy who somehow ended up on top of the white guy who wouldn't let Martin stand up and get away. Zimmerman's injuries were obviously self-inflicted in the short interval between when he murdered Martin and the police arrived.

Fortunately for Zimmerman there's a lot of inconvenient facts that support his statement to the police. I'll bet money the police have fired that Kel Tec numerous times to find out if it malfunctioned on it's own. My money says the gun went bang every time it was fired after the first round was in the chamber.


----------



## haypoint

Sonshine said:


> The sidewalks were behind the condos.


But he wasn't on the sidewalks, he was next to the homes.


----------



## haypoint

Darren said:


> It never occurred to me that Zimmerman would have become enraged at a Black kid especailly given the cries for help. No one said anything about anger on the tapes.
> 
> It's very obvious now that some here have not looked into Zimmerman's background beyond what they could misinterpret to support their conclusions. We've regressed to an eye for an eye.
> 
> Let's just hang the "white" guy and pay tribute to the choir boy who somehow ended up on top of the white guy who wouldn't let Martin stand up and get away. Zimmerman's injuries were obviously self-inflicted in the short interval between when he murdered Martin and the police arrived.
> 
> Fortunately for Zimmerman there's a lot of inconvenient facts that support his statement to the police. I'll bet money the police have fired that Kel Tec numerous times to find out if it malfunctioned on it's own. My money says the gun went bang every time it was fired after the first round was in the chamber.


If the clip of the Kal Tec was released during a struggle, the next round would not have entered the chamber. If Zimmerman was holding the Kal Tec wrong, it would not have fired. It could have pinched the dickens out of his hand.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I don't believe that Zimmerman would have just walked up to Martin and shot him. *I believe that Zimmerman became enraged during the scuffle, since a black kid had the audacity to strike him.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Are you saying Martin knocked Zimmerman down just because he was following him?*
Click to expand...

Read it again.

_I believe that Zimmerman became enraged *during the scuffle*, since a black kid had the audacity to strike him._

I made no mention of how the scuffle might have started.


----------



## Sonshine

Darren said:


> *Are you saying Martin knocked Zimmerman down just because he was following him?* That's one interpretation of what happened. But he also set himself up for Zimmerman justifiably acting in self defense when he continued beating Zimmerman as reported by a witness.
> 
> All Martin had to do was explain why he was in the neighborhood and lead Zimmerman to where he was staying. Everything would have been fine.


It might have been fine, it may not have been. That's just it, none of us know. I've seen a lot of "if", "may have", "could have", ect in these posts because none of us knows the truth. None of us has all the evidence. As far as I know this is still an ongoing investigation and we can't trust anything the media is putting out.


----------



## Sonshine

Darren said:


> It never occurred to me that Zimmerman would have become enraged at a Black kid especailly given the cries for help. No one said anything about anger on the tapes.
> 
> It's very obvious now that some here have not looked into Zimmerman's background beyond what they could misinterpret to support their conclusions. We've regressed to an eye for an eye.
> 
> Let's just hang the "white" guy and pay tribute to the choir boy who somehow ended up on top of the white guy who wouldn't let Martin stand up and get away. Zimmerman's injuries were obviously self-inflicted in the short interval between when he murdered Martin and the police arrived.
> 
> Fortunately for Zimmerman there's a lot of inconvenient facts that support his statement to the police. I'll bet money the police have fired that Kel Tec numerous times to find out if it malfunctioned on it's own. My money says the gun went bang every time it was fired after the first round was in the chamber.


I haven't seen anyone say "Let's just hang the white guy" what I see is people saying let the investigators find the truth. One of the problems I see in this thread is people that are not familiar with Sanford and the way that some in the law enforcement and attorneys do business. If this was going on in Chicago, most know about the corrupt system there, but since it's Sanford people think it's like it is where they live. I'm not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination, but I use to live in Sanford and don't trust their handling of things. I'm glad they brought in someone else to investigate the situation and am ready to wait to see what is found in the investigation. But for some reason since we don't agree that Zimmerman should just be let go without and investigation we're just waning Zimmerman hung. :hrm:


----------



## Sonshine

haypoint said:


> But he wasn't on the sidewalks, he was next to the homes.


From what I've seen the condos were close to the homes, with very little grass between the two.


----------



## time

Sonshine said:


> . But for some reason since we don't agree that Zimmerman should just be let go without and investigation we're just waning Zimmerman hung. :hrm:


So, if I accuse you of a crime, you should be locked up untill an investigation is complete?

I kinda hope that becomes standard procedure. As soon as it does, allot of people I don't like will spend some time behind bars for no good reason.


----------



## Darren

Sonshine said:


> I haven't seen anyone say "Let's just hang the white guy" what I see is people saying let the investigators find the truth. One of the problems I see in this thread is people that are not familiar with Sanford and the way that some in the law enforcement and attorneys do business. If this was going on in Chicago, most know about the corrupt system there, but since it's Sanford people think it's like it is where they live. I'm not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination, but I use to live in Sanford and don't trust their handling of things. I'm glad they brought in someone else to investigate the situation and am ready to wait to see what is found in the investigation. But for some reason since we don't agree that Zimmerman should just be let go without and investigation we're just waning Zimmerman hung. :hrm:


I have a problem when people make assumptions and only cite what supports their conclusions. So far I have seen no evidence that Zimmerman was a racist. Yet some people want to make an issue of the fact that Martin was Black. Certainly the media and the usual hate mongers have rallied to that. Ask yourself if the incident would have made national news if Martin had been Hispanic or white. Without the racial aspect, the incident would have never made national news. Yet the reverse isn't necessarily true.

Is this typical of the Sanford area? Do you think the media is going to spread this all across America? There is absolutely no way to justify the attack on the man. Yet people here are trying to justify an attack by Martin on Zimmerman.

At least one poster here offered up the excuse that Zimmerman must have touched Martin. That is way over the top. ---- poor doesn't begin to describe that line of reasoning.

Seminole County Sheriff's Office: Two arrested after beating leaves man on life-support - Orlando Sentinel


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by *Sonshine*
> _. But for some reason since we don't agree that Zimmerman should just be let go without and investigation we're just waning Zimmerman hung_


He wasn't "let go without an investigation"
The investigation found no evidence to justify an arrest, much less a trial


----------



## 7thswan

copy of police report.
http://mit.zenfs.com/102/2012/04/69081607-29132322.pdf


----------



## haypoint

Darren said:


> *Are you saying Martin knocked Zimmerman down just because he was following him?* That's one interpretation of what happened. But he also set himself up for Zimmerman justifiably acting in self defense when he continued beating Zimmerman as reported by a witness.
> 
> All Martin had to do was explain why he was in the neighborhood and lead Zimmerman to where he was staying. Everything would have been fine.


When people object to authority, they are less willing to "offer up" polite answers. When people perceive racism, they walk aroinf "with a chip on their shoulder". Based on that, not the known facts of this situation, i can see thar Martin would object to being asked " What are you doing here?" For Zimmerman those words might have meant, " This look suspicous, someone I don't know, walking up by the back of the houses at night, worthy of further inquiry." Martin, may have heard those same words as " You must be up to no good because you are black and blacks are not allowed out here at night."

All Zimmerman had to do was walk to his car. All Martin had to do was answer the TacoCracker's question. But they didn't. Martin might not have the right to be walking up near the back of someone's home. Zimmerman might not have the right to follow Martin. Martin doesn't have to answer Zimmerman. Zimmerman has the right to say whaterver he wants to Martin, or anyone else, for that matter. 

Who pushed/punched who? A 5'9" jellyroll with a gun or a 17 year old 6'3" with a Right vs Wrong perception in the lower percentiles? Martian's color doesn't even play into this. Unless you are interested in statistics, then you see that Martin is in the 17 to 23 year old black male catagory that far exceeds the averages for violent crimes like rape and murder. In fact that tiny group top the list for violent crimes. But being in that unique group does no in itself make Martin a criminal. Being in possession of stolen jewlery and a burglery tool does. So does punching a person for any reason other than self defense.


----------



## Darren

Anyway you look at it, the odds weren't good for Martin. You have to wonder why his mother wanted him out of the area during his suspension period. Why did she not want him hanging with his friends? When the accepted message is hate, you reap the results. Jackson. Sharpton and Obama need to be criticized. If they want to unify this country they need to change their message. The message they are putting out isn't addressing the problems. What's the chance of them changing?


----------



## fantasymaker

Nevada said:


> Read it again.
> 
> _I believe that Zimmerman became enraged *during the scuffle*, since a black kid had the audacity to strike him._
> 
> I made no mention of how the scuffle might have started.


Just out of curiosity who but a professional DOENT get enraged during a scuffle ? The color thing is irrelevant.


----------



## Pearl B

Darren said:


> *Are you saying Martin knocked Zimmerman down just because he was following him?* That's one interpretation of what happened. But he also set himself up for Zimmerman justifiably acting in self defense when he continued beating Zimmerman as reported by a witness.
> 
> All Martin had to do was explain why he was in the neighborhood and lead Zimmerman to where he was staying. Everything would have been fine.


Would you answer questions to some person you didnt know, who was just following you in a vehicle, then got out and came up to you on foot, and when asked 'is there a problem' says no.

A person with no easily discernible authority? 

Maybe Im just different, I sure wouldnt. Id be ticked about the whole thing as well.


----------



## Sonshine

time said:


> So, if I accuse you of a crime, you should be locked up untill an investigation is complete?
> 
> I kinda hope that becomes standard procedure. As soon as it does, allot of people I don't like will spend some time behind bars for no good reason.


That is NOT what I posted. I just wanted an investigation done using people outside of Sanford. Now that one is being done I'm content to wait and see what they find.


----------



## Nevada

Pearl B. said:


> Would you answer questions to some person you didnt know, who was just following you in a vehicle, then got out and came up to you on foot, and when asked 'is there a problem' says no.
> 
> A person with no easily discernible authority?
> 
> Maybe Im just different, I sure wouldnt. Id be ticked about the whole thing as well.


Yes. Martin would have totally justified if he resisted being detained, or even interrogated. Zimmerman had no authority to do either. Martin had every right to use whatever force was necessary to resist Zimmerman.


----------



## haypoint

Darren said:


> Anyway you look at it, the odds weren't good for Martin. You have to wonder why his mother wanted him out of the area during his suspension period. Why did she not want him hanging with his friends? When the accepted message is hate, you reap the results. Jackson. Sharpton and Obama need to be criticized. If they want to unify this country they need to change their message. The message they are putting out isn't addressing the problems. What's the chance of them changing?


Slim. They see the world in a much different light.
There have been great injustices done to Blacks by Whites. This country has made great strides in correcting many wrongs. There were days when Blacks were murdered and nothing done about it. There were times when a Black couldnât get some jobs. But as this society was busy righting these wrongs, some Blacks got traction by pushing this trend to the other end of the scale. When Blacks yell racial inequality, some people will let them take more than they deserve.
While social acceptance was evolving, the Black family was falling apart. 70% of all Black babies born to single mothers is the highest in recorded history of mankind. 15% of Black young men end up shot or in prison.
So we have a society trying to wipe out racism, sometimes by overlooking the obvious. Then we have some Blacks that have convinced each other that every setback is an act of white racism. Within that group you have extremists like Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Jessie Jackson, Rev Wright and Barry Obama.
Their goal isnât to reduce crime in the Black Community, their goal is to create a sort of affirmative action that provides a free pass when crimes are committed by Blacks and guilty verdicts for whites when their innocence cannot be proven. 
Oversized jackets and baggy pants were a way to conceal a sawed off shotgun. By making it a popular style, criminals can carry their weapon without standing out from all the imitators. Same for hooded sweatshirts. No matter how warm it is out, the âstyleâ is mystery man, unidentifiable. When a guy looks like a Black version of the Unabomber, they arenât going to get picked out of a lineup when everyone else is wearing the same getup.
But, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Jessie Jackson, Rev Wright and Barry Obama believe that everything is easier for White people. Sometimes they are right. Sometimes the world isnât fair. They see this Martin/Zimmerman as a case where a white guy got away with murdering a Black person. They see this as proof that the US doesnât put as much value on the life of a Black person as they do a White. My Black friends have explained to me how they see lifeâs roadblocks and it seems like Whites donât face those same challenges. But by making every failure the fault of a White person, they rob themselves of the realization that they are facing the same challenges as everyone else faces. That permits many to accept failure rather than challenge it. 
Unrest in the Black Community helps keep Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Jessie Jackson, Rev Wright and Barry Obama as leaders of the Black Community.
Shot down like a dog, murdered in the street are calls of unity in the Black Community.
Right now, Detroit is 65% ahead of last year in murders. The city is tens of millions in debt. The governor has said that if Detroit doesnât get their finances in order, heâll send in an emergency manager to balance the books. They have had a year to make those tough choices. Now that the deadline is near, there have been Black leaders, on the radio and at public meetings, threaten, â If the governor sends in a manager to run the city, weâll burn it down first.â And âThe Governor wants a partnership between the state and Detroit, but he wants to tell Detroit how to spend its money, that isnât a partnership, thatâs a Master/ Slave relationship.â


----------



## Sonshine

Darren said:


> I have a problem when people make assumptions and only cite what supports their conclusions. So far I have seen no evidence that Zimmerman was a racist. Yet some people want to make an issue of the fact that Martin was Black. Certainly the media and the usual hate mongers have rallied to that. Ask yourself if the incident would have made national news if Martin had been Hispanic or white. Without the racial aspect, the incident would have never made national news. Yet the reverse isn't necessarily true.
> 
> Is this typical of the Sanford area? Do you think the media is going to spread this all across America? There is absolutely no way to justify the attack on the man. Yet people here are trying to justify an attack by Martin on Zimmerman.
> 
> At least one poster here offered up the excuse that Zimmerman must have touched Martin. That is way over the top. ---- poor doesn't begin to describe that line of reasoning.
> 
> Seminole County Sheriff's Office: Two arrested after beating leaves man on life-support - Orlando Sentinel


I have been posting that I believe the media is wrong in what they are doing and that the politicians and civil rights activists are all stirring up racism using this case. I have no control over what the media has done. I do know a little about how justice is taken care of in Sanford. The LE and DA have a tendency to stick with the good ole boy agenda. If something happens to one of their own, or someone they know, then they make evidence fit the scenario they want. I don't know if this is the case with this and I have not lived in Sanford for many years, so things may have changed, but because of their past history I was glad to see outsiders come do an investigation. This is what I have been saying. If the evidence shows Zimmerman has done no wrong, then I'm good with that. I would like the truth without all the media hype which is stirring up racism.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Yes. Martin would have totally justified if he resisted being detained, or even interrogated. Zimmerman had no authority to do either. Martin had every right to use whatever force was necessary to resist Zimmerman.


Every citizen has the right to make a "citizens arrest" if they feel that a crime has been commited. Martin should have sat down and waited for the police. Zimmerman would have looked the fool then.

But please, continue with your armchair lawyering!


----------



## Sonshine

Bearfootfarm said:


> He wasn't "let go without an investigation"
> The investigation found no evidence to justify an arrest, much less a trial


And in most towns I wouldn't think anything about this, but since it's Sanford I don't know if I trust the ones that were investigating. This is why I'm glad they brought in outsiders.


----------



## Sonshine

Darren said:


> Anyway you look at it, the odds weren't good for Martin. You have to wonder why his mother wanted him out of the area during his suspension period. Why did she not want him hanging with his friends? When the accepted message is hate, you reap the results. Jackson. Sharpton and Obama need to be criticized. If they want to unify this country they need to change their message. The message they are putting out isn't addressing the problems. What's the chance of them changing?


On this we can agree. The Jackson's and Sharpton's of this nation do nothing but stir up more trouble. The media is just as bad and then you throw a few politicians putting in their two cents worth and you end up with a very volitile situation.


----------



## haypoint

Sonshine said:


> That is NOT what I posted. I just wanted an investigation done using people outside of Sanford. Now that one is being done I'm content to wait and see what they find.


and you'd be ok with people from outside Chicago investigating Chicago crime? Perhaps just when it is white aagainst black crime? anyone calling for a national investigation on the white college kid murdered in his dorm by an unidentified black youth? you want an outside investigation on any of the past 30 murders in Detroit?
Last month two witnesses to a felony were obducted in front of their home, stuffed in a car's trunk and the car sped away. The father of one of the female victims fired shots at the fleeing car. Do you want outside investigation on that father for attempted murder? :smack After all, the police investigated and released him, just like in Sanford FL.

To demand outside investigations on every white/black crime is racist. To demand outside investigations on any white/black crime is racist, when you do not dare/expect to do the same when the roles are reversed.


----------



## Sonshine

haypoint said:


> Slim. They see the world in a much different light.
> There have been great injustices done to Blacks by Whites. This country has made great strides in correcting many wrongs. There were days when Blacks were murdered and nothing done about it. There were times when a Black couldnât get some jobs. But as this society was busy righting these wrongs, some Blacks got traction by pushing this trend to the other end of the scale. When Blacks yell racial inequality, some people will let them take more than they deserve.
> While social acceptance was evolving, the Black family was falling apart. 70% of all Black babies born to single mothers is the highest in recorded history of mankind. 15% of Black young men end up shot or in prison.
> So we have a society trying to wipe out racism, sometimes by overlooking the obvious. Then we have some Blacks that have convinced each other that every setback is an act of white racism. Within that group you have extremists like Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Jessie Jackson, Rev Wright and Barry Obama.
> Their goal isnât to reduce crime in the Black Community, their goal is to create a sort of affirmative action that provides a free pass when crimes are committed by Blacks and guilty verdicts for whites when their innocence cannot be proven.
> Oversized jackets and baggy pants were a way to conceal a sawed off shotgun. By making it a popular style, criminals can carry their weapon without standing out from all the imitators. Same for hooded sweatshirts. No matter how warm it is out, the âstyleâ is mystery man, unidentifiable. When a guy looks like a Black version of the Unabomber, they arenât going to get picked out of a lineup when everyone else is wearing the same getup.
> But, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Jessie Jackson, Rev Wright and Barry Obama believe that everything is easier for White people. Sometimes they are right. Sometimes the world isnât fair. They see this Martin/Zimmerman as a case where a white guy got away with murdering a Black person. They see this as proof that the US doesnât put as much value on the life of a Black person as they do a White. My Black friends have explained to me how they see lifeâs roadblocks and it seems like Whites donât face those same challenges. But by making every failure the fault of a White person, they rob themselves of the realization that they are facing the same challenges as everyone else faces. That permits many to accept failure rather than challenge it.
> Unrest in the Black Community helps keep Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Jessie Jackson, Rev Wright and Barry Obama as leaders of the Black Community.
> Shot down like a dog, murdered in the street are calls of unity in the Black Community.
> Right now, Detroit is 65% ahead of last year in murders. The city is tens of millions in debt. The governor has said that if Detroit doesnât get their finances in order, heâll send in an emergency manager to balance the books. They have had a year to make those tough choices. Now that the deadline is near, there have been Black leaders, on the radio and at public meetings, threaten, â If the governor sends in a manager to run the city, weâll burn it down first.â And âThe Governor wants a partnership between the state and Detroit, but he wants to tell Detroit how to spend its money, that isnât a partnership, thatâs a Master/ Slave relationship.â


Exactly right!


----------



## Sonshine

haypoint said:


> and you'd be ok with people from outside Chicago investigating Chicago crime? Perhaps just when it is white aagainst black crime? anyone calling for a national investigation on the white college kid murdered in his dorm by an unidentified black youth? you want an outside investigation on any of the past 30 murders in Detroit?
> Last month two witnesses to a felony were obducted in front of their home, stuffed in a car's trunk and the car sped away. The father of one of the female victims fired shots at the fleeing car. Do you want outside investigation on that father for attempted murder? :smack After all, the police investigated and released him, just like in Sanford FL.
> 
> To demand outside investigations on every white/black crime is racist. To demand outside investigations on any white/black crime is racist, when you do not dare/expect to do the same when the roles are reversed.


See, everyone is making it about race. To me, it isn't about white on black or black on white, it's about someone being dead and the person that killed the person is walking free. Maybe Zimmerman has the right to walk free, but since I don't trust the Sanford authorities I don't trust the investigation. If the situation had been different and it was Zimmerman dead instead of Martin I would feel the same. I don't know anything about the other stories you posted, and since they aren't being discussed all over the media and stirring up racial tensions we probably won't hear much about them.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Every citizen has the right to make a "citizens arrest" if they feel that a crime has been commited. Martin should have sat down and waited for the police. Zimmerman would have looked the fool then.
> 
> But please, continue with your armchair lawyering!


What crime did Zimmerman believe Martin had committed? You can't just do a citizens arrest, there has to be a crime.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> What crime did Zimmerman believe Martin had committed?


Ask him. Or better yet, read the police report.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Ask him. Or better yet, read the police report.


I saw no allegation of Martin committing a crime in the police report.


----------



## Pearl B

Nevada said:


> Yes. Martin would have totally justified if he resisted being detained, or even interrogated. Zimmerman had no authority to do either. Martin had every right to use whatever force was necessary to resist Zimmerman.


 Exactly. He also didnt have anything identifying who or what he was. It blows my mind that some people would just comply to some strangers invasion like that.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> I saw no allegation of Martin committing a crime in the police report.


Ok, then let the court deal with it.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Ok, then let the court deal with it.


Deal with what?


----------



## haypoint

Sonshine said:


> See, everyone is making it about race. To me, it isn't about white on black or black on white, it's about someone being dead and the person that killed the person is walking free. Maybe Zimmerman has the right to walk free, but since I don't trust the Sanford authorities I don't trust the investigation. If the situation had been different and it was Zimmerman dead instead of Martin I would feel the same. I don't know anything about the other stories you posted, and since they aren't being discussed all over the media and stirring up racial tensions we probably won't hear much about them.


But you have been baited into this by the media that is making this a race issue. For most of the countrry, we'd never hear about this Sanford, FL incident. But because it was inflated because of race, everyone knows about it. Perhaps you are among the .001% of the country's population that knows the Sanford authorities. The rest of us are whipped up in a frenzy because it is a race issue. When a black guy broke into the dorm last week, we hardly heard about it. I cited the girls stuffed into a trunk in Detroit. I bet Obama didn't call their parents, not even after the bodies were found, each with a shot to the forehead. Why is the soul of Martin more important than the soul of the 30 other people killed in this country in the last few weeks. Way back at the beginning of this thread, I questioned why is the importance of a person inflated based on the color of the person that shot him? Why can we trust the authorities when a black man shoots a black man in self defense, but want to hunt down a barely white guy for doing the same thing?
Would you think it fair is when I get investigated and released, that's fine, but if you get invsetigated and released, I want an outside investigation?


----------



## FeralFemale

Darren said:


> Anyway you look at it, the odds weren't good for Martin. *You have to wonder why his mother wanted him out of the area during his suspension period.* Why did she not want him hanging with his friends? When the accepted message is hate, you reap the results. Jackson. Sharpton and Obama need to be criticized. If they want to unify this country they need to change their message. The message they are putting out isn't addressing the problems. What's the chance of them changing?


Martin's Mom: "I'm tired of this. You are getting out of control. You're going up to Sanford to stay with your father. Let him straighten you out!!!"

...or something like that. I can totally see a single mom sending her son to his father's after getting in trouble.


----------



## haypoint

Police investigate. Then the county prosecutor looks over the investigation. If he has questions, he gets more details from the police or whoever. If he thinks he has enough to go to court, he has the guy arrested. If there isn't enough information to go to trial over, it is dropped. Quite simple.


----------



## time

Sonshine said:


> That is NOT what I posted. I just wanted an investigation done using people outside of Sanford. Now that one is being done I'm content to wait and see what they find.


Explain what you mean then, please.



> But for some reason since we don't agree that Zimmerman* should just be let go* without and investigation





> it's about someone being dead and *the person that killed the person is walking free*


These two comments(I haven't read them all) lead me to beleive you think he should be locked up.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Deal with what?


The Zimmerman case! Duh!!


----------



## time

I won't get into the whole race thing with this post. The whole thing is ridiculous.

I will comment on the police and non arrest though.

Most here should know, I'm not a fan of the police. They have a habit of beating people for little cause. They have a habit of filing charges on folks that have done nothing wrong.

In this case, the police got it right as far as the non arrest goes. I know three folks personally in the last ten years charged and arrested on nothing much more than an allegation. Two of them were for murder. One was a national story. It's one of the reasons I dislike LE. They are prone to charge and try to sort out the facts later. This destroys folks lives. One, their face is plastered in the media as being charged. Most folks nowadays convict the person while sitting on the couch because they feel police would not charge someone unless they had done something. Two, innocent? Prove it. And you better have deep pockets. All three cases I know of personally cost the person thousands and thousands of dollars. All had charges dropped eventually. They lost everything in the proccess. One lost her job. One lost his retirement. The other lost her home.

All of you that think Zimmerman should have been arrested on sketchy evidence need to consider one thing. How much money do you have set aside? $50,000? More? Are you ready to sell your house to stay out of prison for something you didn't do?

LE should not be charging folks willy nilly without a solid case. Period. They do not have a solid case in this instance. Not yet anyway, or the arrest would have been made by now.

Get over it already.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> The Zimmerman case! Duh!!


That's all anyone is asking. Just give him a fair trial and let the jury decide.


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> That's all anyone is asking. Just give him a fair trial and let the jury decide.


No. If there is no evidence to charge, no trial.

ETA; There is no such thing as a "fair" trial of an innocent person. It costs the defendant dearly in money, stress, and public opinion. Nothing "fair" about it.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> That's all anyone is asking. Just give him a fair trial and let the jury decide.


So why so many posts about it then?


----------



## ryanthomas

Pearl B. said:


> Exactly. He also didnt have anything identifying who or what he was. It blows my mind that some people would just comply to some strangers invasion like that.


I certainly wouldn't comply with some weirdo asking me questions, but I wouldn't punch him in the face either, unless I needed to.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> That's all anyone is asking. Just give him a fair trial and let the jury decide.


Why do you keep insisting on a trial when there's no evidence of a CRIME?


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why do you keep insisting on a trial when there's no evidence of a CRIME?


Make more sense than Zimmerman doing a citizens arrest on Martin with no CRIME.


----------



## Sonshine

time said:


> Explain what you mean then, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These two comments(I haven't read them all) lead me to beleive you think he should be locked up.


No, I believe an investigation should be done to determine if he should be locked up or not, which I have stated time and again.


----------



## haypoint

How are we going to appease all those angry black people if we don&#8217;t show them how fair we are and offer up Zimmerman&#8217;s head on a platter?


----------



## Darren

Pearl B. said:


> Would you answer questions to some person you didnt know, who was just following you in a vehicle, then got out and came up to you on foot, and when asked 'is there a problem' says no.
> 
> A person with no easily discernible authority?
> 
> Maybe Im just different, I sure wouldnt. Id be ticked about the whole thing as well.


I do things differently. I talk to people even if it's only in passing by saying hello or how are you doing today. That's when there are only a few of us in proximity. If I'm in a strange area I do the same. I know I'm the stranger and I want to put people at ease. That is second nature with me. 

If someone asks me what I'm doing in the area, I tell them. I don't give them attitude. If they ask me if they can help me, I respond by explaining why I'm there and what I'm doing. To me that's just being courteous. In a large city I don't do a Nick Dundee and say gooday to everyone going down the street. In an area with just one or a few people, it's different.

I've noticed that when I do the same while passing the few Black students at the local college, they rarely reply. I'm not sure why that is. Maybe they've been warned about us Hatfield and McCoy types that are armed to the teeth. Maybe they're just concerned the strange white dude is going to rob and rape them in broad daylight.

This is a place where people wave to each other going down the road often when they don't know the other person. Obviously Martin and Zimmerman failed to communicate on some level because things got out of hand for some reason.


----------



## Darren

time said:


> I won't get into the whole race thing with this post. The whole thing is ridiculous.
> 
> I will comment on the police and non arrest though.
> 
> Most here should know, I'm not a fan of the police. They have a habit of beating people for little cause. They have a habit of filing charges on folks that have done nothing wrong.
> 
> In this case, the police got it right as far as the non arrest goes. I know three folks personally in the last ten years charged and arrested on nothing much more than an allegation. Two of them were for murder. One was a national story. It's one of the reasons I dislike LE. They are prone to charge and try to sort out the facts later. This destroys folks lives. One, their face is plastered in the media as being charged. Most folks nowadays convict the person while sitting on the couch because they feel police would not charge someone unless they had done something. Two, innocent? Prove it. And you better have deep pockets. All three cases I know of personally cost the person thousands and thousands of dollars. All had charges dropped eventually. They lost everything in the proccess. One lost her job. One lost his retirement. The other lost her home.
> 
> All of you that think Zimmerman should have been arrested on sketchy evidence need to consider one thing. How much money do you have set aside? $50,000? More? Are you ready to sell your house to stay out of prison for something you didn't do?
> 
> LE should not be charging folks willy nilly without a solid case. Period. They do not have a solid case in this instance. Not yet anyway, or the arrest would have been made by now.
> 
> Get over it already.


Well said!


----------



## Nevada

haypoint said:


> How are we going to appease all those angry black people if we donât show them how fair we are and offer up Zimmermanâs head on a platter?


With a fair trial.


----------



## TraderBob

Nevada said:


> With a fair trial.


If there is no cause for arrest after their investigation, why should there be ANY trial? Seriously... if it is determined there is no cause, you'll discount that and demand a trial anyway?


----------



## Pearl B

Darren said:


> I do things differently. I talk to people even if it's only in passing by saying hello or how are you doing today. That's when there are only a few of us in proximity. If I'm in a strange area I do the same. I know I'm the stranger and I want to put people at ease. That is second nature with me.
> 
> If someone asks me what I'm doing in the area, I tell them. I don't give them attitude. If they ask me if they can help me, I respond by explaining why I'm there and what I'm doing. To me that's just being courteous. In a large city I don't do a Nick Dundee and say gooday to everyone going down the street. In an area with just one or a few people, it's different.
> 
> I've noticed that when I do the same while passing the few Black students at the local college, they rarely reply. I'm not sure why that is. Maybe they've been warned about us Hatfield and McCoy types that are armed to the teeth. Maybe they're just concerned the strange white dude is going to rob and rape them in broad daylight.
> 
> This is a place where people wave to each other going down the road often when they don't know the other person. Obviously Martin and Zimmerman failed to communicate on some level because things got out of hand for some reason.


 Thats cool. I try to be somewhat like that.
I can see how Z and his actions could have really rubbed M the wrong though too. It would have to me after that sequence of events.


----------



## Pearl B

Nevada said:


> With a fair trial.


 I read the partial police report, I think it was 7th swan posted. The police did question him that night.
They felt they investigated what they needed to, and let it go. So I guess I do too.


----------



## Nevada

Pearl B. said:


> I read the partial police report, I think it was 7th swan posted. The police did question him that night.
> They felt they investigated what they needed to, and let it go. So I guess I do too.


The field officers didn't interrogate Zimmerman beyond gaining a basic understanding of what transpired, then they put Zimmerman in handcuffs and took him to the station to be questioned by detectives. The lead detective didn't buy Zimmerman's story and wanted to charge him with manslaughter, but the prosecutor didn't want to do that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Make more sense than Zimmerman doing a *citizens arrest* on Martin with no CRIME.


There's no evidence that's what he did BUT* IF* he did, that can be done on SUSPICION alone.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Sonshine said:


> No, I believe *an investigation should be done* to determine if he should be locked up or not, which I have stated time and again.


They've *been *investigating for over a month now.
Why insist one's *not* been done?


----------



## time

Pearl B. said:


> Would you answer questions to some person you didnt know, who was just following you in a vehicle, then got out and came up to you on foot, and when asked 'is there a problem' says no.
> 
> A person with no easily discernible authority?
> 
> Maybe Im just different, I sure wouldnt. Id be ticked about the whole thing as well.


Pearl, I respect your opinions on many issues.

While I understand your point and agree for the most part, there are things to consider.

I hate a nosey do-gooder. I'm long haired, partially tattooed and scruffy faced(good looking otherwize, I might add. I clean up well. :happy. People generally keep an eye on me. I've been approached by folks, do-gooders I call them. 

I know that as offensive as they may be to me, I can't legally sock them up side the head. I would like to. If they are particularly offensive, I might sock them anyway and take the ticket. But legally, I'm the aggressor. If he shoots me after having socked him upside the head, my bad. I made a poor choice.

I don't like zimmerman personally. He's a busy body. A self proclaimed do-gooder.

But if his story is true, whether the kid was offended or not, he had every right to protect himself. I'm afraid I have not seen any evidence that his story is not true.


----------



## Sonshine

Bearfootfarm said:


> They've *been *investigating for over a month now.
> Why insist one's *not* been done?


From what I can tell the investigation is still ongoing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> The field officers didn't interrogate Zimmerman beyond understand what transpired, then they put Zimmerman in handcuffs and took him to the station to be questioned by detectives. The lead detective didn't buy Zimmerman's story and wanted to charge him with manslaughter, but *the prosecutor didn't want to do that*.


Why not just say the lead detective wanted to charge Zimmerman, even though there was NO EVIDENCE?

One man's OPINION doesn't count more than *actual* eividence

That's *why* the DA said no.


----------



## time

Sonshine said:


> No, I believe an investigation should be done to determine if he should be locked up or not, which I have stated time and again.


An investigation was done. It was determined he not be locked up.

You want another investigation. And if it doesn't find what you want it to, will you want yet another one?


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> The field officers didn't interrogate Zimmerman beyond gaining a basic understanding of what transpired, then they put Zimmerman in handcuffs and took him to the station to be questioned by detectives. The lead detective didn't buy Zimmerman's story and wanted to charge him with manslaughter,* but the prosecutor didn't want to do that*.


Because the evidence didn't support it.


----------



## Pearl B

time said:


> Pearl, I respect your opinions on many issues.
> 
> While I understand your point and agree for the most part, there are things to consider.
> 
> I hate a nosey do-gooder. I'm long haired, partially tattooed and scruffy faced(good looking otherwize, I might add. I clean up well. :happy. People generally keep an eye on me. I've been approached by folks, do-gooders I call them.
> 
> I know that as offensive as they may be to me, I can't legally sock them up side the head. I would like to. If they are particularly offensive, I might sock them anyway and take the ticket. But legally, I'm the aggressor. If he shoots me after having socked him upside the head, my bad. I made a poor choice.
> 
> I don't like zimmerman personally. He's a busy body. A self proclaimed do-gooder.
> 
> But if his story is true, whether the kid was offended or not, he had every right to protect himself. I'm afraid I have not seen any evidence that his story is not true.


 Like wise. It was your posts that got me to thinking. Your right. I think Z is wrong, did wrong, is an offensive do-gooder, they did what they felt was the necessary investigation. I have to agree with you, and let it go.

I didnt know they did what they felt was the proper investigation. I thought they just walked him in and out of the station. He was interviewed though, so, that is that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Sonshine said:


> From what I can tell the investigation is still ongoing.


After a month, there is very little more they can learn.
The main reason it's "ongoing" is the Feds involvement, and the media hysteria

They've interviewed *all* the witnesses, mostly on the night of the shooting.
They've reached conclusions as to what the evidence shows

They have evidence that the public *hasn't seen*, and STILL have not charged Zimmerman, even when doing so would be *great* for their public relations

What more do you expect them to look for?


----------



## haypoint

Darren said:


> I do things differently. I talk to people even if it's only in passing by saying hello or how are you doing today. That's when there are only a few of us in proximity. If I'm in a strange area I do the same. I know I'm the stranger and I want to put people at ease. That is second nature with me.
> 
> If someone asks me what I'm doing in the area, I tell them. I don't give them attitude. If they ask me if they can help me, I respond by explaining why I'm there and what I'm doing. To me that's just being courteous. In a large city I don't do a Nick Dundee and say gooday to everyone going down the street. In an area with just one or a few people, it's different.
> 
> I've noticed that when I do the same while passing the few Black students at the local college, they rarely reply. I'm not sure why that is. Maybe they've been warned about us Hatfield and McCoy types that are armed to the teeth. Maybe they're just concerned the strange white dude is going to rob and rape them in broad daylight.
> 
> This is a place where people wave to each other going down the road often when they don't know the other person. Obviously Martin and Zimmerman failed to communicate on some level because things got out of hand for some reason.


I had to laugh when you wondered why the Black students rarely reply to your, âGood dayâ greeting. But Iâm not sure I can explain what many Blacks think of your attempted casual interaction, in a sentence or two. Imagine how Blacks were treated a hundred years ago (or even less). How they were subject to trouble for looking a white in the eyes? Today, many Blacks have gone to the other end of the scale. They expect you to bow down. They have no need for white people, they donât care to be your friend. They are cool, up to date, in the know. You are just an out of style backward hick, not worthy of acknowledgement. Your ancestors got rich off the sweat and blood of their ancestors, therefore, you owe them a lot. You have taken jobs and opportunities away from them and their parents. You belong to the White class that has been in control, making it harder for them to gain wealth. You belong to a network of people that get you good deals on cars, houses, repairs, etc. They have to fend for themselves and are often shortchanged by car dealers, auto repairmen and real estate brokers. So, to them, the deck has been stacked against them, every setback is rooted in roadblocks set up by Whites. They believe this and are looking for anything that supports their belief. When you say âGood dayâ, they might translate that to, â Hey, acknowledge me, I spoke to you, Iâm superior.â This deal with Zimmerman is just another way that the White people are putting them down. While it is sad when Blacks murder other Blacks, Zimmerman serves as proof that it doesnât matter when Whites kill Blacks. Plus, when Blacks kill, they go to prison, White people go free. Happens all the time, in their minds.
What is a popular religion for Blacks in the inner city and in Prison? Black Muslim. Morrish Science Temple of America. They study the Koran. Why? Because it offers justification to murder White Christians. It gives them a chance to be superior, above the religion pushed on their ancestors by the slave owners. 
What Zimmerman said to Martin was filtered by everything in Martinâs brain. âWhat are you doing here?â could be heard as â You donât belong here.â If Zimmerman attempted to call the police, while Martin was close, Martin may have seen that differently than you or I. We might want the police to tell Zimmerman to mind his own business. But a deep distrust of authority, Martin would see that as â Hey, you are going to jail as soon as I lie to the police.â
I know Iâm painting with a broad brush, this isnât true for all Blacks. Iâm just trying to offer a bit of insight into the view from the other side of the color barrier.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Make more sense than Zimmerman doing a citizens arrest on Martin with no CRIME.


Citizens arrest? now where did that come from? Reporting a suspicious person to the police and monitoring their whereabouts lacks a bit of a citizens arrest.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> With a fair trial.


As long as this fair trial you propose results in a murder conviction... Thats about the only thing that Sharpton, Jackson, and the others pursuing this case is going to accept. Even that is not going to appease them... nor would Zimmermans execution.... they will still whine. Its what they do.


----------



## Darren

haypoint said:


> I had to laugh when you wondered why the Black students rarely reply to your, âGood dayâ greeting. But Iâm not sure I can explain what many Blacks think of your attempted casual interaction, in a sentence or two. Imagine how Blacks were treated a hundred years ago (or even less). How they were subject to trouble for looking a white in the eyes? Today, many Blacks have gone to the other end of the scale. They expect you to bow down. They have no need for white people, they donât care to be your friend. They are cool, up to date, in the know. You are just an out of style backward hick, not worthy of acknowledgement. Your ancestors got rich off the sweat and blood of their ancestors, therefore, you owe them a lot. You have taken jobs and opportunities away from them and their parents. You belong to the White class that has been in control, making it harder for them to gain wealth. You belong to a network of people that get you good deals on cars, houses, repairs, etc. They have to fend for themselves and are often shortchanged by car dealers, auto repairmen and real estate brokers. So, to them, the deck has been stacked against them, every setback is rooted in roadblocks set up by Whites. They believe this and are looking for anything that supports their belief. When you say âGood dayâ, they might translate that to, â Hey, acknowledge me, I spoke to you, Iâm superior.â This deal with Zimmerman is just another way that the White people are putting them down. While it is sad when Blacks murder other Blacks, Zimmerman serves as proof that it doesnât matter when Whites kill Blacks. Plus, when Blacks kill, they go to prison, White people go free. Happens all the time, in their minds.
> What is a popular religion for Blacks in the inner city and in Prison? Black Muslim. Morrish Science Temple of America. They study the Koran. Why? Because it offers justification to murder White Christians. It gives them a chance to be superior, above the religion pushed on their ancestors by the slave owners.
> What Zimmerman said to Martin was filtered by everything in Martinâs brain. âWhat are you doing here?â could be heard as â You donât belong here.â If Zimmerman attempted to call the police, while Martin was close, Martin may have seen that differently than you or I. We might want the police to tell Zimmerman to mind his own business. But a deep distrust of authority, Martin would see that as â Hey, you are going to jail as soon as I lie to the police.â
> I know Iâm painting with a broad brush, this isnât true for all Blacks. Iâm just trying to offer a bit of insight into the view from the other side of the color barrier.


As an out of style, backward hick I agree with you. I can't begin to fully understand the Black experience. I've learned a few things through the years. But nowhere near enough. I'm still going to acknowledge Black students when I'm on campus same as I do anyone else.

I have no doubt racism is alive and flourishing in this country. In some places it is hidden, in others it is just barely below the surface if that. I don't believe Zimmerman is a racist. Martin as a young man was still developing his sense of self. It's easy to understand his possible mistrust of the man following him. 

I wonder if Martin had a different mindset would the incident have happened? Both men were conditioned by their experience. Zimmerman's was due to the criminal activities in the community. Martin's was due to being Black. That night they clashed. I doubt either expected a death would be the result. We need to understand why.

The polarization of the different viewpoints as seen on this board makes that doubtful. Once you see the finger pointing, any possibility of learning is gone.


----------



## watcher

Sonshine said:


> No, I believe an investigation should be done to determine if he should be locked up or not, which I have stated time and again.


An investigation was done on the night of the shooting. If you check Zimmerman was detained (which is nice police talk for what the courts have ruled as being under arrest) and questioned for 5 hours. As far as I know during this questioning he didn't even feel the need to have a lawyer with him. Which was totally stupid! You NEVER talk to the police w/o YOUR lawyer sitting right beside you.

AFAIK, there has not been a single piece of evidence which disputes what we have been told are the facts in this case.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> With a fair trial.


Fair as defined by who? How many people do you know who think the OJ trial was fair? How many think it was a farce? How many people do you know who think the trial of officers Koon, Powell, Briseno, and Wind after the King arrest was fair? How many think it was a farce? 

Seeing as how there is zero evidence, that we have seen, to show Zimmerman committed a crime how is it fair to try him? You can think him guilty all you want but if you have no hard evidence he is innocent in the eyes of the law.

Also after this 'fair' trial if he is found not guilty in the state court are we going to have a nice fair federal trial to give the pols another chance?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> The field officers didn't interrogate Zimmerman beyond gaining a basic understanding of what transpired, then they put Zimmerman in handcuffs and took him to the station to be questioned by detectives. The lead detective didn't buy Zimmerman's story and wanted to charge him with manslaughter, but the prosecutor didn't want to do that.


I hate to bust your bubble but cops are not lawyers and actually know very little about the law. I have stated again and again you should NEVER seek nor take any legal advice from a cop. 

A cop may "feel" someone is guilty and the prosecutor may "feel" someone has committed a crime but only the lawyer, i.e. the prosecutor, knows the law well enough to *know* there is no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the someone committed a crime with the evidence. At that point arresting them causes a lot more problems than it solves. For one thing if the evidence is really weak a smart defense lawyer will demand a speedy trial, as required by the USC, which will prevent the prosecution from being able to gather stronger evidence. This can lead to a not guilty verdict which means even if proof positive comes out later the person can not be charged.


----------



## Pearl B

This thread brings to my mind some experiences Ive had with black people.

I guess my 1st and real vital one was in jr.high. My jr high was in a small place. 
The student pop was probably 500 or less. It just a little place, in the country.
A black family moved in. Literally the only ones around for miles. I really donât even remember if there were any nationalilities other that whites.
A little background. My family moved around a lot. I think I went to 5 different grade schools. I know what its like to change schools constantly and never really have friends.

So anyways, our black family moved in. 2 girls, 1 boy. Nobody would give them the time of day.Most kids were scared of them simply because they were black. I remember Debbie. My age/grade.
I watched for a few days as every one gave her a hard time simply because of her color. I saw her frustration at trying to fit in and getting no where. I was one of the more popular girls in school.
Remembering my frustrations at changing schools all the time. I decided to befriend her.
She accepted. She was so grateful just to have someone to talk to. Nobody else would. They were all afraid of her. She missed her friends she had left, and her community. And I gotta admit, I wouldnât want to suddenly be moved into a situation where I was surrounded by an opposite race either.

We developed a very long lasting relationship. All through the time we both lived there. As with most kids everyone grew up and moved away after high school.
Once I accepted her everyone else did too. It just took one person to give her/them a chance. She had an older brother and younger sister. Once Debbie got accepted, people warmed up to her brother and sister as well. 
Debbie was a very outgoing and fun person. One week or so after I befriended her and people quit being hostile and afraid of her, she developed plenty of friendships besides mine. She was off and running soâs to speak. 
Her mother was a single mom. She accepted me into her family. No small feat either. Her mom was one of the strongest no nonsense persons Ive ever met. She didnât take any guff from anyone. She didnât accept to many kids around her and her children white or not. I was one of the few allowed and welcomed over anytime. I used to spend a lot of time Debbie, and family.
I never had really met or spent much time around black people. I found them and their ways fascinating.
I learned a lot of how black people thought felt about well everything. Life, people , etc.

She allowed me to go to some family events with her, and Debbie of course. The main roots of the family were in a community in the nearest big city, Seattle.
They would go every so often, and spend the night back with friends in the city. They would let me come along sometimes.
I remember the community. It was all black. White people were not tolerated period. I was only accepted and protected because I was friends with Debbie, and had accepted her in school, and allowed her to have a chance.
I mean that about white people were not accepted in that community. I didnât be white and wind up there. They would chase you out real quick, if they felt nice. Give em to much guff or grief, you would wind up hurt pretty badly too.

They would have block gatherings. I donât know what else to call it. It was cool. Everyone would cook up a big meal/dishes. The kids us, would wander from house to house, socializing, eating, having fun.
Night time was fun. Nightime was time for dancing, singing, music. Dressing up, looking good. Debbie and I would dance and sing all night. Well everyone was. We would go to different houses, all the kids were.
We would go to a bunch of parties, house to house. Clean parties. We were kids, the various parents didnât tolerate the youngins drinking or drugging much. 

That another strange whole paradox, I find, how the young black males will sneak off and start drinking/drugging. Im aware how the boys grow up and get involved in that, in society. Thatâs a whole nuther subject. Its strange. I know of how strong willed the woman can be and are, especially single moms. And how much pain it causes them when their sons embrace that lifestyle. That was a long time ago. Im sure things have changed a lot. Im not sure today how many woman there are like Debbies mom. She sure wouldnât have put up with this gangsta stuff, or anything even remotely close to that. Maybe black moms do these days, obviously they must, cause theres so much of it.

Debbies mom would not tolerate that. You even bother thinking that thought and she would be more than happy to slap it right out of your head if need be.Yet her brother was one of the biggest partiers around. He hid it from mom real well, till he was old enough, that she couldnât physically enforce rules against him, and he decided to do/live how he wanted too. He chose that route, and then I lost contact, we all grew up and moved on.
Lots of fights with mom, getting thrown in jail all the time. The cops loved catchin them the only black boy in town. His mom didnât raise him that way. I donât know what happened. 


There was so much love and fun on those nights. There is nothing quit like the feeling of being/belonging to a whole community. Words kinda fail me to describe that. I donât know how to use them to describe those experiences. The whole community watched out and belonged to/ for each other. You mess with one, you take them all on. There's more to it than just that though. The food, the socializing, the acceptance. I really miss that.

Well any ways those are some of my experiences.


----------



## Darren

I went to a small high school of around 300 to 400. There was only one Black kid. I don't remember any hostility or standoffishness. He was well liked and fairly popular.


----------



## haypoint

Darren said:


> I went to a small high school of around 300 to 400. There was only one Black kid. I don't remember any hostility or standoffishness. He was well liked and fairly popular.


Turn the table and see how that works out.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> After a month, there is very little more they can learn.
> The main reason it's "ongoing" is the Feds involvement, and the media hysteria
> 
> They've interviewed *all* the witnesses, mostly on the night of the shooting.
> They've reached conclusions as to what the evidence shows
> 
> They have evidence that the public *hasn't seen*, and STILL have not charged Zimmerman, even when doing so would be *great* for their public relations
> 
> What more do you expect them to look for?


The most significant evidence I've heard so far is the huge difference between Martin's girlfriend's account and Zimmerman's statement to police. While I expect any suspect to slant his story in his favor, it's apparent that he went too far in concealing what really went on. That creates a credibility problem for Zimmerman.

There is no question in my mind that Zimmerman tried to interrogate Martin. I believe it's also likely that Zimmerman tried to detain him. No doubt, Martin resisted and a struggle followed. Zimmerman somehow broke free from the struggle, then drew and fired his weapon.


----------



## TraderBob

Nevada said:


> The most significant evidence I've heard so far is the huge difference between Martin's girlfriend's account and Zimmerman's statement to police. While I expect any suspect to slant his story in his favor, it's apparent that he went too far in concealing what really went on. That creates a credibility problem for Zimmerman.


Oh really? Here, let me repeat that:

The most significant evidence I've heard so far is the huge difference between Martin's girlfriend's account and Zimmerman's statement to police. While I expect any alibi to slant the story in his/her favor, it's apparent that she went too far in concealing what really went on. That creates a credibility problem for DeeDee.

It's all he said/she said....there is no evidence of what was said on the phone, except her statement. YOU choose to believe her, so your take is different than those who don't. Same with Zimmerman, although the evidence seems to support his version.


----------



## ryanthomas

> The most significant evidence I've heard so far is the huge difference between Martin's girlfriend's account and Zimmerman's statement to police. While I expect any suspect to slant his story in his favor, it's apparent that he went too far in concealing what really went on. That creates a credibility problem for Zimmerman.


Since the girlfriend probably wasn't interviewed that night, and possibly not until weeks later, I think her story is more suspect. Add to that the fact that her accounts to the media have changed slightly. She doesn't have much credibility. The rest of your post is too imaginative. Maybe it's exactly what happened, but is there any EVIDENCE to support it?


----------



## Nevada

ryanthomas said:


> Since the girlfriend probably wasn't interviewed that night, and possibly not until weeks later, I think her story is more suspect. Add to that the fact that her accounts to the media have changed slightly. She doesn't have much credibility. The rest of your post is too imaginative. Maybe it's exactly what happened, but is there any EVIDENCE to support it?


The reason I give the girlfriend's story so much weight is that it makes a lot more sense than Zimmerman's story. From the start, I believed that Martin approaching Zimmerman and starting a fight was unlikely. Even the most aggressive of people are going to size-up the situation. Zimmerman asking Martin what he was doing there sounds like a perfectly logical way for the conversation to start.


----------



## Darren

haypoint said:


> Turn the table and see how that works out.


In this day and age, no thank you. Back then, at least in WV it wasn't a big deal. Bobby was one of the more popular kids. Did racism exist in WV? Probably. Did Robert Byrd, our long term senator, belong to the KKK and pass it off as a social club? Yep!

All I can say is as a kid, I didn't see racism or at least I didn't recognize it. Did I see racism after I moved to Mississippi in the 70's? Absolutely. Not necessarily out in the open. But many of the whites expressed it privately in one way or another.


----------



## Pearl B

Nevada said:


> The reason I give the girlfriend's story so much weight is that it makes a lot more sense than Zimmerman's story. From the start, I believed that Martin approaching Zimmerman and starting a fight was unlikely. Even the most aggressive of people are going to size-up the situation. Zimmerman asking Martin what he was doing there sounds like a perfectly logical way for the conversation to start.


That sounds a lot more logical to me as well. This whole thing is just strange to me.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> The reason I give the girlfriend's story so much weight is that it makes a lot more sense than Zimmerman's story. From the start, I believed that Martin approaching Zimmerman and starting a fight was unlikely. Even the most aggressive of people are going to size-up the situation. Zimmerman asking Martin what he was doing there sounds like a perfectly logical way for the conversation to start.


I've read that Martin's girlfriend's story has changed. The early story could have been interpreted in different ways since she only heard a sound and not voices after the two men encountered each other. What doesn't fit is her account of Martin saying he was not going to run, he was going to walk away fast. 

That always seemed odd to me. He was close to houses with lit windows. I realize he may have not felt comfortable calling for help. Still there are many things Martin could have done to avoid the confrontation. Of course that's my view as a white male. I have no idea what Martin was thinking.

Zimmerman on the tape says he lost sight of Martin and then said something difficult to hear and which seems to be the basis for the FBI involvement and analysis of the 911 tape. One interpretation is Zimmerman said, "The punks always get away." Then, somehow the two men met.

Martin was supposed to be heading to his father's fiance's home. Zimmerman was supposed to meet the police back at his truck. Both should have been going in opposite directions. 

Only the NSA knows for sure what was said during the conversation between Martin and his girlfriend. I'm curious if the FBI already has a copy. And would they make it available to the prosecutor if it didn't support a hate crime.


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> The reason I give the girlfriend's story so much weight is that it makes a lot more sense than Zimmerman's story. From the start, I believed that Martin approaching Zimmerman and starting a fight was unlikely. Even the most aggressive of people are going to size-up the situation. Zimmerman asking Martin what he was doing there sounds like a perfectly logical way for the conversation to start.


It does seem more logical, but often truth is stranger than fiction. And we can't go around arresting people because it "seems" like they probably did something.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> The most significant evidence I've heard so far is the huge *difference between Martin's girlfriend's account and Zimmerman's statement to police*.
> While I expect any suspect to slant his story in his favor, it's apparent that he went too far in concealing what really went on. That creates a credibility problem for Zimmerman.
> 
> There is no question in my mind that Zimmerman tried to interrogate Martin. I believe it's also likely that Zimmerman tried to detain him. No doubt, Martin resisted and a struggle followed. Zimmerman somehow broke free from the struggle, then drew and fired his weapon.


 
*Which* of her statements?

She's given *two different versions* of what she THOUGHT she heard.
In one Martin speaks first.
In the other Zimmerman speaks first

Also, maybe Zimmerman is telling the truth, and she *MISUNDERSTOOD *what Martin said.

Think about the *phonetics*:

"Why are you following me?"

"You got a problem with me?"

Those could *sound* very similar over a cell phone.
She didn't hear ANYTHING after that, but that doesn't mean more things weren't said

In the end, you always have to MAKE UP a scenario to turn Zimmerman into the aggressor, when there is *NO EVIDENCE at all* to support your *theory*


----------



## ryanthomas

Darren said:


> Only the NSA knows for sure what was said during the conversation between Martin and his girlfriend. I'm curious if the FBI already has a copy. And would they make it available to the prosecutor if it didn't support a hate crime.


I very much doubt the FBI will have access to an NSA recording for this case.


----------



## Darren

ryanthomas said:


> I very much doubt the FBI will have access to an NSA recording for this case.


I doubt it to, but probably not for the same reasons as you. My only question is how difficult would it be for the NSA to recover the conversation since it probably didn't have any of the key words.

When an Army private gets access to secret diplomatic messages, you have to wonder.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> *Which* of her statements?
> 
> She's given *two different versions* of what she THOUGHT she heard.
> In one Martin speaks first.
> In the other Zimmerman speaks first
> 
> Also, maybe Zimmerman is telling the truth, and she *MISUNDERSTOOD *what Martin said.
> 
> Think about the *phonetics*:
> 
> "Why are you following me?"
> 
> "You got a problem with me?"
> 
> Those could *sound* very similar over a cell phone.
> She didn't hear ANYTHING after that, but that doesn't mean more things weren't said
> 
> In the end, you always have to MAKE UP a scenario to turn Zimmerman into the aggressor, when there is *NO EVIDENCE at all* to support your *theory*


Here is what she said.

_&#8220;Trayvon said, &#8216;What, are you following me for.&#8217; And the man said, &#8216;What are you doing here.&#8217; Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again and he didn&#8217;t answer the phone.&#8221;_
Trayvon Martin&#8217;s girlfriend recalls final conversation before shooting | The Raw Story

So she heard 'What, are you following me for.&#8217; How does that sound like 'You got a problem with me'? And for Zimmerman's story to be believed, you also have to think 'What are you doing here' sounded like 'No.'

You are losing the credibility argument here. What's more, you've stopped simply accepting Zimmerman's statement and crossed the line into twisting facts to support Zimmerman. I'm curious why it's so important to you for Zimmerman to be innocent.


----------



## ryanthomas

Darren said:


> I doubt it to, but probably not for the same reasons as you. My only question is how difficult would it be for the NSA to recover the conversation since it probably didn't have any of the key words.
> 
> When an Army private gets access to secret diplomatic messages, you have to wonder.


I think the NSA just won't hand over intelligence for a simple civil rights investigation. It seems that would put a greater spotlight on what they're doing in the shadows, with no benefit to them.


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> Here is what she said.
> 
> _âTrayvon said, âWhat, are you following me for.â And the man said, âWhat are you doing here.â Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again and he didnât answer the phone.â_
> Trayvon Martinâs girlfriend recalls final conversation before shooting | The Raw Story
> 
> So she heard 'What, are you following me for.â How does that sound like 'You got a problem with me'? And for Zimmerman's story to be believed, you also have to think 'What are you doing here' sounded like 'No.'


She's given at least two different versions. Maybe they're both completely wrong.


----------



## Darren

ryanthomas said:


> I think the NSA just won't hand over intelligence for a simple civil rights investigation. It seems that would put a greater spotlight on what they're doing in the shadows, with no benefit to them.


True. The phone company doesn't publicize the fact that everything you say is recorded. Some folks would love to catch the govenrment off base and make an issue of private conversations being recorded without a warrant.

As you say the NSA has nothing to gain. That's a different world. When your mission is national security, getting involved in the Martin Zimmerman incident has no upside even if justice isn't done.


----------



## Nevada

ryanthomas said:


> She's given at least two different versions. Maybe they're both completely wrong.


That's fine, and I'm willing to pursue that, but I've only heard one account. What was her other story?


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> That's fine, and I'm willing to pursue that, but I've only heard one account. What was her other story?


Very similar, only Zimmerman asked Martin what he was doing there first. It's a minor detail to a normal conversation, but it's major when it comes to who started an altercation that ended with a death. Either she doesn't remember clearly how it happened, or she is intentionally trying to slant the story.


----------



## Sonshine

watcher said:


> Fair as defined by who? How many people do you know who think the OJ trial was fair? How many think it was a farce? How many people do you know who think the trial of officers Koon, Powell, Briseno, and Wind after the King arrest was fair? How many think it was a farce?
> 
> Seeing as how there is zero evidence, that we have seen, to show Zimmerman committed a crime how is it fair to try him? You can think him guilty all you want but if you have no hard evidence he is innocent in the eyes of the law.
> 
> Also after this 'fair' trial if he is found not guilty in the state court are we going to have a nice fair federal trial to give the pols another chance?


Although OJ's trial may not have been "fair" by normal standards, he still won, so it didn't affect the trial negatively.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> *Here is what she said*.
> 
> _*âTrayvon said*, âWhat, are you following me for.â_
> 
> _ *And the man said*, âWhat are you doing here.â _
> 
> _Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again and he didnât answer the phone.â_
> Trayvon Martinâs girlfriend recalls final conversation before shooting | The Raw Story
> 
> So she heard *'What, are you following me for.*â How does that sound like 'You got a problem with me'? And for Zimmerman's story to be believed, you also have to think 'What are you doing here' sounded like 'No.'
> 
> *You are losing the credibility argument here*. What's more, you've stopped simply accepting Zimmerman's statement and crossed the line into *twisting facts to support Zimmerman*. I'm curious why it's so important to you for Zimmerman to be innocent.


LOL
You're not paying attention, since this came up a few pages ago.
You keep *inventing *facts,and accuse ME of "twisting"?

The "girl" (actually Martin's lawyer) gave a* different version* in the first statement

Lawyer: Slain teen's girlfriend heard altercation



> Crump, relaying the girl's description of the conversation with Trayvon as the confrontation heats up, says,
> 
> "She hears *other voice, 'What are you doing around here?'*
> 
> *Trayvon says*, *'Why are you following me?*'"
> 
> At that point, according to the girl, Travyon is pushed and his voice changes.
> 
> "She hears the altercation, suddenly, someone just hit the phone, because that's the last she hears," Crump says.


You also need to keep in mind you didn't HEAR Zimmerman's statement, but only read a reporter's version.

Same with the phone call. 

There's no promise those are all the PRECISE words spoken, and the girl's statement has changed not only the wording but the ORDER in which they spoke

And here's another as yet unnoticed puzzle piece:



> The lawyer, who took an affidavit from the girl, quotes her as saying that *Trayvon *was walking home from the store Feb. 26 and *had temporarily taken refuge from the rain.* He then began walking again, when he tells her, according to Crump, "I think this dude is following me."


 
*WHERE* did he "take refuge" and could THAT be why Zimmerman took notice of him to begin with?

Maybe he was somewhere he shouldn't have been at all?



> *I'm curious why* it's so important to you for Zimmerman to be innocent


I'm curious as to why you think a trial should come *before* solid evidence of any crime, although I realize your statement is just to divert attention away from the topic and onto me, since it's your SOP


----------



## Sonshine

Pearl B. said:


> This thread brings to my mind some experiences Ive had with black people.
> 
> I guess my 1st and real vital one was in jr.high. My jr high was in a small place.
> The student pop was probably 500 or less. It just a little place, in the country.
> A black family moved in. Literally the only ones around for miles. I really donât even remember if there were any nationalilities other that whites.
> A little background. My family moved around a lot. I think I went to 5 different grade schools. I know what its like to change schools constantly and never really have friends.
> 
> So anyways, our black family moved in. 2 girls, 1 boy. Nobody would give them the time of day.Most kids were scared of them simply because they were black. I remember Debbie. My age/grade.
> I watched for a few days as every one gave her a hard time simply because of her color. I saw her frustration at trying to fit in and getting no where. I was one of the more popular girls in school.
> Remembering my frustrations at changing schools all the time. I decided to befriend her.
> She accepted. She was so grateful just to have someone to talk to. Nobody else would. They were all afraid of her. She missed her friends she had left, and her community. And I gotta admit, I wouldnât want to suddenly be moved into a situation where I was surrounded by an opposite race either.
> 
> We developed a very long lasting relationship. All through the time we both lived there. As with most kids everyone grew up and moved away after high school.
> Once I accepted her everyone else did too. It just took one person to give her/them a chance. She had an older brother and younger sister. Once Debbie got accepted, people warmed up to her brother and sister as well.
> Debbie was a very outgoing and fun person. One week or so after I befriended her and people quit being hostile and afraid of her, she developed plenty of friendships besides mine. She was off and running soâs to speak.
> Her mother was a single mom. She accepted me into her family. No small feat either. Her mom was one of the strongest no nonsense persons Ive ever met. She didnât take any guff from anyone. She didnât accept to many kids around her and her children white or not. I was one of the few allowed and welcomed over anytime. I used to spend a lot of time Debbie, and family.
> I never had really met or spent much time around black people. I found them and their ways fascinating.
> I learned a lot of how black people thought felt about well everything. Life, people , etc.
> 
> She allowed me to go to some family events with her, and Debbie of course. The main roots of the family were in a community in the nearest big city, Seattle.
> They would go every so often, and spend the night back with friends in the city. They would let me come along sometimes.
> I remember the community. It was all black. White people were not tolerated period. I was only accepted and protected because I was friends with Debbie, and had accepted her in school, and allowed her to have a chance.
> I mean that about white people were not accepted in that community. I didnât be white and wind up there. They would chase you out real quick, if they felt nice. Give em to much guff or grief, you would wind up hurt pretty badly too.
> 
> They would have block gatherings. I donât know what else to call it. It was cool. Everyone would cook up a big meal/dishes. The kids us, would wander from house to house, socializing, eating, having fun.
> Night time was fun. Nightime was time for dancing, singing, music. Dressing up, looking good. Debbie and I would dance and sing all night. Well everyone was. We would go to different houses, all the kids were.
> We would go to a bunch of parties, house to house. Clean parties. We were kids, the various parents didnât tolerate the youngins drinking or drugging much.
> 
> That another strange whole paradox, I find, how the young black males will sneak off and start drinking/drugging. Im aware how the boys grow up and get involved in that, in society. Thatâs a whole nuther subject. Its strange. I know of how strong willed the woman can be and are, especially single moms. And how much pain it causes them when their sons embrace that lifestyle. That was a long time ago. Im sure things have changed a lot. Im not sure today how many woman there are like Debbies mom. She sure wouldnât have put up with this gangsta stuff, or anything even remotely close to that. Maybe black moms do these days, obviously they must, cause theres so much of it.
> 
> Debbies mom would not tolerate that. You even bother thinking that thought and she would be more than happy to slap it right out of your head if need be.Yet her brother was one of the biggest partiers around. He hid it from mom real well, till he was old enough, that she couldnât physically enforce rules against him, and he decided to do/live how he wanted too. He chose that route, and then I lost contact, we all grew up and moved on.
> Lots of fights with mom, getting thrown in jail all the time. The cops loved catchin them the only black boy in town. His mom didnât raise him that way. I donât know what happened.
> 
> 
> There was so much love and fun on those nights. There is nothing quit like the feeling of being/belonging to a whole community. Words kinda fail me to describe that. I donât know how to use them to describe those experiences. The whole community watched out and belonged to/ for each other. You mess with one, you take them all on. There's more to it than just that though. The food, the socializing, the acceptance. I really miss that.
> 
> Well any ways those are some of my experiences.


I think you describe it very well. Mine experiences were a bit different than yours as I was one of the few white families that live in our neighborhood, yet I was accepted. You are right, most of the black Mom's I have known are very strong women and try to keep their kids from trouble. Yet you have the pull from the kids running the streets. Kids always want to fit in and many times in order to fit in you have to run with the wrong crowd. Yet the community will still work to protect their own. As Martian Chick has posted in other posts they do reprimand those who stray, but it's usually done within the community and others won't see it.


----------



## Sonshine

haypoint said:


> Turn the table and see how that works out.


I was a skinny white girl that grew up in a black neighborhood, went to a predominately black school and a black church. I was accepted as part of the community. In fact, when the government decided they were going to de-segregate the schools it was the black kids that kept me protected from some of the violence that occured.


----------



## Darren

This is not going to end well. Six kids against one man.

*Man, 78, recounts assault by 6 youths in E. Toledo*

Man, 78, recounts assault by 6 youths in E. Toledo - Toledo Blade


----------



## Bearfootfarm

I wonder when BO will comment on it?

Will Eric Holder rush down to see if it's a "hate crime"?


----------



## Sonshine

Darren said:


> This is not going to end well. Six kids against one man.
> 
> *Man, 78, recounts assault by 6 youths in E. Toledo*
> 
> Man, 78, recounts assault by 6 youths in E. Toledo - Toledo Blade


Unfortunately, because of all the racist rhetoric in the media, I'm afraid we're going to see more of this and I wouldn't be surprised to see the KKK start retaliating.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> You also need to keep in mind you didn't HEAR Zimmerman's statement, but only read a reporter's version.


I suppose, but I suggest that Zimmerman coming out with a different story at this stage of the game would be a mistake. There would be no way to avoid giving the impression of creating a story to match whatever evidence is out there at the time. That wouldn't be good for his cause.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> I suppose, but I suggest that Zimmerman coming out with a different story at this stage of the game would be a mistake. There would be no way to avoid *giving the impression of creating a story *to match whatever evidence is out there at the time. That wouldn't be good for his cause.


LOL
There you go *fantasizing* again

It's MARTIN'S GIRLFRIEND whose story has changed.

Zimmerman only gave *one* version.
Maybe HE misunderstood what Martin said.

Go back and READ his statement, and you'll see he wasn't POSITIVE exactly what words Martin used

It's Martin's side who has relied on *rhetoric and misinformation*


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> There you go *fantasizing* again
> 
> It's MARTIN'S GIRLFRIEND whose story has changed.
> 
> Zimmerman only gave *one* version.
> Maybe HE misunderstood what Martin said.
> 
> Go back and READ his statement, and you'll see he wasn't POSITIVE exactly what words Martin used
> 
> It's Martin's side who has relied on *rhetoric and misinformation*


Why is it so important to you that Zimmerman not face trial?


----------



## Narshalla

Nevada said:


> Why is it so important to you that Zimmerman not face trial?


Why is it so important to you that he be found guilty?

You keep talking about "more investigation," a "fair trial," and things like that, but you categorically refuse to believe that it is possible that the PD is withholding facts to protect the investigation, or that the media is withholding facts so they can write a better story.

From the aggregate of your posts, you want the conclusion you want, and anything that stands in the way of the results you believe should be achieved must be fought against.

While many have said that there are facts that have not been released, that the police and media have extra details up their sleeves, and they want to know more, you seem to know, ahead of time, that any new details will convict, not exonerate, Zimmerman.

Every fact you have heard so far points to Zimmerman's guilt, nothing points to any other conclusion. If they do, you either ignore them or explain them away.

Nevada, we know where you stand. Martin was an innocent little boy and Zimmerman was a big fat racist monster who murdered him in cold blood. That's what you believe. We get it.

But the aggregate of facts paint a much more nuanced picture to the vast overwhelming majority of us.

In my opinion, Zimmerman was a wannabe cop. He lived in the neighborhood that wasn't as safe as the label "gated community" would have you believe. He may or may not have had the desire to be a hero of some sort; certainly he wanted to be a part of the group who caught those responsible for the recent break-ins. He might have been the type of person who would create a situation so he could solve it; there's some evidence for this theory, but not much.

Martin, on the other hand, had many of the characteristics of a wannabe street thug. He skipped school and was sturdy frequently. He got into altercations both with other students and with staff at his high school. Though he normally lived with his mother, he was with his father that evening because he had been suspended for being in possession of a baggie with marijuana residue in it. I've seen his YouTube channel; the background wallpaper is a repeated picture of Martin flipping the bird with both hands. One of the videos he uploaded she was a fight that he appears to be refereeing. Another video is a typically offensive anti-women rap "song;" I won't repeat the title, because it would be censored and I would get a infractions. There are currently many Facebook pages for Martin; all of them were created after his death. I did, however, see one that was created several years ago; it's gone now. There were pictures on the deleted Facebook page; suffice to say they didn't show the cute, smiling, 14-year-old Martin, nor the Photoshoped-to-make-him-look-whiter photo of him in a hoodie.

Nevada, your narrative consists entirely of Zimmerman-is-a-murderer. As near as I can tell, there is no space for any other explanation.

I, on the other hand, see the entire situation as a great deal more complex but, to put it as simply as possible, and wannabe hero-cop and a wannabe street thug crossed paths one night.

What is disturbing, Nevada, is that I am absolutely convinced that if it had been_Zimmerman_ who had died, there is no way on earth under any circumstances you would be condemning Martin.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Why is it so important to you that Zimmerman not face trial?


It's not "important" to me, personally, but to answer the question, there is no *evidence *he's committed any *crime.*

It's how the system is supposed to work

Why do YOU *insist* on a *trial *when there hasn't even been enough evidence for an ARREST?

Martin's side has been the ones who have been caught spreading FALSE information *from the beginning*. 
Zimmerman has *fully cooperated* and has NOT changed his story

I'm just interested in the TRUTH and not the emotional hysteria


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> Why is it so important to you that Zimmerman not face trial?


It's up to the prosecutor to review the evidence and determine if it justifies presenting the case to the grand jury. The prosecutor has to believe there's enough evidence to convict Zimmerman. If the investigation results and the medical reports on both Zimmerman and Martin all support Zimmerman's statement, there is no reason to try to indict Zimmerman. There is no case. Remember, lawyers don't get to pick the grand jury nor does a judge set in on the proceedings. That means the prosecutor can chose to do nothing, If it gets the evidence the grand jury's decision can be a true bill, indictment, or no true bill.

A lot of self defense case don't go to a grand jury. But the majority of cases don't have the media stirring up hate.

If it does go to trial then we're going to see a media circus and more people will die even if Zimmerman is convicted. We're already past the point of no return. A trial by jury won't change anyone's mind that's already made up. 

The posts on this topic on HT prove how people don't keep up with changes and all of the available information. Lots of people in this country firmly believe Zimmerman; who in their minds is a known criminal, a menace to society and a cop wannabe, murdered a young kid who had a great future as an aeronautical engineer when in fact the kid was having truancy issues before the other school problems. 

As a sophomore or junior, I doubt the kid was going to turn his life around without a mentor. His parents may have tried to do what was best for the kid, but the decision to send him along with his father to the fiances house was the last straw.

The kicker was the father wasn't upset when his son wasn't back by morning. Why didn't Martin's girlfriend call Martin's parents when she couldn't reach him after the call was cut off? There's a lot of things that don't make sense. It doesn't take much imagination to see a lot of CYA going on.

Then the grief-stricken parents want to trademark Trayvon's name to protect the legacy of their pure as the driven snow angel. You have a Black funeral director become a medical examiner and release information that supports the anger. And the people that are trying to tell the media what Zimmerman was really like are ignored.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not "important" to me, personally, but to answer the question, there is no *evidence *he's committed any *crime.*
> 
> It's how the system is supposed to work


The state's responsibility is to prove who killed Martin. There is overwhelming evidence that Zimmerman did it. After the state presents it's case, Zimmerman has the right to put on a defense. Zimmerman's defense will undoubtedly include either an assertion of self defense or a claim of accidental shooting (i.e., the gun fired accidentally during the struggle). In either case, Zimmerman has the burden of convincing a jury that his defense excuses the crime.

But as far as the state having enough evidence to go to court, they have plenty.

By the way, during a grand jury hearing the defense has no right to assert any kind of defense. With overwhelming evidence that Zimmerman shot Martin, and the defense unable to assert a defense, what makes you think the grand jury wouldn't indict?


----------



## Darren

Like I said a lot of self defense cases never go to the grand jury. We know Zimmerman killed Martin. We don't know if he murdered him. If the evidence supports Zimmerman's statement, it wasn't murder. The state has to prove it wasn't self defense. Based on the eye witness reports, it seems like it was. The forensics will be either support or disprove that. Remember, the local prosecutor didn't have Zimmerman arrested. And he had access to all of the evidence including the autopsy results.

If the admiinistration had an axe to grind because of being embarassed by Zimmerman's defense of the Black homeless man who was beaten by a Sanford cop's son, they had their opportunity to put Zimmerman through the wringer. They didn't. What does that tell you about the evidence for murder? It tells me it's nonexistent or extremely thin at best. The cops had Zimmerman for at least five hours for interrogation. Then they let him go home. That's another sign of a non or at best a very weak case. It was the prosecutor's call. He let Zimmerman walk.


----------



## haypoint

Nevada said:


> The state's responsibility is to prove who killed Martin. There is overwhelming evidence that Zimmerman did it. After the state presents it's case, Zimmerman has the right to put on a defense. Zimmerman's defense will undoubtedly include either an assertion of self defense or a claim of accidental shooting (i.e., the gun fired accidentally during the struggle). In either case, Zimmerman has the burden of convincing a jury that his defense excuses the crime.
> 
> But as far as the state having enough evidence to go to court, they have plenty.
> 
> By the way, during a grand jury hearing the defense has no right to assert any kind of defense. With overwhelming evidence that Zimmerman shot Martin, and the defense unable to assert a defense, what makes you think the grand jury wouldn't indict?


Nope, nope and nope.
It is the County's job to determine if a crime has been committed. There is no question who shot Martin. If the County thought there was a crime, it is up to the County Prosecutor to prove it. Zimmerman does not need to prove his innocence. That is how it works in this country. 
Let me ask you this, " If you were on the jury, based just on what you have read in the police report, what is your verdict?" If you understood how the Court System works and you were paying attention when the Judge gave instructions you would have no other choice but to find Zimmerman not guilty. You only get two choices, guilty or not guilty. No one has to prove their innocence. That is how it works. There has not been enough factual information presented to find Zimmerman guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Things like Martins crime history or Zimmerman's tutoring service aren't relevant to this case. Martin isn't here to tell his side and DeeDee can't tell who she heard get shoved while she was listening on her cell phone. Every coulda, woulda, shoulda isn't part of a court hearing.


----------



## Guest

haypoint said:


> Nope, nope and nope.
> It is the County's job to determine if a crime has been committed. There is no question who shot Martin. If the County thought there was a crime, *it is up to the County Prosecutor to prove it.* Zimmerman does not need to prove his innocence. That is how it works in this country.
> Let me ask you this, " If you were on the jury, based just on what you have read in the police report, what is your verdict?" If you understood how the Court System works and you were paying attention when the Judge gave instructions you would have no other choice but to find Zimmerman not guilty. You only get two choices, guilty or not guilty. No one has to prove their innocence. That is how it works. There has not been enough factual information presented to find Zimmerman guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt.
> 
> Things like Martins crime history or Zimmerman's tutoring service aren't relevant to this case. Martin isn't here to tell his side and DeeDee can't tell who she heard get shoved while she was listening on her cell phone. Every coulda, woulda, shoulda isn't part of a court hearing.


Sorry but Grand Juries only determine probable cause, not proof, the lesser standard is much easier to put forth for an indictment than evidence needed to convict in a criminal trial court. (*facts* and* circumstances* which would cause a reasonable person of *prudence* to believe a crime was committed)


----------



## Nevada

haypoint said:


> Nope, nope and nope.
> It is the County's job to determine if a crime has been committed. There is no question who shot Martin. If the County thought there was a crime, it is up to the County Prosecutor to prove it. Zimmerman does not need to prove his innocence. That is how it works in this country.


Zimmerman does not need to prove that he didn't shoot Martin. The burden is on the state to prove that he did. However, if Zimmerman wants to assert an affirmative defense like self-defense or accidental discharge, then Zimmerman will need to prove that affirmative defense. 



haypoint said:


> Let me ask you this, " If you were on the jury, based just on what you have read in the police report, what is your verdict?"


A grand jury won't render a verdict. They will either indict or they won't, based solely on the state's case.


----------



## haypoint

dlmcafee said:


> Sorry but Grand Juries only determine probable cause, not proof, the lesser standard is much easier to put forth for an indictment than evidence needed to convict in a criminal trial court. (*facts* and* circumstances* which would cause a reasonable person of *prudence* to believe a crime was committed)


As a prudent person, what facts and circumstances would you present as edidence that a crime was committed, in this case?

There are many cases where a person dies and no one is hauled into court. If you ran over someone with a car, you don't get charged with murder and then have to prove they stepped in front of you.


----------



## Nevada

haypoint said:


> As a prudent person, what facts and circumstances would you present as edidence that a crime was committed, in this case?




The coroner's report.
The ballistics report.
Zimmerman's 9mm.
The police report.
Witness accounts.
Zimmerman's admission that he shot Martin.

They will all establish that Zimmerman shot Martin to death.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> *The state's responsibility is to prove who killed Martin. *There is overwhelming evidence that Zimmerman did it.
> 
> After the state presents it's case, *Zimmerman has the right to put on a defense*. Zimmerman's defense will undoubtedly include either an assertion of self defense or a claim of accidental shooting (i.e., the gun fired accidentally during the struggle).
> 
> In either case, *Zimmerman has the burden of convincing a jury that his defense excuses the crime.*
> 
> But as far as the state having enough evidence to go to court, they have plenty.
> 
> By the way, during a grand jury hearing the defense has no right to assert any kind of defense. With overwhelming evidence that Zimmerman shot Martin, and the defense unable to assert a defense, what makes you think the grand jury wouldn't indict?


Why should they have to prove *who* killed him?
Everyone already knows

No "defense " is needed if there is NO CRIME.
You keep acting like there WAS a crime

They make NO decisions as to innocence or guilt, but ONLY decide if there is enough evidence to have an actual trial.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> The coroner's report.
> The ballistics report.
> Zimmerman's 9mm.
> The police report.
> Witness accounts.
> Zimmerman's admission that he shot Martin.
> *They will all establish that Zimmerman shot Martin to death.*



That wasn't the question, but then you already know that.
You're just dodging as always


----------



## copperkid3

Nevada said:


> The coroner's report.
> The ballistics report.
> Zimmerman's 9mm.
> The police report.
> Witness accounts.
> Zimmerman's admission that he shot Martin.
> 
> They will all establish that Zimmerman shot Martin to death.


*****************************************************
Martin to death; what hasn't been established is that a murder has been committed.....only you and 
other radical minded liberals who have whipped up the media are convinced of such.......fortunately for 
the rest of us, there is a little thing called rules of law that the prosecutor, cops, judge, jury and the 
grand jury have to abide by.......not the mob mentality. haypoint, dimcafee and Darren have given you 
the straight scoop on how the judicial system works.....even in Florida; which is one of the other 
49 states. And until your boss can come up with his extra 7, that's how it's going to stay too!!!


----------



## haypoint

Nevada said:


> The coroner's report.
> The ballistics report.
> Zimmerman's 9mm.
> The police report.
> Witness accounts.
> Zimmerman's admission that he shot Martin.
> 
> They will all establish that Zimmerman shot Martin to death.


Yup, shot to death. Hunted down like a dog and murdered in the streets, too? Is there a place where you draw the line from facts to speculation?

Shooting a person isn't a crime any more than having consentual sex is rape or burning an old shed you own is arson. In this country, we do not automaticly lock everyone up and let the Courts sort it out. :nono:


----------



## Narshalla

Nevada said:


> The coroner's report.
> The ballistics report.
> Zimmerman's 9mm.
> The police report.
> Witness accounts.
> Zimmerman's admission that he shot Martin.
> 
> They will all establish that Zimmerman shot Martin to death.


Yes, Zimmerman shot Martin to death. We all _know_ that. In fact, I do not think I have seen one person who admits to believing anything else.

_However._

"Zimmerman shot Martin to death" does not mean that Zimmerman _murdered_ Martin.

You have already decided that Zimmerman murdered Martin, you just want to argue about the degree.

If all of the sources of fact you have listed, taken all together, yield a no-bill finding by the Grand Jury, will that be acceptable to you, Nevada? Or will you keep second guessing the judgment of people who have all the facts, including many that the media won't release because it would ruin their story and they'd have to either tell the truth or (what they usually do) shut up?

But let's say the Grand Jury does decide to indict Zimmerman, and it goes to trial. Would you be willing to accept a "not guilty" verdict?

Nevada, you have already tried and convicted Zimmerman. Please tell me, how many years have you decided he should serve?


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada, if you want to further your education in criminal law, do a little reading on the "elements of a crime." The act itself is only one element of several.


----------



## Pearl B

Sonshine said:


> I was a skinny white girl that grew up in a black neighborhood, went to a predominately black school and a black church. I was accepted as part of the community. In fact, when the government decided they were going to de-segregate the schools it was the black kids that kept me protected from some of the violence that occured.


Thats it once you are accepted, you are protected. The community involvement part is an awesome feeling, I think. Its also something white's dont do to the same extent.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> The state's responsibility is to prove who killed Martin. There is overwhelming evidence that Zimmerman did it. After the state presents it's case, Zimmerman has the right to put on a defense. Zimmerman's defense will undoubtedly include either an assertion of self defense or a claim of accidental shooting (i.e., the gun fired accidentally during the struggle). In either case, Zimmerman has the burden of convincing a jury that his defense excuses the crime.
> 
> But as far as the state having enough evidence to go to court, they have plenty.
> 
> By the way, during a grand jury hearing the defense has no right to assert any kind of defense. With overwhelming evidence that Zimmerman shot Martin, and the defense unable to assert a defense, what makes you think the grand jury wouldn't indict?


Ok... I dont think there is any question as to who killed Martin... Zimmerman openly admitted to the police that he shot him. The only question is was it justifiable? Most states recognize self defense at various levels of "threat". Apparently Zimmerman satisfied the appropriate powers in his state that he felt he was in enough danger to warrant shooting Martin. That my friend is NOT a crime. 

Now about not having a right to defend oneself in front of a grand jury. Perhaps not in your state but I have personally appeared in front of two grand jurys to defend myself of criminal charges here in Kentucky. Both jurys, after hearing my admission of guilt, and my reasoning behind committing the "crime", voted 14 to 0 to not indict. Therefor there was no need for trial.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why should they have to prove *who* killed him?
> Everyone already knows


"But Your Honor, everyone knows he did it."


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> "But your honor, everyone knows he did it."


Nevada, Zimmerman told the first cop on the scene he had shot Martin. By now you should understand the difference between a justified killing and a murder. 

"With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered, law-enforcement authorities told the Orlando Sentinel.

*That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say.* There have been no reports that a witness saw the initial punch Zimmerman told police about.

Zimmerman has not spoken publicly about what happened Feb. 26. But that night, and in later meetings, he described and re-enacted for police what he says took place.

In his version of events, Zimmerman had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind, the two exchanged words and then Trayvon punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground, and began beating him.

*Zimmerman told police he shot the teenager in self-defense.*"

Did Martin deserve to die? That has nothing to do with the case. If Zimmerman's statement to the police was true, Martin comes across as a young man who was a bit too full of himself. Some here would say the same about Zimmerman. *The important fact is that Martin did not back off after he had decked Zimmerman. Continuing to beat Zimmerman was the last stupid decision the kid made in his short life.* 

Trayvon Martin: George Zimmerman's account to police of the Trayvon Martin shooting. - Orlando Sentinel


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> "But Your Honor, everyone knows he did it."


That's right, everyone knows who shot who.
That was never a question

The thing you are (*purposely*) refusing to admit is that it's NOT a CRIME
Because of that, you've lost* ALL* your credibility


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> *The important fact is that Martin did not back off after he had decked Zimmerman. Continuing to beat Zimmerman was the last stupid decision the kid made in his short life.* http://articles.orlandosentinel.com..._1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager


How do we know that for a fact?


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> How do we know that for a fact?


A Black witness saw Marvin on top of Zimmerman beating him. Zimmerman had the injuries including a broken nose and a cut scalp that coincided with his statement to the police and the position of the two men as seen by the witness.

The funeral director actually betrayed the Martin family in his attempt to portray Martin as the good guy in the encounter. While the funeral director said Martin had no scrapes on his fists, he also let the cat out of the bag by not mentioning any other wounds on Marvin that could have resulted from a fight. 

While the difference in the color of Zimmerman's jacket and Martin's hoodie was one way of differentiating the two men, the fact that Marvin didn't have wounds on the back of his head meant it wasn't his head that was being slammed against the sidewalk.

Zimmerman's wounds, Martin's lack of wounds other than the bullet hole, and the eye witness account all coincide to indicate that at the time of Martin's death, he was the aggressor. He should have stopped after decking Zimmerman. Like I said, Martin's decision to continue beating Zimmerman when he was on the ground was his last stupid decision. While we don't know who threw the first punch, Zimmerman ending up on the ground on his back is a strong indicator he was sucker punched.

Looking at the inconsistencies, I'd like to see Martin's girl friend take a lie detector test. Somehow Martin with his documented attitude doesn't strike me as someone who would walk a little faster to get away. As I said before, Martin was a young man who had too much attitude for his own good. It looks like he started the chain of events that ended in his death.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Kel Tec malfunction is the icing on the cake. In a previous post I said I believe that the investigators tested the Kel Tec and it fired every time. I still believe that. Obviously if the Kel Tec malfunctioned when tested it calls into question part of Zimmerman's statement. 

I think that was one of the reasons the local prosecutor refused to arrest Zimmerman because everything in his story that could be checked whether by medical report, autopsy, eye witness statements and other evidence supported his statement to the police.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> How do we know that for a fact?


Two *eyewitnesses*, and Zimmerman's statement.

What *EVIDENCE* do you have to back up your *theories*?


----------



## haypoint

"He should have stopped after decking Zimmerman."

Nope. He should have not assaulted Zimmerman at all. Martin could have simply ignored Zimmerman's questions and continued on his way. If Zimmerman had touched Martin, I can see Martin decking Zimmerman and then walking away. 

But, to slug a man in the face, hard enough to break his nose and drop him to the ground, then sit on him and beat his head into the sidewalk is an assault and in that situation you are legally permitted to defend yourself with deadly force.

A slug to the nose isn't going to mark up your hands. Slamming someone's head into the sidewalk won't injure your hands either. 

Good thing for Zimmerman that the School Superintendent had confiscated the large flat blade screwdriver Martin had been carrying........


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> How do we know that for a fact?


It is consistent with the evidence. Zimmermans back was wet, and had grass all over it, he had a bloody nose when the officer arrived on the scene, as well as injuries to the back of his head. Not to mention his account coincides with that of eyewitnesses.


----------



## big rockpile

Had a neighbor shot and killed a Kid in her house,didn't say a thing to him,he was in her house and she killed him,End of Story.But hey the Kid could have just been at the wrong House ound: Yea wrong house the person that owed the house also owned a .357 and knew how to use it.

big rockpile


----------



## Guest

haypoint said:


> As a prudent person, what facts and circumstances would you present as edidence that a crime was committed, in this case?
> 
> There are many cases where a person dies and no one is hauled into court. If you ran over someone with a car, you don't get charged with murder and then have to prove they stepped in front of you.


I was pointing out that your assumption that proof needs to be present to gain a true bill in a grand jury proceeding is wrong. 

You assume I defend one or the other in this case, wrong assumption again. 

You also seem to assume our legal system is fair, now on that one the debate is still up in the air. I have found after over a quarter century working in the system that it is not. That is just my opinion of a great system manipulated by not so great people. At times it takes people getting real mad to initiate a true investigation, case in point is the New Orleans Officers just convicted for killing citizens after Katrina.

And yes I have experience testifying and being the lead investigator in unlawful death grand juries.


----------



## Darren

haypoint said:


> "He should have stopped after decking Zimmerman."
> 
> *Nope. He should have not assaulted Zimmerman at all.* Martin could have simply ignored Zimmerman's questions and continued on his way. If Zimmerman had touched Martin, I can see Martin decking Zimmerman and then walking away.
> 
> But, to slug a man in the face, hard enough to break his nose and drop him to the ground, then sit on him and beat his head into the sidewalk is an assault and in that situation you are legally permitted to defend yourself with deadly force.
> 
> A slug to the nose isn't going to mark up your hands. Slamming someone's head into the sidewalk won't injure your hands either.
> 
> Good thing for Zimmerman that the School Superintendent had confiscated the large flat blade screwdriver Martin had been carrying........


You just brought up something else. As the encounter developed, each man had a decision to make at different times. Martin obviously punched Zimmerman in the face. It doesn't matter why he punched Zimmerman because at that point after knocking him down, he could have stopped and backed off. There was a chance, with the police on the way, everyone would have survived that night. Martin did not stop. He made the decision to continue attacking Zimmerman. Once Zimmerman was on the ground he wasn't the threat he was when standing.

That is where Martin crossed the line and forced Zimmerman to use deadly force. 

*You don't kick a man when he's down.* Obviously Martin didn't learn that lesson in Thug 101. Instead he learned that when you have a man down you don't stop. And that is what got him killed. At best, we can say Martin was stupid. At worse we can cross him off as another thug wannabe that ended up on the wrong end of a gun while trying to kill someone to move up in the thug world.

Martin had truancy issues, appears to have been in with the wrong crowd, seems to have gotten involved with drugs, and somehow ended up with a bunch of women's jewlery. While none of that absolutely proves that Martin was on the path to a life of crime, taken together it paints a disturbing picture.

Martin was a victim of many things in his young life. The word victim implies an inability to counter the forces that harm you. George Zimmerman wasn't one of them. Martin put Zimmerman in a position where the man thought he was going to die. Only the Grim Reaper didn't come for George Zimmerman that night.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It is consistent with the evidence. Zimmermans back was wet, and had grass all over it, he had a bloody nose when the officer arrived on the scene, as well as injuries to the back of his head. Not to mention his account coincides with that of eyewitnesses.


I'm not aware of any evidence that proves that Martin did not back off at some point of the struggle. I believe that Zimmerman broke free from the struggle at some point, then drew his weapon and shot Martin in the chest.


----------



## WildernesFamily

Nevada said:


> I'm not aware of any evidence that proves that Martin did not back off at some point of the struggle. I believe that Zimmerman broke free from the struggle at some point, then drew his weapon and shot Martin in the chest.


Are you aware of any evidence that proves he DID back off at some point of the struggle?

The problem, Nevada, is that what you "believe" happened has become reality in your mind, and so you can no longer view the facts rationally.


----------



## Nevada

WildernesFamily said:


> Are you aware of any evidence that proves he DID back off at some point of the struggle?
> 
> The problem, Nevada, is that what you "believe" happened has become reality in your mind, and so you can no longer view the facts rationally.


There seems to be a double standard here. Zimmerman gets a pass because we can't disprove his story, yet alternate theories are discarded because they can't be proven.

But I don't think Zimmerman's story holds up. Martin's girlfriend disputes his story, and her account is credible. I think he's lying about how the struggle started. That difference in stories could cost him 10 years behind bars.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> I'm not aware of any evidence that proves that Martin did not back off at some point of the struggle. I believe that Zimmerman broke free from the struggle at some point, then drew his weapon and shot Martin in the chest.


Other than the eyewitness accounts which does not mention anything about Martin backing off or Zimmerman breaking free.... And the fact that Zimmerman himself has made no mention of it....I have to wonder which evidence it is that you are basing this theory upon? Or is this more of your "maybe it might have happened this way" theorizing again?


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Other than the eyewitness accounts which does not mention anything about Martin backing off or Zimmerman breaking free.... And the fact that Zimmerman himself has made no mention of it....I have to wonder which evidence it is that you are basing this theory upon?


The first witness to the scene immediately after the shooting saw Zimmerman standing over Martin's body.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> There seems to be a double standard here. Zimmerman gets a pass because we can't disprove his story, yet alternate theories are discarded because they can't be proven.
> 
> But I don't think Zimmerman's story holds up. Martin's girlfriend disputes his story, and her account is credible. I think he's lying about how the struggle started. That difference in stories could cost him 10 years behind bars.


Which of her stories do you think is credible? the first one... that paralled Zimmermans account... or the next one that somewhat varies to make Martin look a bit more innocent? 

Zimmermans "story" fits all of the physical evidence, along with other eyewitness accounts.... why is it so difficult for you to believe that it just might have happened the way all of the evidence points?


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> The first witness to the scene immediately after the shooting saw Zimmerman standing over Martin's body.


Wowwie! I would have been surprised if Zimmerman had just layed on the ground under Martins body. Of course he got up.... after the shooting. The "fight" was over!


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> I'm not aware of any evidence that proves that Martin did not back off at some point of the struggle. I believe that Zimmerman broke free from the struggle at some point, then drew his weapon and shot Martin in the chest.


Talk about grasping at straws, you take the cake, Nevada. Now you're proposing that a man who was decked by a punch, possibly light headed from being punched and having his head dribbled on concrete was able to throw off 160lbs of adrenaline fueled teenager, stand up and shoot and kill the kid. You're ignoring that the eye witness saw Martin on top of Zimmerman and the short amount of time from that to the sound of the shot.

You're also conveniently ignoring the malfunction of the firearm. If it had been me instead of Zimmerman. I wouldn't have fired one shot at a man who has knocked me down and beat me if I was able to get to my feet. I would have shot the man multiple times until he was down and no longer a threat. 

That's why I have repeated several times that the malfunction of the Kel Tec may be critical to understanding what happened. Again the police tested that gun. I'm willing to bet money the Kel Tec fired every time they pulled the trigger. That probably means the two men were in extremely close proximity when the gun was fired and the slide was prevented from cycling.

I'm willing to bet there were powder burns on Martin's hoodie too. I'm not sure where you're you get these far fetched ideas.

Now I have a question for you since you seem to have a fertile imagination. Where did Martin get the woman's jewelry the school found in his backpack. Give me five possibilities. I'll make it easy on you and eliminate a few right from the start.

1. The jewelry didn't come from a vending machine at the school or elsewhere.

2. He didn't borrow the jewelry from his mother because he wanted to participate in a drag queen contest.

3. He didn't find the stuff. IIRC he told the police he didn't know how the jewelry ended up in his back pack.

4. The jewelry fairy didn't put the stuff there as a prize for Martin's perfect school attendance.

5. Aliens didn't do it.

6. The backpack didn't come from the factory with jewelry.

7. Some lady didn't hide her jewelry in his backpack when he was at McDonalds

Let's see five reasons you think of for the jewelry automagically ending up in Martin's backpack.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> The first witness to the scene immediately after the shooting saw Zimmerman standing over Martin's body.


And the witnesses immediately prior to the shot said they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> *I'm not aware* of any evidence that proves that Martin did not back off at some point of the struggle.* I believe* that Zimmerman broke free from the struggle at some point, then drew his weapon and shot Martin in the chest.


An eyewitness *saw *Martn beating Zimmerman on the ground, and started upstairs to call 911.

BEFORE he could reach the phone, the shot was fired.

Everyone said they heard the screaming, and it didn't end UNTIL the shot was fired.

What you are "aware of", and what you "believe" seem to have no resemblence to the evidence presented.

You just keep FABRICATING theories


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> The first witness to the scene immediately after the shooting saw Zimmerman standing over Martin's body.


Do you think Zimmerman should have just laid there and took a nap until the police arrived? I think any normal person would've gotten up and looked at the attacker to see if he was still alive. I certainly wouldn't think, "Gee that was so much fun, I think I'll lie here and see if the kid wants to have another go."

The other point you seem to be ignoring is Zimmerman was so shook up he didn't check the firearm afterwards unless you believe Zimmerman only pulled the trigger once which is possible. But if it was a cold blooded murder I'm surprised Zimmerman didn't try to shoot Martin several times and rack the firearm when he realized there wasn't a round in the chamber.

The fact that only one shot was fired supports Zimmerman's story.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> Do you think Zimmerman should have just laid there and took a nap until the police arrived? I think any normal person would've gotten up and looked at the attacker to see if he was still alive. I certainly wouldn't think, "Gee that was so much fun, I think I'll lie here and see if the kid wants to have another go."


It's also possible that he was standing when he shot Martin.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> There seems to be a double standard here. *Zimmerman gets a pass because we can't disprove his story*, yet alternate theories are discarded because they can't be proven.
> 
> But I don't think Zimmerman's story holds up. *Martin's girlfriend disputes his story, and her account is credible. *I think he's lying about how the struggle started. That difference in stories could cost him 10 years behind bars.


LOL

How can it be "credible" when she's given 2 *different* versions already?

Zimmerman isn't "getting a pass"

You want to pretend 2 UNBIASED EYEWITNESSES mean *less* than Martin's 16 year old girlfriend who only HEARD a few words over the phone.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> The first witness to the scene immediately after the shooting saw Zimmerman standing over Martin's body.


All that proves is Zimmerman stood up


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> It's also possible that he was standing when he shot Martin.


But there is *no evidence* of that and the entire fight took LESS than one minute.

The ENTIRE incident from the initial phone call until the EMT's said Martin was dead only lasted *13 minutes.*


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Which of her stories do you think is credible? the first one... that paralled Zimmermans account... or the next one that somewhat varies to make Martin look a bit more innocent?
> 
> Zimmermans "story" fits all of the physical evidence, along with other eyewitness accounts.... why is it so difficult for you to believe that it just might have happened the way all of the evidence points?


I'm comfortable that her accounts are consistent enough to be considered credible by a jury, and both are in stark contrast to Zimmerman's story. The jury is going to go with the account that makes the most sense. Martin attacking Zimmerman unprovoked doesn't make as much sense as Martin resisting interrogation or detainment. I don't think a jury will buy Zimmerman's account of how the struggle started.

The jury will figure that if Zimmerman would lie about how the struggle started, he might also lie about how it ended. His credibility will be in question. That could cost him.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I'm comfortable that *her accounts are consistent enough* to be considered credible by a jury, and both are *in stark contrast to Zimmerman's* story.


LMAO
You're unreal



> His credibility will be in question. That could cost him


It's not *his *credibility that is nonexistant


----------



## Darren

Given the knock down punch, the struggle on the ground with Martin on top, the extremely short period of time between the eye witness seeing the fight and hearing the shot and * the fact that Zimmerman only fired one shot and the Kel Tec failed to cycle indicates Martin was shot when he was on top of Zimmerman.*

Like I said before if the two men were standing up, Zimmerman should have shot Martin several times with the amount of adrenaline both men had flowing.

You don't seem to want to look at Martin's issues before the Grim Reaper claimed him. I'm still waiting to read how you think that jewelry ended up in Martin's backpack.

Answer that for me, Nevada.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> I'm comfortable that her accounts are consistent enough to be considered credible by a jury, and both are in stark contrast to Zimmerman's story. The jury is going to go with the account that makes the most sense. Martin attacking Zimmerman unprovoked doesn't make as much sense as Martin resisting interrogation or detainment. I don't think a jury will buy Zimmerman's account of how the struggle started.
> 
> The jury will figure that if Zimmerman would lie about how the struggle started, he might also lie about how it ended. His credibility will be in question. That could cost him.


1. You keep ignoring the witnesses.

2. You're ignoring the fact that the girl changed her story. Zimmerman was questioned for several hours and didn't change his otherwise the prosecutor may have been able to proceed rather than handing the case off.

3. You're ignoring the fact that the local prosecutor didn't proceed after reviewing the evidence.

4. You're ignoring the lack of injuries from a fight on Martin's body as inadvertently revealed by the funeral director.

5. You're ignoring Zimmerman's documented injuries.

6. You're ignoring the significance of the malfunction of the Kel Tec.

7. You're ignoring the significance that only one shot was fired.

6. You're ignoring the significance of Martin's previous history of issues in the school system and the unexplained magic jewelry.

7. You're ignoring the significance of Zimmerman's support and care for the people in his community.

8. And most ----ing to your theorizing is the concern on Zimmerman's part when he put himself on the line when he publicly tried to get the Black community to support a homeless Black man who had been beaten by the son of a Sanford policeman.

You're demonizing Zimmerman and glorifying Martin exactly as the media has been doing.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> It's also possible that he was standing when he shot Martin.


Possible? Yes... but there has been NO evidence presented to suggest it.


----------



## ryanthomas

It's also possible that aliens abducted George Zimmerman and the entity that shot Trayvon Martin was actually a robot version of George Zimmerman.


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> There seems to be a double standard here. Zimmerman gets a pass because we can't disprove his story, yet alternate theories are discarded because they can't be proven.


I think you should suggest prosecuters tie rocks to zimmerman and toss him in a lake to see if he floats.

Your making up your own "theories" based only on hearsay and conjecture would have been very popular in Salem.

Your doing nothing more than trying to burn a witch.


----------



## Darren

ryanthomas said:


> It's also possible that aliens abducted George Zimmerman and the entity that shot Trayvon Martin was actually a robot version of George Zimmerman.


That would explain Zimmerman's superhuman ability to not only take a licking but also be able to throw Martin off while screaming for help, spring to his feet and then calmly and cooly kill Martin with one and only one well placed shot that he was absolutely certain would drop Martin dead in his tracks. 

Then the alien smacked Zimmerman around a bit just so it would look like Martin did it. 

To bad that's too crazy for even Nevada to believe. Nevada can't quite wrap his mind around the fact that it is legal to kill people in some situations. And sometimes it's necessary. Around here there's a saying, "He needs killing." That doesn't happen ... often. 

Up until Martin continued beating Zimmerman when he was on the ground, he didn't need killing. When he crossed the line, that changed.


----------



## Nevada

time said:


> Your making up your own "theories" based only on hearsay and conjecture would have been very popular in Salem.


I didn't exactly make it up. My theory is consistent with Martin's girlfriend, and at least it makes sense.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> I didn't exactly make it up. My theory is consistent with Martin's girlfriend, and at least it makes sense.


Which of the girl friend's two stories do you believe, Nevada? Is it the first one or the later new and improved version?

*And while you're thinking about that, I'd like to read your theory on how the jewelry ended up in Martin's backpack.*

Meanwhile here's another recent incident of the knockout game.

Victim describes 'flash mob' attack in downtown Mpls. | kare11.com


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> Which of the girl friend's two stories do you believe, Nevada? Is it the first one or the later new and improved version?


Both versions include Zimmerman asking what Martin was doing there. That seems like a reasonable question for Zimmerman to have asked. Zimmerman didn't include that in his statement. I don't believe it.



Darren said:


> And while you're thinking about that, I'd like to read your theory on how the jewelry ended up in Martin's backpack.http://www.kare11.com/news/article/971184/391/Victim-describes-flash-mob-attack-in-downtown-Mpls


I don't have a theory. So far as I know the police weren't called, so I have to assume the school resolved it. In any case, he's innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## haypoint

"You don't kick a man when he's down. Obviously Martin didn't learn that lesson in Thug 101"

Yea, too bad DeeDee wasn't there to video it on her cellphone. Martin pounding on that fat Mexican. That would have been so kewl to to show his dawgs back at his crib.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> So far as I know the police weren't called, so I have to assume the school resolved it. In any case, he's innocent until proven guilty.


And in Zimmermans case the police were called, and they resolved it.... and he too is innocent until proven guilty. :shrug:


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> I didn't exactly make it up. My theory is consistent with Martin's girlfriend, and at least it makes sense.


And which part of her story makes you believe Zimmerman was standing when he fired the shot? Since the phone call ended before the shooting, I'm not sure how she could know anything about that.


----------



## haypoint

You just don't stop do you? "I don't have a theory. So far as I know the police weren't called, so I have to assume the school resolved it. In any case, he's innocent until proven guilty."

Backpack with jewlery and a flat blade screwdriver, Martin says the jewelry isn't his. And you can say not guilty until proven innocent. This out of a person that thinks Zimmerman should go to trial to prove his innocence? I think I can see some bias here.


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> I didn't exactly make it up. My theory is consistent with Martin's girlfriend, and at least it makes sense.


Martins girlfreind's theory is conjecture.

She didn't see anything. What she says she heard, has changed.

It makes sense to you because it supports your witch hunt.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Both versions include Zimmerman asking what Martin was doing there. That seems like a reasonable question for Zimmerman to have asked. Zimmerman didn't include that in his statement. I don't believe it


I havent heard any of Zimmerman's statements to the police other than the original call that was recorded prior to the shooting. I really must go and do more googling.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> Both versions include Zimmerman asking what Martin was doing there. That seems like a reasonable question for Zimmerman to have asked. Zimmerman didn't include that in his statement. I don't believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a theory. So far as I know the police weren't called, so I have to assume the school resolved it. *In any case, he's innocent until proven guilty.*


That's a revelation. Martin is innocent until proven guilty but Zimmerman isn't. Weren't you clamoring for Zimmerman's immediate arrest?

BTW, the police did investigate the jewelry. They still don't know who it belongs to.


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> Both versions include Zimmerman asking what Martin was doing there. That seems like a reasonable question for Zimmerman to have asked. Zimmerman didn't include that in his statement. I don't believe it.


It doesn't matter what you beleive. What you can prove matters. 

Belief is what kills witches.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> Both versions include Zimmerman asking what Martin was doing there. That seems like a reasonable question for Zimmerman to have asked. *Zimmerman didn't include that in his statement. I don't believe it.*
> 
> I don't have a theory. So far as I know the police weren't called, so I have to assume the school resolved it. In any case, he's innocent until proven guilty.


Where did you find a transcript of Zimmerman's statement to the detective? AFAIK, that hasn't been released. All we have at this point is hearsay. Are you basing your opinion on that?


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And in Zimmermans case the police were called, and they resolved it.... and he too is innocent until proven guilty. :shrug:


I'm not suggesting that Zimmerman is guilty, I'm only suggesting that he stand trial.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> Where did you find a transcript of Zimmerman's statement to the detective? AFAIK, that hasn't been released. All we have at this point is hearsay. Are you basing your opinion on that?


The Orlando Sentinel reported on it.


----------



## unregistered41671

This thread reminds me of the movie, "Groundhog Day".


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> The Orlando Sentinel reported on it.


I've looked at several of the Orlando Sentinel articles since this media mess started and none of the writers have claimed they've seen a copy of Zimmerman's interview from the night of the incident. AFAIK none of the reporters have talked to Zimmerman. So how do they know exactly what Zimmerman told the police? The prosecutor and the police aren't saying anything.

*Do you believe everything you read that the media has printed about this?* Or do you just believe what you fits your theory?

Lets look at this another way. Lets agree for the sake of argument that Zimmerman is innocent. Do you believe that Zimmerman will get a fair trial given the hatred that's being expressed towards him?

Do you believe the jury was correct in returning a not guilty verdict during O.J. Simpson's trial for the murder of his wife and the other man?


----------



## FeralFemale

Cnn back tracks on Zimmerman's racial epithet

Zimmerman Said 'Cold' Not 'Co*n'; Most Trusted Name in News Backpedals

They initially did a segment where they focused on that part of the audio and it sounds like he says c***. They now have cleaned the audio of interference and wind and he clearly says '[expletive deleted] cold." (though they still qualify their findings by saying that what was said will still be a matter of controversy.) It was unseasonably cold and raining that night.

Is this one less item in the 'proof' column that Zimmerman was motivated by racism? Or is he just smart enough not to verbally expose his racism to the police dispatcher?


----------



## Darren

FeralFemale said:


> Cnn back tracks on Zimmerman's racial epithet
> 
> Zimmerman Said 'Cold' Not 'Co*n'; Most Trusted Name in News Backpedals
> 
> They initially did a segment where they focused on that part of the audio and it sounds like he says c***. They now have cleaned the audio of interference and wind and he clearly says '[expletive deleted] cold." (though they still qualify their findings by saying that what was said will still be a matter of controversy.) It was unseasonably cold and raining that night.
> 
> Is this one less item in the 'proof' column that Zimmerman was motivated by racism? *Or is he just smart enough not to verbally expose his racism to the police dispatcher?*


That's a good question and one the media does not seem to want to explore. Nothing I've found in Zimmerman's background indicates racial bias. To the contrary no one in the media digging for dirt has found anyone who knew Zimmerman previous to the incident that claims he is biased.

You'd figure by now the media rabid dogs would have dug somebody up that could confirm their viewpoint of Zimmerman being biased if that was true. The best they could do after they found out to their dismay that he was Hispanic was to label him a white Hispanic in their efforts to encourage controvery.

From now on I'm going to call Obama a white Black or should it be a Black white? Which one sounds more PC?


----------



## Nevada

FeralFemale said:


> They now have cleaned the audio of interference and wind and he clearly says '[expletive deleted] cold." (though they still qualify their findings by saying that what was said will still be a matter of controversy.) It was unseasonably cold and raining that night.


Could be. By the way, how cold was it?


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> Could be. By the way, how cold was it?


63 degrees, 90% humidity, rainy, steady breeze of 6-7 mph.


----------



## FeralFemale

ryanthomas said:


> 63 degrees, 90% humidity, rainy, steady breeze of 6-7 mph.


weather underground says the min temp was 53. My sister lived in Deltona. When I visited her during Christmas break, she was wearing a t shirt under a sweatshirt and jeans when it go below 65. I remember one time she wore a sweatshirt at 75. She would always scowl at me in my tshirt and shorts and say I look like a tourist.


----------



## time

The attorney said zimmerman said f'n "punk".

Today on CNN it was reported that an analyst had reviewed the tape and the word is "punk". They played the cleaned up version and it was definatley "punk".


----------



## FeralFemale

time said:


> The attorney said zimmerman said f'n "punk".
> 
> Today on CNN it was reported that an analyst had reviewed the tape and the word is "punk". They played the cleaned up version and it was definatley "punk".


I guess what I saw was the report prior to yours. The one they did today or yesterday was 'cold'. It sounded a lot like that to me. I don't know how you get 'c***' from 'cold' or 'punk'. I guess it is just too garbled to know.


----------



## time

FeralFemale said:


> I guess what I saw was the report prior to yours. The one they did today or yesterday was 'cold'. It sounded a lot like that to me. I don't know how you get 'c***' from 'cold' or 'punk'. I guess it is just too garbled to know.


Yep, that one is here;

[YOUTUBE]JJLA9vr97qw[/YOUTUBE]

The newer one isn't out on the tube yet.


----------



## ryanthomas

FeralFemale said:


> weather underground says the min temp was 53. My sister lived in Deltona. When I visited her during Christmas break, she was wearing a t shirt under a sweatshirt and jeans when it go below 65. I remember one time she wore a sweatshirt at 75. She would always scowl at me in my tshirt and shorts and say I look like a tourist.


At the time of the shooting it was 63. It was only an hour after sunset. But yes, that probably would be considered cold to someone there, especially with all the moisture and wind.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Both versions include Zimmerman asking what Martin was doing there. That seems like a reasonable question for Zimmerman to have asked. Zimmerman didn't include that in his statement. I don't believe it.
> 
> 
> I don't have a theory. *So far as I know the police weren't called*, so I have to assume the school resolved it. In any case, he's innocent until proven guilty.


Until he's 18, he's a JUVENILE, and no *police* information would be released to the public


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> I'm not suggesting that Zimmerman is guilty, I'm only suggesting that he stand trial.


You're suggesting he be charged with a *crime* when there is *no evidence* one was committed


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're suggesting he be charged with a *crime* when there is *no evidence* one was committed


They've got a body with a bullet hole in the chest.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> They've got a body with a bullet hole in the chest.


Nevada that just shows he was killed. It doesn't necessarily mean he was murdered. There's a big difference which you don't seem to comprehend.

Do you understand the concept of justified killing? It happens much more often in this country than you may expect. People somewhere in this country probably kill someone every day in self defense.

When that happens the prosecutor reviews the case, and if the prosecutor determines it's self defense* THERE IS NO TRIAL.*

Do you think Trayvon was some innocent school kid that was murdered by a vigilante? The media has exposed themselves to ridicule and outrage at their efforts to cast Zimmerman in a bad light. Here's what they would have done if they were on Charles Manson's side. Which picture do you think they'd use to broadcast to the world if they sided with Manson?


----------



## copperkid3

Nevada said:


> I'm not suggesting that Zimmerman is guilty, I'm only suggesting that he stand trial.


**********************************************
You've been 'demanding' it.......


----------



## copperkid3

Darren said:


> From now on I'm going to call Obama a white Black or should it be a Black white? Which one sounds more PC?


***************************************************
it's been brought to my attention, that certain people "feel" that it may not be politically correct and 
they might be offended by it's usage. So far, I haven't heard from "O" himself on how he feels about it.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> Do you understand the concept of justified killing? It happens much more often in this country than you may expect. People somewhere in this country probably kill someone every day in self defense.
> 
> When that happens the prosecutor reviews the case, and if the prosecutor determines it's self defense* THERE IS NO TRIAL.*


What happens is that the prosecutor decides the self defense claim is strong enough that he doesn't want to take the budgetary risk of committing resources to a trial that he may not be able to win. With enough 'sure things' to pursue their office just isn't going to take the chance on a weak case. That not only saves resources but also improves the conviction record of the office.

It's a subjective decision. At one point it looked like Zimmerman's self defense claim was strong, but I suspect the evidence is pushing this thing the other way. I expect criminal charges. I hesitate to guess if there will be a conviction.

There is also the issue of a civil suit. Martin's family will almost certainly file a wrongful death lawsuit against Zimmerman. The burden of proof is much lower in civil court. Even if Zimmerman is cleared of criminal liability, he will still face civil charges. He's probably lost everything of value he has.


----------



## Darren

If the evidence had pushed it, the prosecutor would have already moved. Once the state got it, they went back and looked at everything again. That tells me there wasn't a strong case against Zimmerman if any at all. We''l see what happens with the grand jury.

At least Zimmerman now is receiving money via his lawyer for his defense. The family filing a civil suit against Zimmerman would be next to worthless. Zimmerman doesn't have the assets to attract a lawyer looking for his 30% cut.


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> What happens is that the prosecutor decides the self defense claim is strong enough that he doesn't want to take the budgetary risk of committing resources to a trial that he may not be able to win. With enough 'sure things' to pursue their office just isn't going to take the chance on a weak case. That not only saves resources but also improves the conviction record of the office.
> 
> It's a subjective decision. At one point it looked like Zimmerman's self defense claim was strong, but I suspect the evidence is pushing this thing the other way. I expect criminal charges. I hesitate to guess if there will be a conviction.
> 
> There is also the issue of a civil suit. Martin's family will almost certainly file a wrongful death lawsuit against Zimmerman. The burden of proof is much lower in civil court. Even if Zimmerman is cleared of criminal liability, he will still face civil charges.* He's probably lost everything of value he has*.


And that is all you care about. That zimmerman pays in some way, whether a crime has been commited or not.

I sincerely hope you find out what it is to be on the other side of your arguement some day.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> They've got a body with a bullet hole in the chest.


And that has nothing at all to do with what I stated

There is NO EVIDENCE of any *crime*


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Even if Zimmerman is cleared of criminal liability, he will still face civil charges


That's doubtful.

If he's not charged, it's because the *facts* show it to be self defense, and the family can't sue (and hope to win) for "wrongful death" in a JUSTIFIABLE homicide

We will find something out next week probably


----------



## haypoint

It's a subjective decision. At one point it looked like Zimmerman's self defense claim was strong, but I suspect the *evidence* is pushing this thing the other way. I expect criminal charges. I hesitate to guess if there will be a conviction.

What evidence? That he may have said cold, not ****? I don't care if Zimmerman used the N word a hundred times and Martin called Zimmerman a Cracker a thousand times. Speach is no excuse to assault someone. Martin crossed the line when he threw a punch. The witness saw Martin on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman shot Martin. What evidence do you want to drag into this, beyond hearsay?


----------



## Evons hubby

haypoint said:


> Speach is no excuse to assault someone. Martin crossed the line when he threw a punch.


Sticks and stones will break my bones but words can never hurt me..... but a quarter ounce of lead traveling a couple thousand feet per second can really mess me up! 

I think Martin died due to so many in our society losing sight of decent manners. A simple smile and "Hi there, my name is Trayvon.. I am new here" might just have saved his life. Instead he opted to show his backside.... for the very last time.


----------



## haypoint

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Sticks and stones will break my bones but words can never hurt me..... but a quarter ounce of lead traveling a couple thousand feet per second can really mess me up!
> 
> I think Martin died due to so many in our society losing sight of decent manners. A simple smile and "Hi there, my name is Trayvon.. I am new here" might just have saved his life. Instead he opted to show his backside.... for the very last time.


I agree with you. But my point is that he has no obligation to be nice to anyone, neither of them do, none of us do. There is no "be nice" law or requirement.

However, punching a person, for any reason beyond self-protection from harm (not protection from getting your feelings hurt) is allowed. There is no evidence Martin had any self- protection motive when he punched Zimmerman in the face, knocking him down.

Martin was wrong to punch Zimmerman. But then he made the fatal mistake of jumping on Zimmerman and pounding on him. Perhaps the kids he has beat up in the past weren't packing heat.

Never, never, never bring just fists to a gun fight.


----------



## haypoint

There is a general disrespect for authourity in general and white people that represent authority in many Black communities. It has manifested itself in violence that runs counter to standard civilized behaviour. As a result, young black men are phantom fathers to the 70% of the black babies born to a single mom. They commit 70% of the violent felonies, while numbering only 17% of the total population.
It is "Kool" to have babies by as many woman as you can, " I guess I jes' have powerful sperms." It is "Kool" to sell drugs, steal cars, rob people, it is the new way to show the world how fearless you are. Gangs promote it/require it. Their motto seems to be, " I'm going to take what I want and shove against you and I'm so powerful, you'll be too afraid to push back."

Do we save them by being more tolerent, by giving more chances, issuing more warnings? Or must we cut them from our society like a cancerous growth?


----------



## Darren

haypoint said:


> There is a general disrespect for authourity in general and white people that represent authority in many Black communities. It has manifested itself in violence that runs counter to standard civilized behaviour. As a result, young black men are phantom fathers to the 70% of the black babies born to a single mom. They commit 70% of the violent felonies, while numbering only 17% of the total population.
> It is "Kool" to have babies by as many woman as you can, " I guess I jes' have powerful sperms." It is "Kool" to sell drugs, steal cars, rob people, it is the new way to show the world how fearless you are. Gangs promote it/require it. Their motto seems to be, " I'm going to take what I want and shove against you and I'm so powerful, you'll be too afraid to push back."
> 
> *Do we save them by being more tolerant, by giving more chances, issuing more warnings? Or must we cut them from our society like a cancerous growth?*


None of the solutions provided by government have prevented where we are today. It just occurred to me, we are in a defacto race war given the level of Black on white crime. Some Blacks are actively promoting killing ******. 

I haven't posted the links that I found, because it complicates discussing the Martin Zimmerman incident which has already triggered emotional posts.

I don't believe it's necessary to tell people what they need to do. The gun sales are off the chart. I was shocked when Ruger announced they were no longer taking orders because their production capacity for the remaining year is committed to existing orders. There was over 9 months left in the year when Ruger made that announcement. 

AFAIK that was not from military orders. Add to that, CCW permit applications are through the roof in some areas. 

Now more than ever people need to understand and take precautions. We can't cut out the cancer. In a sense, each cancer cell has a limited lifespan due to "lifestyle" choices. People need to be prepared. Best of all is avoid any possible interaction.

Unfortunately that cancer is self perpetuating and neither the government nor the media wants to spotlight it. The worse result is it invariably results in more segregation which can worsen the misunderstandings.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> haypoint said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we save them by being more tolerent, by giving more chances, issuing more warnings? Or must we cut them from our society like a cancerous growth?
> 
> 
> 
> None of the solutions provided by government have prevented where we are today. It just occurred to me, we are in a defacto race war given the level of Black on white crime.
Click to expand...

I'm beginning to understand why some of you are so passionate about Zimmerman not being charged.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> I'm beginning to understand why some of you are so passionate about Zimmerman not being charged.


I'm don't have a problem with the prosecutor considering and handling the case as she sees fit as long as she doesn't bow to public or private pressure. The woman is sitting on a powder keg.

If she believes there is a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman murdered Martin, meaning she can't prove he did, she might be doing the nation a favor by fully disclosing the evidence and presenting her reasons for not pursuing the case. Do I expect that? No! 

The media's inaccurate portayal of Zimmerman has created a martyr that has already been used to justify violence. As the weather warms up we're going to see more killings because of the media's shameful reporting.

People are going to die because of this. Unfortunately lots of people in government positions avoid making the hard decisions. IMO, it will be easier for her to submit the case to the grand jury even if she believes the evidence doesn't support murder. If the grand jury then returns a true bill due to the media misreporting, that drags the case out and provides more opportunities for outrage. 

Neither Zimmerman or Martin matter anymore when you consider the well being of and effect on the entire nation. Some in the Black community will never accept an acquital of Zimmerman. The key now is to do everything possible to prevent more deaths. 

I don't agree with the reference to Obama at the beginning of this video nor the way the murder was introduced. We're going to see a lot more of this. Is that what you want? 

[YOUTUBE]-brtiNjiyW0[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## copperkid3

Nevada said:


> It's a subjective decision. At one point it looked like Zimmerman's self defense claim was strong,
> * but I suspect the evidence is pushing this thing the other way.* *I expect criminal charges.* I hesitate to guess if there will be a conviction.


**********************************************************
is the myriad of harpy-like, leftist loonies who are screaming for blood and other such nonsense and 
haven't a single clue on how the criminal justice system works.......so much for our old-fashioned 
concept of "innocent until proven guilty" and having a minimum job requirement that must 
be circumvented by knowingly, falsifying numerous documents. When you try tossing out the 'rule book'
;i.e. (the constitution) because it's a tired old piece of paper.....get ready for the rule of the mob, 
not law. Funny thing is, it has a way of turning around and biting the hand that feeds it.


----------



## Nevada

copperkid3 said:


> When you try tossing out the 'rule book'
> ;i.e. (the constitution) because it's a tired old piece of paper.....get ready for the rule of the mob, not law.


Does the constitution guarantee the right to assert self defense?


----------



## copperkid3

Nevada said:


> *Does the constitution guarantee the right to assert self defense?*


*****************************************
The 'burden' of "proof" is entirely on the state.......which is why the DA wouldn't take charges......
that point had already been addressed. But I digress.....the burden of proof is on _*YOU*_, to
show us where in the constitution your assertion exists!!!


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> Does the constitution guarantee the right to assert self defense?


Geez, Nevada. Don't tell me you aren't familiar with the Constitution covering powers being reserved to the states? Each state has it own laws concerning self defense. While those are steadily being made more uniform, there's still differences.

That's one reason the national concealed carry law is being pushed. If I happen to be in NJ, for example, where I'm not allowed to carry a weapon same as most residents of the state, chances are slim that I'll be able to defend myself if something happens. There's a lot of hellholes in this country you won't catch me in.


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> I'm not suggesting that Zimmerman is guilty, I'm only suggesting that he stand trial.





Nevada said:


> They've got a body with a bullet hole in the chest.





Nevada said:


> *I'm beginning to understand why some of you are so passionate about Zimmerman not being charged*.


No, you don't understand.

By your standards, this girl should be charged.

[YOUTUBE]s1-Kz3vU5DY[/YOUTUBE]

Where was your outcry that this girl did not stand trial?

There is a dead dude. There is a bullet hole. There is an admission that she did it. The 911 dispatcher told her she could not say that the girl could shoot anyone, yet she shot anyway. The police had been called and were on the way.

Where is your outrage? She was never arrested.

You have a double standard. You want to pick and choose who get's to defend themselves.


----------



## Nevada

time said:


> By your standards, this girl should be charged.
> 
> [YOUTUBE]s1-Kz3vU5DY[/YOUTUBE]


That a very different case. Martin was not an intruder. In fact he had every right to be where he was, doing what he was doing.

But I wasn't referring to self defense. I was referring to the "defacto race war", which you evidently consider Zimmerman to be a frontline soldier in.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> The reason I give the girlfriend's story so much weight is that it makes a lot more sense than Zimmerman's story. From the start, I believed that Martin approaching Zimmerman and starting a fight was unlikely. Even the most aggressive of people are going to size-up the situation. Zimmerman asking Martin what he was doing there sounds like a perfectly logical way for the conversation to start.


I saw a show about people who believe we never landed on the moon. They have all kinds of 'evidence' to 'prove' it. They refuse to accept A) their 'evidence' doesn't hold up under scrutiny and B) there is tons of evidence proving we did.

Your belief reminds me of them.


----------



## watcher

Sonshine said:


> Although OJ's trial may not have been "fair" by normal standards, he still won, so it didn't affect the trial negatively.


Doesn't your statement all depend on your point of view? If you believe he did it, then the trial wasn't fair to his victims.


----------



## Darren

watcher said:


> Doesn't your statement all depend on your point of view? If you believe he did it, then the trial wasn't fair to his victims.


Uitimately O.J. paid literally when he lost the civil suit.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> I suppose, but I suggest that Zimmerman coming out with a different story at this stage of the game would be a mistake. There would be no way to avoid giving the impression of creating a story to match whatever evidence is out there at the time. That wouldn't be good for his cause.


Zimmerman is doing just what he should, probably based on the advice of a good lawyer. And that is keeping his mouth shut. If had demanded a lawyer from the very start he'd be in even less trouble now.

Standard advice to anyone who is told the police need to 'ask them some questions' respond by providing ID and telling the nice officer you will answer any questions they have as soon as you can have a lawyer with you.


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> That a very different case. Martin was not an intruder. In fact he had every right to be where he was, doing what he was doing.
> 
> But I wasn't referring to self defense. I was referring to the "defacto race war", which you evidently consider Zimmerman to be a frontline soldier in.


That's your problem. You have too many assumptions.

Read my previous posts. I have not mentioned race. You however, seem a bit sensitive to it, and I expect is the reason you have shut off any cognative ability you may have had.

You assert that zimmerman be tried, with out evidence of a crime.

The circumstances of the girl are different, but by your standards, she should be tried. She should prove her innocence in court.

I do not care about race. I care about facts. I care about abuse of the law, wich is what you are advocating for.

If you want to be outraged about something, get on board with this;

Killed at Home: White Plains, NY Police Called Out on Medical Alert Shoot Dead Black Veteran, 68

It is not about race either. White, black, yellow or purple nurple, that case is just wrong.

When *you* can get over the race issue, your mind will clear and your cognative ability may return.

ETA: Take race and circumstance out of the equation and the two cases have the same basic facts.

The man broke into the girls house(broke the law) and posed a threat.

Martin punched zimmerman and attacked him(broke the law) and posed a threat.

Both cases are self defence based on the only facts that matter.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Why is it so important to you that Zimmerman not face trial?


Because there is no evidence to suggest he should. Can you provide one thing which would be admissible in a court of law as evidence which shows Zimmerman committed a crime? None of this "I think.", "Its possible." or "It might have. . ."


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> That a very different case. Martin was not an intruder. In fact he had every right to be where he was, doing what he was doing.
> 
> But I wasn't referring to self defense. I was referring to the "defacto race war", which you evidently consider Zimmerman to be a frontline soldier in.


Nevada, you're ignoring the fact that Zimmerman did not know Martin was not an intruder. As far as having the right to do what he was doing, Martin did not have the right to batter Zimmerman when he was on top of him. 

What's your theory to justify Martin beating Zimmerman when he was on the ground?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> The state's responsibility is to prove who killed Martin. There is overwhelming evidence that Zimmerman did it. After the state presents it's case, Zimmerman has the right to put on a defense. Zimmerman's defense will undoubtedly include either an assertion of self defense or a claim of accidental shooting (i.e., the gun fired accidentally during the struggle). In either case, Zimmerman has the burden of convincing a jury that his defense excuses the crime.


Dude you need a better understanding of the legal system in the US. Zimmerman has no, none, noda, ZERO burden. The entire burden is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed the crime they are charging him with. The state knows it doesn't have evidence which would allow them to convict him because according to the way the laws are written, as I understand them, in FL you have the legal right to use deadly force to prevent or stop an attack. Unless the state can PROVE that Zimmerman was the aggressor and thereby negating this provision of the law, it would be a waste of time to even take the case to a grand jury. And we both know there is NO WAY that the state can prove this in a court.




Nevada said:


> But as far as the state having enough evidence to go to court, they have plenty.


Such as?




Nevada said:


> By the way, during a grand jury hearing the defense has no right to assert any kind of defense. With overwhelming evidence that Zimmerman shot Martin, and the defense unable to assert a defense,
> 
> Not by my experience on a grand jury. You have no right to have a lawyer with you but you have the right to appear before the jury. I've been on two of them in in once case the accused came in and told us his side of the story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> 
> what makes you think the grand jury wouldn't indict?
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is no admissible evidence showing a law was broken therefore none that a crime was committed. The state can't just come in with "We think this is what happened." They have to have proof.
Click to expand...


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman does not need to prove that he didn't shoot Martin. The burden is on the state to prove that he did. However, if Zimmerman wants to assert an affirmative defense like self-defense or accidental discharge, then Zimmerman will need to prove that affirmative defense.


Wrong again. The state must prove that Zimmerman murdered him. They must PROVE that Zimmerman was NOT acting in self defense. All the defense must do is to show that their evidence does not support their claim. 




Nevada said:


> A grand jury won't render a verdict. They will either indict or they won't, based solely on the state's case.


You left out one very, very, very important element; the law. The state can bring all the evidence they want to show that Martin was killed by a bullet; that that bullet was fired from a specific weapon; that that weapon was in the hand and control of Zimmerman when it was fired thereby proving that Martin's death was a direct result of Zimmerman's actions and still not prove that a crime was committed because the law says killing some one to protect yourself is NOT A CRIME.

A DA would have to be nuts to think he could prove that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense with the evidence he has to work with.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> The coroner's report.
> The ballistics report.
> Zimmerman's 9mm.
> The police report.
> Witness accounts.
> Zimmerman's admission that he shot Martin.
> 
> They will all establish that Zimmerman shot Martin to death.


That has nothing to do with this. The law says shooting Martin was not a crime unless the state can prove it was NOT in self defense. Just what part of that do you not understand? Read about the FL law. It is legal to use deadly force to protect yourself. Therefore if you kill someone while defending yourself you have NOT committed a crime. You do not have to prove you were defending yourself, the state must prove you WERE NOT. You do not have to provide an 'active' defense because you have no burden to prove ANYTHING.


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> The state's responsibility is to prove who killed *Martin*. There is overwhelming evidence that *Zimmerman* did it. After the state presents it's case, *Zimmerman* has the right to put on a defense. *Zimmerman's* defense will undoubtedly include either an assertion of self defense or a claim of accidental shooting (i.e., the gun fired accidentally during the struggle). In either case,* Zimmerman *has the burden of convincing a jury that* his *defense excuses the crime.
> 
> But as far as the state having enough evidence to go to court, they have plenty.
> 
> By the way, during a grand jury hearing the defense has no right to assert any kind of defense. With overwhelming evidence that* Zimmerman *shot *Martin*, and the defense unable to assert a defense, what makes you think the grand jury wouldn't indict?


Above is your quote in full. Below is your quote with the participating parties changed to show that by your standards, the girl should have been charged.



> 'The state's responsibility is to prove who killed *Martin*(the dead guy, oddly enough, his name is also Martin). There is overwhelming evidence that *the girl* did it. After the state presents it's case, *the girl* has the right to put on a defense. *The girl's* defense will undoubtedly include either an assertion of self defense or a claim of accidental shooting (i.e., the gun fired accidentally during the struggle). In either case, *the girl* has the burden of convincing a jury that *her* defense excuses the crime.
> 
> But as far as the state having enough evidence to go to court, they have plenty.
> 
> By the way, during a grand jury hearing the defense has no right to assert any kind of defense. With overwhelming evidence that *the girl* shot *the intruder*, and the defense unable to assert a defense, what makes you think the grand jury wouldn't indict?'


So again I ask, where is your outrage that the girl was not arrested?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Does the constitution guarantee the right to assert self defense?


It doesn't matter.
It's still a right


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> I'm not aware of any evidence that proves that Martin did not back off at some point of the struggle. I believe that Zimmerman broke free from the struggle at some point, then drew his weapon and shot Martin in the chest.


Based on what evidence.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> There seems to be a double standard here. Zimmerman gets a pass because we can't disprove his story, yet alternate theories are discarded because they can't be proven.
> 
> But I don't think Zimmerman's story holds up. Martin's girlfriend disputes his story, and her account is credible. I think he's lying about how the struggle started. That difference in stories could cost him 10 years behind bars.


You maybe right but that doesn't matter in a court of law. You can believe all you want but unless there is evidence to back it up it in the eyes of the court it didn't happen. 

Right now all the evidence we know of supports Zimmerman. There has been zero evidence presented which proves anything near what you believe.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> It's also possible that he was standing when he shot Martin.


And if this is the case the evidence will show it. Do you have such evidence? If not I'd like to suggest it possible Zimmerman and Martin were involved in some kind of strange kinky homosexual sexual encounter which went horrifically wrong because Zimmerman's shot wasn't supposed to kill him, merely inflict intense pain to heighten the experience.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> I didn't exactly make it up. My theory is consistent with Martin's girlfriend, and at least it makes sense.


You have one thing which runs counter to all the other evidence. And that one thing is from an emotionally attached person who didn't witness the account. And you think its credible? Ask any cop, judge or lawyer and they will tell you different. For one thing about the worse evidence possible is eyewitnesses. Every one sees/remembers things differently, its a proven fact. They see/remember what they want to see/remember.

Her evidence if farther tainted by the fact she's emotionally attached.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> I'm beginning to understand why some of you are so passionate about Zimmerman not being charged.


Any you think all those people marching are not wanting him charged because of the color of his skin? Can you honestly say you think this would be an issue if the shooter's name was Kiambu (This boy will be rich) Jones and his skin made Denzel Washington look like an albino? Or do you know the only reason this is even being talked about is skin color?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by *Nevada*
> _*I didn't exactly make it up*. My* theory* is consistent with Martin's girlfriend, and at least it makes sense._


Yes,, you ARE making it all up.
Martin's grilfriend has given *two different versions*.


----------



## Darren

Folks we need to face the fact that Nevada has chosen to ignore any facts which don't confirm his theory of what happened despite multiple attempts to provide links to the information. He's gotten so far afield in his avoidance that he's very ill informed about the actual laws and/or he's got something at stake in the outcome of the Martin Zimmerman incident.

At this point it's almost gotten to the point our posts refuting his theories are bordering on something not exactly kosher as far as treatment of someone at a disadvantage. I am not going to respond to him further on this topic. Somehow it doesn't feel right.


----------



## copperkid3

Darren said:


> Folks we need to face the fact that Nevada has chosen to ignore any facts which don't confirm his theory of what happened despite multiple attempts to provide links to the information. He's gotten so far afield in his avoidance that he's very ill informed about the actual laws and/or he's got something at stake in the outcome of the Martin Zimmerman incident.
> 
> At this point it's almost gotten to the point our posts refuting his theories are bordering on something not exactly kosher as far as treatment of someone at a disadvantage. I am not going to respond to him further on this topic. Somehow it doesn't feel right.


*******************************************************
hits you full in the face, that disputing 'facts -vs- fantasy' with a liberal is like beating up the 
mentally challenged. Many of you will recall that it's already been well established, that liberalism 
is a mental illness. I'm sure that if "O" is re-elected this November, one of the first things that his 
administration will put forth, is an appropriation of yet more of the taxpayers money to study and 
treat this hideous disease; (i.e. promote and establish it further.) 


Remember, it's not nice to taunt, nor tease the handicapped; especially when they refuse to understand. :yuck:


----------



## Darren

I don't know that Nevada is a liberal. I haven't seen any of his posts on other subjects. What I don't understand is the selective use of the facts. There's no realistic logic to his theorizing. Life doesn't mean you can selectively ignore reality. Reality may suck but it's still there and it's real.


----------



## FeralFemale

Darren said:


> I don't know that Nevada is a liberal. I haven't seen any of his posts on other subjects. What I don't understand is the selective use of the facts. There's no realistic logic to his theorizing. Life doesn't mean you can selectively ignore reality. Reality may suck but it's still there and it's real.


You do realize this is the same person who swore up and down that Sarah Palin is a 'functional illiterate'.


----------



## Darren

FeralFemale said:


> You do realize this is the same person who swore up and down that Sarah Palin is a 'functional illiterate'.


I do now. That explains it. :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Thanks for the clue. Now I feel like a fool for wasting my time.


----------



## Narshalla

Darren said:


> I do now. That explains it. :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Thanks for the clue. Now I feel like a fool for wasting my time.


It wasn't a waste of time, not really.

His blatantly slanted arguments and selective use of fact, not to mention his inability to change any part of his ideas as new facts were brought to light, have helped me think through all the facts, and adjust my viewpoint to take them into account.

Without Nevada singing the same old song, again and again and again, many of us probably would never have gotten past the first impressions we had.

If nothing else, he has been a useful idiot.


----------



## Pearl B

He's just passionate about his beliefs, same as are many of you.
Z isnt going to face any prosecution simply on the basis of what Nevada believes.

I get tired of being called or implied that Im a lib myself, simply because I have a different point of view at times than the crowd. Isnt that the essence and definition on a sheep(le), some one who baa's in compliance and agreement with every one else?

And so what if he is a lib. As precious as some of you find being an R, I have to wonder if you would love it as much if it was the only choice available.


----------



## Darren

Pearl B. said:


> He's just passionate about his beliefs, same as are many of you.
> Z isnt going to face any prosecution simply on the basis of what Nevada believes.
> 
> I get tired of being called or implied that Im a lib myself, simply because I have a different point of view at times than the crowd. Isnt that the essence and definition on a sheep(le), some one who baa's in compliance and agreement with every one else?
> 
> And so what if he is a lib. As precious as some of you find being an R, I have to wonder if you would love it as much if it was the only choice available.


I don't think most of us are happy with either D or R, Pearl. No matter what happens, we seem to end up with a disfunctional government. All of us can see the problems. We have politicians from every corner of this country that any of us can point to and wonder "WTH were their constituents thinking when they voted for that idiot."

The ones running to take advantage of the Martin Zimmerman affair are despicable. The media has manipulated it. The politicians have manipulated it. The racebaiters have manipulated it. And what really galls me is how many are still running around spouting "facts" that have been disproved.

Looking at some of the comments on websites help you understand why the manipulators don't get called on their theatrics. On one website the big versus little topic reminded me of a tragic comedy. The real facts, Martin a growing boy was not 6' as mentioned by many sources. He had grown to 6' 3". Apparently the weight of 160 was about right. Zimmerman is 5'9". His current weight is less than 200 lbs since he lost some.

The original leak from the police interview which has not been corrected by the city manager when he announced someone would be disciplined has largely been ignored by the media and everyone else who developed their own theory to suit their purposes.

Website after website has comments showing a widespread ignorance of our legal system. The really ominous ones are the ones with obvious malice towards either Martin or Zimmerman or to members of their respective race except the fact that Zimmerman is Hispanic seems to have been missed by those targeting whites.

There is a very dark undercurrent running through this that has strengthened steadily as time as passed as shown by comments all over the internet. Some comment sections have been closed to further responses. I'll let you figure out how virulent the comments have become. You can literally see it build from day to day if you take the time to read through the massive numbers of comments. The post count was explosive similar to what we've seen here on HT.

The public interest and participation in discussing the incident is enormous. And none of it is leading to a dwindling of the furor. The media and the others who have manipulated the story have sparked something that's taking on a life of its own and it's beyond ugly.

Everything out there leads me to believe the death count that comes out of this will not be insignificant. Black emotions are being amped along with outspoken racism the likes of which you would have had to search out and could only find on a white supremacist website previously. Now it seems to be spreading like wildfire. The media have singlehandedly set race relations back in this country by untold years if you believe only a small portion of the people posting the really over the top stuff will follow through.

It's beyond bad. At least some of the media has been trying to correct the story. NBC has fired the producer that altered the 911 transcript that was published. I doubt the ones who are spouting hatred are going to pay attention or even notice. The voice expert has turned out to not be the expert he has claimed. One of the most interesting comments about the screams heard on the tapes was from a woman who had put togther choirs for decades. She didn't need software. And the ones that actually do the analysis pointed out the uselessness.

At this point basic human prejudice is on full display. People have rushed to judgement while ignoring obvious facts that should, but won't, make most people stop and reconsider their viewpoint.


----------



## Darren

Now we have neo-nazis paroling Sanford to protect whites. As much as some howled that Zimmerman was a vigilante, nothing in his previous relations with Blacks supports that. The people that are coming out and patrolling might be real vigilantes.

Armed Neo-Nazis Now Patrolling Sanford, Say They Are "Prepared" For Post-Trayvon Martin Violence - Miami News - Riptide 2.0


----------



## Pearl B

Darren said:


> I don't think most of us are happy with either D or R, Pearl. No matter what happens, we seem to end up with a disfunctional government. All of us can see the problems. We have politicians from every corner of this country that any of us can point to and wonder "WTH were their constituents thinking when they voted for that idiot."
> 
> The ones running to take advantage of the Martin Zimmerman affair are despicable. The media has manipulated it. The politicians have manipulated it. The racebaiters have manipulated it. And what really galls me is how many are still running around spouting "facts" that have been disproved.
> 
> Looking at some of the comments on websites help you understand why the manipulators don't get called on their theatrics. On one website the big versus little topic reminded me of a tragic comedy. The real facts, Martin a growing boy was not 6' as mentioned by many sources. He had grown to 6' 3". Apparently the weight of 160 was about right. Zimmerman is 5'9". His current weight is less than 200 lbs since he lost some.
> 
> The original leak from the police interview which has not been corrected by the city manager when he announced someone would be disciplined has largely been ignored by the media and everyone else who developed their own theory to suit their purposes.
> 
> Website after website has comments showing a widespread ignorance of our legal system. The really ominous ones are the ones with obvious malice towards either Martin or Zimmerman or to members of their respective race except the fact that Zimmerman is Hispanic seems to have been missed by those targeting whites.
> 
> There is a very dark undercurrent running through this that has strengthened steadily as time as passed as shown by comments all over the internet. Some comment sections have been closed to further responses. I'll let you figure out how virulent the comments have become. You can literally see it build from day to day if you take the time to read through the massive numbers of comments. The post count was explosive similar to what we've seen here on HT.
> 
> The public interest and participation in discussing the incident is enormous. And none of it is leading to a dwindling of the furor. The media and the others who have manipulated the story have sparked something that's taking on a life of its own and it's beyond ugly.
> 
> Everything out there leads me to believe the death count that comes out of this will not be insignificant. Black emotions are being amped along with outspoken racism the likes of which you would have had to search out and could only find on a white supremacist website previously. Now it seems to be spreading like wildfire. The media have singlehandedly set race relations back in this country by untold years if you believe only a small portion of the people posting the really over the top stuff will follow through.
> 
> It's beyond bad. At least some of the media has been trying to correct the story. NBC has fired the producer that altered the 911 transcript that was published. I doubt the ones who are spouting hatred are going to pay attention or even notice. The voice expert has turned out to not be the expert he has claimed. One of the most interesting comments about the screams heard on the tapes was from a woman who had put togther choirs for decades. She didn't need software. And the ones that actually do the analysis pointed out the uselessness.
> 
> At this point basic human prejudice is on full display. People have rushed to judgement while ignoring obvious facts that should, but won't, make most people stop and reconsider their viewpoint.



I completely agree with you on many if not all points. Its gonna, well is already, be a bad thing to be white in a big city. 

As far as Im concerned, the media bears almost sole responsibility for blowing this so completely out of proportion, and representing it as a white on black crime.Even though Z wasnt white.

Im safe where I am. Im out in the middle of nowhere in pure ******* heaven, thank goodness. I think its time to get that 9mm regardless.

I can see a major black on white crime wave coming because of this, and a major crackdown on handguns to follow, given as the reason.

Still I think the media is run by the PTB. The media misrepresentations were 
done on purpose. I believe to stir up bad racial relations on purpose and to use that as an excuse to take away/ban as many handguns, if not all guns, as possible.

*They* do not want us armed and will do whatever it takes to get them.

I believe Nevada, as many are misguided. So was I till Time's post's got me too thinking. (Thank you Time!).

Cnn had another witness for Z come forward. I fear its too late for the media to clean this up now. The young Black males have taken it to heart. They wont stop now.


----------



## Darren

Pearl B. said:


> Cnn had another witness for Z come forward. I fear its too late for the media to clean this up now. The young Black males have taken it to heart. They wont stop now.


I agree with that because a recent poll showed that many Blacks believed, and I think rightly so, they got the short end of the stick. Their unemployment numbers are higher and, although it wasn't covered, I think Black families are in more of a crisis.

Martin's death confirmed what many already believed. His death will be an excuse for more violence. The sad thing is if Martin was actually a thug wanna be and had already embarked on the path and did attack Zimmerman by throwing the first punch, his death could have been a lesson for Black youth. That's if his death had been held up as an example of unnecessary aggressiveness that ended his life and dreams. 

Given the youngs' feeling of immortality, that's probably a stretch. Rather than redeem lives, Martin's death as portrayed by the media, will cut short the lives of many Blacks and whites.


----------



## poppy

FeralFemale said:


> You do realize this is the same person who swore up and down that Sarah Palin is a 'functional illiterate'.


LOL. Brings to mind an old saying about a pot and kettle, don't it?


----------



## Evons hubby

Darren said:


> I don't know that Nevada is a liberal. I haven't seen any of his posts on other subjects. What I don't understand is the selective use of the facts. There's no realistic logic to his theorizing. Life doesn't mean you can selectively ignore reality. Reality may suck but it's still there and it's real.


There is the possibility that Nevada has some liberal leanings. He's a decent enough chap though.... once you get passed that socialist streak.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> I agree with that because a recent poll showed that many Blacks believed, and I think rightly so, they got the short end of the stick. Their unemployment numbers are higher and, although it wasn't covered, I think Black families are in more of a crisis.
> 
> Martin's death confirmed what many already believed. His death will be an excuse for more violence. The sad thing is if Martin was actually a thug wanna be and had already embarked on the path and did attack Zimmerman by throwing the first punch, his death could have been a lesson for Black youth. That's if his death had been held up as an example of unnecessary aggressiveness that ended his life and dreams.
> 
> Given the youngs' feeling of immortality, that's probably a stretch. Rather than redeem lives, Martin's death as portrayed by the media, will cut short the lives of many Blacks and whites.


What blacks believe, and what the central issue really is here, is that in similar circumstances a black shooter would be arrested and stand trial for shooting a white victim. With Zimmerman not being arrested or charged, they are left with the impression that society sees a black live being worth less than a white life.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> There is the possibility that Nevada has some liberal leanings. He's a decent enough chap though.... once you get passed that socialist streak.


I'm really not big on large social programs most of the time, healthcare being the exception because the system is so dysfunctional. I am a social liberal, but I'm more of a fiscal conservative than I get credit for.


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> What blacks believe,* and what the central issue really is here*, is that the black community thinks that in similar circumstances a black shooter would be arrested and stand trial for shooting a white victim. With Zimmerman not being arrested or charged, they are left with the impression that society sees a black live being worth less than a white life.


So, there's an admission that your arguement is based on race.

Even if it's true, and I'm not saying it is or isn't, wouldn't it make more sence to defend those blacks arrested without cause than to demand non blacks be arrested without cause?

When your blinded by your own biased, how do expect to change someone else's biased?

The link I posted earlier is a case I can get behind. Not because the person is black, but because the police had no business doing what they did. And if you think this type of thing does not happen to white people, your dreaming. The two murder cases I mentioned earlier that I personally know of, the suspect(the people I know personally) were white women.

Wrong is wrong, and your advocating for a wrong to fix what you see as another wrong is not very wise, IMO.


----------



## Nevada

time said:


> So, there's an admission that your arguement is based on race.


I told you what the black community's problem is, but I don't happen to be black.

However, I do believe that if a 28 year-old black man had shot an unarmed 17 year-old white boy under similar circumstances that the shooter would be facing charges. But that doesn't mean that race had anything to do with the shooting itself. It just means that the law enforcement climate in that area is racist, and I would be surprised if that weren't the case in that region of Florida.


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> However, I do believe that if a 28 year-old black man had shot an unarmed 17 year-old white boy under similar circumstances that the shooter would be facing charges.


And that would be just as wrong, if the evidence pointed the same way it does here. I would be standing up for a black shooter's rights in the same position. Innocent until proven guilty...and that does not mean every shooter needs to go to trial.


----------



## Nevada

ryanthomas said:


> And that would be just as wrong, if the evidence pointed the same way it does here. I would be standing up for a black shooter's rights in the same position. Innocent until proven guilty...and that does not mean every shooter needs to go to trial.


Note that you don't deny that a black shooter would have been charged in similar circumstances, you just admit that it would be wrong. The black community feel the same way.


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> Note that you don't deny that a black shooter would have been charged in similar circumstances, you just admit that it would be wrong. The black community feel the same way.


I don't deny it because I'm not a psychic. I don't know for sure that it would happen. Some places, probably. But I'd bet there have been at least a few cases where your prejudice doesn't hold up.

ETA: It seems that rather than getting rid of injustice, you just want equal injustice across the board.


----------



## unregistered41671

The alarm clock just went off and Sonny and Cher were singing, "I got you Babe."


----------



## hercsmama

I'm just so glad I'm in a small town, in the middle of nowhere. 
This is becoming a really ugly, nasty mess.


----------



## Wanderer0101

Nevada said:


> However, I do believe that if a 28 year-old black man had shot an unarmed 17 year-old white boy under similar circumstances that the shooter would be facing charges.


And Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the Black Panthers and other assorted rabble would be in the street defending him.


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> I told you what the black community's problem is, but I don't happen to be black.
> 
> However, I do believe that if a 28 year-old black man had shot an unarmed 17 year-old white boy under similar circumstances that the shooter would be facing charges. But that doesn't mean that race had anything to do with the shooting itself. It just means that the law enforcement climate in that area is racist, and I would be surprised if that weren't the case in that region of Florida.


I made no mention of your race. Just your bias.

I know that is what you beleive. Can you show me a case in that area where the oppisite has happened? If you can, that is the case we should be discussing, not this one.

I guess I need to ask the question.

Do you think wrongly arresting zimmerman is going to make a right for a black person being wronged? 

Is it okay to make zimmerman the fall guy just to make your point?

If you answer yes to either of those questions, then you are not serious about changing anything.

Here, I visit this site every day. Find out for yourself that police misconduct is not reserved to black folks only. It is wide spread around the country and effects everybody. Do yourself a favor and get upset about the ligitimate cases and make the conversation about Law Enforcement and not race. 

Injustice Everywhere


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> I'm really not big on large social programs most of the time, healthcare being the exception because the system is so dysfunctional. I am a social liberal, but I'm more of a fiscal conservative than I get credit for.


I credit the "social program" aspect for any failings with our health care system. Too many people are counting on "someone" other than themselves to pick up their tab.


----------



## Nevada

Am I the only one who noticed that it seems to be open season in Blacks in Tulsa?

U.S. News - Shooter targeting blacks in Tulsa, Oklahoma?


----------



## fantasymaker

Nevada said:


> However, I do believe that if a 28 year-old black man had shot an unarmed 17 year-old white boy under similar circumstances that the shooter would be facing charges. But that doesn't mean that race had anything to do with the shooting itself. It just means that the law enforcement climate in that area is racist, and I would be surprised if that weren't the case in that region of Florida.


Id bet there is a case out there some where where a black man has defended himself from a white man that didnt have a gun and was not charged.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I credit the "social program" aspect for any failings with our health care system. Too many people are counting on "someone" other than themselves to pick up their tab.


I couldn't disagree more. The healthcare system got the way it is because of the way private insurance evolved after the introduction of HMOs. Traditional insurance carriers had to offer routine care coverage in order to compete with HMOs. When consumers stopped paying for routine care out of their own pockets they didn't worry about how much it cost. Costs went up, which made insurance premiums go up. Before long neither routine care nor insurance were affordable.


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> Am I the only one who noticed that it seems to be open season in Blacks in Tulsa?
> 
> U.S. News - Shooter targeting blacks in Tulsa, Oklahoma?


No, msnbc noticed, too. And it's not "open season on blacks." It's one horrible person murdering people.


----------



## Nevada

ryanthomas said:


> No, msnbc noticed, too. And it's not "open season on blacks." It's one horrible person murdering people.


How do you know it wasn't self defense?


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> How do you know it wasn't self defense?


Obviously that's a rhetorical question, but I'll answer anyway. NO EVIDENCE of self-defense. No shooter waiting for the police to show up so he can give a statement. No witnesses of the victims attacking the shooter. See how different this is from the Trayvon Martin shooting? Probably not, because you're so entrenched in your role as the devil's advocate that you're sprouting horns and carrying a pitchfork. Get real, man.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> Am I the only one who noticed that it seems to be open season in Blacks in Tulsa?
> 
> U.S. News - Shooter targeting blacks in Tulsa, Oklahoma?


Maybe some people are noticing what is happening in Florida.
Lets see how fast Sharpton and Jackson get there.


----------



## Pearl B

time said:


> So, there's an admission that your arguement is based on race.
> 
> Even if it's true, and I'm not saying it is or isn't, wouldn't it make more sence to defend those blacks arrested without cause than to demand non blacks be arrested without cause?
> 
> When your blinded by your own biased, how do expect to change someone else's biased?
> 
> The link I posted earlier is a case I can get behind. Not because the person is black, but because the police had no business doing what they did. And if you think this type of thing does not happen to white people, your dreaming. The two murder cases I mentioned earlier that I personally know of, the suspect(the people I know personally) were white women.
> 
> Wrong is wrong, and your advocating for a wrong to fix what you see as another wrong is not very wise, IMO.


After reading your posts, i had to admit to myself thats what I really wanted.
I feel that Z was/is wrong for following T in the first place and what followed from that. He was interviewed and cleared, I have to let it go.

2 wrongs wont make it right, and will endanger us all.


----------



## Nevada

Pearl B. said:


> 2 wrongs wont make it right, and will endanger us all.


The problem with that is there is lack of accountability is also dangerous. While I acknowledge that gun owners have self defense rights, unarmed people also have the right to walk down the street without getting shot. We need to balance those rights.


----------



## Pearl B

I agree we need a balance, but not like that. I know if the black community looked at it that way, the violence would most likely stop.


----------



## Nevada

Pearl B said:


> I agree we need a balance, but not like that. I know if the black community looked at it that way, the violence would most likely stop.


I don't follow you.


----------



## Pearl B

Nevada said:


> I don't follow you.


Not by locking up people that 
aren't guilty of a crime. Or because the mob says too.


----------



## Nevada

Pearl B said:


> Not by locking up people that
> aren't guilty of a crime. Or because the mob says too.


Nobody as asking for more than a fair trial. They don't want him tried in the press, they want him tried in a court of law.


----------



## Pearl B

A fair trial for what? He didnt commit a crime.


----------



## Pearl B

We dont pull people off the street and give them trials, unless they are charged with a crime. He didnt commit a crime. I never thought Id say that.


----------



## Nevada

Pearl B said:


> We dont pull people off the street and give them trials, unless they are charged with a crime. He didnt commit a crime. I never thought Id say that.


He's not exactly just some random guy off the street. He shot someone to death who was unarmed. I understand that he intends to assert self defense, but that a matter for a jury to decide.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> He's not exactly just some random guy off the street. He shot someone to death who was unarmed. I understand that he intends to assert self defense, but *that a matter for a jury to decide*.


ONLY if he's charged with a *crime.*

The evidence so far says there was *no crime*



> While I acknowledge that gun owners have self defense rights,* unarmed people also have the right to walk down the street without getting shot*.


Most of them do.
What's your point?


----------



## Pearl B

Nevada said:


> He's not exactly just some random guy off the street. He shot someone to death who was unarmed. I understand that he intends to assert self defense, but that a matter for a jury to decide.


If he was charged with a crime. As far as I know, he hasnt been charged with a crime. The grand jury will look into the matter to see if he should be next week.
Ok maybe a random person wasnt the best example, it came to mind.


----------



## time

Pearl B said:


> After reading your posts, i had to admit to myself thats what I really wanted.
> I feel that Z was/is wrong for following T in the first place and what followed from that. He was interviewed and cleared, I have to let it go.
> 
> 2 wrongs wont make it right, and will endanger us all.


You've allways been open minded and willing to contemplate things from a different perspective than the one fed to us in the media. Unfortunatley, there are not enough people like you in the world.


----------



## Pearl B

your going get me to blushing, thank you. It was your posts that pointed me in the right direction. I think theres not enough like you in this world.
Your one of the few, when you post, I really think about what you are saying. :bow:


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> The problem with that is there is lack of accountability is also dangerous. While I acknowledge that gun owners have self defense rights, unarmed people also have the right to walk down the street without getting shot. We need to balance those rights.


Those rights are balanced.

Martin was not shot for walking down the street. He was shot for beating an armed man.

As long as you keep ignoring the facts that don't fit your bias, your reasoning ability will be flawed.

Your like a calculator that randomly puts a 7 in calculations. Your answers will never be accurate. 2+2=29 [2+2*7*=29] Untill you get rid of your bias(7), you will never get the correct equation. 2+2=4


----------



## Darren

Accountability includes many things. Zimmerman was licensed for concealed carry. He didn't carry illegally. He didn't run away from the incident after the shooting. He admitted to the first officer on the scene that he had shot Martin. He volunteered and made himself accountable for his neighbors' safety and welfare. He went outside his immediate community to advocate for a homeless Black man.

Meanwhile the media lies reap the whirlwind. More post-Zimmerman BOW violence.

Father searching for answers in son&#8217;s attack | attack, slavin, son - News Source for Jacksonville, North Carolina - jdnews.com

Another case of particularly heinous pre-Zimmerman BOW crime.

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release.php?id=3166


Other people would call Zimmerman, in a positive sense, a do gooder.


----------



## Darren

When do we call it a race war? I'm trying to confirm the report that one of the alleged white murder's father was killed by a Black.

Oklahoma Police Arrest Two Suspects In Tulsa Shootings | Fox News


----------



## Nevada

time said:


> Martin was not shot for walking down the street. He was shot for beating an armed man.


The problem is that we don't know for sure if Martin was fighting to defend himself. If I could be sure that Martin attacked Zimmerman unprovoked then there would be no dispute here.


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> The problem is that we don't know for sure if Martin was fighting to defend himself. If I could be sure that Martin attacked Zimmerman unprovoked then there would be no dispute here.


That's a (random 7). 

There is no evidence that you or I have available that indicates Martin was defending himself. Before you go back to the girlfreind's statements, all she heard was a noise and the phone went dead. The same noise could have been made by martin attacking.

Take "unprovoked" out of your sentance above. It's another (random 7). Provocation does not excuse an attack.


----------



## Nevada

time said:


> Take "unprovoked" out of your sentance above. It's another (random 7). Provocation does not excuse an attack.


Provocation excuses a shooting, doesn't it? I am sensing a double standard here. If I'm understanding you correctly, Zimmerman has the right to defend himself but Martin doesn't.


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> Provocation excuses a shooting, doesn't it? I am sensing a double standard here. If I'm understanding you correctly, Zimmerman has the right to defend himself but Martin doesn't.


No. Your twisting the meaning.

provocation [&#716;pr&#594;v&#601;&#712;ke&#618;&#643;&#601;n]
n
1. the act of provoking or inciting
2. something that causes indignation, anger, etc.
*3. (Law) English criminal law words or conduct that incite a person to attack another*

Attack and provoke are not the same thing.

Martin was not provoking Zimmerman, he was attacking, beating, and causing bodily harm. Zimmerman was attacked. Not provoked.

Zimmerman my have provoked Martin, but he did not attack him. There is nothing to defend against.

I can say anything I want to you. I can make faces, stick my tongue out or give you the finger. All are provocations. None are illegal. If you touch me after having been provoked, you are guilty of assault and I have a right to defend myself.

How many 7's are you going to add to the equation? Enough to get the answer you desire, I expect.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> The problem is that we don't know for sure if Martin was fighting to defend himself. If I could be sure that Martin attacked Zimmerman unprovoked then there would be no dispute here.


Come on Nevada.
It wouldn't matter if there was a video showing Martin attacking Zimmermen.
It would still be the same thing.


----------



## Nevada

time said:


> No. Your twisting the meaning.


You're playing word games.


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> You're playing word games.


No, I'm not.

You accused me of a double standard. You equate provocation with attack.

They are not the same thing.


----------



## machinistmike

I'm so tired of hearing about this. The kid is dead, nothing is going to change that. Zimmerman has already been tried and convicted in the press just like anyone else caught up in a high profile case. His character, as well as Martin's have been attacked by everyone. The are only 2 people that know what happened that day and 1 of them is dead. We will never know exactly what happened nor will the police. We will only get 1 side of the story.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> The problem is that we don't know for sure if Martin was fighting to defend himself. If I could be sure that Martin attacked Zimmerman unprovoked then there would be no dispute here.


Which part of having his head beat on the sidewalk and punched in the nose..... (based on the evidence at the scene) and NO injuries whatsoever to Martin (other than a single gunshot wound) makes you unsure of how this thing went down? Those things when combined with eyewitness accounts (taken by police on the scene) agreeing with Zimmermans account seem to make it pretty clear..... at least to reasonable folks.


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> Come on Nevada.
> It wouldn't matter if there was a video showing Martin attacking Zimmermen.
> It would still be the same thing.


If I could be sure my opinion would be different. From what I know about the case, it's really coming down to Zimmerman's word against Martin's girlfriend's word. That puts us in a situation, since both parties have motivation to skew the story their way. Still, each of those accounts are conflicting with each other.

So the question is how we resolve those different accounts. Some think we should simply take Zimmerman at his word and let it go, while others think we should let a jury hear the evidence and make a decision.

This is a very serious case. A 17 year-old boy is dead for reasons we don't fully understand, and the political implications are enormous. We have a family who lost a son and wants justice. We have the issue of responsible firearm use. We have the right to self defense. We have the right to walk down a sidewalk unarmed without being shot. We have the right to resist unlawful detainment. We have legitimate questions about people of different races being treated differently by the legal system.

It seems to me that this is an appropriate case for a jury to hear evidence on those issues and make a decision. I believe that letting this case go unheard in the face of conflicting testimony is not appropriate.


----------



## pancho

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Which part of having his head beat on the sidewalk and punched in the nose..... (based on the evidence at the scene) and NO injuries whatsoever to Martin (other than a single gunshot wound) makes you unsure of how this thing went down? Those things when combined with eyewitness accounts (taken by police on the scene) agreeing with Zimmermans account seem to make it pretty clear..... at least to reasonable folks.


A certain group of people have already discarded the evidence and the eye witnesses. They would much rather decide in their mind some situation that fits their needs better. Doesn't have to be true, doesn't have to have evidence, no need for eyewitnesses, doesn't even have to be believable.

Some people are just looking for a reason to cause problems.
Several years ago it would have worked very well. Now I don't think they will be very successful.
With the economy like it is and the lack of jobs people can be set off very easily. Before most people were too involved in working and making a living to stand up to these people. It is different now, more people are out of work. There are a lot of dissatisfied people and many are armed.
Many do not even hold their guns sideways.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> If I could be sure my opinion would be different. From what I know about the case, it's really coming down to Zimmerman's word against Martin's girlfriend's word. That puts us in a situation, since both parties have motivation to skew the story their way. Still, each of those accounts are conflicting with each other.
> 
> So the question is how we resolve those different accounts. Some think we should simply take Zimmerman at his word and let it go, while others think we should let a jury hear the evidence and make a decision.
> 
> This is a very serious case. A 17 year-old boy is dead for reasons we don't fully understand, and the political implications are enormous. We have a family who lost a son and wants justice. We have the issue of responsible firearm use. We have the right to self defense. We have the right to walk down a sidewalk unarmed without being shot. We have the right to resist unlawful detainment. We have legitimate questions about people of different races being treated differently by the legal system.
> 
> It seems to me that this is an appropriate case for a jury to hear evidence on those issues and make a decision. I believe that letting this case go unheard in the face of conflicting testimony is not appropriate.


You keep forgetting the eye witnesses.
They actually saw what happened, not like Martin's girlfriend who only heard a little on the cell phone.
I think I would give more attention to the people who actually saw what happened. Your opinion may vary some.


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> You keep forgetting the eye witnesses.


I'm not aware that there is an eye witness of how the encounter started. Can you give me a link to what that witness said?


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> The problem is that we don't know for sure if Martin was fighting to defend himself. If I could be sure that Martin attacked Zimmerman unprovoked then there would be no dispute here.


There is no evidence to support any attack on Martin... it was Zimmerman who had a bloody nose and knots on his head. My take.... based solely on known evidence... Zimmerman questioned Martin as to his presence.... Martin being a 17 yo male opted to open a can of whoop----- and got himself shot for his trouble.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> I'm not aware that there is an eye witness of how the encounter started. Can you give me a link to what that witness said?


Remember the several eye witnesses that saw Martin on top of Zimmermen beating him?


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> There is no evidence to support any attack on Martin...


I doubt that Zimmerman attacked Martin unprovoked, just as I doubt Martin attacked Zimmerman unprovoked. More likely Zimmerman tried to interrogate and/or detain Martin, then Martin resisted.

The interesting thing about that theory is that in the beginning of this thread I hadn't heard Martin's girlfriend's account. Based solely on Zimmerman's account and Zimmerman's call to police, I declared his story that Martin attacked him unprovoked to be unlikely. I said that it was more likely that Zimmerman tried to interrogate or detain Martin, but Martin resisted which started the struggle. Then out of the clear blue Martin's girlfriend claimed to have heard exactly that.

The fact that Zimmerman trying to detain Martin seemed reasonable to me early on, then was later backed-up by a witness, I'm having trouble letting go of that scenario.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> I'm not aware that there is an eye witness of how the encounter started. Can you give me a link to what that witness said?


Seems to me the links to the 911 calls have been posted here several times. Might have been the girlfriend.... something about 

Martin: "Do you have a problem?"
Zimmerman: "no".... 
Martin: "well you do now" 

followed by the scuffle observed and heard by several of the other callers.


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> Remember the several eye witnesses that saw Martin on top of Zimmermen beating him?


Yes. Did that witness give an account of how the struggle started?


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> If I could be sure my opinion would be different. From what I know about the case, it's really coming down to Zimmerman's word against Martin's girlfriend's word.


And neither of those accounts supports your theory that Zimmerman shot Martin after the struggle ended, since the girlfriend was no longer on the phone with him when he was shot. There's a reason we have such a high standard of proof for crimes in this country. Ever heard of Blackstone's formulation? It states, "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." That's the basis of our standard of proof and presumption of innocence in criminal cases. I hope you someday have the opportunity to experience the injustice you wish upon others. Then maybe you'll get it.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Seems to me the links to the 911 calls have been posted here several times. Might have been the girlfriend.... something about
> 
> Martin: "Do you have a problem?"
> Zimmerman: "no"....
> Martin: "well you do now"
> 
> followed by the scuffle observed and heard by several of the other callers.


No. That's Zimmerman's account. The girlfriend's account had Zimmerman asking what Martin was doing there.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> I doubt that Zimmerman attacked Martin unprovoked, just as I doubt Martin attacked Zimmerman unprovoked.


I would agree.... if it werent for the fact that Zimmerman had a bloody nose... his back being wet and covered with grass and knots on the back of his head, all of which supports his version. Asking someone what they are doing... in the middle of the night, in the rain, wandering around in folks back yards is hardly "provocation" worthy of assault. Seems a rather reasonable question to me.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> Yes. Did that witness give an account of how the struggle started?


Would it matter?
You already have your mind made up.
Nothing is going to change that part.
You would much rather decide in your own mind a story that supports your opinion that Zimmermen is guilty and should be in jail.
Sharpton and Jackson are doing the same thing.
Nothing will ever change their mind and nothing will ever change yours.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> No. That's Zimmerman's account. The girlfriend's account had Zimmerman asking what Martin was doing there.


Ok... I am pretty sure Zimmerman was there.... and witnessed what happened. Since it makes sense... and matches up with what evidence has been released... I am going with it. Until facts are presented to change that.


----------



## Evons hubby

pancho said:


> Would it matter?
> You already have your mind made up.
> Nothing is going to change that part.
> You would much rather decide in your own mind a story that supports your opinion that Zimmermen is guilty and should be in jail.
> Sharpton and Jackson are doing the same thing.
> Nothing will ever change their mind and nothing will ever change yours.


I am beginning to think you may be right.... nearly 1600 posts in this thread and Nevada just aint havin any.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I would agree.... if it werent for the fact that Zimmerman had a bloody nose... his back being wet and covered with grass and knots on the back of his head, all of which supports his version. Asking someone what they are doing... in the middle of the night, in the rain, wandering around in folks back yards is hardly "provocation" worthy of assault. Seems a rather reasonable question to me.


In central Florida is makes sense. A 17 year-old black youngster being asked that by a 28 year-old (seemingly) white man can be an intimidating situation. It doesn't surprise me in the least that Martin would defend himself of he believed that he was about to be abducted by a racist white man.

But I don't put a lot of weight in Zimmerman's bloody nose. It says nothing to the question of Martin defending himself. That only indicates that he tangled with the wrong guy.


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> Would it matter?
> You already have your mind made up.
> Nothing is going to change that part.
> You would much rather decide in your own mind a story that supports your opinion that Zimmermen is guilty and should be in jail.
> Sharpton and Jackson are doing the same thing.
> Nothing will ever change their mind and nothing will ever change yours.


It matters because Yvonne's hubby claimed that an eye witness backed Zimmerman's account. As it turns out that wasn't true, was it?

The better question is why Yvonne's hubby would make that claim in the first place. He is no longer defending Zimmerman on the basis of evidence, but now finds it necessary to fabricate evidence to support Zimmerman. Why would he do that?


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> I doubt that Zimmerman attacked Martin unprovoked, just as I doubt Martin attacked Zimmerman unprovoked. More likely Zimmerman tried to interrogate and/or detain Martin, then Martin resisted.
> 
> The interesting thing about that theory is that in the beginning of this thread I hadn't heard Martin's girlfriend's account. Based solely on Zimmerman's account and Zimmerman's call to police, I declared his story that Martin attacked him unprovoked to be unlikely.* I said that it was more likely that Zimmerman tried to interrogate or detain Martin, but Martin resisted which started the struggle. Then out of the clear blue Martin's girlfriend claimed to have heard exactly that.*The fact that Zimmerman trying to detain Martin seemed reasonable to me early on, then was later backed-up by a witness, I'm having trouble letting go of that scenario.


Yes, we know. You made up a story early on and you ignore evidence that does not support your fiction, while at the same time putting emphasis on a witness that was not there, changed her story, and didn't even report anything for days. If she thought Martin had been attacked, why did she not call police when his phone went dead? I'll tell you why. Because she did not think Martin had been attacked. She thought Martin attacked zimmerman and didn't want to tell anyone. It's as good of fiction as yours.


----------



## pancho

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am beginning to think you may be right.... nearly 1600 posts in this thread and Nevada just aint havin any.


Many times Nevada is good for a serious discussion. He does know quite a bit about many things.
Every once in a while he gets something in his head and it seems to hang up.
Much like his thoughts on Bush. He assured everybody that Bush would never step down from being president. It just sort of got hung up in his mind and nothing anyone said ever could jar it loose.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> In central Florida is makes sense. A 17 year-old black youngster being asked that by a 28 year-old (seemingly) white man can be an intimidating situation. It doesn't surprise me in the least that Martin would defend himself of he believed that he was about to be abducted by a racist white man.
> 
> But I don't put a lot of weight in Zimmerman's bloody nose. It says nothing to the question of Martin defending himself. That only indicates that he tangled with the wrong guy.


Apparently he wasnt intimidated... The guy with the bloody nose would appear to be the one defending himself. I will agree that Martin tangled with the wrong guy though. A feller really aught not take a pair of fists to a gunfight.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> It matters because Yvonne's hubby claimed that an eye witness backed Zimmerman's account. As it turns out that wasn't true, was it?
> 
> The better question is why Yvonne's hubby would make that claim in the first place. He is no longer defending Zimmerman on the basis of evidence, but now finds it necessary to fabricate evidence to support Zimmerman. Why would he do that?


There was several witnessess that backed up Zimmerman's story.
Maybe that is where you are getting hung up.
There was more than one eye witness who backed up Zimmerman's story but you seem to loose that part.

Why can't you listen to the 911 tapes and the stories of the eye witnesses?


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> It matters because Yvonne's hubby claimed that an eye witness backed Zimmerman's account. As it turns out that wasn't true, was it?
> 
> The better question is why Yvonne's hubby would make that claim in the first place. He is no longer defending Zimmerman on the basis of evidence, but now finds it necessary to fabricate evidence to support Zimmerman. Why would he do that?


I did not manufacture evidence. I merely related to you what I had read. I have mentioned before that I have not followed this thread closely, and apparently I havent followed the case as close as some. It seemed to me that it was one of the witnesses that offered that information to the police. Coulda been in the partial police report, or any number of the 911 calls. To me Zimmerman needs no defense... he hasnt been charged with a crime as far as I know. :shrug:


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> He is no longer defending Zimmerman on the basis of evidence, but now finds it necessary to fabricate evidence to support Zimmerman. Why would he do that?


Maybe he saw how much fun you were having doing the same to support Martin.


----------



## Nevada

time said:


> Yes, we know. You made up a story early on and you ignore evidence that does not support your fiction


You don't find it the least bit interesting that the girlfriend's story matches exactly with what seemed to be the most reasonable scenario to me?


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> You don't find it the least bit interesting that the girlfriend's story matches exactly with what seemed to be the most reasonable scenario to me?


Yes, that is suspicious. I think you're in on the conspiracy with Martin's girlfriend to frame Zimmerman for murder. I demand that Nevada be arrested and have a "fair" trial.


----------



## Evons hubby

pancho said:


> Many times Nevada is good for a serious discussion. He does know quite a bit about many things.
> Every once in a while he gets something in his head and it seems to hang up.
> Much like his thoughts on Bush. He assured everybody that Bush would never step down from being president. It just sort of got hung up in his mind and nothing anyone said ever could jar it loose.


Oh, dont get me wrong... I like Nevada... and he does contribute a lot to these discussions. On this issue however, I have to agree, he seems to have formed a conclusion that runs contrary with the limited amount of evidence available.... and refuses to release his hold on that "theory". Did the same thing with Bush... and he still thinks Bush is to blame for most anything that comes down the pike. :shrug:


----------



## Evons hubby

ryanthomas said:


> Yes, that is suspicious. I think you're in on the conspiracy with Martin's girlfriend to frame Zimmerman for murder. I demand that Nevada be arrested and have a "fair" trial.


:hysterical:


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Oh, dont get me wrong... I like Nevada... and he does contribute a lot to these discussions. On this issue however, I have to agree, he seems to have formed a conclusion that runs contrary with the limited amount of evidence available.... and refuses to release his hold on that "theory". Did the same thing with Bush... and he still thinks Bush is to blame for most anything that comes down the pike. :shrug:


The thing is that Zimmerman's story doesn't make sense, and there is a conflicting account that does make sense. I have to question whether his story is accurate. I don't understand why you wouldn't also question his story.


----------



## ryanthomas

The conflicting account doesn't even cover the shooting, just the beginning of the altercation. And the person giving that conflicting account has not been entirely consistent.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> The thing is that Zimmerman's story doesn't make sense, and there is a conflicting account that does make sense. I have to question whether his story is accurate. I don't understand why you wouldn't also question his story.


The only part of Zimmermans story that doesnt make sense to me is why Martin would not have been "beatin feet" to his aunties house instead of confronting Zimmerman. But... that being said.... the evidence fits perfectly with Zimmermans story. 

Zimmerman was struck in the face... as evidenced by the medical reports

Zimmerman had injuries to the back of his head... same reports, corroborated by police.

Zimmerman had been on his back on the ground... That was in the police report.

Martin was shot in the chest... not in the back as I would have suspected had Zimmerman shot him as he was trying to run away.

Now, tell me which part of Zimmerman's account does not make sense to you?


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> You don't find it the least bit interesting that the girlfriend's story matches exactly with what seemed to be the most reasonable scenario to me?


No. I find it interesting that you and others put forth a ficticious senario and *then* the girlfreind comes out of the blue and makes a story that fits it.


----------



## Nevada

time said:


> No. I find it interesting that you and others put forth a ficticious senario and *then* the girlfreind comes out of the blue and makes a story that fits it.


So you think the girlfriend is lying, but you take the shooter at his word.


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> So you think the girlfriend is lying, but you take the shooter at his word.


The girlfriend is at least unsure, if not outright lying, since she has told multiple versions of her story. I personally don't take the shooter at his word, but the evidence leans his way, and there's little if any evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Nevada

ryanthomas said:


> The girlfriend is at least unsure, if not outright lying, since she has told multiple versions of her story.


She said Zimmerman asked what Martin was doing there in both versions. That's the really important part of her story. It makes sense, it's exactly what Zimmerman would have wanted to know, and it directly contradicts his story. That's a serious problem.


----------



## Narshalla

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Oh, dont get me wrong... I like Nevada... and he does contribute a lot to these discussions. On this issue however, I have to agree, he seems to have formed a conclusion that runs contrary with the limited amount of evidence available.... and refuses to release his hold on that "theory". Did the same thing with Bush... and he still thinks Bush is to blame for most anything that comes down the pike. :shrug:


You know, given how, even 3 1/2 years into Obama's presidency, he's ( both Nevada and Obama, actually,) still blaming everything on Bush, Nevada might just be right, Bush never did give up the presidency, and Obama is being blackmailed to keep it secret. Every time he tries to tell the truth -- that it's Bush's fault because Bush is still making the decisions -- no-one believes him.

Hey, it fits all the facts, doesn't it?


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> She said Zimmerman asked what Martin was doing there in both versions. That's the really important part of her story. It makes sense, it's exactly what Zimmerman would have wanted to know, and it directly contradicts his story. That's a serious problem.


Multiple versions, even if they're similar, hurts credibility. So does the time frame. Zimmerman's statement was given that night before he had much time to think about it. When were the girlfriend's statements?


----------



## Nevada

ryanthomas said:


> Multiple versions, even if they're similar, hurts credibility. So does the time frame. Zimmerman's statement was given that night before he had much time to think about it. When were the girlfriend's statements?


I don't know when she gave her statements, but I can't just ignore them. We have a witness who contradicts the shooter's story. That can't help but create doubt.


----------



## ryanthomas

Just out of curiosity, Nevada...what crime(s) would you like Zimmerman charged with?


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> I don't know when she gave her statements, but I can't just ignore them. We have a witness who contradicts the shooter's story. *That can't help but create doubt*.


Doubt? Do you know what reasonable doubt is?

Doubt requires a not guilty finding in court, not a guilty finding. Doubt means nothing to the prosecution exept that they cannot win, thus no charge.

A week ago you had racial slurs on tape. You had a white guy shooter. You had police that didn't do an investigation. you had a guy on poor grainy video that you couldn't see any injuries on. All turned out to be false. You have nothing left to hang on to except the multiple different stories of someone that wasn't there. Someone that is paraphrasing a conversation that happened over a month ago. Someone that did not think her boyfreind had been attacked, otherwize she should have called police that night. She did not contact police that night. My understanding is she did not talk to police for weeks. Does that sound like someone that heard her boyfriend get attacked and killed? She is not credible. Given all the other false information fed to us by the media, I wouldn't hang my hat on a sliver if I were you, especially after all the nails you thought you had were pulled.


----------



## Nevada

ryanthomas said:


> Just out of curiosity, Nevada...what crime(s) would you like Zimmerman charged with?


I can't foresee that this rises to the level of murder, since he didn't even know Martin. I also don't see the shooting as being racially motivated. He could have been profiling Martin on the basis of race, but there is no reason to believe that race had anything to do with his decision to shoot.

That being the case, the most it could be would be manslaughter. With a plea deal that wouldn't be serious; probably someplace between 0 (just probation) and 3 years. If his lawyer argues self defense successfully then he would get off altogether.

While this is a serious case that could result in prison time, compared to OJ's murder trial the stakes aren't particularly high.


----------



## Nevada

time said:


> Doubt? Do you know what reasonable doubt is?
> 
> Doubt requires a not guilty finding in court, not a guilty finding. Doubt means nothing to the prosecution exept that they cannot win, thus no charge.


All I'm saying is that Martin's girlfriend's story is different enough from Zimmerman's story to doubt his account. Whether there is enough reasonable doubt to find him not guilty is a decision for a jury to make. He'll get the benefit of the doubt.

But his word isn't the only factor. The jury will listen to both accounts, then consider which story is more credible and reasonable. That's what juries do.


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> All I'm saying is that Martin's girlfriend's story is different enough from Zimmerman's story to doubt his account. Whether there is *enough reasonable doubt* to find him not guilty is a decision for a jury to make. He'll get the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> But his word isn't the only factor. The jury will listen to both accounts, then consider which story is more credible and reasonable. That's what juries do.


Legal quiz: How much reasonable doubt is enough? Anyway, a jury trial is supposed to be the last resort, not a given. I won't be surprised if there ends up being a plea to negligent homicide or something, since Zimmerman has to see the writing on the wall.


----------



## Nevada

ryanthomas said:


> Legal quiz: How much reasonable doubt is enough?


Regardless of what you learned in elementary school, if you get accused of a crime and you can't prove you didn't do it, you're in a lot of trouble. That's not the way it's supposed to work, but that's the reality.

Juries have a great deal of latitude in deciding reasonable doubt. They don't need an eye witness, just a strong belief that you were the only one there who could have done it. If a cop says he thinks you probably did it then the jury will most likely go along with him. It's not a perfect system, and innocent people get convicted all the time. That's apparent from the DNA mess that's unraveling before our eyes.


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> Regardless of what you learned in elementary school, if you get accused of a crime and you can't prove you didn't do it, you're in a lot of trouble. That's not the way it's supposed to work, but that's the reality.
> 
> Juries have a great deal of latitude in deciding reasonable doubt. They don't need an eye witness, just a strong belief that you were the only one there who could have done it. If a cop says he thinks you probably did it then the jury will most likely go along with him. It's not a perfect system, and innocent people get convicted all the time. That's apparent from the DNA mess that's unraveling before our eyes.


Heh.

Everything you just said in that post is what you are pushing for in the zimmerman case.

Classic.


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> Regardless of what you learned in elementary school, if you get accused of a crime and you can't prove you didn't do it, you're in a lot of trouble. That's not the way it's supposed to work, but that's the reality.
> 
> Juries have a great deal of latitude in deciding reasonable doubt. They don't need an eye witness, just a strong belief that you were the only one there who could have done it. If a cop says he thinks you probably did it then the jury will most likely go along with him. It's not a perfect system, and innocent people get convicted all the time. That's apparent from the DNA mess that's unraveling before our eyes.


I learned it before I started elementary school. My dad was a constitutional law professor, and every Saturday was "rights day" in our house...it wasn't fun back then, but the knowledge has saved my butt a time or two since. ANY reasonable doubt is enough to acquit. But you're right about the fact that reasonable doubt is not a very concrete concept and innocent people are often convicted, which is why I won't be surprised if Zimmerman pleads to something. It is what it is, but that doesn't make it right. It really seems that you would be satisfied with equal injustice for all. How about instead, we fight ALL injustice? Makes more sense to me.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> No. That's Zimmerman's account. The girlfriend's account had Zimmerman *asking* what Martin was doing there.


That has nothing to do with the physical assault, and is NOT a reason to attack anyone.



> She said Zimmerman asked what Martin was doing there in both versions. That's the really important part of her story. It makes sense, it's exactly what Zimmerman would have wanted to know, and it *directly contradicts his story*. That's a serious problem.


Zimmerman told the police they had "*exchanged words*" and then he was attacked, so there is *no difference* in the accounts.

There has been no official release of Zimmerman's ENTIRE statement


> According to police, there is an approximate one-minute gap between that moment and when Zimmerman claims he began walking back towards his SUV, away from the gun-shot victim, whom he says he lost sight of.
> 
> Then, Zimmerman claims Trayvon approached him, coming from the left rear of his car.* According to him, they exchanged words*.
> 
> Zimmerman told police Trayvon punched him, bashed his head on sidewalk
> 
> Zimmerman says Trayvon asked if he had a problem, to which he replied "no," while reaching for his cell phone. He then claims that Trayvon said, "well, you do now," and proceeded to punch Zimmerman in the face.


Your big mistake is *ASSUMING* you know *everything* Zimmerman and Martin said, and that the GIRLFRIND heard *everything* said



> I don't know *when she gave her statements*, but I can't just ignore them. We have a witness who contradicts the shooter's story. That can't help but create doubt.


She gave her statements AFTER she consulted with Martin's LAWYER.
You keep repeating the stories "contradict" when in fact they do not.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Regardless of what you learned in elementary school, *if you get accused of a crime* and you can't prove you didn't do it, you're in a lot of trouble.


There has been no "*crime*", other than Martin's assault on Zimmerman.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> There has been no "*crime*", other than Martin's assault on Zimmerman.


Do you have any proof that Martin wasn't defending himself?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Do you have any proof that Martin wasn't *defending himself*?


Yes
Two eyewitnesses saw him *continue* beating Zimmerman *AFTER* he was knocked to the ground

There are no marks and *no injuries* anywhere on Martin

You can't "defend yourself" *physically* because someone ASKS you a question.

The eyewitness accounts and all the forensic evidence support 
Zimmerman's story


----------



## Narshalla

Nevada said:


> All I'm saying is that Martin's girlfriend's story is different enough from Zimmerman's story to doubt his account. Whether there is enough reasonable doubt to find him not guilty is a decision for a jury to make. He'll get the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> But his word isn't the only factor. The jury will listen to both accounts, then consider which story is more credible and reasonable. That's what juries do.


How is that different for saying:



> Martin's girlfriend's story is different enough from Zimmerman's story to doubt *her* account.


----------



## Darren

What I'm reading is the reason Martin's girlfriend should be given a lie detector test. The fact she said she tried to call Martin back proves she is lying. The police were there. Wouldn't they have answered the phone or looked at the last caller? This is were Martin's girlfriend's statement doesn't fit with the facts.

If she heard the initial encounter and couldn't reach Martin afterwards, why didn't she call Martin's parents? When she said she tried to call Martin back she lied. Someone would have answered that phone or called her back. 

I believe she heard something different than she is telling. Her story sounds like a fabrication when you think about it. When she went public with her story she knew Martin was dead.

The facts that she did not call Martin's family and she claims she tried to call Martin back but did not either talk to someone or get a callback from the police is very suspicious.

"Martin&#8217;s girlfriend said the phone call went &#8220;dead&#8221; at 7:16, but Martin and Zimmerman were already exchanging words.* According to Martin&#8217;s girlfriend, the conversation was initiated by Martin.* The window between the end of Zimmerman&#8217;s call to the SPD and the meeting is brief. Really brief." That is from the link below.

Martin initiated the contact. Not Zimmerman. Zimmerman's injuries and Martin's lack of injuries support Zimmerman's self defense statement. I think it's obvious that Martin knocked Zimmerman down after the brief conversation and kept punching him. At that point Martin sealed his fate.

Another point that I see people make in error is the two men were not on public property in the sense that the city owned it. They were in a commons area that belonged to the community. While Martin had a right to be there because he was sent with his father to the father's fiance's home, his walking around at night as an unknown person was suspicious. It is not the same as being on a city street where it is expected that one would see unknown people.

The timeline and a map is presented below. Note that the dispatcher heard Zimmerman stop running. Zimmerman lost sight of Martin. Was he hiding? When Zimmerman turned away, then it appears Martin approached him. It doesn't make sense that a 17 year old that was concerned about a man following him according to his girlfriend wouldn't immediately go back to where he was staying. *Instead Martin chose to confront Zimmerman apparently by surprising him.*

Zimmerman obeyed the dispatcher's suggestion that he stop chasing Martin. "Zimmerman says &#8220;OK&#8221; and the rustling ends at 2:42."

Martin was more than a match for Zimmerman having played football and having grown to 6'3" compared to Zimmerman's 5'9". His reach exceeded Zimmerman's. Given the short time frame, the encounter between the two rapidly turned violent with Zimmerman ending up lying on his back with Martin on top and continuing to beat him as confirmed by a witness. 

Martin may have lived with just an assault and battery charge if he had not jumped on top of Zimmerman after he had knocked him down and then continued beating him. Put yourself In Zimmerman's position. You're lying on the ground and an unknown man is beating you apparently with no signs of stopping. The unknown man already sucker punched you. How would you react. 

The Martin/Zimmerman timeline [Reader Post] | Flopping Aces


----------



## SteveD(TX)

Nevada said:


> Do you have any proof that Martin wasn't defending himself?


That's a pretty silly question. It's quite obvious that there is no "proof". But the simple fact is: all of the testimony by CREDIBLE witnesses and other information gathered by the police, points to the reasonable conclusion that he wasn't merely defending himself.


----------



## Nevada

SteveD(TX) said:


> That's a pretty silly question. It's quite obvious that there is no "proof". But the simple fact is: all of the testimony by CREDIBLE witnesses and other information gathered by the police, points to the reasonable conclusion that he wasn't merely defending himself.


I just heard on the news that Zimmerman is no longer cooperating with the investigation.


----------



## Darren

Is that a surprise with the lynch mob feelings the media is advocating? According to them, Zimmerman was guilty from the start . My guess is that the case will be submitted to the grand jury to get the state off the hook. Zimmerman made a statement to the police without a lawyer after being Mirandized. Zimmerman has apparently copperated for a month. Do you expect the man to put the media rope around his neck and jump off a chair?


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> I just heard on the news that Zimmerman is no longer cooperating with the investigation.


If it would have been me I would have stopped a while back.
I would have stopped for sure when there was a wanted dead or alive poster put out on me.
Who could blame Zimmerman. He had a lot more patience than I have.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> My guess is that the case will be submitted to the grand jury to get the state off the hook.


No. The grand jury hearing scheduled for tomorrow has been canceled. The new prosecutor says the decision to prosecute will be made without a grand jury.



Darren said:


> Zimmerman made a statement to the police without a lawyer after being Mirandized. Zimmerman has apparently copperated for a month.


Miranda rights are normally read at the time of an arrest, but Zimmerman was not arrested. I don't know for a fact that his rights were read.


----------



## SteveD(TX)

Darren said:


> Is that a surprise with the lynch mob feelings the media is advocating? According to them, Zimmerman was guilty from the start . My guess is that the case will be submitted to the grand jury to get the state off the hook. Zimmerman made a statement to the police without a lawyer after being Mirandized. Zimmerman has apparently copperated for a month. Do you expect the man to put the media rope around his neck and jump off a chair?


The DA has just today decided NOT to submit it to a grand jury.


----------



## Darren

Zimmerman was obviously handcuffed when he was led into the police station. How much more proof do you need that he was arrested? Was that a special non-arrest procedure for whites or, excuse me, white hispanics who always get VIP treatment when hauled into the police department for questioning?


----------



## Darren

SteveD(TX) said:


> The DA has just today decided NOT to submit it to a grand jury.


If that's true it ends the rumor that a subpoena was issued to Martin's girl friend to appear before the grand jury. Just goes to show how out of control the rumor mill is. It was also reported that investigators talked to Martin's girl friend for two hours. That's a lot of time for the slam dunk Martin's girl friend's testimony was supposed to have been according to the folks that have bought into the image of Martin as a choir boy.

Zimmerman's family is reported as starting a website to collect money.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> I just heard on the news that Zimmerman is no longer cooperating with the investigation.


I've heard lots of lies on the "news"
He's already told them everything by now anyway

He's under no obligation to do anything for them at all


----------



## Pearl B

Nevada said:


> I just heard on the news that Zimmerman is no longer cooperating with the investigation.


Is that the same media that spun this into a racial armed white guy vs. poor black defenseless boy? That media?


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> I just heard on the news that Zimmerman is no longer cooperating with the investigation.


If it's true, he's way behind. He should never have cooperated to begin with.

First rule any decent attorney will tell you is, don't talk to police. The rule especially applies if you have not commited a crime.


----------



## time

Darren said:


> Zimmerman was obviously handcuffed when he was led into the police station. How much more proof do you need that he was arrested? Was that a special non-arrest procedure for whites or, excuse me, white hispanics who always get VIP treatment when hauled into the police department for questioning?


Quick note.

Being detained is not an arrest.

I have been read my rights a few times without having been arrested though. In fact, every time I was to be interviewed. Of course, the interview allways ends there. At least for me.


----------



## Darren

time said:


> Quick note.
> 
> Being detained is not an arrest.
> 
> I have been read my rights a few times without having been arrested though. In fact, every time I was to be interviewed. Of course, the interview allways ends there. At least for me.


Where you handcuffed at a scene?


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> Zimmerman was obviously handcuffed when he was led into the police station. How much more proof do you need that he was arrested?


Zimmerman was not arrested. He was taken to the police station for questioning.


----------



## time

Darren said:


> Where you handcuffed at a scene?


Being handcuffed is part of being detained. It is not an indication of arrest.

An arrest is actually being charged. A ticket for a misdemeaner is an arrest.

Arrest has become a common word for about any LE activity that includes detention. Many people get themselves in a bind when asked if they have ever been arrested and they say no, not realizing the ticket they got for a misdemeaner is in fact an arrest.

If LE detains you or otherwise transports a person by squad car, most agency policies require the person be handcuffed. Whether they are under arrest or not. It's for everybodies "safety".


----------



## Home Harvest

This is a perfect example of why police work should be left to the police. Regardless of the details, a man is dead because of Zimmerman and many of you think he did nothing wrong. 

Please tell me what crime Martin was committing that lead to Zimmerman following him? What crime resulted in the 911 call? What crime lead Zimmerman to leave his car and tail Martin? Is there any evidence that Zimmerman had a valid reason for following Martin that night?

Seems to me that Martin's actions were perfectly understandable if he was being followed and was doing nothing wrong. Of course, it could be that he did everything Zimmerman claims he did. He'd still be alive today if Zimmerman had left it to the trained law enforcement officers. Thank God Martin wasn't as bad as Zimmerman says he was, or Zimmerman might be dead now and Martin would be under investigation.

What I hear in this thread is that Zimmerman's right's as a neighborhood watch guy supercede Martin's rights as a citizen to walk on the sidewalk outside his home.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Please tell me what crime Martin was committing that lead to Zimmerman following him? What crime resulted in the 911 call? What crime lead Zimmerman to leave his car and tail Martin? *Is there any evidence that Zimmerman had a valid reason for following Martin that night?*


No one said he was committing any crime before he assaulted Zimmerman

Keeping an eye on a "suspicious person" is a valid reason to follow them, and is perfectly legal



> *What I hear* in this thread is that Zimmerman's right's as a neighborhood watch guy supercede Martin's rights as a citizen *to walk on the sidewalk* outside his home


The you aren't listening to the facts, since Martin cut through yards and between buildings where there were no sidewalks.



> Seems to me that Martin's actions were perfectly understandable if he was being followed and was doing nothing wrong. Of course, *it could be that he did everything Zimmerman claims he did*.


And that 2 eyewitnesses also saw


----------



## MDKatie

Home Harvest said:


> This is a perfect example of why police work should be left to the police. Regardless of the details, a man is dead because of Zimmerman and many of you think he did nothing wrong.
> 
> Please tell me what crime Martin was committing that lead to Zimmerman following him? What crime resulted in the 911 call? What crime lead Zimmerman to leave his car and tail Martin? Is there any evidence that Zimmerman had a valid reason for following Martin that night?
> 
> Seems to me that Martin's actions were perfectly understandable if he was being followed and was doing nothing wrong. Of course, it could be that he did everything Zimmerman claims he did. He'd still be alive today if Zimmerman had left it to the trained law enforcement officers. Thank God Martin wasn't as bad as Zimmerman says he was, or Zimmerman might be dead now and Martin would be under investigation.
> 
> What I hear in this thread is that Zimmerman's right's as a neighborhood watch guy supercede Martin's rights as a citizen to walk on the sidewalk outside his home.


I agree 100%!!! You cannot claim self defense if you FOLLOW someone against the police's orders. If Zimmerman followed Martin, then HE was the one going on the offensive. If Zimmerman had just listened to the cops and STOPPED FOLLOWING HIM, Martin may be alive to tell HIS side of the story. And I'm sorry, but Martin was NOT armed. Why is it self defense? Do you really need to shoot someone who gives you a bloody nose? If so, maybe you shouldn't be taking the law into your own hands and following someone.


----------



## time

Home Harvest said:


> This is a perfect example of why police work should be left to the police. Regardless of the details, a man is dead because of Zimmerman and many of you think he did nothing wrong.
> 
> Please tell me what crime Martin was committing that lead to Zimmerman following him? What crime resulted in the 911 call? What crime lead Zimmerman to leave his car and tail Martin? Is there any evidence that Zimmerman had a valid reason for following Martin that night?
> 
> Seems to me that Martin's actions were perfectly understandable if he was being followed and was doing nothing wrong. Of course, it could be that he did everything Zimmerman claims he did. He'd still be alive today if Zimmerman had left it to the trained law enforcement officers. Thank God Martin wasn't as bad as Zimmerman says he was, or Zimmerman might be dead now and Martin would be under investigation.
> 
> *What I hear in this thread is that Zimmerman's right's as a neighborhood watch guy supercede Martin's rights as a citizen to walk on the sidewalk outside his home*.


No. What you hear in this thread is that Zimmerman's right as a citizen to protect himself supercede's Martin's illegal activity of attacking Zimmerman.

It does not matter if Martin was commiting a crime when zimmerman followed him. Both had every right to be there.

While Martin's actions may be understandable, they are illegal. People cannot attack other people just because they think they are being followed or confronted. They can call police. They can leave. They can inter-act verbally. They can protect themselves if physically attacked. They cannot attack.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MDKatie said:


> I agree 100%!!! *You cannot claim self defense if you FOLLOW someone against the police's orders*.
> 
> If Zimmerman followed Martin, then
> HE was the one going on the offensive.
> If Zimmerman had just listened to the cops and STOPPED FOLLOWING HIM, Martin may be alive to tell HIS side of the story.
> 
> And I'm sorry, but Martin was NOT armed.
> *Why is it self defense?*
> *Do you really need to shoot someone who gives you a bloody nose? *
> 
> If so, maybe you shouldn't be taking the law into your own hands and following someone.


There were no "police orders" 
He was talking to a *dispatcher*, not a police officer.

FOLLOWING is not illegal, and has nothing to do with the self defense aspects of the case

If Martin had stopped after the first punch, he most likely wouldn't have been shot.

That happened only AFTER he *continued* beating Zimmerman while he had him on the ground.

You might not* like* the outcome, but you can't just ignore all the facts either


----------



## Home Harvest

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one said he was committing any crime before he assaulted Zimmerman
> 
> Keeping an eye on a "suspicious person" is a valid reason to follow them, and is perfectly legal
> 
> 
> 
> The you aren't listening to the facts, since Martin cut through yards and between buildings where there were no sidewalks.
> 
> 
> 
> And that 2 eyewitnesses also saw


Nice spin, but sidewalk or not, Zimmerman has the right to follow Martin, but Martin has no right to be concerned about why he is being followed?

My point all along has been that the shooting may have been justified (if Zimmerman was in fear for his life), but it was totally unnecessary. No matter how I slice this, Zimmerman instigated this AND caused a man's death.


----------



## FourDeuce

"You cannot claim self defense if you FOLLOW someone against the police's orders."

I've seen other people make the same claim in this thread, but haven't heard the legal justification for it. You seem to be saying that following another person like he did gives the other person the right to kill you. Got any legal precedents to illustrate that? I've seen cases where courts considered a person's actions had some impact on their right to claim self-defense, but never heard any court say that a person could lose ALL right to self-defense.


----------



## Nevada

time said:


> If it's true, he's way behind. He should never have cooperated to begin with.
> 
> First rule any decent attorney will tell you is, don't talk to police. The rule especially applies if you have not commited a crime.


But in this case, if Zimmerman had not given his account of what happened, the police would have had no choice except to charge him. They would have had no way of knowing about the self defense angle to the case.


----------



## Darren

MDKatie said:


> I agree 100%!!! You cannot claim self en defense if you FOLLOW someone against the police's orders. If Zimmerman followed Martin, then HE was the one going on the offensive. If Zimmerman had just listened to the cops and STOPPED FOLLOWING HIM, Martin may be alive to tell HIS side of the story. And I'm sorry, but Martin was NOT armed. Why is it self defense? Do you really need to shoot someone who gives you a bloody nose? If so, maybe you shouldn't be taking the law into your own hands and following someone.


You seem to have missed the part where witnesses saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him. You also seem to have missed the fact that Zimmerman had a broken nose and wounds to the back of his head. Even if Martin was somehow justified in punching Zimmerman and knocking him down, *He was not justified to continue beating him and slamming his head on concrete.* 

And if as relayed by Zimmerman's father, Martin told Zimmerman, "*Tonight's the night you die.*", all bets are off.

As a member of the community and given the number of burglaries and the home invasion, Zimmerman had every right to find out who the unknown man was walking around on community property. The neighbors here without a neighborhood watch find out why strangers are walking around.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Nice spin, but sidewalk or not, Zimmerman has the right to follow Martin, but Martin has no* right to be concerned* about why he is being followed?
> 
> My point all along has been that the shooting may have been justified (if Zimmerman was in fear for his life), but it was totally unnecessary.


He can be as "concerned" as he wants.
He wasn't concerned enough to run away or call for help though
He just can't physically attack someone, which is what he did according to ALL the evidence.



> *No matter how I slice this, Zimmerman instigated this AND caused a man's death.*


If that's how you "slice" it, you're cutting out most of the *reality*

Even Martin's girlfriend said Zimmerman *ASKED* him what he was doing there.

That is NOT justification to start throwing punches


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> But in this case, if Zimmerman had not given his account of what happened, *the police would have had no choice except to charge him*. They would have had no way of knowing about the self defense angle to the case.


None of the *forensic evidence* showed anything other than Zimmerman being assaulted.

Eyewitnesses backed that up.

Zimmerman cooperated fully but didn't really need to since there WERE witnesses


----------



## Nevada

FourDeuce said:


> "You cannot claim self defense if you FOLLOW someone against the police's orders."
> 
> I've seen other people make the same claim in this thread, but haven't heard the legal justification for it. You seem to be saying that following another person like he did gives the other person the right to kill you. Got any legal precedents to illustrate that? I've seen cases where courts considered a person's actions had some impact on their right to claim self-defense, but never heard any court say that a person could lose ALL right to self-defense.


I don't see how the act of following Martin forfeits Zimmerman's right to assert self defense.


----------



## Darren

time said:


> Being handcuffed is part of being detained. It is not an indication of arrest.
> 
> An arrest is actually being charged. A ticket for a misdemeaner is an arrest.
> 
> Arrest has become a common word for about any LE activity that includes detention. Many people get themselves in a bind when asked if they have ever been arrested and they say no, not realizing the ticket they got for a misdemeaner is in fact an arrest.
> 
> If LE detains you or otherwise transports a person by squad car, most agency policies require the person be handcuffed. Whether they are under arrest or not. It's for everybodies "safety".


Thanks for the explanation.


----------



## Home Harvest

Bearfootfarm said:


> He can be as "concerned" as he wants.
> He wasn't concerned enough to run away or call for help though
> He just can't physically attack someone, which is what he did according to ALL the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> If that's how you "slice" it, you're cutting out most of the *reality*
> 
> Even Martin's girlfriend said Zimmerman *ASKED* him what he was doing there.
> 
> That is NOT justification to start throwing punches


OK, so YOU think Zimmerman is COMPLETELY innocent and bears ABSOLUTELY no responsibility for Martin's death? You don't believe Zimmerman's actions contributed to the final outcome?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> OK, so YOU think Zimmerman is COMPLETELY innocent and bears ABSOLUTELY no responsibility for Martin's death?
> You don't believe Zimmerman's actions contributed to the final outcome?


If* Martin hadn't attacked* him and CONTINUED beating him, there would have been no shooting.

Zimmerman had called police nearly 50 times and hadn't attacked anyone before, and KNEW the police would be there at any minute


----------



## MDKatie

If Zimmerman had followed the dispatcher's (not police, whatever) warning against following a suspicious character, he wouldn't have been in the situation. It does not give Martin the right to attack Zimmerman, but I believe Zimmerman went looking for trouble. Had he followed the dispatcher's advice, the police could have questioned Martin and found he wasn't doing anything suspicious and had a reason for being there. 

I don't know if there are any laws saying you can't claim self defense if you are the one going after someone, but common sense says don't go looking for trouble unless you are a cop! How can you argue with that logic?


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> If* Martin hadn't attacked* him and CONTINUED beating him, there would have been no shooting.


That's not really fair, since we don't know for sure how the altercation started.


----------



## Home Harvest

Bearfootfarm said:


> If* Martin hadn't attacked* him and CONTINUED beating him, there would have been no shooting.
> 
> Zimmerman had called police nearly 50 times and hadn't attacked anyone before, and KNEW the police would be there at any minute


I never said Zimmerman "attacked" anyone. I'm saying he was stupid and unprepared, and untrained. *IF Zimmerman hadn't followed Martin*there would have been no shooting. The police are trained how to approach a suspect. They are trained what signs to watch for. They are trained to defend themselves. Zimmerman had none of this training. It wasn't illegal for him to follow Martin, but it sure was stupid.


----------



## pancho

Home Harvest said:


> I never said Zimmerman "attacked" anyone. I'm saying he was stupid and unprepared, and untrained. *IF Zimmerman hadn't followed Martin*there would have been no shooting. The police are trained how to approach a suspect. They are trained what signs to watch for. They are trained to defend themselves. Zimmerman had none of this training. It wasn't illegal for him to follow Martin, but it sure was stupid.


Why not say if Martin hadn't got kicked out of school nothing would have happened? If Martin's mother had not shipped him off to stay with his father nothing would have happened.

Sounds like they failed as parents and are trying to blame everyone else for their failures.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MDKatie said:


> *If Zimmerman had followed the dispatcher's (not police, whatever) warning against following a suspicious character, he wouldn't have been in the situation*.
> 
> *It does not give Martin the right to attack Zimmerman*, but I believe Zimmerman went looking for trouble.
> 
> Had he followed the dispatcher's advice, the police could have questioned Martin and found he wasn't doing anything suspicious and had a reason for being there.
> 
> I don't know if there are any laws saying you can't claim self defense if you are the one going after someone, but common sense says don't go looking for trouble unless you are a cop! How can you argue with that logic?


He *DID *stop following as soon as the dispatcher said that.
He *TOLD* them he had lost sight of Martin, and was going back to his truck to meet the officers

If you *READ *the transcript, you'll see he DID exactly what *you* say he should have done.

*911 dispatcher:*
*Are you following him?* [2:24]

*Zimmerman:*
*Yeah.* [2:25]

*911 dispatcher:*
*OK.*
*We donât need you to do that.* [2:26]

*Zimmerman:*
*OK.* [2:28]

*911 dispatcher:*
Alright, sir, what is your name? [2:34]

*Zimmerman:*
George. *He ran.*
*911 dispatcher:*
Alright, George, whatâs your last name?

*Zimmerman:*
Zimmerman.

*911 dispatcher:*
Whatâs the phone number youâre calling from?
*Zimmerman:*
407-435-2400
*911 dispatcher:*
Alright, George, we do have them on the way. *Do you want to meet with the officer* when they get out there?
*Zimmerman:*
Yeah.

*911 dispatcher:*
Alright, *where are you going to meet with them at?*

*Zimmerman:*
Um, if they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse and, uh, straight past the clubhouse and make a left and then go past the mailboxes *youâll see my truck*. [3:10]


George Zimmerman's 911 call transcribed - National unsolved cases | Examiner.com

He wasn't "lookiing for trouble"

He was trying to PREVENT trouble, as anyone in a *Neighborhood Watch* would have done

If Martin hadn't *assaulted* him, there would have been no further issues


----------



## Darren

MDKatie said:


> If Zimmerman had followed the dispatcher's (not police, whatever) warning against following a suspicious character, he wouldn't have been in the situation. It does not give Martin the right to attack Zimmerman, but I believe Zimmerman went looking for trouble. Had he followed the dispatcher's advice, the police could have questioned Martin and found he wasn't doing anything suspicious and had a reason for being there.
> 
> I don't know if there are any laws saying you can't claim self defense if you are the one going after someone, but common sense says don't go looking for trouble unless you are a cop! How can you argue with that logic?


Everyone has the duty to protect hemsleves and their families and a repsonsibility to look out for their neihbors. If you listen to the 911 tape you can hear that Zimmerman stopped running after Martin, at the dispatcher's suggestion. He said OK in response. Then Martin somehow appeared in Zimmerman's vicinity. Nothing gave Martin the right to do what he did o Zimmerman. 

I'm not sure about crime in your area, but people here do check out strange people. I don't hesitate, day or night, to ask someone strange if they need help.

You can believe that Zimmerman went looking for trouble, but when the kid had him down and jumped on and started beating him, that was it. If you want to back up and charge Zimmerman how about charging Martin's father who didn't tell him about the burglary's and caution his son that he might be considered an outsider.

There's a lot of circumstances that combined to put those two in close proximity that night. Based on the time Martin was in the 7 eleven, he could have gotten home a lot quicker. He didn't have to chose to confront Zimmerman. If his girl friend wasn't lying, she told him to go to the house. Martin could have easily gotten back before the police arrived and avoided Zimmerman. Instead Martin made a choice that ended in his death.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> That's not really fair, since we don't know for sure how the altercation started.


We know Martin couldn't have been *attacked* since he had NO injuries


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Home Harvest said:


> *I never said Zimmerman "attacked" anyone*.
> 
> I'm saying . *IF Zimmerman hadn't followed Martin*there would have been no shooting. The police are trained how to approach a suspect. They are trained what signs to watch for. They are trained to defend themselves. Zimmerman had none of this training. It wasn't illegal for him to follow Martin, but it sure was stupid.


Then Martin had no excuse for beating him, which makes HIM the "agressor"

*



he was stupid and unprepared, and untrained

Click to expand...



*
He was prepared and trained well enough to *survive* a vicious assault*.*
You really have no knowledge of any other training he may have had

Le's' just stick to the facts we can *verify*


----------



## time

MDKatie said:


> If Zimmerman had followed the dispatcher's (not police, whatever) warning against following a suspicious character, he wouldn't have been in the situation. It does not give Martin the right to attack Zimmerman, but I believe Zimmerman went looking for trouble. Had he followed the dispatcher's advice, the police could have questioned Martin and found he wasn't doing anything suspicious and had a reason for being there.
> 
> I don't know if there are any laws saying you can't claim self defense if you are the one going after someone, but common sense says don't go looking for trouble unless you are a cop! How can you argue with that logic?


I don't need you to go outside your house. There, you have your warning. Now if you go outside and get in an altercation and someone get's killed, it's your fault and you'll go to prison. You were warned. Fair enough? Zimmerman did nothing illegal.

No, common sense does not say don't go looking for trouble unless you are a cop. I go out every night looking for trouble. I rarely find it. But, I do not sit around waiting for trouble to find me. I don't want to be a victem. Just last week some guy on a loud Harley stopped just down the street at 2 in the morning. It's a rural area. I went and asked him if he was broke down. He didn't punch me, and I didn't shoot him. He thanked me for checking on him.


----------



## SteveD(TX)

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman was not arrested. He was taken to the police station for questioning.


Wrong. Detention is usually viewed as temporary until the officer can determine if there is probable cause to arrest the individual. Being under arrest doesn't mean you are being charged. It means that you will be brought to jail and have the right to see a magistrate. Zimmerman was arrested. But the police decided there was not enough evidence to officially charge him with a crime. He can be re-arrested if the DA decides to charge him.

Here is a link that makes that point:

Daily Kos: George Zimmerman WAS Arrested At The Scene of Trayvon Martin Killing


----------



## ryanthomas

MDKatie said:


> And I'm sorry, but Martin was NOT armed.


Yes he was, quite literally. He used his own arms and hands as weapons.



Home Harvest said:


> My point all along has been that the shooting may have been justified (if Zimmerman was in fear for his life), but it was totally unnecessary. No matter how I slice this, Zimmerman instigated this AND caused a man's death.


I agree with this, but I don't jump to the conclusion that he needs to be tried for it. Maybe, maybe not. So far, I don't think so.


----------



## time

SteveD(TX) said:


> Wrong. Detention is usually viewed as temporary until the officer can determine if there is probable cause to arrest the individual. Being under arrest doesn't mean you are being charged. It means that you will be brought to jail and have the right to see a magistrate. Zimmerman was arrested. But the police decided there was not enough evidence to officially charge him with a crime. He can be re-arrested if the DA decides to charge him.
> 
> Here is a link that makes that point:
> 
> Daily Kos: George Zimmerman WAS Arrested At The Scene of Trayvon Martin Killing


Hmmm.

Seems I had a misconception about that as well.



> What, then, is a correct definition of arrest, for purposes of federal Constitutional law? An arrest is a seizure of a person in which the subject is 1) required to go elsewhere with police, or 2) deprived of his freedom of movement for more than a brief period of time, or 3) subjected to more force than is reasonably part of an investigative detention.





> One of the first United States Supreme Court cases to deal with this issue was Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 2000 (1979), where the defendant confessed to a robbery-homicide after being âpicked up for questioningâ and taken to police facilities. The Supreme Court found that Dunawayâs confession was inadmissible because, when he was required to leave his home and go to the police facilities, he was in essence âarrestedâ without probable cause.


The Myth of Investigative Detention vs. Arrest | Law and Order Magazine

Obviously, Zimmerman was arrested.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Obviously, Zimmerman was arrested


.

Arrested, but not CHARGED


----------



## watcher

Darren said:


> I agree with that because a recent poll showed that many Blacks believed, and I think rightly so, they got the short end of the stick. Their unemployment numbers are higher and, although it wasn't covered, I think Black families are in more of a crisis.


They have the short end of the stick because they have asked for it and have carried it like a trophy for decades. They fought for and won a great chance in the 60s but they allowed to slip from their hands. They didn't realize the they were trading one type of repression for another.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Am I the only one who noticed that it seems to be open season in Blacks in Tulsa?
> 
> U.S. News - Shooter targeting blacks in Tulsa, Oklahoma?


"open season on blacks"? A bit much don't you think?

I don't have the data but I'm willing to bet if you checked you'd see in the same time period there were more blacks killed by other blacks than this shooter killed.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> I couldn't disagree more. The healthcare system got the way it is because of the way private insurance evolved after the introduction of HMOs. Traditional insurance carriers had to offer routine care coverage in order to compete with HMOs. When consumers stopped paying for routine care out of their own pockets they didn't worry about how much it cost. Costs went up, which made insurance premiums go up. Before long neither routine care nor insurance were affordable.


You are wrong. Check your history. The problem is a result of government interference. It started in the 40s when the government limited wages businesses could pay. To get around this limit companies started offering "free" medical insurance. Soon people stopped looking at this as a benefit and started demanding companies to offer it.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> He's not exactly just some random guy off the street. He shot someone to death who was unarmed. I understand that he intends to assert self defense, but that a matter for a jury to decide.


Not if the government decides it first.


----------



## Narshalla

Darren said:


> If that's true it ends the rumor that a subpoena was issued to Martin's girl friend to appear before the grand jury. Just goes to show how out of control the rumor mill is. It was also reported that investigators talked to Martin's girl friend for two hours. That's a lot of time for the slam dunk Martin's girl friend's testimony was supposed to have been according to the folks that have bought into the image of Martin as a choir boy.
> 
> Zimmerman's family is reported as starting a website to collect money.


She still might have received a subpoena, though, because it would have been issued some time last week, and the special prosecutor decided not to put the case in front of the grand jury today.

The GF's story started as out rather ambiguous, and lots of the details she provided are merely her interpretation of what she heard. He second story was much more in Martin's favor, but still had a great deal of her own interpretation. 

A Grand Jury is allowed to question witnesses, and to subpoena witnesses if they feel they need more information. If there was even one skeptic there, (and statistically speaking, there would have to be,) then that person would probably be able to tear her story to shreds, and that's the last thing SP Corey would want.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> If I could be sure my opinion would be different. From what I know about the case, it's really coming down to Zimmerman's word against Martin's girlfriend's word. That puts us in a situation, since both parties have motivation to skew the story their way. Still, each of those accounts are conflicting with each other.
> 
> So the question is how we resolve those different accounts. Some think we should simply take Zimmerman at his word and let it go, while others think we should let a jury hear the evidence and make a decision.
> 
> This is a very serious case. A 17 year-old boy is dead for reasons we don't fully understand, and the political implications are enormous. We have a family who lost a son and wants justice. We have the issue of responsible firearm use. We have the right to self defense. We have the right to walk down a sidewalk unarmed without being shot. We have the right to resist unlawful detainment. We have legitimate questions about people of different races being treated differently by the legal system.


You keep missing the point it would be unethical and unjust for the prosecutor to take a case to the grand jury if he KNEW the evidence didn't support the facts a crime might have been committed. It could even rise to the level of a criminal act. 




Nevada said:


> It seems to me that this is an appropriate case for a jury to hear evidence on those issues and make a decision. I believe that letting this case go unheard in the face of conflicting testimony is not appropriate.


The problem is the physical evidence. All of it we know of supports Zimmerman's statements.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Yes. Did that witness give an account of how the struggle started?


And what evidence do you know of which would prove how it started?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> You don't find it the least bit interesting that the girlfriend's story matches exactly with what seemed to be the most reasonable scenario to me?


But one not support by a single piece of hard evidence. ALL you have is what someone remembers hearing and what you think MIGHT have happened.


----------



## watcher

nevada said:


> the thing is that zimmerman's story doesn't make sense, and there is a conflicting account that does make sense. I have to question whether his story is accurate. I don't understand why you wouldn't also question his story.


because there is physical evidence to question it.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> But one not support by a single piece of hard evidence. ALL you have is what someone remembers hearing and what you think MIGHT have happened.


All you have is the word of a shooter who is trying to save his own neck.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> So you think the girlfriend is lying, but you take the shooter at his word.


I question all testimony because I know two things. Human memory is extremely unreliable and humans tend to only say things which support them or their beliefs. Testimony w/o evidence to back it up is next to worthless.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> *All you have* is the word of a shooter who is trying to save his own neck.


And* two eyewitnesses* that you conveniently keep "forgetting", plus lots of forensic evidence.

If your *THEORY* were true, they would have charged him before now

Keep in mind all but about *1 minute* of the whole thing was either recorded or witnessed


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> All I'm saying is that Martin's girlfriend's story is different enough from Zimmerman's story to doubt his account. Whether there is enough reasonable doubt to find him not guilty is a decision for a jury to make. He'll get the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> But his word isn't the only factor. The jury will listen to both accounts, then consider which story is more credible and reasonable. That's what juries do.


Before it reaches a jury the prosecutor listens then compares it to the evidence. If there is NOTHING to support one person's testimony AND they is the only thing supporting that story while there is tons of evidence to support the other testimony the prosecutor is unlikely to take the case to trial.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> No. The grand jury hearing scheduled for tomorrow has been canceled. The new prosecutor says the decision to prosecute will be made without a grand jury.
> 
> 
> 
> Miranda rights are normally read at the time of an arrest, but Zimmerman was not arrested. I don't know for a fact that his rights were read.


From everything I have read, in the eyes of the court Zimmerman WAS arrested! He was detained by the police and not free to leave. If they asked him ANYTHING about a crime they thought he might have committed w/o reading him his rights or getting a rights waiver anything he said will be tossed.

I really doubt they didn't get a signed rights waiver.


----------



## watcher

time said:


> Quick note.
> 
> Being detained is not an arrest.


Not in the eyes of the court. If you are not free to live police custody when you wish, you are legally under arrest.


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> All you have is the word of a shooter who is trying to save his own neck.


Not so.

There are eyewitnesses and physical evidence.


----------



## haypoint

Put Zimmerman to death for the murder of Martin based on DeeDee's account that she heard, on her cell phone, Zimmerman push Martin. That's all the facts some people need.

Last month, two guys stuffed two girls into the trunk of a stolen car, while exchanging gunfire with one of the girl's father. The following day the empty car was found, burned out. A month later, both girls were found in shallow graves, gunshots to the forehead. Did you read about that in your local paper? See it on the Evening News? 

Last week, in Flint, a 10 year veteran State Police Officer was shot in the stomach while attempting to arrest a man. Did you read about that in your local paper? See it on the Evening News? 

Over and over, Flint, Saginaw, Pontiac and Detroit, unsolved murders are getting the same attention as the weather and the traffic report. But let one non-black defend himself against a bigger, stronger, aggressive black man and we are ready to burn down the city to get justice.


----------



## watcher

Home Harvest said:


> This is a perfect example of why police work should be left to the police. Regardless of the details, a man is dead because of Zimmerman and many of you think he did nothing wrong.
> 
> Please tell me what crime Martin was committing that lead to Zimmerman following him? What crime resulted in the 911 call? What crime lead Zimmerman to leave his car and tail Martin? Is there any evidence that Zimmerman had a valid reason for following Martin that night?
> 
> Seems to me that Martin's actions were perfectly understandable if he was being followed and was doing nothing wrong. Of course, it could be that he did everything Zimmerman claims he did. He'd still be alive today if Zimmerman had left it to the trained law enforcement officers. Thank God Martin wasn't as bad as Zimmerman says he was, or Zimmerman might be dead now and Martin would be under investigation.
> 
> What I hear in this thread is that Zimmerman's right's as a neighborhood watch guy supercede Martin's rights as a citizen to walk on the sidewalk outside his home.


There was no rights violated until someone laid hands on the other. Martin had the right to walk and Zimmerman had the right to follow.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> But in this case, if Zimmerman had not given his account of what happened, the police would have had no choice except to charge him. They would have had no way of knowing about the self defense angle to the case.


And you let your lawyer deal with that. You NEVER talk to the police w/o a lawyer. Even lawyers don't talk to the police w/o THEIR lawyer with them.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> All you have is the word of a shooter who is trying to save his own neck.


No, I have his word backed up with released evidence and third party testimony. Is there a single piece of physical evidence you have read about that can disprove even one thing about Zimmerman's statement?


----------



## Nevada

haypoint said:


> Put Zimmerman to death for the murder of Martin based on DeeDee's account that she heard


Nobody is talking about murder charges.


----------



## Narshalla

Nevada said:


> Nobody is talking about murder charges.


There's killing and there's murder, Nevada.

If Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin, then Zimmerman killed him, but did not murder him.

If Zimmerman was _not_ justified in shooting Martin, then regardless of the charge, from manslaughter (murder by accident or negligence,) up to first degree murder, it's still murder.


----------



## Nevada

Narshalla said:


> There's killing and there's murder, Nevada.
> 
> If Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin, then Zimmerman killed him, but did not murder him.
> 
> If Zimmerman was _not_ justified in shooting Martin, then regardless of the charge, from manslaughter (murder by accident or negligence,) up to first degree murder, it's still murder.


If he gets charged at all he'll be charged with manslaughter. If convicted, I doubt he will serve more than a couple of years, and he could just get probation.

The big case will be the wrongful death lawsuit. That will strip him of anything he owns. While Zimmerman might not have done a criminal act, there is no question that he showed poor judgment that resulted in someone losing his life. Zimmerman will pay for that life for as long as he lives.


----------



## haypoint

Nevada said:


> Nobody is talking about murder charges.


Well, what charges do you want him arrested on? Jaywalking? You have spoken out that you want the death investigated. Zimmerman claimed, and the police agreed, that he shot in self-defense. Therefore, he wasn't charged. 

If there is physical evidence that refutes Zimmerman's statements and the statements of the eye witnesses, that changes it to what? 

I don't care what the 911 Operator said to Zimmerman. I don't care about Martin being a gang member and school hoodlum. I don't care that Martin was 6'3", 200 pounds. I don't care if Zimmerman called Martin a N****. I don't care if Martin told Zimmerman to F*** off. I don't care about all that stuff that happened before the incident. If the facts show that Martin punched Zimmerman to the ground and Zimmerman felt threatened and shot his attacker, that's all I need to know. That's my definition of self defense.

That anyone would bother repeating that DeeDee thought she heard Zimmerman shove Martin shows that someone is grasping at straws.


----------



## haypoint

Nevada said:


> If he gets charged at all he'll be charged with manslaughter. If convicted, I doubt he will serve more than a couple of years, and he could just get probation.
> 
> The big case will be the wrongful death lawsuit. That will strip him of anything he owns. While Zimmerman might not have done a criminal act, there is no question that he showed poor judgment that resulted in someone losing his life. Zimmerman will pay for that life for as long as he lives.


Perhaps, it was Martin that showed poor judgement?


----------



## Rakkasan

End result... We just don't have enough information. 

For me to make an informed opinion on what happened, I need to see both the autopsy of Trevon Martin, and the Forensic evidence from his cloths. 

Till I get that..... I can form no opinion.


----------



## haypoint

Rakkasan said:


> End result... We just don't have enough information.
> 
> For me to make an informed opinion on what happened, I need to see both the autopsy of Trevon Martin, and the Forensic evidence from his cloths.
> 
> Till I get that..... I can form no opinion.


OK, we know the cause of death. What sort of Forensic evidence might give you the information you need? Gun powder residue from a close range shot?
Since this isn't CSI, how detailed do you think the autopsy was on a self-defence shooting? Check for Zimmerman's blood on Martin? Does a lack of Zimmerman's blood on Martin's hoody "prove" the eye witness was lying?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> The big case will be the *wrongful death* lawsuit


There was no "wrongful death"


----------



## Narshalla

Nevada said:


> If he gets charged at all he'll be charged with manslaughter. If convicted, I doubt he will serve more than a couple of years, and he could just get probation.
> 
> The big case will be the wrongful death lawsuit. That will strip him of anything he owns. While Zimmerman might not have done a criminal act, there is no question that he showed poor judgment that resulted in someone losing his life. Zimmerman will pay for that life for as long as he lives.


That's nice, Nevada, but you said:



Nevada said:


> Nobody is talking about murder charges.


_You_ are talking about murder charges, Nevada. _you_ are, that's who's talking about murder charges.

Sure manslaughter isn't as "serious" as other charges, but it's still murder.

And you have convicted him, Nevada. First on evidence that either wasn't reported by the papers, or that didn't exist in the first place. Then using the very flimsy, half-remembered, two different versions that he girlfriend reported and editorialized to add detailed conclusion about what the sounds she heard meant.

You ignore people who actually saw what happened, you ignore forensic evidence, you ignore all the taped 911 calls that everyone made, you ignore _everything and anything_ that does not agree with your forgone conclusion.

In short, sir, you are showing yourself to be one of the most calmly prejudiced people I have ever debated.


----------



## MDKatie

Eyewitness testimony is not always reliable.


----------



## vicker

Yes, and in fact it gas been proven to be one of the least reliable.


----------



## haypoint

MDKatie said:


> Eyewitness testimony is not always reliable.


True. But when placed on the blind scales of justuce, two eye witness accountss beat an alledged thump heard on DeeDee's cell phone.


----------



## pancho

MDKatie said:


> Eyewitness testimony is not always reliable.


But it is usually much better than some wild ideas by those with something to gain.


----------



## Sonshine

Didn't they report that there will be no grand jury? Looks like this is over, except for the circus the media started.


----------



## SteveD(TX)

Sonshine said:


> Didn't they report that there will be no grand jury? Looks like this is over, except for the circus the media started.


Not over. The DA doesn't need a grand jury to bring charges. Believe me, she will. Probably for manslaughter.


----------



## pancho

There will have to be some charges. After all it was a colored boy killed by a white man.
There isn't any charge except murder that will satisfy the colored.
Really, I don't think even a murder charge would be enough for them.
They are looking for a reason to riot, burn, and loot.


----------



## vicker

Yep, that sounds like colored people alright.


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> The big case will be the wrongful death lawsuit. That will strip him of anything he owns.


I doubt he owns much, and he'll probably be deep in debt by the time the criminal prosecution is over. There will be nothing left for Martin's parents to take.


----------



## Darren

ryanthomas said:


> I doubt he owns much, and he'll probably be deep in debt by the time the criminal prosecution is over. There will be nothing left for Martin's parents to take.


A group of lawyers that take gun defense cases from Texas have already pledged $10,000 for Zimmerman's defense. Zimmerman also has a website up to collect donations. I'm surprised that even in rural WV, people have heard about the case. I was talking to an over 70 senior on Sunday and he brought up the case. He wasn't happy with the media's treatment of Zimmerman.

The case is dividing this country and setting back race relations. I'm not convinced the prosecutor will go forward with the case. She has a reputation for being tough. Unless she's found something to pin the case on that the media hasn't already butchered in public, it looks like she's got an uphill battle. My bet is on a deadlocked jury if this goes to trial. 

The timeline has already been scrutinized in public down to the second. That's where Martin's girl friend's statements du joir don't match the 911 tapes. there's an extremely brief time span which argues for Martin throwing a punch at Zimmerman, knocking him down and then climbing on to continue beating. The men didn't dance around duking it out. A subsequent 911 tape by at least one eye witness confirms that. There's not much time that isn't covered by a 911 tape.

The prosecutor and the feds are up against Zimmerman's volunteer efforts to the community and the now well known fact due to the media's meddling that Zimmerman's so-called racist comment was about punks. That's hardly a racist comment. The time from the video that showed Martin in the 7 Eleven shows that Martin's time to get back to the place he was staying was much longer than it would take if he was going straight back. That fits Zimmerman's info to the dispatcher about an unknown man walking around looking at things. 

The next statement also raises questions.

"Martin was shot and killed Feb. 26 in Sanford while walking from a store where *he had just purchased a bag of Skittles and iced tea for his younger brother."*

I don't know if Martin's younger brother was waiting at the house for him to return. If he was that creates a really odd situation when the father claimed he thought Martin went off with someone and that was why he was not home that morning. Didn't he ask his other son where Martin was? Was the younger son there? Is that another media mistake?

Now consider Martin's girlfriend's statement where she claimed she tried to call Martin back. With all those weird things why didn't the girl friend call Martin's parents? Why didn't the father get concerned? Something does not add up. You have a 17 year old young man who has had problems at school and he disappears. Then neither his girl friend or father take the next logical steps.


----------



## fantasymaker

MDKatie said:


> Eyewitness testimony is not always reliable.


But twice as reliable as EAR witness.


----------



## Evons hubby

Bearfootfarm said:


> There was no "wrongful death"


Nope... That would be a civil suit, and from what I gather Zimmerman doesnt have the deep pockets required to pay to monkey with it even if there was a valid case.... which I dont think it is.


----------



## fantasymaker

Nevada said:


> , unarmed people also have the right to walk down the street .


And IF he had done that he would have been alive and well.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MDKatie said:


> Eyewitness testimony is not always reliable.


You take what you can get.
It's more reliable than what someone THOUGHT they heard over the phone.


----------



## Nevada

Narshalla said:


> Sure manslaughter isn't as "serious" as other charges, but it's still murder.


Manslaughter and murder are very different. Murder is a deliberate act, where a particular person is killed for clear motivation with forethought & pre-planning. Manslaughter is an act of negligence, where they was no plan or desire for anybody to die. A death resulting from drunk driving is a good example of negligent homicide that can result in manslaughter charges.

From what I know today, I don't see how a case for premeditated murder could be built against Zimmerman. On the other hand, a show of poor judgment resulting in death can justify manslaughter charges. I believe the poor judgment in this case rises to the level of negligent homicide. We may also find that there was anger, since Zimmerman may have become emotional enough during the struggle to want to lash out at Martin. But regardless of whether the reason for the shooting was poor judgment or anger, it still can justify manslaughter charges.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> With all those weird things why didn't the girl friend *call Martin's parents*?


I'd be surprised if she had the number if he had his own cell phone.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> On the other hand, a show of poor judgment resulting in death can justify manslaughter charges.


There's been no evidence of "poor judgement", other than Martin *attacking* Zimmerman


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's been no evidence of "poor judgement", other than Martin *attacking* Zimmerman


Why is it so important to you that Zimmerman get away with no charges?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Why is it so important to you that Zimmerman get away with no charges?


How many times do you want me to answer that question?

You ask it every time you can't argue just the FACTS.
(Which is quite often)


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Why is it so important to you that Zimmerman get away with no charges?


Why is it so important to you that he be charged with a crime? :shrug: The "system" saw no reason to charge him.... who are you to insist they do?


----------



## Darren

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'd be surprised if she had the number if he had his own cell phone.


You may be right. But if she did call back why didn't the police answer the phone or at least call back the last number? Why didn't the father look for Martin? The police were on scene for seven hours starting around 7 pm. When the father returned with his fiance, the police investigating the incident should have been obvious. Add the disappearance of his son and you have to wonder about the father's actions based on his statement.

From what's been released or investigated and made public, Martin's family's statements and the girl friend's statemnets don't sync with known events.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Why is it so important to you that he be charged with a crime? :shrug: The "system" saw no reason to charge him.... who are you to insist they do?


I think it's important because it would send a message to gun owners that they will be held responsible for the use of deadly force.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Martin's family's statements and the girl friend's statemnets don't sync with known events.


Most of the lies and misinformation has come from their side.



> But if she did call back why didn't the police answer the phone or at least call back the last number?


We don't really know if they did or not, since the only ones who have mentioned it is *Martin's lawyers*, and they lack credibility.

I would think *that night* they were more concerned with speaking to people who might have actually SEEN something rather than checking phone records


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> I think it's important because it would send a message to gun owners that they will be* held responsible for the use of deadly force*.


 
You keep *pretending* Zimmerman did something illegal or "wrong".

You want to make it about *gun control,* which will simply punish* millions* who weren't involved at all


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> You want to make it about *gun control,* which will simply punish* millions* who weren't involved at all


Of course this is about gun control. The more precedent that is set in unaccountability, the more power will be in the hands of armed gun owners.

Without accountability, the objective will not be to limit shooting with proper justification, but to shoot with no witnesses and claim self defense. People will begin to arm themselves to for protect themselves from reckless gun owners. If that became necessary this wouldn't be a very nice place to be. The day will come when a gun owner will say to someone, "I can shoot you right now and there's nothing anyone can do about it. I'll just claim self defense."


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> I think it's important because it would send a message to gun owners that they will be held responsible for the use of deadly force.


I dont know any gun owners who are not pretty much aware of the responsibilities involved with using deadly force. Maybe we should prosecute folks who cut their steak up with knives too.... just to get the message out that knives can be deadly!


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Of course *this is about gun control*. The more precedent that is set in unaccountability, the more power will be in the hands of armed gun owners.
> 
> Without accountability, the objective will not be to limit shooting with proper justification, but to shoot with no witnesses and claim self defense. People will begin to arm themselves to for protect themselves from reckless gun owners. If that became necessary this wouldn't be a very nice place to be. *The day will come when a gun owner will say to someone, "I can shoot you right now and there's nothing anyone can do about it. I'll just claim self defense*."


No gun laws were broken.
No self defense laws were broken

You're just rambling now, because facts and logic keep proving you wrong


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Of course this is about gun control. The more precedent that is set in unaccountability, the more power will be in the hands of armed gun owners.
> 
> Without accountability, the objective will not be to limit shooting with proper justification, *but to shoot with no witnesses and claim self defense. *People will begin to arm themselves to for protect themselves from reckless gun owners. If that became necessary this wouldn't be a very nice place to be. The day will come when a gun owner will say to someone, "I can shoot you right now and there's nothing anyone can do about it. I'll just claim self defense."


So the next time someone is on the ground being pummeled to death... they should wait for a witness to arrive before they defend themselves? Is that what you are trying to imply?


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I dont know any gun owners who are not pretty much aware of the responsibilities involved with using deadly force. Maybe we should prosecute folks who cut their steak up with knives too.... just to get the message out that knives can be deadly!


I hope you are kidding. If you don't understand gun ownership any better than that you really shouldn't be armed in the first place.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> I hope you are kidding. If you don't understand gun ownership any better than that *you really shouldn't be armed in the first place*.


*NOW* your true feelings are showing.

You are simply anti gun

You'd prefer everyone be at the mercy of the biggest and strongest


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> I think it's important because it would send a message to gun owners that they will be held responsible for the use of deadly force.


So you want people to know they will go to prison for protecting themselves?


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> I hope you are kidding. If you don't understand gun ownership any better than that you really shouldn't be armed in the first place.


Last time I looked... as a US citizen I am entitled to defend myself or my family... with a knife, with a rock, or a gun or anything else I can get my hands on. I also am NOT required to answer to whiney snivelers about my actions if I do. Zimmerman satisfied the state officials as to his actions.... YOU and I should have no say in the matter.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> *NOW* your true feelings are showing.
> 
> You are simply anti gun
> 
> You'd prefer everyone be at the mercy of the biggest and strongest


The point of gun responsibility is not that guns are deadly. Even little kids know that. The point of gun responsibility is to show enough restraint to only use deadly force when it's absolutely necessary. Anyone who doesn't understand that shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.


----------



## Nevada

time said:


> So you want people to know they will go to prison for protecting themselves?


I want people to know that the indiscriminate use of deadly force will result in prison -- rightfully so.

One thing is for sure, if Zimmerman hadn't been armed that night nobody would have died. In this case the gun did more harm than good.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So the next time someone is on the ground being pummeled to death... they should wait for a witness to arrive before they defend themselves? Is that what you are trying to imply?


I'm not convinced that Zimmerman's life was in danger.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> The point of gun responsibility is not that guns are deadly. Even little kids know that. The point of gun responsibility is to show enough restraint to only use deadly force when it's absolutely necessary. Anyone who doesn't understand that shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.


And if someone is on top of me... beating my head into the concrete.... yep, I figure a gunshot to the chest just might save my life. Sorry if you see it differently... but I strongly recommend that you do NOT beat my head against the concrete.... at least not if you want to spend many years of watching sunsets.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> The point of gun responsibility is not that guns are deadly. Even little kids know that. The point of gun responsibility is to show enough restraint *to only use deadly force when it's absolutely necessary.* Anyone who doesn't understand that *shouldn't be allowed to own a gun*.


That's exactly what Zimmerman did.

*You* want to be the judge of who owns a gun, because you keep repeating your catchphrase





> One thing is for sure, if Zimmerman hadn't been armed that night nobody would have died. In this case the gun did more harm than good


Zimmerman could have died if Martin hadn't been stopped *immediately.*

You're losing ground here


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> I want people to know that the indiscriminate use of deadly force will result in prison -- rightfully so.
> 
> One thing is for sure, if Zimmerman hadn't been armed that night nobody would have died. In this case the gun did more harm than good.


I think you are forgetting an important detail.... having ones head pounded against a sidewalk is very often deadly. I think the only difference would be who was questioned by the police for killing whom.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> *I'm not convinced* that Zimmerman's life was in danger.


It doesn't matter.

Zimmerman was, and that is what the law requires

The prosecutors were and THEY have all the evidence


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> I'm not convinced that Zimmerman's life was in danger.


He seemed to be convinced.... and he was the one in the position to make that determination. Prolly didnt figure he had time to get your phone number and ask your permission. I'd hazard a guess that he figured he was short on time.... coz he knew the cops would be there soon... remember, he was the one who called them.


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> I'm not convinced that Zimmerman's life was in danger.


You don't have to be convinced. Zimmerman does.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Zimmerman could have died if Martin hadn't been stopped *immediately.*


I'm not convinced of that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> I'm not convinced of that.


 
You don't have to be for it to be true.


----------



## InvalidID

Nevada said:


> The point of gun responsibility is not that guns are deadly. Even little kids know that. The point of gun responsibility is to show enough restraint to only use deadly force when it's absolutely necessary. Anyone who doesn't understand that shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.


 Which leads us to the problem of when is deadly force absolutely necessary. That varies from state to state of course, as it's based on what society in that state deems it to mean.

In New Jersey you must flee if it's an option. Even if you are in your own home and someone is breaking down the door, if you have an escape you must take it. My sister got in trouble for stabbing a kid that was trying to climb in her kids window. $10,000 in legal fees later she's been cleared when a judge decided she couldn't outrun the little SOB while carrying 2 children.

In Florida if you are being attacked and fear for your life you don't have to flee. You can kill the attacker to defend your own life, like nature intended. Regardless of the law, if I was afraid someone was going to kill me, or even hurt one of my children or what have you; I'd kill them dead. I wouldn't like it, and I hope I never have to do it. But if it's a split second thing and I have to decide if the person attacking is deadly or not I'm likely to error on the side of caution and assume they are.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 and all that.


----------



## unregistered41671

Nevada said:


> I want people to know that the indiscriminate use of deadly force will result in prison -- rightfully so.
> 
> One thing is for sure, if Zimmerman hadn't been armed that night nobody would have died. In this case the gun did more harm than good.


Do you own a gun or guns? Have you ever carried a gun other than on your own property?


----------



## Nevada

time said:


> You don't have to be convinced. Zimmerman does.


Yes, when Zimmerman has the firearm it is his decision. But that doesn't mean he can shoot indiscriminately. Society has to be able to second-guess his actions after the fact.

I don't like the way the attitudes are going here. I'm becoming progressively less comfortable with some people around here owning guns.


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> I want people to know that the indiscriminate use of deadly force will result in prison -- rightfully so.
> 
> One thing is for sure, if Zimmerman hadn't been armed that night nobody would have died. In this case the gun did more harm than good.


That's all bull.

There was no "indiscriminate use of force".

As much as you'd like to pretend your psychic, there are many ways someone could have died had zimmerman been unarmed.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> The point of gun responsibility is not that guns are deadly. Even little kids know that. The point of gun responsibility is to show enough restraint to only use deadly force when it's absolutely necessary. Anyone who doesn't understand that shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.


I would think if a person is down on the ground being beaten by another individual bent on killing them it is time to use deadly force.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> I want people to know that the indiscriminate use of deadly force will result in prison -- rightfully so.
> 
> One thing is for sure, if Zimmerman hadn't been armed that night nobody would have died. In this case the gun did more harm than good.


How do you know Martin would not have killed him and left him laying there?


----------



## unregistered41671

Nevada said:


> I don't like the way the attitudes are going here. I'm becoming progressively less comfortable with some people around here owning guns.



I understand exactly what you mean. I am becoming progressively less comfortable with some people around here, that by law, are able to vote. :nana:


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> How do you know Martin would not have killed him and left him laying there?


Martin had no motivation to kill Zimmerman.


----------



## Nevada

time said:


> There was no "indiscriminate use of force".


I'm not convinced.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> Yes, when Zimmerman has the firearm it is his decision. But that doesn't mean he can shoot indiscriminately. Society has to be able to second-guess his actions after the fact.
> 
> I don't like the way the attitudes are going here. I'm becoming progressively less comfortable with some people around here owning guns.


That is the idea behind carrying a gun.
It makes people think twice before attacking them.


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> Yes, when Zimmerman has the firearm it is his decision. But that doesn't mean he can shoot indiscriminately. Society has to be able to second-guess his actions after the fact.
> 
> I don't like the way the attitudes are going here. I'm becoming progressively less comfortable with some people around here owning guns.


He didn't shoot indiscriminately. He shot when his life was in danger.

I don't care if you like the attitudes. If I am attacked and feel I'm fighting for my life, armed or not, I will kill the attacker if neccisary. You can choose to lie there and die if you like.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Martin had no motivation to kill Zimmerman.


There is no reason to beleive that he had realistic reason to punch him in the face, or pound his head on the sidewalk.... but the evidence shows thats what he did.


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> I'm not convinced.


You don't have to be convinced. It's not your life that was in danger.

If it ever happens to you, feel free to take the head bashing and see if you live through it.


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> I'm becoming progressively less comfortable with some people around here owning guns.


Don't screw with us and you won't be in any danger.


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> Martin had no motivation to kill Zimmerman.


Then why did he attack him?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I'm becoming progressively less comfortable with some people around here owning guns.


So you're just *scared* of guns



> Martin had no motivation to kill Zimmerman.


I guess then he shouldn't have TRIED 

(Has "I'm not convinced" replaced "Bush did it"?)


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Society has to be able to second-guess his actions after the fact.
> 
> I don't like the way the attitudes are going here. I'm becoming progressively less comfortable with some people around here owning guns.


Society appoints/elects officials to do that second guessing.... and those officials said he was acting within his rights. 

If it makes you feel better my weapons are pretty short range stuff... Small handguns and shotguns mostly good up to maybe hundred yards or so.... ok, that old mouser will reach out and "touch" someone at a fair distance... 1500 meters I think is its effective range. Chances are though its a bit more than 1500 meters from Ky to Nevada.... yer pretty safe. (especially if you treat me polite like)


----------



## MDKatie

Can someone show me exactly where it says Martin was beating his head on the sidewalk? Is that an eyewitness testimony? How far away was the witness (or witnesses)? How does anyone know that Martin was going to kill Zimmerman? Are you just assuming? Just because someone punches someone doesn't mean they're going to kill someone. And I'm not sure what the transcription of the 911 call was supposed to show. So Zimmerman started to follow and then stopped, supposedly. Martin was looking at Zimmerman, supposedly. So what? If Zimmerman had been following Martin, while talking on his cell phone, it's understandable for Martin to be a little scared and think he may have been in danger. It's not right for him to come after Zimmerman, but perhaps HE was trying to do some self defense? Why is it not self defense for Martin to hit Zimmerman (when he clearly could have walked home), but it is self defense for Zimmerman to kill Martin, when he could have just sat in his car the whole time and waited for the police, instead of trying to go after him at first?

None of us knows exactly what happened, and it's pretty hard to judge the situation based on what we do know. I don't really care who says what (Zimmerman, witnesses, Dee Dee, etc) because ALL OF THEM remember things that would support their stories. Unless we had a video of the event, nobody will ever know the details of what happened.


----------



## MO_cows

I think what most are overlooking here is the fact that Zimmerman held all the cards but badly mis-played his hand. He was in a vehicle, Martin was on foot. He was older, supposedly wiser, and more experienced. He already had the cops on the phone and on their way to the scene. He had received training as part of the neighborhood watch program. Plus, on top of all that, he was armed. He left the car to follow the kid even though the police told him not to. He let himself get from a vastly superior position to on the ground being pummeled by the kid. So in light of all that, the "self defense" defense doesn't do it for me. When you consider what led up to that physical confrontation, I think Zimmerman should be tried for manslaughter.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Can someone show me exactly where it says Martin was beating his head on the sidewalk? Is that an eyewitness testimony?


Links have been posted NUMEROUS times in this thread.
How can you attempt to discuss it if you haven't READ the facts yet?



> Why is it not self defense for Martin


There's no evidence he was *attacked*, so there was nothing to "defend" against

Go read up on the facts and you'll understand



> I don't really care who says what (Zimmerman, witnesses, Dee Dee, etc) because ALL OF THEM remember *things that would support their stories*.


LOL

Why would witnesses LIE?
(Other than Martin's girlfriend?)

They have nothing to "support"
(Other than Martin's girlfriend?)


----------



## Pearl B

> Martin had no motivation to kill Zimmerman.


 M could have been furious enough with Z in the moment, maybe his emotions got the best of him, it happens.



> I'm becoming progressively less comfortable with some people around here owning guns.


 There is nobody on this sight that would scare me if they are armed. Just because people are passionate and will argue for their beliefs doesnt follow that they will get carried away if armed. However the anti-gun crew would have the be believed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MO_cows said:


> I think what *most are overlooking* here is the fact that Zimmerman held all the cards but badly mis-played his hand. He was in a vehicle, Martin was on foot. He was older, supposedly wiser, and more experienced. He already had the cops on the phone and on their way to the scene. He had received training as part of the neighborhood watch program. Plus, on top of all that, he was armed.
> 
> *He left the car to follow the kid even though the police told him not to*.
> 
> He let himself get from a vastly superior position to on the ground being pummeled by the kid. So in light of all that, the "self defense" defense doesn't do it for me. When you consider *what led up to that physical confrontation*, I think Zimmerman should be tried for manslaughter.


It's obvious you haven't* read* the transcripts of Zimmerman's call.

If you HAD, you would know he was already out of his car* before* the dispatcher said he didn't need to follow Martin, and that Zimmerman said "OK" and told them he was returning to his truck to meet with the officers

Zimmerman broke NO laws by simply *following* Martin.
The *physical *confrontation , *by all evidence*, was Martin's doing


----------



## MDKatie

Bearfootfarm said:


> Links have been posted NUMEROUS times in this thread.
> How can you attempt to discuss it if you haven't READ the facts yet?
> 
> Because, good grief, there's almost 60 pages of thread! I'm sure most of it is just talk about what happened. All I wanted to know is where the info came from, like witness, etc. I don't need a specific link.
> 
> There's no evidence he was *attacked*, so there was nothing to "defend" against
> 
> Go read up on the facts and you'll understand
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Why would witnesses LIE? They might not lie, they probably would mis-remember, as has been proven numerous times from eye witness testimony.(Other than Martin's girlfriend?)
> 
> They have nothing to "support"
> (Other than Martin's girlfriend?)





Bearfootfarm said:


> It's obvious you haven't* read* the transcripts of Zimmerman's call.
> 
> If you HAD, you would know he was already out of his car* before* the dispatcher said he didn't need to follow Martin, and that Zimmerman said "OK" and told them he was returning to his truck to meet with the officers
> Ok, so he may have told him he was returning, but does that mean he actually did?


.....


----------



## Evons hubby

MDKatie said:


> Can someone show me exactly where it says Martin was beating his head on the sidewalk?
> None of us knows exactly what happened, and it's pretty hard to judge the situation based on what we do know. I don't really care who says what (Zimmerman, witnesses, Dee Dee, etc) because ALL OF THEM remember things that would support their stories. Unless we had a video of the event, nobody will ever know the details of what happened.


I am pretty sure its in the police report about Zimmerman getting his head pounded on the sidewalk.... and there were some photos posted somewhere here that shows the knots on his head, If memory serves police had cleaned up the wounds at the scene. 

Yep, I have to agree that no one can say exactly what happened that night other than maybe Zimmerman. Evidence is sketchy at best but based upon what credible evidence there is, we can form some fair assessments. There are recordings of several 911 calls, there are witnesses, some whose accounts seem to fit other evidence and some that are inconsistent. There is also the history of Zimmerman... something like 46 calls to police over a ten year span... without any incident... The fact that he was on the phone with the police just moments before the shooting, and knew they would be on scene shortly.... lots of things factor in to let us know what most likely happened.... without video. That would be nice, but since its not there.... :shrug: We have to work with what facts we do have and try to form reasonable conclusions.


----------



## MDKatie

multiple post


----------



## MDKatie

I just re-read the transcripts and nowhere does it say Zimmerman said he'd meet the police at his truck. He said they'd see his truck, then he said have the police call him and he'd tell the police where he was. Unless someone is reading something I can't see? Sounds an awful lot like maybe he DID continue to follow him, since he didn't want to stay by his truck.


----------



## Evons hubby

MDKatie said:


> I just re-read the transcripts and nowhere does it say Zimmerman said he'd meet the police at his truck. He said they'd see his truck, then he said have the police call him and he'd tell the police where he was. Unless someone is reading something I can't see? Sounds an awful lot like maybe he DID continue to follow him, since he didn't want to stay by his truck.


There was also something about Zimmerman leaving the backyard at one point to go round front of the building to get the address. Seems like that might have been in the phone call too, but I cant recall if he actually made the journey to the front of the building or not. There has been so much reported, then retracted by the press, it gets a bit confusing for this old man.


----------



## Nevada

time said:


> Then why did he attack him?


I don't know that he did.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you're just *scared* of guns


You get that from my saying gun owners need to be responsible? I happen to own a handgun.


----------



## Darren

It would obviously help those who have questions to go back and review the timeline of the various 911 calls and the map for which a link was posted. Martin had every opprotunity to simply go back to where he was staying. Instead after Zimmerman reported that he had lost sight of him, Martin appeared again close to Zimmerman and confronted him.

That puts the lie to Martin being afraid. You have to really contort or ignore the known facts to not accept that Martin's actions equally set the scene for what happened. The eye witness passed by close enough to recognize that the larger man was on top and the difference in the colors of their jackets at night.

I'm not sure how a man's scalp would be split open by being pounded on grass. That requires some more convoluted reasoning.

At 6'3" Martin was bigger than Zimmerman. He had an age advantage and *after Zimmerman ended up on the ground, he continued beating him.* The continued beating crossed the line. My question, did Martin think Zimmerman was an easy target to brag about to his friends? If you doubt that read the tweets that have been confirmed to be from Martin's accounts especially the darker change around New Years.

I have to wonder about those who justify Martin's apparent rage by making the excuse he was upset over being followed. If that's truly the case, I don't want to think about what Martin might have done if had been part of a group. 

This is a small sampling of the knockdown game in one city.

Vietnam Vet Randomly Attacked By Teens On Olney Street Â« CBS Philly

Teen mayhem hits Philly's streets again - Philly.com

Philadelphia 'flash mobs': black mayor takes aim at black community - CSMonitor.com


----------



## Nevada

ryanthomas said:


> Don't screw with us and you won't be in any danger.


I'm not going to respond to that comment. But I am concerned that so many here take exception to the idea that gun owners need to be responsible. I've never spoken out against gun rights, but judging from what I see in this thread there's more of a problem that I realized.

I suspect to see a loss of gun rights over this incident. That may not be a bad thing. Perhaps we need to have a formal inquest system for civilian shootings, similar to that for police shootings. That way you know that if you pull the trigger you'll need to justify the shooting in front of a judge.


----------



## InvalidID

Nevada said:


> I'm not going to respond to that comment. But I am concerned that so many here take exception to the idea that gun owners need to be responsible. I've never spoken out against gun rights, but judging from what I see in this thread there's more of a problem that I realized.
> 
> I suspect to see a loss of gun rights over this incident. That may not be a bad thing. Perhaps we need to have a formal inquest system for civilian shootings, similar to that for police shootings. That way you know that if you pull the trigger you'll need to justify the shooting in front of a judge.


 If that's the case all the laws need to be the same for civilians as well. Civilians will need to be able to use a firearm anytime a cop is allowed to. We'll also need to have high dollar representation provided for us free of charge.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> I have to wonder about those who justify Martin's apparent rage by making the excuse he was upset over being followed.


I don't believe that this was a case of Martin's rage at all. I reject it because it makes no sense. I'm still open to the idea that Martin was defending himself from being abducted.


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> I'm not going to respond to that comment.


Then what is this?



> But I am concerned that so many here take exception to the idea that gun owners need to be responsible. I've never spoken out against gun rights, but judging from what I see in this thread there's more of a problem that I realized.


I haven't seen anyone say anything against the idea that gun owners should be responsible. You have just jumped to the conclusion that the gun owner in this case was not responsible, while some of us have not jumped to that conclusion.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> I'm not going to respond to that comment. But I am concerned that so many here take exception to the idea that gun owners need to be responsible. I've never spoken out against gun rights, but judging from what I see in this thread there's more of a problem that I realized.
> 
> I suspect to see a loss of gun rights over this incident. That may not be a bad thing. Perhaps we need to have a formal inquest system for civilian shootings, similar to that for police shootings. That way you know that if you pull the trigger you'll need to justify the shooting in front of a judge.


Are you sure you're not from Russia? In many of the former Soviet states, you don't get a trial by jury. You go before a judge. There's ample evidence of the influenced decisons in many of those cases. Is that what you want for this country? You stand before a judge and pray to God that he isn't influenced by politics or hasn't been paid off when the entire time you know that's the way the system works in those countries.

What happened to trial by jury under our laws?

If you don't undertand the Constitution and how the law works instead of your views of how "it should work", maybe you need to get rid of your handgun. We wouldn't want you to end up on your back getting the crap beaten out of you and dithering about whether your life was in danger and possibly losing control of the weapon after being killed and having the firearm used to kill other people afterwards.

I'm beginning to think you're the one who is a danger to yourself and through confused thinking the potential cause of the deaths of others.


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> I don't believe that this was a case of Martin's rage at all. I reject it because it makes no sense. I'm still open to the idea that Martin was defending himself from being abducted.


LOL.

You reject it because it doesn't fit your fiction.

A few pages back you entertained the idea that zimmerman broke free and shot martin while standing. I'm guessing you dropped that bit of fiction when you found out there was a witness to the shooting.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> I don't believe that this was a case of Martin's rage at all. I reject it because it makes no sense. I'm still open to the idea that Martin was defending himself from being abducted.


Are you telling me now you think Zimmerman is some kind of pedophile? Where did "abduct" come from? Where was Zimmerman going to take Martin after he abducted him? Is English your native language?


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> Are you sure you're not from Russia? In many of the former Soviet states, you don't get a trial by jury. You go before a judge. There's ample evidence of the influenced decisons in many of those cases. Is that what you want for this country? You stand before a judge and pray to God that he isn't influenced by politics or hasn't been paid off when the entire time you know that's the way the system works in those countries.
> 
> What happened to trial by jury under our laws?


A jury is fine.


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> I don't know that he did.


zimmerman broke his own nose? Bashed the back of his own head?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MDKatie said:


> I just re-read the transcripts and *nowhere does it say Zimmerman said he'd meet the police at his truck*.
> 
> * He said they'd see his truck,* then he said have the police call him and he'd tell the police where he was.
> 
> Unless someone is reading something I can't see? Sounds an awful lot like maybe he DID continue to follow him, since he didn't want to *stay by his truck*.


 
He wasn't "by his truck" when he told them that.
He had followed Martin ON FOOT *between the buildings* from the street to the back yards.

He SAID he had lost sight of Martin.
He said he would "meet" the officers


Alright, *where are you going to meet with them* at?
*Zimmerman:*
Um, if they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse and, uh, straight past the clubhouse and make a left and then go past the mailboxes *youâll see my truck*. [3:10]
*911 dispatcher:*
Alright, what address are you parked in front of? [3:21]
*Zimmerman:*
Um, I donât know. *Itâs a cut-through* so I donât know the address. [3:25]
*911 dispatcher:*
OK, do you live in the area?
*Zimmerman:*
Yeah, yeah, I live here.
*911 dispatcher:*
OK, whatâs your apartment number?
*Zimmerman:*
Itâs a home. Itâs 1950 â oh, crap, I donât want to give it out â I donât know where this kid is [inaudible] [3:40]
*911 dispatcher:*
OK, do you just want to *meet with them at the mailboxes* then? [3:42]
(The mailboxes are where his truck is parked)





> Ok, so he may have told him he was returning, but does that mean he actually did?


He was going to, *until *Martin confronted and *attacked* him.
Less than ONE MINUTE elapsed between his call, and the first 911 call about the fight and shooting


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> I don't know that he did.


The evidence says so, as do the eyewitnesses who saw the beating


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> You get that *from my saying gun owners need to be responsible*? I happen to own a handgun.


No, I got that from your "concern" about some owning guns.

Gun owners are *already* "responsible", and Zimmerman followed all the gun laws


----------



## Darren

You didn't answer my question. Where did you get the idea that individuals defending themselves with a firearm should go before a judge?

You wrote, "That way you know that if you pull the trigger you'll need to justify the shooting in front of a judge."

Zimmerman didn't have a lot of time to think when Martin was beating him. Based on the timeline, that fight did not last long and Zimmerman still got his azz kicked. If Martin went for Zimmerman's firearm as reported by some, what do you do then? You keep ignoring that the Kel Tec failed to cycle with that ridiculous excuse you brought up. Do you let the strange guy take the gun and hope he doesn't shoot you?

That malfunction is quite possibly proof that the two men struggled over the gun. The follow up testing will have clarified that. I'm still betting that the Kel Tec, when tested, fired every time the trigger was pulled.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I'm still open to the idea that Martin was defending himself from being abducted.


LOL 

Curiouser and curiouser

He was so scared of being "abducted" that he told his girlfriend he *wasn't *going to run, when supposedly he was less than 100 yds from home?

He was so scared of being "abducted" he didn't call 911 or tell her to?

His only recourse was to REVERSE COURSE and confront Zimmerman to keep from being "abducted"?


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> 
> Curiouser and curiouser
> 
> He was so scared of being "abducted" that he told his girlfriend he *wasn't *going to run, when supposedly he was less than 100 yds from home?
> 
> He was so scared of being "abducted" he didn't call 911 or tell her to?
> 
> His only recourse was to REVERSE COURSE and confront Zimmerman to keep from being "abducted"?


Again, we don't know that he reversed course to confront Zimmerman. We only have Zimmerman's word on that.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> Where did "abduct" come from? Where was Zimmerman going to take Martin after he abducted him?


Blacks in the south grow-up hearing stories of white racists abducting blacks and killing them. That fear is very real in central Florida.

As for the police, black's are careful about calling the police, since racist police can make trouble for them. I doubt that the thought of calling 911 ever crossed Treyvon's mind.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> Blacks in the south grow-up hearing stories of white racists abducting blacks and killing them. That fear is very real in central Florida.
> 
> As for the police, black's are careful about calling the police, since racist police can make trouble for them. I doubt that the thought of calling 911 ever crossed Treyvon's mind.


You must have never been in the south.


----------



## InvalidID

pancho said:


> You must have never been in the south.


 Certainly never spent time in Atlanta....


----------



## pancho

InvalidID said:


> Certainly never spent time in Atlanta....


Or Ms., or Florida, or Arkansas or N. Carolina
Really must not have ever been in any southern state.


----------



## Darren

MDKatie said:


> I just re-read the transcripts and nowhere does it say Zimmerman said he'd meet the police at his truck. He said they'd see his truck, then he said have the police call him and he'd tell the police where he was. Unless someone is reading something I can't see? Sounds an awful lot like maybe he DID continue to follow him, since he didn't want to stay by his truck.


The only thing we know from the tape is that Zimmerman said OK to the dispatcher saying, "We don't need you to do that." And then the sound of Zimmerman running stopped. We don't know for sure that Zimmerman started back to his truck. The next thing we know for sure is that Zimmerman was on his back being beaten.

We don't know for sure how the gun came into play except that the fact it was fired only once and the malfuction may point to a struggle for the gun.

We have the interview of Zimmerman's father which indicates Martin was the aggressor and fits the facts we know. That doesn't mean it's absolutely true.

We also have the strange repsonse from Martin's father and the changing story from Martin's girl friend which still sounds contrived to me. I'm not familar with cell phones. If Martin threw a punch at Zimmerman, would that have dislodged the earbud and cancelled the call?

I'd like to see a photo of the backyards. Was there shrubbery there that could have concealed someone?

I'm curious why police investigators questioned Martin's girl friend for two hours. Why did it take that much time to ask questions about the few seconds at the end before the call was cut off?

Why didn't Martin go straight back to the house instead of dawdling on the way back? The video at the 7 Eleven provides a time for the start of Martin's final walk. Was he looking around as mentioned by Zimmerman?

Other than the bullet wound, the funeral director saw no other wounds. Would those have existed if Zimmerman threw the first punch?

There's a lot of questions that only the investigators have the answers for if they exist.


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> You must have never been in the south.


I lived in the next town to the north of Sanford. I'm not just generalizing about the south, I'm specifically talking about the area around Sanford.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> The only thing we know from the tape is that Zimmerman said OK to the dispatcher saying, "We don't need you to do that." And then the sound of Zimmerman running stopped. We don't know for sure that Zimmerman started back to his truck. The next thing we know for sure is that Zimmerman was on his back being beaten.


Yes, but you have to completely ignore the girlfriend's account. I'm not ready to do that.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> The point of gun responsibility is not that guns are deadly. Even little kids know that. The point of gun responsibility is to show enough restraint to only use deadly force when it's absolutely necessary. Anyone who doesn't understand that shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.


What other things would you say a person must show before they are allowed to own one?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> I want people to know that the indiscriminate use of deadly force will result in prison -- rightfully so.
> 
> One thing is for sure, if Zimmerman hadn't been armed that night nobody would have died. In this case the gun did more harm than good.


Really? That's "for sure"? So no one has ever died from having his head pounded against concrete? None one has ever died from being punched in the head? 

Tell you what. . .why don't you lay down, have someone sit on your chest and start punching you in the face then you try to disengage and get away from them.


----------



## Pearl B

> A jury is fine.


 A jury for what? Jury's are reserved for people who have been criminally charged and are in court,or going to trial.



> But I am concerned that so many here take exception to the idea that gun owners need to be responsible.


 I havent seen anything in this thread that would lead me to that conclusion. The guy was interviewed by the police, & let go. I read the report. Multiple witnesses back up his account, so does the physical evidence. He told the police straight up that he shot them and why. How much more accountability do you want?



> Yes, but you have to completely ignore the girlfriend's account. I'm not ready to do that.


 Im not willing to accept her account as gospel when it goes against multiple eye witness accounts and the physical evidence.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> I'm not convinced that Zimmerman's life was in danger.


You might want to check the law. Your life doesn't have to be in danger before you can use deadly force. If you are in danger of grievous bodily harm you can use deadly force.


----------



## Pearl B

> One thing is for sure, if Zimmerman hadn't been armed that night nobody would have died.


 Z may well have died at T's hands.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> Yes, but you have to completely ignore the girlfriend's account. I'm not ready to do that.


At this point I'm not using either Zimmerman's father's interview or Martin's girl friend's multiple accounts of what happened to explain the known facts. I've been looking for inconsistencies in the information that so far seems to have come from knowledgeable sources. 

The funeral director is an example when he spilled the beans about Martin having no injuries other than the bullet wound and of course the autopsy.

I'm still wondering why the police spent two hours questioning Martin's girl friend. Getting personal information doesn't take that long. So why did they drag the interview out for two hours unless they were skeptical of her story/stories.

I'm wondering if she heard more than she's told. That's why I'd like to see her given a lie detector test. Would she submit to one with no hesitation if the investigators asked? Even if it wasn't admissable, just her reaction would be telling.

Something about her account and Martin's father's story is red flagging my attention. I don't believe Martin's father returned home after a night out with his fiance and didn't notice the flashing lights and the people looking for evidence. The investigators were there until 4 am. How did he miss that commotion when his son died 100 yards from the house?

He claimed he thought Martin went off with a friend when some accounts claim Martin went out to get tea and skittles for his younger brother. Add the longer than normal time between when Martin was caught on video at the 7 Eleven and his death and you have another oddity. If Martin had gone straight back to the house, Zimmerman would have never seen him. So why was he looking around in the backyards of a gated community?

Why was he outside walking around in the rain. I would have made a beeline for the house.

I also want to know what showed up in Martin's blood.


----------



## Nevada

Breaking News: Zimmerman's lawyers withdraw from case.

U.S. News - Zimmerman attorneys withdraw from Trayvon Martin case

Lawyers have lost touch with Zimmerman. Not a good sign.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Again, we don't know that he reversed course to confront Zimmerman.* We only have Zimmerman's word on that*.


No, we also have *logic*

We know he didn't *continue* *towards his destination*, because that would have put him farther from Zimmerman's location.

He was *ahead and out of sight* when the call ended, and there is only ONE MINUTE unaccounted for


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I'd like to see a photo of the backyards.


JustOneMinute: Last Map Of The Retreat At Twin Lakes



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


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Yes, but you have to completely ignore the girlfriend's account. I'm not ready to do that.


 
Which version?
She gave conflicting reports, and added details to some that weren't in others

The one YOU agreed with earlier had Martin speaking FIRST


----------



## Darren

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, we also have *logic*
> 
> We know he didn't *continue* *towards his destination*, because that would have put him farther from Zimmerman's location.
> 
> He was *ahead and out of sight* when the call ended, and there is only ONE MINUTE unaccounted for


*... we also have logic* An all enclusive "we" is not justified given some of the profound fantasy we've been presented.


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> Breaking News: Zimmerman's lawyers withdraw from case.
> 
> U.S. News - Zimmerman attorneys withdraw from Trayvon Martin case
> 
> Lawyers have lost touch with Zimmerman. Not a good sign.


Maybe someone collected on the reward.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Breaking News: Zimmerman's lawyers withdraw from case.
> 
> U.S. News - Zimmerman attorneys withdraw from Trayvon Martin case
> 
> *Lawyers have lost touch with Zimmerman*. Not a good sign.


LOL

When will you learn to NOT believe every headline you read?

Most likely they are trying to keep him hidden for his own safety
The lawyers are upset because Zimmerman isn't letting them get in on all the action


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> 
> When will you learn to NOT believe every headline you read?
> 
> Most likely they are trying to keep him hidden for his own safety
> The lawyers are upset because Zimmerman isn't letting them get in on all the action


Evidently they withdrew from the case because Zimmerman refused to follow their advice.

_Attorney Craig Sonner said Tuesday in a news conference they haven't heard from George Zimmerman since Sunday. *They said that against their advice, Zimmerman contacted the special prosecutor* who will decide if he should face charges._
Zimmerman&#39;s Lawyers Withdraw From Shooting Case | Fox News
​
This doesn't surprise me. It shows that Zimmerman acts impulsively, has a problem with authority, and displays poor judgment. That's consistent with my impression of him.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> It shows that Zimmerman acts impulsively, has a problem with authority, and displays poor judgment. That's consistent with* my impression* of him.


LOL

That's what you WANT to believe, and all the facts in the world couldn't change that.

Maybe he has wonderful judgement and they just aren't good lawyers so he's effectively fired them


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Maybe he has wonderful judgement and they just aren't good lawyers so he's effectively fired them


Yeah, that's probably it; he's just smarter than his lawyers.


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> Evidently they withdrew from the case because Zimmerman refused to follow their advice.
> 
> _Attorney Craig Sonner said Tuesday in a news conference they haven't heard from George Zimmerman since Sunday. *They said that against their advice, Zimmerman contacted the special prosecutor* who will decide if he should face charges._
> Zimmerman's Lawyers Withdraw From Shooting Case | Fox News
> ​
> This doesn't surprise me. It shows that Zimmerman acts impulsively, has a problem with authority, and displays poor judgment. That's consistent with my impression of him.


???

Yesterday you posted that zimmerman had quit cooperating as if that was supposed to look bad. Today you say it displays poor judgement because he *is* cooperating against his attorney's advice.

He'll never do anything that is not suspect to you.

I suspect he feels he has nothing to hide. Many folks cause themselves lots of problems talking to LE because they are innocent. Most people are not smart enough to keep their mouth shut.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> Evidently they withdrew from the case because Zimmerman refused to follow their advice.
> 
> _Attorney Craig Sonner said Tuesday in a news conference they haven't heard from George Zimmerman since Sunday. *They said that against their advice, Zimmerman contacted the special prosecutor* who will decide if he should face charges._
> Zimmerman's Lawyers Withdraw From Shooting Case | Fox News
> ​
> This doesn't surprise me. It shows that Zimmerman acts impulsively, has a problem with authority, and displays poor judgment. That's consistent with my impression of him.


Your predjudice towards Zimmerman is glaring.

Zimmerman is worried about not being able to work.. He has no income. He's trying to raise money through the internet. I can see why he might cut lose a couple of lawyers that have the money meter spinning at light speed. He was being charged for their appearances in the media, travel time, travel expenses, office costs, and God knows what else. His own lawyers helped perpetuate the media circus. 

I've seen what lawyers can do once they have you hooked. The funny thing it was another lawyer that showed me the inside stuff. It's funnier than hell watching an opponent's lawyer working the money when you know what to watch for. It's not so funny when you're in a situation and the lawyers are racking up billings that you have no way of paying.

Lawyers are modern day slaveholders. Once you sign the paperwork they own you for a a given amount of money. You're on the hook until you pay them off. One of the more interesting phone conversations I ever had was when a lawyer told me what he was going to do and I laughed at him. The lawyer was beyond livid. Take it from me. They don't like to be laughed at. I laughed because I knew he couldn't do a thing even if he went to court. All he was doing was wasting his time. He wasn't going to play the game with me. Zimmerman's lawyers were exploiting him for their purposes. They thought they had him shackled.

I have no doubt Zimmerman's lawyers have already run up a bill into the five figures already. I wouldn't be surprised if they were getting close to six figures. I just hope nothing bad has happened to Zimmerman.


----------



## Tobster

Nevada said:


> Evidently they withdrew from the case because Zimmerman refused to follow their advice.
> 
> _Attorney Craig Sonner said Tuesday in a news conference they haven't heard from George Zimmerman since Sunday. *They said that against their advice, Zimmerman contacted the special prosecutor* who will decide if he should face charges._
> Zimmerman's Lawyers Withdraw From Shooting Case | Fox News
> ​
> This doesn't surprise me. It shows that Zimmerman acts impulsively, has a problem with authority, and displays poor judgment. That's consistent with my impression of him.


You believe Zimmerman has a problem with authority? Just to be clear, in your opinion, the authority is the special prosecutor or Zimmerman's attorney?


----------



## Nevada

time said:


> ???
> 
> Yesterday you posted that zimmerman had quit cooperating as if that was supposed to look bad. Today you say it displays poor judgement because he *is* cooperating against his attorney's advice.
> 
> He'll never do anything that is not suspect to you.


I expected him to cooperate, but with his lawyers present. To contact the prosecutor on his own was a show of poor judgment.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> I expected him to cooperate, but with his lawyers present. To contact the prosecutor on his own was a show of poor judgment.


I wouldn't say that. Contacting the prosecutor may have been a good move. Remember the lawyer who was a judge in his family? Zimmerman played it smart by staying away from the public. The only fly in that ointment was his dofus lawyers. I LMAO when the one put out that shaken baby syndrome. That would have been the last straw for me. I need to go back and see when that happened. It wouldn't surprise me if Zimmerman cut them off at that point.


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> I expected him to cooperate, but with his lawyers present. To contact the prosecutor on his own was a show of poor judgment.


Heh. When you play both sides you can never be wrong, eh?

You crossed the line into the realm of ridiculous long ago in this thread.


----------



## Pearl B

time said:


> ???
> 
> Yesterday you posted that zimmerman had quit cooperating as if that was supposed to look bad. Today you say it displays poor judgement because he *is* cooperating against his attorney's advice.
> 
> He'll never do anything that is not suspect to you.
> 
> I suspect he feels he has nothing to hide. Many folks cause themselves lots of problems talking to LE because they are innocent. Most people are not smart enough to keep their mouth shut.


Im beginning to suspect it doesnt matter what Z does Nevada will find fault with it. To Nevada Z is guilty, end of discussion.


----------



## Nevada

time said:


> Heh. When you play both sides you can never be wrong, eh?
> 
> You crossed the line into the realm of ridiculous long ago in this thread.


Okay, I'll bite. Why is having a lawyer present during questioning playing both sides, and why is it ridiculous?


----------



## beccachow

Pearl B said:


> Z may well have died at T's hands.


And if he had, there wouldn't have been a murmer about it.


----------



## ryanthomas

Something that really amazes me about this thread...1800+ posts, and only 2 deleted.


----------



## Nevada

Evidently he's given Sean Hannity an of the record interview. Good Grief!

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/10/zimmerman_trades_lawyers_for_hannity/singleton/

I'm guessing that the lawyers don't like this case, and it's more than just Zimmerman being uncooperative. They were just too quick to walk away. I suspect that Zimmerman is in more trouble than his lawyers and law enforcement are letting on.


----------



## time

Pearl B said:


> *Im beginning to suspect it doesnt matter what Z does Nevada will find fault with it. To Nevada Z is guilty, end of discussion*.


Yep. Need more proof? Apparently Nevada can read minds too.



Nevada said:


> I'm guessing that the lawyers don't like this case, and it's more than just Zimmerman being uncooperative. They were just too quick to walk away. I suspect that Zimmerman is in more trouble than his lawyers and law enforcement are letting on.


----------



## Nevada

time said:


> Yep. Need more proof? Apparently Nevada can read minds too.


I'm beginning to feel sorry for Zimmerman. I don't see how he's going to get a defense together at this point. This is going to become difficult to watch.

I don't want to see Zimmerman put away for a long time. I just want to send a message to gun owners to be more careful, and I honestly believe Zimmerman shouldn't be carrying a gun.


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> I'm beginning to feel sorry for Zimmerman. I don't see how he's going to get a defense together at this point. This is going to become difficult to watch.
> 
> I don't want to see Zimmerman put away for a long time. I just want to send a message to gun owners to be more careful, and I honestly believe Zimmerman shouldn't be carrying a gun.


Ah, a sacrifice for your own personal convictions. Noble of you.

Who knows, maybe he's a virgin too.


----------



## Nevada

time said:


> Ah, a sacrifice for your own personal convictions. Noble of you.
> 
> Who knows, maybe he's a virgin too.


I fully expect charges. It will be for 1st degree murder, since the grand jury isn't going to hear the case. But he can still be charged with manslaughter without a grand jury. That could still land him in prison.

Zimmerman is in a lot of trouble, and he's getting in deeper as we speak. He's screwing-up badly.

In truth, if he had been arrested and charged the night of the shooting he would be in a lot better position to be acquitted than he is today. The shock of being arrested and charged might have made him take his lawyers' advice more seriously.


----------



## unregistered65598

I Posted this over in the current events thread, but really wanted to post it over here in response to this thread. Where is the out cry from Obama on this one. Why is it just this young black man's death his concern? 

Where is the outcry&#8230;White man on life support after hammer attack by two black teens near Sanford, FL | NCRenegade


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> I fully expect charges. It will be for 1st degree murder, since the grand jury isn't going to hear the case. But he can still be charged with manslaughter without a grand jury. That could still land him in prison.
> 
> Zimmerman is in a lot of trouble, and he's getting in deeper as we speak. He's screwing-up badly.
> 
> In truth, if he had been arrested and charged the night of the shooting he would be in a lot better position to be acquitted than he is today. The shock of being arrested and charged might have made him take his lawyers' advice more seriously.


I know you do.



> 776.012&#8195;Use of force in defense of person.&#8212;A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other&#8217;s imminent use of unlawful force.* However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
> (1)&#8195;He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another *or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
> (2)&#8195;Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.





> 776.032&#8195;Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.&#8212;(1)&#8195;*A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, *unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term &#8220;criminal prosecution&#8221; includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
> *(2)&#8195;A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.*
> *(3)&#8195;The court shall award reasonable attorney&#8217;s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).*


Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Now show me what part of zimmermans actions were unlawfull.


----------



## Nevada

time said:


> Now show me what part of zimmermans actions were unlawfull.


I don't know the details that his lawyers know, but if lawyers would sign themselves out of a high-profile case this as quickly as they did, it's in trouble for some reason.


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> I don't know the details that his lawyers know, but if lawyers would sign themselves out of a high-profile case this quickly it's in trouble for some reason.


It has nothing to do with his lawyers.

You expect he will be charged. In order for him to be charged, he needs to have done something unlawfull. What was it?


----------



## Nevada

time said:


> It has nothing to do with his lawyers.
> 
> You expect he will be charged. In order for him to be charged, he needs to have done something unlawfull. What was it?


I'm guessing he'll be charged with negligent homicide (manslaughter).


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> I'm guessing he'll be charged with negligent homicide (manslaughter).


On what grounds?


----------



## Nevada

time said:


> On what grounds?


On the grounds that they don't believe his self defense claim.


----------



## time

> 782.07&#8195;Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.â(1)&#8195;*The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder,* according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.


It seems chapter 776, quoted in the earlier post, covers zimmerman against this charge.


----------



## haypoint

**** Law.
I'm sure you have heard of **** law. It has been all over the NEWS. The shooter, **** white. The victim, **** Black. So, according to **** Law, **** tried and convicted of hate crime.

Interesting that "someone" wants Zimmerman to do some prison time, just to set an example that people shouldn't be so quick to defend themselves. Up until the authorities relieved Martin of his flat blade screwdriver, Martin wouldn't have had to punch Zimmerman, he could have stabbed Zimmerman.

Yea, we wouldn't have this problem if law abiding citizens would disarm themselves.


----------



## ryanthomas

time said:


> It seems chapter 776, quoted in the earlier post, covers zimmerman against this charge.


It all comes down to the word "reasonably" to determine whether it was lawful or not. I hope everyone involved in this case is more reasonable than Nevada.


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> I don't know the details that his lawyers know, but if lawyers would sign themselves out of a high-profile case this as quickly as they did, it's in trouble for some reason.


According to your own link, it wasn't their decision to not be his lawyers. It was his.


----------



## Nevada

haypoint said:


> **** Law.
> I'm sure you have heard of **** law. It has been all over the NEWS. The shooter, **** white. The victim, **** Black. So, according to **** Law, **** tried and convicted of hate crime.
> 
> Interesting that "someone" wants Zimmerman to do some prison time, just to set an example that people shouldn't be so quick to defend themselves. Up until the authorities relieved Martin of his flat blade screwdriver, Martin wouldn't have had to punch Zimmerman, he could have stabbed Zimmerman.
> 
> Yea, we wouldn't have this problem if law abiding citizens would disarm themselves.


All I'm saying is that something is wrong in Zimmerman's defense. I don't know what it is, but we saw two lawyers volunteer to not become famous today. There must be a good reason.


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> All I'm saying is that something is wrong in Zimmerman's defense. I don't know what it is, but we say two lawyers volunteer to not become famous today. There must be a good reason.


They volunteered to not become famous by having a press conference? After weeks of appearing on every TV "news" program that would have them? If they wanted to not be famous, they wouldn't have made a big deal about being fired.


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> All I'm saying is that something is wrong in Zimmerman's defense. I don't know what it is, but we say two lawyers volunteer to not become famous today. There must be a good reason.


Actually, it turns out they were never his lawyers. 

They never met zimmerman. They only talked to him on the phone. They never received the forms back from zimmerman to hire them.


----------



## Nevada

time said:


> Actually, it turns out they were never his lawyers.
> 
> They never met zimmerman. They only talked to him on the phone. They never received the forms back from zimmerman.


How does Zimmerman intend to defend himself? Just hope he won't be charged?


----------



## ryanthomas

time said:


> Actually, it turns out they were never his lawyers.
> 
> They never met zimmerman. They only talked to him on the phone. They never received the forms back from zimmerman.


Interesting. Sounds like they were trying to latch onto the case to become famous, but were rejected.


----------



## time

ryanthomas said:


> Interesting. Sounds like they were trying to latch onto the case to become famous, but were rejected.


Yeah, I'm not sure what happened. They were on CNN and were asked if zimmerman ever signed anything making them his attorney. The one said,(paraphrasing) "Well, he said he had signed the forms and sent them to us, but we havn't seen them yet".


----------



## Darren

ryanthomas said:


> Interesting. Sounds like they were trying to latch onto the case to become famous, but were rejected.


That's my read.


----------



## ryanthomas

And the lawyers have both said they're still willing to represent Zimmerman, so it wasn't their choice.


----------



## Nevada

Zimmerman is self-destructing right now. Expect more as the week progresses.


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> How does Zimmerman intend to defend himself? Just hope he won't be charged?


Ask him. :shrug:

Since your fond of speculating I'll put mine out there.

Zimmerman's judge Dad watched the the media whores for attorneys do stupid stuff on tv and told zimmerman to shop around. The two media whores caught wind that Z was dumping them and put it out that they are quitting so that they could save some face. So that they wouldn't look completely stupid. It backfired.

Might not be a bit true but it's as good as speculation as yours.


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman is self-destructing right now. Expect more as the week progresses.


I think you may be right about that. Something bizarre is going on. He may be cracking under the pressure.


----------



## Nevada

ryanthomas said:


> And the lawyers have both said they're still willing to represent Zimmerman, so it wasn't their choice.


Mark my words, you are hitching your wagon to the wrong guy.


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> Mark my words, you are hitching your wagon to the wrong guy.


Huh? I haven't hitched my wagon to any guy.


----------



## Darren

Zimmerman is fine. 

In fact he may have ignored his lawyers because of their comments about his emotional state. Zimmerman called a neighbor and apparently complained about the lawyers. I think he did the best thing by getting rid of the two bozos doing the clown shows for the media. 

From the neighbor: 

"... he did say Zimmerman's former attorneys weren't accurate when characterizing his emotional state at a news conference Tuesday. "

Neighbor: George Zimmerman called me | News - Home


----------



## Tobster

Nevada said:


> Mark my words, you are hitching your wagon to the wrong guy.


That one sentence explains more than anything you have said in this thread.


----------



## ryanthomas

Darren said:


> Zimmerman is fine.
> 
> In fact he may have ignored his lawyers because of their comments about his emotional state. Zimmerman called a neighbor and apparently complained about the lawyers. I think he did the best thing by getting rid of the two bozos doing the clown shows for the media.
> 
> From the neighbor:
> 
> "... he did say Zimmerman's former attorneys weren't accurate when characterizing his emotional state at a news conference Tuesday. "
> 
> Neighbor: George Zimmerman called me | News - Home


The website, calling the prosecutor without counsel, and calling Sean Hannity are all pretty bizarre, but dumping those lawyers was probably a great move.


----------



## poppy

ryanthomas said:


> I think you may be right about that. Something bizarre is going on. He may be cracking under the pressure.


What pressure is he under? Sure, he has a lot of blacks who would kill him on sight and the Black Panthers put a price on his head. He also has nearly all blacks plus Nevada wanting him prosecuted simply to make a point. All that shouldn't bother him. I don't see him self destructing at all. He is staying out of sight simply because of the threats. He probably does not think he needs a lawyer, right or wrong, because he has not been charged and doesn't think he will be because he did nothing wrong.


----------



## ryanthomas

poppy said:


> What pressure is he under? Sure, he has a lot of blacks who would kill him on sight and the Black Panthers put a price on his head. He also has nearly all blacks plus Nevada wanting him prosecuted simply to make a point. All that shouldn't bother him. I don't see him self destructing at all. He is staying out of sight simply because of the threats. He probably does not think he needs a lawyer, right or wrong, because he has not been charged and doesn't think he will be because he did nothing wrong.


I imagine the bounty on his head is enough pressure to make it tough for him, but the uncertainty of his future has to be a big weight on his shoulders too. If he's watching the news at all, he probably expects to be charged. Even if not, his life will never be the same. I'd say that's a lot of pressure.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> On the grounds that they *don't believe his self defense claim*.


 
If they didn't believe it, and had any EVIDENCE to the contrary, he would have been arrested by now


----------



## Darren

Dershowitz isn't up to speed on the latest developments. And he's still mouthing some of the media crap. But he does have a perspective on the quandry the prosecutor faces. The prosecutor is between a rock and a hard place with this case. Reasonable doubt is the killer for the case. Even Dershowitz understood some of the implications our unrealists here don't.

Prosecutor's quandary: Zimmerman may be indicted, then acquitted - CNN.com


----------



## time

ryanthomas said:


> The website, calling the prosecutor without counsel, and calling Sean Hannity are all pretty bizarre, but dumping those lawyers was probably a great move.


Actually, on CNN the attorneys said the website was a good thing. That Z was supposed to set up the site, and that they had been making arrangements to do it for him because they didn't know if Z could do it. They said the prefered that Z do it and be in control of money and not them so that they did not get accused of having their hand in the cookie jar.

Hannity supposedly said the talk with Z was "off the record" and has not done a story on it yet that I know of. Z may have been offering a "after this is done" interveiw or story. 

Those things don't strike me as being bizarre.


----------



## Darren

ryanthomas said:


> The website, calling the prosecutor without counsel, and calling Sean Hannity are all pretty bizarre, but dumping those lawyers was probably a great move.


With all the speculation about Zimmerman's whereabouts, I don't see a problem with calling her as long as he didn't add anything new to his original statement. That could have been reassuring to the prosecutor. 

Calling Sean Hannity, I believe, shows someone who hasn't given in to a woe is me attitude. The man's still in control of his world at this time and tired of the misrepresentations by the media. He had to get rid of the clown show running amok. From the call to the neighbor, I think he would like to get his story out but he's being extremely careful. He's had ample proof of how the media can twist facts and dream up nonfacts to suit an agenda.


----------



## poppy

time said:


> Actually, on CNN the attorneys said the website was a good thing. That Z was supposed to set up the site, and that they had been making arrangements to do it for him because they didn't know if Z could do it. They said the prefered that Z do it and be in control of money and not them so that they did not get accused of having their hand in the cookie jar.
> 
> Hannity supposedly said the talk with Z was "off the record" and has not done a story on it yet that I know of. Z may have been offering a "after this is done" interveiw or story.
> 
> Those things don't strike me as being bizarre.


Me either. After all the media hype and info that turned out to be wrong, plus the manipulation of tapes to make him look guilty, I can't fault him for trying to get his story out there. I would do the same.


----------



## ryanthomas

time said:


> Actually, on CNN the attorneys said the website was a good thing. That Z was supposed to set up the site, and that they had been making arrangements to do it for him because they didn't know if Z could do it. They said the prefered that Z do it and be in control of money and not them so that they did not get accused of having their hand in the cookie jar.
> 
> Hannity supposedly said the talk with Z was "off the record" and has not done a story on it yet that I know of. Z may have been offering a "after this is done" interveiw or story.
> 
> Those things don't strike me as being bizarre.


I don't know. It all seems pretty strange. I get a weird vibe from the website, and that going up at the same time as making these phone calls just raises flags for me. I certainly wouldn't want to talk to the prosecutor, or to anyone in the media, even if they're friendly. But my impression is based solely on feelings and speculation. Maybe he's tired of sitting around waiting so he's taking charge of the situation. I guess we'll just wait and see what happens next.


----------



## ryanthomas

Darren said:


> With all the speculation about Zimmerman's whereabouts, I don't see a problem with calling her as long as he didn't add anything new to his original statement. That could have been reassuring to the prosecutor.


What could he possibly say to her that could benefit him? All it would take is one slip-up and he could screw himself royally. But she was ethical and wouldn't talk to him because she didn't want to screw her own case by talking to him without counsel.


----------



## ryanthomas

poppy said:


> Me either. After all the media hype and info that turned out to be wrong, plus the manipulation of tapes to make him look guilty, I can't fault him for trying to get his story out there. I would do the same.


Seems like a terrible idea if he thinks he's going to face charges, since anything he puts out there can be used against him. And he must think there's a good chance of being charged, since he set up the legal defense fund.


----------



## Darren

ryanthomas said:


> What could he possibly say to her that could benefit him? All it would take is one slip-up and he could screw himself royally. But she was ethical and wouldn't talk to him because she didn't want to screw her own case by talking to him without counsel.


I'm often in situations where I ask people to do something. I always preface my request by saying something like, I understand you have to work according to policies. If you can't provide the information, etc. that's fine with me. I don't want to cause you problems. You'd be amazed how people will try to help you if you don't back them into a corner. 

I don't see any harm if Zimmerman did something similar. Look I understand you have a job to do. I don't expect you to do any less. BTW, I wanted to make sure you know that I'm still at ----------- . Did my number come up on your caller ID. Good. If needed let me know if I need to turn myself in. Thanks for your time.


----------



## Darren

ryanthomas said:


> Seems like a terrible idea if he thinks he's going to face charges, since anything he puts out there can be used against him. And he must think there's a good chance of being charged, since he set up the legal defense fund.


The website explicitly said that some of the donations would be used for living expenses since he could not work due to the threats.


----------



## ryanthomas

Darren said:


> I don't see any harm if Zimmerman did something similar. Look I understand you have a job to do. I don't expect you to do any less. BTW, I wanted to make sure you know that I'm still at ----------- . Did my number come up on your caller ID. Good. If needed let me know if I need to turn myself in. Thanks for your time.


You're not nearly as jaded as I am about prosecutors. I wouldn't say one word to a prosecutor without my attorney even if I was on fire and he was close by with a fire extinguisher.


----------



## ryanthomas

Darren said:


> The website explicitly said that some of the donations would be used for living expenses since he could not work due to the threats.


True, but it is also for legal expenses, of which he has none so far, since the lawyers agreed to work for free until charges are filed.


----------



## Darren

ryanthomas said:


> You're not nearly as jaded as I am about prosecutors. I wouldn't say one word to a prosecutor without my attorney even if I was on fire and he was close by with a fire extinguisher.


I obviously have a different approach and vewpoint.


----------



## ryanthomas

Darren said:


> I obviously have a different approach and vewpoint.


Yeah, I've been in a prosecutor's crosshairs. I'm guessing you haven't. I hope you never have to experience that hell.


----------



## time

ryanthomas said:


> You're not nearly as jaded as I am about prosecutors. I wouldn't say one word to a prosecutor without my attorney even if I was on fire and he was close by with a fire extinguisher.


I agree with this.

But unfortunatley, most people do not. There is an overwhelming attitude in this country that if you havn't done anything wrong you have nothing to hide. Media story after media story, the reporter says, 'Well, he must have something to hide if he won't talk to police".

There was a person very close to me accused of a felony. I told him do not talk to LE no matter what. He says, oh, I don't have anything to hide. I told him not to anyway and he agreed. Then later he made an appointment for an interveiw. I made him cancel it. Later, his attorney told him it was good he listened.

People that know better fall into doing what they shouldn't because they feel they have nothing to hide. I bet 90% of folks talk when they knew they shouldn't.


----------



## Nevada

ryanthomas said:


> Seems like a terrible idea if he thinks he's going to face charges, since anything he puts out there can be used against him. And he must think there's a good chance of being charged, since he set up the legal defense fund.


His lawyers indicated he may not be in Florida, which may make him a flight risk in the prosecutor's eyes. If I were the prosecutor I would also consider his mental state to be in question. If arrested, he may go under suicide watch.

The problem with all of this is that his self defense claim will depend on convincing the court that he is a level-headed gun owner who used good judgment. None of this will help his case.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> His lawyers indicated he may not be in Florida, which may make him a flight risk in the prosecutor's eyes.


How can he be a "flight risk" when he hasnt' broken any laws?



> The problem will all this is that his self defense claim will *depend on convincing the court* that he is a level-headed gun owner who used good judgment. None of this will help his case.


There you go talking about "court" again when there haven't even been any *charges.*



> His lawyers indicated he may not be in Florida




And of course *you believe* everything lawyers say to the media
(Even though you* refuse* to believe most of the evidence in the case)

You're a HOOT!


----------



## Pearl B

time said:


> I agree with this.
> 
> But unfortunatley, most people do not. There is an overwhelming attitude in this country that if you havn't done anything wrong you have nothing to hide. Media story after media story, the reporter says, 'Well, he must have something to hide if he won't talk to police".
> 
> There was a person very close to me accused of a felony. I told him do not talk to LE no matter what. He says, oh, I don't have anything to hide. I told him not to anyway and he agreed. Then later he made an appointment for an interveiw. I made him cancel it. Later, his attorney told him it was good he listened.
> 
> People that know better fall into doing what they shouldn't because they feel they have nothing to hide. I bet 90% of folks talk when they knew they shouldn't.


Without exception all prosecuters remind me of Al Pacino in the Devils Advocate.

The one in our county was a real piece of work. He got caught after years of using newly released felons in a drug running schemeâ¦ amongst other things


----------



## time

Pearl B said:


> Without exception all prosecuters remind me of Al Pacino in the Devils Advocate.
> 
> The one in our county was a real piece of work. He got caught after years of using newly released felons in a drug running schemeâ¦ amongst other things


Heh, the prosecuter in a county near here was arrested for stealing guns out of the evidence room. He kept some and gave some to friends.


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> His lawyers indicated he may not be in Florida, which may make him a flight risk in the prosecutor's eyes. If I were the prosecutor I would also consider his mental state to be in question. If arrested, he may go under suicide watch.
> 
> The problem with all of this is that his self defense claim will depend on convincing the court that he is a level-headed gun owner who used good judgment. None of this will help his case.


LOL.

That's all conjecture.


----------



## Pearl B

ryanthomas said:


> What could he possibly say to her that could benefit him? All it would take is one slip-up and he could screw himself royally. But she was ethical and wouldn't talk to him because she didn't want to screw her own case by talking to him without counsel.


Maybe after all this he said if your going to charge me, charge me and lets get it over with. I'm tired of sitting here wondering. Maybe she said she wouldnt; and he let the lawyers go. We'll see


----------



## Bearfootfarm

*



Angela Corey to present new information in Trayvon Martin case
Teen shot dead in Sanford by neighborhood watch leader

Click to expand...

*


> *"SANFORD, Fla. - State Attorney Angela Corey, the special prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin case, announced on Tuesday night that she will hold a news conference sometime within the next three days.*
> 
> *In a memo from her office, Corey said she will release new information regarding the investigation into Martin's death, but no specifics were provided.*
> 
> *The media will be notified three hours in advance of the news conference as to when and where it will be held -- either Jacksonville or Sanford...(snip)..."*


http://www.clickorlando.com/news/An...case/-/1637132/10452410/-/okqsez/-/index.html

I think she will announce there will be no arrest or trial based on EVIDENCE instead of emotional hype


----------



## MDKatie

Bearfootfarm said:


> He wasn't "by his truck" when he told them that.
> He had followed Martin ON FOOT *between the buildings* from the street to the back yards.
> 
> He SAID he had lost sight of Martin.
> He said he would "meet" the officers
> 
> 
> Alright, *where are you going to meet with them* at?
> *Zimmerman:*
> Um, if they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse and, uh, straight past the clubhouse and make a left and then go past the mailboxes *youâll see my truck*. [3:10]
> *911 dispatcher:*
> Alright, what address are you parked in front of? [3:21]
> *Zimmerman:*
> Um, I donât know. *Itâs a cut-through* so I donât know the address. [3:25]
> *911 dispatcher:*
> OK, do you live in the area?
> *Zimmerman:*
> Yeah, yeah, I live here.
> *911 dispatcher:*
> OK, whatâs your apartment number?
> *Zimmerman:*
> Itâs a home. Itâs 1950 â oh, crap, I donât want to give it out â I donât know where this kid is [inaudible] [3:40]
> *911 dispatcher:*
> OK, do you just want to *meet with them at the mailboxes* then? [3:42]
> (The mailboxes are where his truck is parked)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was going to, *until *Martin confronted and *attacked* him.
> Less than ONE MINUTE elapsed between his call, and the first 911 call about the fight and shooting


Nowhere does Zimmerman say that he will be at his truck, just that they would see it. And the dispatcher asks if he wants to wait at the mailboxes, and Zimmerman does not say yes, he specifically says to have the cops call them when they show up and he'd tell them where he was. One can conclude from that statement, that he is not staying put in the same place, or else he would have told the dispatcher exactly where he would be.



Bearfootfarm said:


> Gun owners are *already* "responsible", and Zimmerman followed all the gun laws


No, not all gun owners are responsible. Some are, and some aren't.


----------



## haypoint

Darren said:


> The website explicitly said that some of the donations would be used for living expenses since he could not work due to the threats.


Lots of us folks that live paycheck to paycheck. I'm sure Zimmerman has bills and no paycheck. If his lawyers suggested a web site to gather a few bucks to pay bills, it seems reasonable to do it.

If Sean Hannity offered some money in exchange for an off the air interview, and you needed the money, wouldn't you go for it?

I've seen lawyers push for a client to plead guilty to a lesser charge, even when not guilty, just to get it over with and not risk the crap shoot of a jury trial. I can understand Zimmerman not going that route.

If someone in authority was making a life changing choice about putting me before a Grand Jury or not, I'd want them to have straight answers about anything that they might be wondering about, " Your Honor, is there anything you'd like to ask me as you make this important choice?"


----------



## MDKatie

And I just wanted to say I think it's cool that a group of people can be presented with the same evidence (or information) and each one can come to a different conclusion. It makes for some good discussion and entertainment.


----------



## Darren

Bearfootfarm said:


> Angela Corey to present new information in Trayvon Martin case | News - Home
> 
> I think she will announce there will be no arrest or trial based on EVIDENCE instead of emotional hype


I'm leaning towards that outcome too. I think she needs the time to get the graphics prepared for the press conference. At that point, if she's not going to trial, she'll release the autopsy findings, the timeline and a map of events, the results of testing the Kel Tec and a thorough explanation of Florida law. Everything so far with the possible exception of Martin's girl friend's evolving statements supports Zimmerman's account. 

If she has anything new that enabled her to go to trial, I don't know why she would wait to start and take Zimmerman into custody.


----------



## Darren

haypoint said:


> Lots of us folks that live paycheck to paycheck. I'm sure Zimmerman has bills and no paycheck. If his lawyers suggested a web site to gather a few bucks to pay bills, it seems reasonable to do it.
> 
> If Sean Hannity offered some money in exchange for an off the air interview, and you needed the money, wouldn't you go for it?
> 
> I've seen lawyers push for a client to plead guilty to a lesser charge, even when not guilty, just to get it over with and not risk the crap shoot of a jury trial. I can understand Zimmerman not going that route.
> 
> If someone in authority was making a life changing choice about putting me before a Grand Jury or not, I'd want them to have straight answers about anything that they might be wondering about, " Your Honor, is there anything you'd like to ask me as you make this important choice?"


My response that you're quoting was to make the point that I did not view the website as bizarre. Some here think Zimmerman is close to an emotional breakdown. With a family member that is or was a judge, I think he's made some calculated moves. He's been talking to some people and strategizing. Before the media jumped on the incident and portrayed Zimmerman as a racist, he didn't have a problem other than dealing with his emotions over killing Martin.

Once the media deliberately screwed him, Zimmerman's life got complicated fast. I hope the media pays for their attacks on the man. There has to be tons of lawyers out there that can get a defamation verdict out of a jury with the blatantly wrong things the media did. 

Zimmerman should get enough money out of the media's pockets to pay for a lifetime supply of bodyguards and enough left over to never have to work again.


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> His lawyers indicated he may not be in Florida, which may make him a flight risk in the prosecutor's eyes. If I were the prosecutor I would also consider his mental state to be in question. If arrested, he may go under suicide watch.
> 
> The problem with all of this is that his self defense claim will depend on convincing the court that he is a level-headed gun owner who used good judgment. None of this will help his case.


I don't see how this stuff would hurt his case. It's all after the fact, and caused by the crazy situation he's in with a bounty on his head.


----------



## Darren

MDKatie said:


> And I just wanted to say I think it's cool that a group of people can be presented with the same evidence (or information) and each one can come to a different conclusion. It makes for some good discussion and entertainment.


The posts here have been a case study in critical thinking. Back to your thoughts on what Zimmerman did after saying OK to the dispatcher, the only thing we know is that he stopped running after Martin at that point. 

The photos of the backyards between the rows of town houses shows that Zimmerman's statement that Martin approached him from behind on the left hand side makes sense. Martin wouldn't have been able to hide as easily on the right hand side. It also indicates that Zimmerman would have had to turn back toward the way the two men came after agreeing with the dispatcher to not pursue Martin.

The privacy screens between the town house patios on the left hand side would have provided cover. Depending on the orientation of the complex, the patios may have been dry. That means if Martin ducked behind one to hide, he may have left wet footprints which should have been found by the police. 

That would've been evidence that Martin may have intended to ambush Zimmerman. Based on Zimmerman's statement, Martin did gain the element of surprise. I'm curious which way the men were lying when the witness saw Martin beating Zimmerman. Were their heads towards the center of the commons area or away from it. That may be another indicator of which way the men were oriented when the fight began and may provide additional support for Zimmerman's statement.


----------



## ryanthomas

Pearl B said:


> Without exception all prosecuters remind me of Al Pacino in the Devils Advocate.
> 
> The one in our county was a real piece of work. He got caught after years of using newly released felons in a drug running schemeâ¦ amongst other things


Prosecutors are almost literally the devil's advocate. Even a good honest prosecutor is supposed to be the enemy of anyone under criminal suspicion. That's our adversarial system. In Hebrew, where much of our law comes from, the prosecutor is "ha-satan" or "the devil."


----------



## MDKatie

Darren said:


> The posts here have been a case study in critical thinking. Back to your thoughts on what Zimmerman did after saying OK to the dispatcher, the only thing we know is that he stopped running after Martin at that point.


But do we really know that? We know he said ok, and the running sound may have stopped, but we don't know that he actually stopped pursuing him. 

And Zimmerman may have had numerous calls to the police (with no prior incidents) but he does have a record of violence.


----------



## Evons hubby

MDKatie said:


> But do we really know that? We know he said ok, and the running sound may have stopped, but we don't know that he actually stopped pursuing him.
> 
> And Zimmerman may have had numerous calls to the police (with no prior incidents) but he does have a record of violence.


From what I can find he has a history of "being accused" of violence.... kinda like right now... many are making assumptions and would "accuse" him of murder. Seems like he pushed an undercover cop once when the cop was hassling either him or a friend of his... but behaved quite well once the cop revealed his identity. An ex also "accused" him of domestic violence after they split up.... dont know if he was ever charged or convicted though. I have been "accused" of violence myself several times, simply because I held the first wifes fists in my hands to make her stop hitting me.  Accusations are cheap.


----------



## Darren

MDKatie said:


> But do we really know that? We know he said ok, and the running sound may have stopped, but we don't know that he actually stopped pursuing him.
> 
> And Zimmerman may have had numerous calls to the police (with no prior incidents) but he does have a record of violence.


We don't know that Zimmerman stopped and truned around to return to his vehicle. That's why I wanted to look at photos of the commons area to see if the layout either supported or disproved Zimmerman's statement. That's were Zimmerman losing sight of Martin and then soon after encountering him comes into play. I haven't found anything so far that disproves Zimmerman's statement especially the direction from behind that Martin suddenly appeared. Logically it fits.

As far as violence, the media made a big issue of that. The domestic violence issue didn't go anywhere. There haven't been any issues with his current wife. My knowledge of abusers is they don't stop. There's something emotional going on at some level. Some men view women as property. Zimmerman doesn't have a consistent history of violence with women. At his age, that would have shown up.

Pushing a plain clothes policeman in a bar isn't necessarily an indication of a propensity to violence either. In that situation a friend of his was involved.

Nothing in his previous actions as part of the neighborhood watch shows a propensity to violence. Martin on the other hand, based on previous information, may have been too quick with his fists that night. He most probably knocked Zimmerman down. When he continued beating Zimmerman on the ground he crossed a line.

Given the information that's available, this is what I think happened after Zimmerman lost sight of Martin.

1. Zimmerman turned to go back to his vehicle.
2. Martin who had been hiding behind one of the privacy screens between the patios went up to Zimmerman from behind and on the left hand side.
3. He caught Zimmerman by surprise. They exchanged a few words.
4. Martin sucker punched Zimmerman, breaking his nose and knocking him down. 
5. Martin got on top of a stunned Zimmerman and started beating him.
6. At some point the gun came into play. I believe the malfuction shows the two struggled for control of the gun.
7. Martin was shot once and only once.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> Given the information that's available, this is what I think happened after Zimmerman lost sight of Martin.
> 
> 1. Zimmerman turned to go back to his vehicle.


Knowing that Zimmerman's primary concern was that Martin would get away, it doesn't make sense that Zimmerman would give up pursuing Martin that easily. The fact that we have Martin's girlfriend contradicting that, along with the fact that it doesn't make sense, makes Zimmerman's story suspect. I doubt a jury will believe it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Nowhere does Zimmerman say that he will be at his truck,


There is no other way to interpret this, since it's impossible to* "meet"* someone UNLESS you are *at that location*:


> Alright, *where are you going to meet with them* at?
> *Zimmerman:*
> Um, if they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse and, uh, straight past the clubhouse and make a left and then go past the mailboxes *you&#8217;ll see my truck*. [3:10]


Trayvons body was only about 30 yds from Zimmerman's truck



> One can conclude from that statement, that he is not staying put in the same place, or else he would have told the dispatcher exactly where he would be.


One could also conclude he might NEED to go somewhere else before the police arrived, so he gave them his number IN CASE that happened. 

He also didn't know *exactly* when the police would arrive

It wouldn't make much sense to walk around in the *pouring rain* until they arrived


----------



## Guest

Every one is bantering over witness statement which are secondary to forensic scientific evidence, none of which have been shown to the public that I know of. Proximity, angles and a multitude of details would determine the validity of those statement. Amazing 63 pages of banter from people so far removed from the case. If the investigation was done properly (I have my doubts) the truth will be know eventually. I think the family had every right to stand and demand the truth, every one else is fanning the flames.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> Knowing that Zimmerman's primary concern was that Martin would get away, it doesn't make sense that Zimmerman would give up pursuing Martin that easily. The fact that we have Martin's girlfriend contradicting that, along with the fact that it doesn't make sense, makes Zimmerman's story suspect. I doubt a jury will believe it.


I would love to hear the NSA's recording of that conversation. My guess is that Martin bragged to his girl friend that he was going to teach someone a lesson. That's why I'd like for someone to ask her to submit to a lie detector test and explain perjury to her. 

There was a lot of bravado in Martin's tweets. Martin at that age had a need to gain street cred. That explains the "swinging" on the bus driver back and forth talk with his older brother. It didn't happen. But it sounds good. He would have talked the same trash to his girl friend. Do you think she would say that Martin said he was hiding waiting for the man to walk by?

If Martin wasn't in sight of Zimmerman who could see down the commons area and he was still talking to his girl friend on that rainy night, what do you think they were talking about? We already know she was told about Zimmerman following Martin. I think she knows a lot more than she's told.

Something else was being discussed when Martin was out of sight. That's when her suggestion of running to the house made sense. Martin may have already told her he planned to confront Zimmerman and what he was going to do afterwards. 

Unfortunately for Martin, his plans were ended forever by a 9mm bullet. Unlike the no_limit_n**** name he adopted, there are indeed limits.


----------



## Darren

dlmcafee said:


> Every one is bantering over witness statement which are secondary to forensic scientific evidence, none of which have been shown to the public that I know of. Proximity, angles and a multitude of details would determine the validity of those statement. Amazing 63 pages of banter from people so far removed from the case. If the investigation was done properly (I have my doubts) the truth will be know eventually. I think the family had every right to stand and demand the truth, every one else is fanning the flames.


It's like a puzzle in that some of the pieces fit and some seem like they don't. If Martin hadn't been talking to his girl friend that night would he have chosen to confront Zimmerman? Was he putting on a show for her over the telephone?

As more people have chimed in, it's provided more information to review. This hasn't been a static situation with a set group of facts. More has been available as time has passed. It's all been helpful in putting together a realistic scenario. All we need now is the material from the investigation to confirm or deny what many believe.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> And Zimmerman may have had numerous calls to the police (with no prior incidents) but *he does have* *a record of violence*.


So show us his CONVICTIONS for "violence"


----------



## time

Darren said:


> I would love to hear the NSA's recording of that conversation. My guess is that Martin bragged to his girl friend that he was going to teach someone a lesson. That's why I'd like for someone to ask her to submit to a lie detector test and explain perjury to her.
> 
> There was a lot of bravado in Martin's tweets. Martin at that age had a need to gain street cred. That explains the "swinging" on the bus driver back and forth talk with his older brother. It didn't happen. But it sounds good. He would have talked the same trash to his girl friend. Do you think she would say that Martin said he was hiding waiting for the man to walk by?
> 
> If Martin wasn't in sight of Zimmerman who could see down the commons area and he was still talking to his girl friend on that rainy night, what do you think they were talking about? We already know she was told about Zimmerman following Martin. I think she knows a lot more than she's told.
> 
> Something else was being discussed when Martin was out of sight. That's when her suggestion of running to the house made sense. Martin may have already told her he planned to confront Zimmerman and what he was going to do afterwards.
> 
> Unfortunately for Martin, his plans were ended forever by a 9mm bullet. Unlike the no_limit_n**** name he adopted, there are indeed limits.


That just might be what the "new information" the prosecuter is saying she has is. The girlfriend may have come clean.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Knowing that Zimmerman's primary concern was that Martin would get away, it *doesn't make sense* that Zimmerman would give up pursuing Martin that easily. The fact that *we have Martin's girlfriend contradicting that*, along with the fact that it doesn't make sense, makes Zimmerman's story suspect. I doubt a jury will believe it.


 
Nothing she said "contradicts" anything Zimmerman said.

If you think it does, *cut and paste* her statement and your explanaton of how anything is contradtory

It "doesn't make sense" that Zimmerman would walk around aimlessly in the *pouring rain* when he had lost sight of Martin, and had just told the Dispatcher he would *meet* the police officers


----------



## MDKatie

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is no other way to interpret this, since it's impossible to* "meet"* someone UNLESS you are *at that location*:
> 
> 
> Trayvons body was only about 30 yds from Zimmerman's truck
> 
> 
> 
> One could also conclude he might NEED to go somewhere else before the police arrived, so he gave them his number IN CASE that happened.
> 
> He also didn't know *exactly* when the police would arrive
> 
> It wouldn't make much sense to walk around in the *pouring rain* until they arrived


Where would he NEED to go before the police arrived? He couldn't wait at the truck? Why would he need to move his truck if he stopped following Trayvon? And nowhere did he say, "I'll be in/at/with my truck." All he said was they'd see his truck.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MDKatie said:


> Where would he NEED to go before the police arrived? He couldn't wait at the truck?
> *Why would he need to move his truck if he stopped following Trayvon*?
> And nowhere did he say, "I'll be in/at/with my truck."
> 
> *All he said was they'd see his truck*.


He said that in *response to the question*:

"*WHERE* do you want to* MEET* the officers?"

Tell me how he could *"meet"* them without* being* in that location?

*IF* he had been sitting in his truck and *saw* Martin *again*, logic says he would have wanted to follow him to keep him in sight.

Maybe he thought about *driving* to the OTHER end of the buildings to see if he could spot him again.

Either way, the evidence points to him *returning* to his truck, even if it's just to get out of the rain

His statement, the recorded calls, and the forensic evidence *all* support his version of the events


----------



## Guest

Darren said:


> It's like a puzzle in that some of the pieces fit and some seem like they don't. If Martin hadn't been talking to his girl friend that night would he have chosen to confront Zimmerman? Was he putting on a show for her over the telephone?
> 
> As more people have chimed in, it's provided more information to review. This hasn't been a static situation with a set group of facts. More has been available as time has passed. It's all been helpful in putting together a realistic scenario. All we need now is the material from the investigation to confirm or deny what many believe.


I get ya,,,so its an online bulletin board version of the board game clue, except the characters are derived from real people with real repercussions by spreading and perpetuating rumors and in some cases out right lies and bigoted opinions. You win:clap:


----------



## vicker

Zimmerman to be charged. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...fficial-says/2012/04/11/gIQAHJ5oAT_story.html


----------



## MDKatie

Bearfootfarm said:


> He said that in *response to the question*:
> 
> "*WHERE* do you want to* MEET* the officers?"
> 
> Tell me how he could *"meet"* them without* being* in that location?
> 
> *IF* he had been sitting in his truck and *saw* Martin *again*, logic says he would have wanted to follow him to keep him in sight.
> 
> Maybe he thought about *driving* to the OTHER end of the buildings to see if he could spot him again.
> 
> Either way, the evidence points to him *returning* to his truck, even if it's just to get out of the rain
> 
> His statement, the recorded calls, and the forensic evidence *all* support his version of the events


Well the dispatcher told him they didn't need him to follow him, so logically he should have stayed with his truck and should not have needed the cops to call him, since he would be staying put in his truck.


----------



## Nevada

We'll know if Zimmerman will be charged or not today. The special prosecutor says the decision will be announced at a 6 pm news conference in Jacksonville.

George Zimmerman Decision Made in Trayvon Martin Killing - ABC News

******Edited to Add******

Breaking news at CBS: CBS News confirms *charges will be filed* this afternoon in Trayvon Martin case


----------



## Darren

dlmcafee said:


> I get ya,,,so its an online bulletin board version of the board game clue, except the characters are derived from real people with real repercussions by spreading and perpetuating rumors and in some cases out right lies and bigoted opinions. You win:clap:


That's an interesting way to look at it. 

Zimmerman started out as a white man. Then became a white hispanic. As one media source photoshopped his picture to make him whiter, it also changed his clothing from orange to pink. Then they dug up his extremely "violent" past. None of which resulted in convictions. 

On the other hand Martin's picture with a hoodie was lightened. Pictures of him when he was younger were routinely matched with Zimmerman's "white" mug shot photo. None of Zimmerman's compassionate actions were mentioned. 

Then we had the claim by the media of the racial slur. That turned out to be false. We had the bunko voice analyst claim that he could prove that the screaming voice on the 911 tape was not Zimmerman's. That was later shot down by real experts.

When you see that much of an agenda against one person, and then see it disproved, you start to wonder who the underdog was. I almost forgot the media's attempt to prove Zimmerman wasn't injured which also backfired on them.

Even Martin's height was misrepresented. 

Let's look at what we know about Martin.

He had a problem with truancy. He was sent with his father away from his home because his mother did not want him hanging out with his friends during his school suspension. He got suspended for ten days because they found a marijuana baggie. He was previously found with a large screwdriver and women's jewelry that he claimed a friend gave him. He was involved in vandalism. I won't get into the messages in his tweets. I'll just say they don't convey a motherhood, apple pie Chevrolet image.

Now consider the most recent photos Martin chose to portray his image. The ones confirmed to be Martin show someone who wants to fit the gangsta image. You can always say that's just a kid acting. The grillz he wore and the tattoos were just part of growing up and finding his place. No big deal.

Moving on to the night of the incident. Martin took longer than necessary from the time he left the 7 Eleven to get back to where he was staying on a rainy night. Maybe the kid just liked getting wet in the rain. His girl friend comes up with a couple of versions of the telephone conversation which continued when he disappeared from Zimmerman's view. I think she tried to talk him out of confronting the man following him. The final oddity is that Martin's father after he returned home with his fiance didn't put 2+2 together and connect why the police were 100 yards from the house until 4 am with his missing son. 

Then we have a synopsis of a statement from Zimmerman which so far hasn't been proven to be a lie. Everything logical supports the statement. I'm not sure where bigotry comes into play. But if it had been a white kid with the same past, who had punched Zimmerman that night, it would sure look the same to me.

Given the media's attempt to show a white Hispanic killed a black kid because of racial prejudice while inciting outrage across the country, and yes I'm going to scrutinize the information. If critical thinking is bigotry, then I've been a bigot for most of my life.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MDKatie said:


> Well the dispatcher told him they didn't need him to follow him, so logically he* should have* stayed with his truck and *should *not have needed the cops to call him, since he would be staying put in his truck.


It's called "contingency planning"

*



conÂ·tinÂ·genÂ·cy/k&#601;n&#712;tinj&#601;ns&#275;/

Click to expand...

*


> Noun:
> 
> A future event or circumstance that is possible but *cannot be predicted with certainty*.
> *A provision* for such an event or circumstance.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> We'll know if Zimmerman will be charged or not today. The special prosecutor says the decision will be announced at a 6 pm news conference in Jacksonville.
> 
> George Zimmerman Decision Made in Trayvon Martin Killing - ABC News
> 
> ******Edited to Add******
> 
> Breaking news at CBS: CBS News confirms *charges will be filed* this afternoon in Trayvon Martin case


 
LOL

You just can't resist jumping at every RUMOR when you've already been told when the REAL announcment will be

Patience Grasshopper


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> 
> You just can't resist jumping at every RUMOR when you've already been told when the REAL announcment will be
> 
> Patience Grasshopper


NBC News confirms.

U.S. News - NBC: George Zimmerman to be charged in Trayvon Martin case


----------



## Sonshine

vicker said:


> Zimmerman to be charged.
> 
> George Zimmerman to be charged in Trayvon Martin shooting, official says - The Washington Post


The announcement will be on Fox news at 6 pm EST


----------



## Cornhusker

Nevada said:


> Knowing that Zimmerman's primary concern was that Martin would get away, it doesn't make sense that Zimmerman would give up pursuing Martin that easily. The fact that we have Martin's girlfriend contradicting that, along with the fact that it doesn't make sense, makes Zimmerman's story suspect. I doubt a jury will believe it.


Not if they are bigoted like some here and already have him guilty.
The evidence doesn't support your theory, but that's for a jury to decide.
I wonder if Holder will help pick the jury just to make sure
A trillionaire crime organization can grease a lot of palms.


----------



## Cornhusker

Nevada said:


> We'll know if Zimmerman will be charged or not today. The special prosecutor says the decision will be announced at a 6 pm news conference in Jacksonville.
> 
> George Zimmerman Decision Made in Trayvon Martin Killing - ABC News
> 
> ******Edited to Add******
> 
> Breaking news at CBS: CBS News confirms *charges will be filed* this afternoon in Trayvon Martin case


What will the charges be?


----------



## Sonshine

Cornhusker said:


> What will the charges be?


They aren't saying, but some are speculating it will be manslaughter.


----------



## Nevada

Sonshine said:


> They aren't saying, but some are speculating it will be manslaughter.


Even more interesting than the charge itself will be the new evidence the prosecutor promised to reveal.


----------



## Sonshine

Nevada said:


> Even more interesting than the charge itself will be the new evidence the prosecutor promised to reveal.


I just want to hear the real evidence instead of all the speculations going on.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Even more interesting than the charge itself will be the *new evidence* the prosecutor promised to reveal.


 
*Will you accept it* if it shows Zimmerman told the truth?

Especially if the *RUMOR* from an *anonymous source* about charges being filed turns out to be false?



> *According to a senior law enforcement official*, the special prosecutor in the case, Angela Corey, *is expected* to announce later Wednesday afternoon that Zimmerman will face state charges. The number or nature of the charges was not immediately known.


----------



## Sonshine

Bearfootfarm said:


> *Will you accept it* if it shows Zimmerman told the truth?
> 
> Especially if the *RUMOR* from an *anonymous source* about charges being filed turns out to be false?


If it's a rumor then it's one every news channel seems to be running.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> *Will you accept it* if it shows Zimmerman told the truth?
> 
> Especially if the *RUMOR* from an *anonymous source* about charges being filed turns out to be false?


All I ever asked for was a fair and thorough investigation. I believe the issues deserve to be put in front of a jury, but if an impartial prosecutor finds no crime I'll accept it.

Will you accept it if Zimmerman is charged? Will you accept it if Zimmerman is convicted?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> *All I ever asked for was a fair and thorough investigation.* I believe the issues deserve to be *put in front of a jury*, but *if an impartial prosecutor finds no crime I'll accept it*.
> 
> Will you accept it if Zimmerman is charged? Will you accept it if Zimmerman is convicted?


 
No, you've demanded a *TRIAL* from the beginning, and you never "accepted" the fact that charges weren't brought *immediately.*

I've said *all along* all decisions should be based *ONLY on EVIDENCE*, and my opinion about that hasn't changed.

We will know more FACTS in a few hours, one way or the other
.
*If *he gets charged, they will still have to convince *12* people with EVIDENCE alone, so unless they turned up something *radically different* from what has been presented, I don't foresee that happening


----------



## Darren

I hope this was not a political decison on the part of the prosecutor. This doesn't do anything to prevent a summer of violence. It will eventually take the town and the state off the hook. Let's hope the trial proceeds quickly. 

It's going to be tough to find members for the jury.


----------



## pancho

There will be charges filed. Not enough to satisfy the colored but more than enough to disappoint the white. 
If there is a trial he will be found innocent, unless the politicians have a hand in it and pick the location and jury.
No matter what the charge there will be violence.
Something tells me this will be a different type of violence than we have seen before in this type of cases.


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> If there is a trial he will be found innocent, unless the politicians have a hand in it and pick the location and jury.


"But Judge Pancho, don't you think you should hear the evidence before making a decision?"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Sonshine said:


> If it's a rumor then it's one every news channel seems to be running.


 
They are all running, word for word, the* SAME* story, from an anonymous source


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> "But Judge Pancho, don't you think you should hear the evidence before making a decision?"


You've never let *evidence* sway your decisions


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> "But Judge Pancho, don't you think you should hear the evidence before making a decision?"


It doesn't matter.
They have to charge him or the colored will riot.
They can't charge him with murder so the colored will not be satisfied and will riot.
Any charge they decide to go with will end up with a not guilty verdict unless they move it to an area where the jury is made up mostly with colored people.

Might as well get ready for riots. It will happen no matter what the charge is.
I still believe this riot will end up a little different than those we have had before. People are getting tired of the different laws for different colors.
I would guess that the riots will be in the inner cities.


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> They can't charge him with murder


Actually they can. The prosecutor can always put it before a grand jury at a later date. I doubt that will happen though.


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> It doesn't matter.
> They have to charge him or the colored will riot.
> They can't charge him with murder so the colored will not be satisfied and will riot.
> Any charge they decide to go with will end up with a not guilty verdict unless they move it to an area where the jury is made up mostly with colored people.
> 
> Might as well get ready for riots. It will happen no matter what the charge is.
> I still believe this riot will end up a little different than those we have had before. People are getting tired of the different laws for different colors.
> I would guess that the riots will be in the inner cities.


From what I've seen, everyone is some color or another. Never seen a transparent skin tone before.


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> From what I've seen, everyone is some color or another. Never seen a transparent skin tone before.


I can't keep up with the latest thing we are supposed to call a colored person.
I have to go by the name given to them by the organization that is supposed to advance them.
That way I don't have to keep up with what they decide they want to be called. It seems to change quite often.


----------



## Darren

pancho said:


> I can't keep up with the latest thing we are supposed to call a colored person.
> I have to go by the name given to them by the organization that is supposed to advance them.
> That way I don't have to keep up with what they decide they want to be called. It seems to change quite often.


That never ocurred to me. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People


----------



## Nevada

Zimmerman is now in custody.

U.S. News - NBC: George Zimmerman in custody, will be charged in Trayvon Martin case


----------



## ryanthomas

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman is now in custody.
> 
> U.S. News - NBC: George Zimmerman in custody, will be charged in Trayvon Martin case


Like Christmas for you, isn't it?


----------



## Darren

It's interesting that it's reported Corey is charging Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder. Manslaughter she might get. Unless there's something new in the evidence, she gave Zimmerman's attorney a cake walk.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> It's interesting that it's reported Corey is charging Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder. Manslaughter she might get. Unless there's something new in the evidence, she gave Zimmerman's attorney a cake walk.


I'm surprised at that too. Murder requires some degree of premeditation, but I don't see premeditation in this case.


----------



## painterswife

I am surprised at the charge as well. They obviously have more evidence than we think we have.


----------



## Guest

Nevada said:


> I'm surprised at that too. Murder requires some degree of premeditation, but I don't see premeditation in this case.


The killing while in the commission of an illegal act is murder, not manslaughter.The detention of someone without arrest authority or statute is an illegal act, prove that you may have a case.


----------



## fantasymaker

Cant you see what she did?
She knows Zimmermans evidence. I bet She thinks he WAS defending himself.
BUT The blacks DEMAND he be charged. So she Charged him at a point where there Will be very little chance of him being found guilty.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> I am surprised at the charge as well. They obviously have more evidence than we think we have.


They better have or Zimmerman could wind up a very rich man. Can you say "politically motivated malicious prosecution"? I'm fairly sure you can.


----------



## watcher

dlmcafee said:


> The killing while in the commission of an illegal act is murder, not manslaughter.The detention of someone without arrest authority or statute is an illegal act, prove that you may have a case.


That's going to be very tough to prove unless there is some kind of surveillance camera footage showing it. That or bruises on Martin's body indicating Zimmerman grabbed him in a way which can't be dismissed as part of the struggle.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> They better have or Zimmerman could wind up a very rich man. Can you say "politically motivated malicious prosecution"? I'm fairly sure you can.


I am not as cynical as others. I watched her press conference and I believe she thinks they have the evidence. I saw a very confident and focused prosecutor who was not bowing or pandering to anyone on either side of the case.


----------



## watcher

One thing just hit me. Got to wonder if they are deliberately over charging him knowing 1) he should not face charges but the political climate demands force it and 2) there's no they could ever get a conviction on this charge. That would allow them to placate the blacks (We charged him don't blame us that he got off.), but at the same time allow Zimmerman to go free.


----------



## Sonshine

watcher said:


> One thing just hit me. Got to wonder if they are deliberately over charging him knowing 1) he should not face charges but the political climate demands force it and 2) there's no they could ever get a conviction on this charge. That would allow them to placate the blacks (We charged him don't blame us that he got off.), but at the same time allow Zimmerman to go free.


Or maybe they have more evidence than we have.


----------



## haypoint

If they try him for Manslaughter and get a conviction, Zimmerman can tie up the courts for years with appeals.

If they charge him with murder in the 2nd, Zimmerman might be spooked and accept a plea to Manslaughter. Then there can't be any appeal.

But that's a risky move, because if Zimmerman doesn't take that bait, they'll have a hard time getting a conviction for murder duce.

The prison system doesn't want him. It would be too costly to keep his noticeable mug safe in the joint. Most prisoners in Florida can identify with wearing a hoody and have hard to see tattoos, " If I had a son he'd look just like Travon."

The last high profile black/white murder resulted in an acquittal and that didn't result in riots. I don't see how OJ's trial is any different.


----------



## pancho

This will make quite a bit of difference in how many people look at race relations.
I can see more people joining different organizations.
Looks like this will be a summer to remember.


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> This will make quite a bit of difference in how many people look at race relations.


I'm still not of a mind to believe that race played a big part in the shooting. It may have played a part in profiling Martin, but not in the shooting. My opinion could change later if additional evidence supports racism, but at this point I'm blaming it on other factors.

Zimmerman's arrest played a big part in gun rights though. Without an arrest many people were left with the impression that additional gun legislation might be necessary to protect unarmed people, With the arrest it gives the impression that enough laws are already in place.

I think a major factor in this case is Zimmerman's judgment. From Zimmerman's actions, he seems to act prematurely on questionable ideas without really thinking things through. I don't know if that would be a good defense though. While there is no law against being stupid, the defense he presented to police was that he was a level-headed gun owner acting appropriately for the conditions. We'll see what his new lawyer wants to do.


----------



## poppy

I do not think he will be found guilty and the prosecutor knows it. This is just a charge to appease the blacks.


----------



## Sonshine

I'm curious about what evidence they have that made them decide on 2nd degree murder charges instead of manslaughter.


----------



## haypoint

Nevada said:


> I'm still not of a mind to believe that race played a big part in the shooting. It may have played a part in profiling Martin, but not in the shooting. My opinion could change later if additional evidence supports racism, but at this point I'm blaming it on other factors.
> 
> Zimmerman's arrest played a big part in gun rights though. Without an arrest many people were left with the impression that additional gun legislation might be necessary to protect unarmed people, With the arrest it gives the impression that enough laws are already in place.
> 
> I think a major factor in this case is Zimmerman's judgment. From Zimmerman's actions, he seems to act prematurely on questionable ideas without really thinking things through. I don't know if that would be a good defense though. While there is no law against being stupid, the defense he presented to police was that he was a level-headed gun owner acting appropriately for the conditions. We'll see what his new lawyer wants to do.


Bad judgement?
I don't know how I'd react.
I've never had a 6'4" 200 pound 17 year old slug me to the ground and jump on me and slam my head into the sidewalk, while I had a loaded pistol in my pocket. Would I pull a gun before I go unconcious? Would I pull the gun before this thug knocks me out and steals my pistol after shooting me? I'd like to act level headed, but those fists and that sidewalk are such distractions, I might not ask myself, " WWJJD?" or "WWASD?" or "WWNBPPD?"


----------



## Darren

Sonshine said:


> I'm curious about what evidence they have that made them decide on 2nd degree murder charges instead of manslaughter.


I'm curious about that too. The prosecutor set a much higher goal than she could have. Unless there's evidence that justifies her decision, she may have set the proceedings on a course that she knows will eventually get Zimmerman acquitted. I think a jury would have been much more likely to go along with manslaughter rather than murder 2. But manslaughter wouldn't have satisfied the lynch mob.

The press conference with all of the folks with her looked to be staged to defuse the outrage. I was struck by her elaboration on how many people were involved in the investigation. She gave shout outs to everyone but the janitor.


----------



## Sonshine

Darren said:


> I'm curious about that too. The prosecutor set a much higher goal than she could have. Unless there's evidence that justifies her decision, she may have set the proceedings on a course that she knows will eventually get Zimmerman acquitted. I think a jury would have been much more likely to go along with manslaughter rather than murder 2. But manslaughter wouldn't have satisfied the lynch mob.
> 
> *The press conference with all of the folks with her looked to be staged to defuse the outrage. I was struck by her elaboration on how many people were involved in the investigation.* She gave shout outs to everyone but the janitor.


She may have done that to appease the people too, letting them know that she didn't come to the conclusion to charge him alone.


----------



## Darren

Here's a good analysis of the murder 2 charge and the ramifications. Corey is not looking at a slam dunk. Zimmerman hired an attorney with experience in high profile cases.

Second-degree murder charge may be hard to prove - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com


----------



## ryanthomas

fantasymaker said:


> Cant you see what she did?
> She knows Zimmermans evidence. I bet She thinks he WAS defending himself.
> BUT The blacks DEMAND he be charged. So she Charged him at a point where there Will be very little chance of him being found guilty.





watcher said:


> One thing just hit me. Got to wonder if they are deliberately over charging him knowing 1) he should not face charges but the political climate demands force it and 2) there's no they could ever get a conviction on this charge. That would allow them to placate the blacks (We charged him don't blame us that he got off.), but at the same time allow Zimmerman to go free.





poppy said:


> I do not think he will be found guilty and the prosecutor knows it. This is just a charge to appease the blacks.





Darren said:


> I'm curious about that too. The prosecutor set a much higher goal than she could have. Unless there's evidence that justifies her decision, she may have set the proceedings on a course that she knows will eventually get Zimmerman acquitted. I think a jury would have been much more likely to go along with manslaughter rather than murder 2. But manslaughter wouldn't have satisfied the lynch mob.
> 
> The press conference with all of the folks with her looked to be staged to defuse the outrage. I was struck by her elaboration on how many people were involved in the investigation. She gave shout outs to everyone but the janitor.


I think you guys all jumped into Nevada's world of wishful thinking and outright fantasy. Maybe you're right, but that's quite a stretch.


----------



## Darren

Sonshine said:


> She may have done that to appease the people too, letting them know that she didn't come to the conclusion to charge him alone.


I agree. The whole dog and pony show was designed to get the state off the blame target.


----------



## Darren

ryanthomas said:


> I think you guys all jumped into Nevada's world of wishful thinking and outright fantasy. Maybe you're right, but that's quite a stretch.


It's a stretch. The prosecutor picked the hard way to proceed with murder 2. This is not a case that will be move quickly. I'm waiting to see what else the media "discovers." They kept trying to get her to reveal what evidence convinced her to proceed. Now that they think there's something they don't know, they'll dig like crazy.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Murder requires some degree of premeditation, but I don't see premeditation in this case.


*1st Degree* Murder requires premeditation

2nd Degree Murder, under Florida law:

Florida Crimes: Second Degree Murder


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






*



The crime of Second Degree Murder is classified as a First Degree Felony and is assigned a Level 10 offense severity ranking under Florida's Criminal Punishment Code.
If convicted of Second Degree Murder, a judge is required to impose a minimum prison sentence of 16Â¾ years in prison and can impose any additional combination of the following penalties:

Up to Life in prison.
Up to Life on probation.
Up to $10,000 in fines.


Click to expand...

<H3>10/20/Life*



> Under Florida's 10-20-Life law, a person who uses a Firearm to commit Second Degree Murder must be sentenced to a minimum-mandatory prison sentence of 25 years.[1]


</H3>


----------



## ryanthomas

Darren said:


> Now that they think there's something they don't know, they'll dig like crazy.


And they'll probably report it inaccurately, like they've been doing all along. I agree murder 2 was completely unexpected, but they must have something to bring that charge...unless they also charge him with manslaughter and give the jury the option, but chose not to mention that in the press conference.


----------



## Evons hubby

I think they are playing this thing properly. Zimmermans life was worth maybe a quarter on the street. He is now in protective custody, where he can remain safely for a year or so while the "trial" takes place. With "justice being served" tempers may calm down enough in a year or so that he can be relocated to some faraway place where he wont be recognized and killed.


----------



## Darren

Here's Zimmerman's mug shot. What a surprise, he looks Hispanic.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> I am not as cynical as others. I watched her press conference and I believe she thinks they have the evidence. I saw a very confident and focused prosecutor who was *not bowing or pandering to anyone on either side of the case*.


 
Really?

Even though she mentioned Martin's "SWEET PARENTS", and profusely thanked Martin's LAWYERS for "keeping in close touch"?

She sounded pretty biased to me


----------



## Narshalla

Darren said:


> Here's Zimmerman's mug shot. What a surprise, he looks Hispanic.


Big surprise there.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Zimmerman's arrest played a big part in *gun rights* though. Without an arrest many people were left with the impression that additional gun legislation might be necessary to protect unarmed people, With the arrest it gives the impression that enough laws are already in place.


No one but *ANTI *gunners ever gave gun rights a thought due to this event
Unless they have a LOT of evidence they haven't released that is contrary to that which they've shown so far, Zimmerman stands a good chance of winning .

The "Burden of proof" is *ALL* on the State now


----------



## Darren

Narshalla said:


> Big surprise there.


 If I was Zimmerman, I'd have spent a lot of time in a tanning booth or laying outside before I turned myself in.


----------



## Pearl B

> Zimmerman stands a good chance of winning.


Me thinks its all political/emotional now. I dont think he stands a chance. Maybe he will get lucky and sent to a prison with a high Mexican population.


----------



## Sonshine

Darren said:


> Here's a good analysis of the murder 2 charge and the ramifications. Corey is not looking at a slam dunk. Zimmerman hired an attorney with experience in high profile cases.
> 
> Second-degree murder charge may be hard to prove - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com


They are basing their conclusions on the known facts, but no one has all the facts yet.


----------



## Sonshine

ryanthomas said:


> And they'll probably report it inaccurately, like they've been doing all along. I agree murder 2 was completely unexpected, but they must have something to bring that charge...unless they also charge him with manslaughter and give the jury the option, but chose not to mention that in the press conference.


This is the problem with everyone listening to the media and leaked information and drawing their own conclusions without all the facts and evidence. It seems like many have jumped to many conclusions here on both sides of the issue and none are willing to wait and see what evidence they have.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one but *ANTI *gunners ever gave gun rights a thought due to this event


Don't kid yourself. Anyone who wants their kids to walk the streets safely have thought of it.



Bearfootfarm said:


> The "Burden of proof" is *ALL* on the State now


It's still a tough case, but we don't know what they have yet.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Don't kid yourself. Anyone who wants their kids to walk the streets safely have thought of it.


When I was a kid nobody gave a second thought to "gun rights". Anyone who wanted one could walk into any hardware store and buy one. There were very few back then who were afraid to let their kids walk the streets either.


----------



## haypoint

That is tragic. Across this country, we have hundreds of young black men committing crimes. Plus we have millions of young black men that want to act like those criminals. They have been indoctrinated to believe that every time they get looked at, white people are looking down on them. Every time they get pulled over for speeding, it is because the police are looking to arrest black people. Their rightful belief that they must stand up for themselves has manifested itself into hate for authority and that, in turn, promotes lawless behavior from an acceptable behavior to one of necessity. 

When white people look at a black person&#8217;s outlandish clothes (by white standards), many blacks imagine that they are staring at them because we expect them to commit a crime. No matter how friendly we might act towards a black person, they often times interpret it as demeaning.
Many blacks view us (whites) as the reason they have to struggle to get by. Seldom do they recognize that life is a struggle for whites, too. I&#8217;ve talked to many blacks that believe white people have nice homes, cars and educations because of the riches white ancestors got from slave labor. This is real to them.
If you try to see the world through Martin&#8217;s eyes, you can see how he viewed Zimmerman. Martin was trying to find his way through life, with plenty of anti-social influences, with lots of anti-authority influences, with lots of &#8220;white man keeping me down&#8221; emotions. Often in the culture of young black men, violent reactions become the norm. It can start out bullying mom, then teachers, other young black men, then police. Followed by Prison Guards.
Imagine how hard it must be for the mother of a young black man, watching him change from a loving, smart boy to someone that idolizes violent criminals. They know, sooner or later, their son will take it a step too far and end up murdering someone, be murdered or hopefully just go to prison long enough for this rage to subside.
Knowing that there are Zimmermans in this world, capable of stopping the out of control actions of men like Martin, must run a chill through the hearts of every Mom that has seen her child&#8217;s behavior spin out of control. If Zimmerman would have just taken a beating and went home, another angry black man could have survived another day. The hope for a good life for her son flickers on.


----------



## AR Cattails

This is just one example why I feel like George Zimmerman is a doomed man, even if he is found innocent of all charges in court.

There are some that will always feel like this jerk feels. Zimmerman doesn't stand a chance anymore.

Mike Tyson on George Zimmerman:


----------



## Darren

Sonshine said:


> They are basing their conclusions on the known facts, but no one has all the facts yet.


You touched on something else, while the prosecutor should have the autopsy results, some of the other test results such as the toxicology report probably aren't finished. People have been mislead by the CSI series to believe test results are available quickly when months are the norm.

It's fairly certain, the prosecutor doesn't have all of the potential evidence at this point. After watching the press conference it's obvious her decision was pushed by political reality. While she has to take the role of seeking justice for the victim, her performance, and it was a performance, was a bit over done. It was definitely theatrical.

The reality is there won't be a trial anytime soon. One article mentioned another controversial case under Corey that is approaching a year without going to trial. Hopefully the immediate goal of defusing anger will work. Based on the black and white crime last year in cities like Philladelphia and the mobs at some of the state fairs, Trayvon will still be an excuse for violence this year.

Charging Zimmerman with murder 2 is going to be viewed by some Black youth as proof of a murder without the trial and verdict. No matter which way this case goes it's going to become an excuse for more violence.


----------



## pancho

poppy said:


> I do not think he will be found guilty and the prosecutor knows it. This is just a charge to appease the blacks.


Our country is in bad shape when our law has to stoop low enough to charge a man only for the reason it will appease the colored people.


----------



## painterswife

pancho said:


> Our country is in bad shape when our law has to stoop low enough to charge a man only for the reason it will appease the colored people.


I believe that is not at all true.

He was charged because there was enough evidence to do so. All everyone really wanted was the justice system to properly look at the evidence.

I am Caucasian and I believed he should be charged. No one's racial background had anything to do with it, for me and all of the people I know.


----------



## pancho

painterswife said:


> I believe that is not at all true.
> 
> He was charged because there was enough evidence to do so. All everyone really wanted was the justice system to properly look at the evidence.
> 
> I am Caucasian and I believed he should be charged. No one's racial background had anything to do with it, for me and all of the people I know.


There was not any evidence that showed any crime was committed. The justice system worked in the first place. It was forced to go against the law when a mob forced it to file charges against a man who hadn't committed a crime.


----------



## TNHermit

Well the report is out now that Try Mom was on Today this morning and she says she thinks it was an accident and things got out of hand. Now what are you going to do with that after all the screamin and yellin


----------



## Guest

TNHermit said:


> Well the report is out now that Try Mom was on Today this morning and she says she thinks it was an accident and things got out of hand. Now what are you going to do with that after all the screamin and yellin


Are you stating that accident can not be criminally prosecuted? hmm interesting


----------



## SteveD(TX)

TNHermit said:


> Well the report is out now that Try Mom was on Today this morning and she says she thinks it was an accident and things got out of hand. Now what are you going to do with that after all the screamin and yellin


Even if it was an accident, the black community wants his hide. They want him to serve hard time in jail - a long time. They want "justice for Trayvon" - their own idea of what it represents and no one else's. Justice for Zimmerman is not the issue here, and the truth is not what they are after.


----------



## Darren

dlmcafee said:


> Are you stating that accident can not be criminally prosecuted? hmm interesting


Obviously the prosecutor doesn't believe Martin's death was an accident. I would be surprised if the prosecutor wasn't banging her head against the wall because the mother just made the case more difficult to get a conviction. Between Obama running his mouth, the media getting caught inventing news and now the mother letting Zimmerman off a murder 2 charge, getting a jury that can be impartial is going to be beyond tough.

U.S. News - Trayvon Martin's mom says she thinks his killing was an 'accident'

It now looks like Zimmerman is the only one with any common sense.


----------



## Allen W

Zimmerman, with a gun, pursued the young man and at some point the young man was killed. If Zimmerman was in danger it was because he put him self there. Charges definitely needed to be filed.

Too many posting on this seem to feel it was alright to shoot the black kid because he wasn't where he belonged or was wearing a hoodie.


----------



## TNHermit

dlmcafee said:


> Are you stating that accident can not be criminally prosecuted? hmm interesting


I'm sayin you got 66 pages of people speculating evrything under the sun. Plus 4 weeks or better of media grousing and all the time the MOTHER thinks it was an accident. Why didn't she say that at the start.
All this thing has been is something to keep peoples minds off the important things. The MOTHER thinks it was an accidnet. The Prosecutor didn't think he had enough to arrest him or get it into court.

What this whole thing is is a way to show how this summer when things get going how the commies are going to be able to take any situation and work it up into a full blown crisis. Last I heard 720 black people have been killed since this thing started. Heard much about it ?? Tell me who is running the country and who the stupid are!


----------



## Guest

Darren said:


> Obviously the prosecutor doesn't believe Martin's death was an accident. I would be surprised if the prosecutor wasn't banging her head against the wall because the mother just made the case more difficult to get a conviction. Between Obama running his mouth, the media getting caught inventing news and now the mother letting Zimmerman off a murder 2 charge, getting a jury that can be impartial is going to be beyond tough.
> 
> U.S. News - Trayvon Martin's mom says she thinks his killing was an 'accident'
> 
> *It now looks like Zimmerman is the only one with any common sense*.


 That I think is a stretch, but hey, you know he accidently tried to detain or interview someone on a dark rainy night with no back up and no authority who had not committed any criminal violation he knew of. I get ya, yep that's common sense.


----------



## Darren

Allen W said:


> Zimmerman, with a gun, pursued the young man and at some point the young man was killed. If Zimmerman was in danger it was because he put him self there. Charges definitely needed to be filed.
> 
> Too many posting on this seem to feel it was alright to shoot the black kid because he wasn't where he belonged or was wearing a hoodie.


You're barking up the wrong trees, plural. The hoodie had nothing to do with it. Nor did the kid being Black have anything to do with it. Of course that is what the media would like for you to believe.

Martin had the misfortune to get himself suspended from school because of a zero tolerance for drugs policy. His mother insisted he go to his father's fiance's place to keep him away from his friends. That community had already experienced burglaries and at least one home invasion. So the community watch was looking for anyone who didn;t belong there.

Now add Martin wandering around and dawdling from the time he left the 7 Eleven to return to the house. The father and the fiance going out for the night may have been a contributing factor.

While we don't know who threw the first punch, we do know from a witness that Martin continued to beat Zimmerman while he was on his back. Zimmerman's wounds support the witnesses statement.

All of that set the stage for Martin's death. Take out any of the above and Martin would probably be alive today. Martin could have been white and wearing something other than a hoodie and he would have still been seen as suspicious in that community.


----------



## pancho

Anyone who really cares about the incident can get the real facts if they desire.
It is easy to see the people who would rather discard the facts and go with rumors and lies. That is their right. If they would rather get their news and facts from the likes of Sharpton and Jackson that is their right.
Just don't expect people who really care about the truth to listen to them or take ther seriously.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Don't kid yourself.* Anyone who wants their kids to walk the streets safely have thought of it.*
> 
> It's still a tough case, but we don't know what they have yet.


Like I said, just the *ANTI* gunners (and the crooks)
They are the only ones worried about *LEGALLY ARMED* people


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Are you stating that *accident* can not be criminally prosecuted? hmm interesting


Not with a "murder " charge


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Allen W said:


> Zimmerman, with a gun, pursued the young man and at some point the young man was killed. If Zimmerman was in danger it was because he put him self there. Charges definitely needed to be filed.
> 
> Too many posting on this seem to feel it was alright to shoot the black kid *because he wasn't where he belonged or was wearing a hoodie*.


 
Neither of those are the reason he was shot.

Trying to* beat a man to death* is why he was shot


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> Neither of those are the reason he was shot.
> 
> Trying to* beat a man to death* is why he was shot


That is what the shooter is saying. We don't have any evidence that is true.


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not with a "murder " charge


Blanket statement that you are not criminally liable in an accident are false. You just like an argument.


----------



## Allen W

Darren said:


> You're barking up the wrong trees, plural. The hoodie had nothing to do with it. Nor did the kid being Black have anything to do with it. Of course that is what the media would like for you to believe.
> 
> Martin had the misfortune to get himself suspended from school because of a zero tolerance for drugs policy. His mother insisted he go to his father's fiance's place to keep him away from his friends. That community had already experienced burglaries and at least one home invasion. So the community watch was looking for anyone who didn;t belong there.
> 
> Now add Martin wandering around and dawdling from the time he left the 7 Eleven to return to the house. The father and the fiance going out for the night may have been a contributing factor.
> 
> While we don't know who threw the first punch, we do know from a witness that Martin continued to beat Zimmerman while he was on his back. Zimmerman's wounds support the witnesses statement.
> 
> All of that set the stage for Martin's death. Take out any of the above and Martin would probably be alive today. Martin could have been white and wearing something other than a hoodie and he would have still been seen as suspicious in that community.


I wasn't referring to the media bias about him being black and wearing a hoodie, I was referring to posts on this thread. 

Treyvon school records, local break ins, his parents or Zimmerman being the neighbor hood watch have nothing to do with it. Zimmerman pursued him in the dark with a gun when no one was in danger, and now Treyvon is dead. 

Zimmerman may be out of luck on the stand my ground law because he was following Treyvon at some point in this incident.


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> Neither of those are the reason he was shot.
> 
> Trying to* beat a man to death* is why he was shot


Now who is spreading unproven assumptions and stating them as fact.


----------



## MO_cows

pancho said:


> Our country is in bad shape when our law has to stoop low enough to charge a man only for the reason it will appease the colored people.


Gimme a break! A teenager is dead at the hands of a neighborhood watch volunteer. Sending this case to trial to have the real evidence examined in a court of law and decided by a jury, not just reviewed by a bunch of computer jockeys killing time on the internet, or tried in the media, is the right thing to do. It's not appeasing anybody, it is our justice system at work. It is really unfortunate race became such a factor in this case, because "teenager killed by neighborhood watch volunteer" is plenty unusual and sensational all by itself. And it has been really depressing and disheartening to see all the racial bias that still exists in 2012. I really wanted to believe we had come farther than this!


----------



## haypoint

dlmcafee said:


> That I think is a stretch, but hey, you know he accidently tried to detain or interview someone on a dark rainy night with no back up and no authority who had not committed any criminal violation he knew of. I get ya, yep that's common sense.


 Momma knows what her son was capable of. I think she has seen his outbursts of anger.
We don't have any evidence that Zimmerman "tried to detain" Martin.
There is no law against Martin walking up behind homes at night in the rain. But one should expect that it looks suspicious.
There is no law against asking anyone, âWhat are you doing?"
There is no law requiring you to answer to any stranger.

We are left with a lot of blanks. Each person is free to fill them how they want.

I doubt that a 5'9" fat guy is going to grap, punch, or even touch a 6'3" 200 pound young man. Black men, between 17 and 23 top the list for demographic groups prone to violence.

I don't have all the facts. But from all the information provided, I think Martin copped an attitude about being followed, confronted Zimmerman on his way back to his car. Zimmerman asked Martin what he was doing. Martin got verbally aggressive. Zimmerman stood his ground. Martin punched Zimmerman as a way to show how tough he was and, like a Pit Bull, once Zimmerman went down, Martin went to work on him.

I doubt Zimmerman had ever encountered anyone that thought they were so tough or had so much disrespect for authority.

No one signs up for Neighborhood Watch because they want to mind their own business.


----------



## Guest

haypoint said:


> Momma knows what her son was capable of. I think she has seen his outbursts of anger.
> We don't have any evidence that Zimmerman "tried to detain" Martin.
> There is no law against Martin walking up behind homes at night in the rain. But one should expect that it looks suspicious.
> There is no law against asking anyone, âWhat are you doing?"
> There is no law requiring you to answer to any stranger.
> 
> We are left with a lot of blanks. Each person is free to fill them how they want.
> 
> I doubt that a 5'9" fat guy is going to grap, punch, or even touch a 6'3" 200 pound young man. Black men, between 17 and 23 top the list for demographic groups prone to violence.
> 
> I don't have all the facts. But from all the information provided, I think Martin copped an attitude about being followed, confronted Zimmerman on his way back to his car. Zimmerman asked Martin what he was doing. Martin got verbally aggressive. Zimmerman stood his ground. Martin punched Zimmerman as a way to show how tough he was and, like a Pit Bull, once Zimmerman went down, Martin went to work on him.
> 
> I doubt Zimmerman had ever encountered anyone that thought they were so tough or had so much disrespect for authority.
> 
> No one signs up for Neighborhood Watch because they want to mind their own business.


All assumptions, some based on flawed witness testimony which is next to worthless. Let the forensic evidence and all the testimony determine the case.


----------



## pancho

painterswife said:


> That is what the shooter is saying. We don't have any evidence that is true.


No evidence at all, just 911 calls and tapes and several eye witnesses.
Nothing that would matter to a mob.


----------



## Allen W

Bearfootfarm said:


> Like I said, just the *ANTI* gunners (and the crooks)
> They are the only ones worried about *LEGALLY ARMED* people


Zimmerman was legally armed, and I support that. But what he done while being armed my his down fall. We're going to have to wait and see how him pursueing Treyvon before the incident plays out with the stand my ground law at trail to get that answer. If it gets that far.


----------



## haypoint

MO_cows said:


> Gimme a break! A teenager is dead at the hands of a neighborhood watch volunteer. Sending this case to trial to have the real evidence examined in a court of law and decided by a jury, not just reviewed by a bunch of computer jockeys killing time on the internet, or tried in the media, is the right thing to do. It's not appeasing anybody, it is our justice system at work. It is really unfortunate race became such a factor in this case, because "teenager killed by neighborhood watch volunteer" is plenty unusual and sensational all by itself. And it has been really depressing and disheartening to see all the racial bias that still exists in 2012. I really wanted to believe we had come farther than this!


Me, too.
But when we don't get coverage outside the county when a police officer is shot or two girls get stuffed in a car's trunk, later found shot in the forehead, we have to accept that it is race that propels black emotions.
There are plenty of unusual or sensational crimes that go unnoticed because they are black on black or black on white. But when it is white on black, even almost white on almost black, that's enough for revolt.

As a society we know that when we turn a blind eye on our children's behaviour, they get worse. Yet, as a society, we have quietly accepted higher rates of violent crime in the black communities, out of fear that they won't like us, or call us names. Every outragous command by the black community has us hiding our heads and we give them what they want. You could have forecast the result.

We have gotten to the point where a man saves his own life from a vicious assault and we accept his arrest. That my friends is a sad day.


----------



## pancho

MO_cows said:


> Gimme a break! A teenager is dead at the hands of a neighborhood watch volunteer. Sending this case to trial to have the real evidence examined in a court of law and decided by a jury, not just reviewed by a bunch of computer jockeys killing time on the internet, or tried in the media, is the right thing to do. It's not appeasing anybody, it is our justice system at work. It is really unfortunate race became such a factor in this case, because "teenager killed by neighborhood watch volunteer" is plenty unusual and sensational all by itself. And it has been really depressing and disheartening to see all the racial bias that still exists in 2012. I really wanted to believe we had come farther than this!


Our justice system worked in the first place. A man was attacked and he defended himself. 
A group of people decided, without knowing the facts, that the justice system was wrong. They decided to gather a mob and demand something else above the law be done. They threatened our justice system. They put out dead or alive wanted posters for an individual. They offered a reward for the death or kidnapping of an individual.
Our justice system gave in to a mob.
We have gone backwards.


----------



## pancho

dlmcafee said:


> All assumptions, some based on flawed witness testimony which is next to worthless. Let the forensic evidence and all the testimony determine the case.


Why not just turn Zimmerman in to the black panthers and collect the reward.
That is exactly what our excuse for LEOs are doing now. With one exception, they are not getting the reward.


----------



## haypoint

I think that Zimmerman pulled his gun and shot Martin while being beated. Maybe he did it after being beaten.
How would this have been different if Zimmerman had pulled his gun, aimed it at Martin before they got close together? Maybe that would have been a signal to Martin to stay away or calm down? Maybe Martin would have feared for his life and attacked Zimmerman in order to save his own life?

Either way, pulling the gun before being assaulted or pulling the gun after being assaulted, it is Zimmerman's fault?


----------



## FourDeuce

So, after all this time people have changed their mind and decided that Lynch Mob mentality is a good thing?:smack
Funny how history(or is that ethics) keeps getting revised.


----------



## FourDeuce

dlmcafee said:


> All assumptions, some based on flawed witness testimony which is next to worthless. Let the forensic evidence and all the testimony determine the case.


That's what happened before, but then the lynch mob demanded blood and the politicians caved in to "public pressure" in order to let public opinion(at least the squeaky wheel opinion) trump forensic evidence.


----------



## time

dlmcafee said:


> All assumptions, some based on flawed witness testimony which is next to worthless.* Let the forensic evidence and all the testimony determine the case*.


A standard you don't apply to yourself?

You make the statement,



> That I think is a stretch, but hey, you know *he accidently tried to detain or interview someone *on a dark rainy night with no back up and no authority who had not committed any criminal violation he knew of. I get ya, yep that's common sense.


Where is your forensic evidence and tesitimony that Z tried to detain or interview M?

Most of your comment here is not just assumption, but flat out false.

"no authority" Zimmerman has all the authority he needs to be in a public space and follow whomever he pleases. Show me where that is illegal.

"no back up" Z had already called and was on the phone with police.

So, while you pretend someone else's conclusions are faulty due to assumptions, your very willing to use your own assumtions to make claims.

Your going to have to show us the evidence that Z tried to detain or interveiw M. 

Otherwise.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> That is what the shooter is saying. We *don't have any evidence* that is true.


*Two eyewitnesses* and the injuries aren't "evidence"?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Blanket statement that you are not criminally liable in an accident are false. You just like an argument.


I just like the facts.
If it's "accidental" you don't charge someone with "murder"


----------



## ryanthomas

Pearl B said:


> Me thinks its all political/emotional now. I dont think he stands a chance. Maybe he will get lucky and sent to a prison with a high Mexican population.


That would not be lucky for a Peruvian. Mexicans are not going to protect him.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Now who is spreading* unproven assumptions* and stating them as fact.


Two eyewitnesses saw Martin beating Zimmerman.
Those are not "assumptions"

THESE are assumptions:



> you know he accidently *tried to detain or interview someone* on a dark rainy night with no back up and *no authority* who *had not committed any criminal violation*


----------



## painterswife

pancho said:


> No evidence at all, just 911 calls and tapes and several eye witnesses.
> Nothing that would matter to a mob.


I have seen no 911 call that shows someone saying "Trying to beat a man to death is why he was shot"

You are extrapolating and therefore there is still no evidence.


----------



## pancho

painterswife said:


> I have seen no 911 call that shows someone saying "Trying to beat a man to death is why he was shot"
> 
> You are extrapolating and therefore there is still no evidence.


I am listening to the eye witnesses account of what happened and listening to the police calls and 911 tapes.

You are listening to Sharpton and Jackson saying what they think will incite a riot.

That is your choice. You can believe Sharpton and Jackson and ignore the eye witnesses if you want. Just don't expect everyone to do the same thing.
Not everyone is looking to lower race relations. Not everyone makes their living by causing problems.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> I have seen no 911 call that shows someone saying "Trying to beat a man to death is why he was shot"
> 
> You are extrapolating and therefore there is *still no evidence*.


The eyewitness statements say Martin was on top of Zimmerman,* beating* him.

A broken nose and the wounds to the back of the head constitute "serious bodily injury", which is grounds to use deadly force to stop the attack

Trying to deny evidence based only on precise wording of a 911 call seems pretty silly

Have you heard any calls that said "Zimmerman murdered that poor little boy"?


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> Two eyewitnesses saw Martin beating Zimmerman.
> Those are not "assumptions"
> 
> THESE are assumptions:


Yes and in context they were satirical, maybe you missed that, my bad. I have no more evidence than you in this case but you still spew your bigoted assumptions. You assume the witness statements are true, you assume there is no other explanation of events, you assume forensic evidence supports your assumption. I am not going to assume anything other than this was handled wrong from the start and that is more of an opinion than an assumption.


----------



## painterswife

pancho said:


> I am listening to the eye witnesses account of what happened and listening to the police calls and 911 tapes.
> 
> You are listening to Sharpton and Jackson saying what they think will incite a riot.
> 
> That is your choice. You can believe Sharpton and Jackson and ignore the eye witnesses if you want. Just don't expect everyone to do the same thing.
> Not everyone is looking to lower race relations. Not everyone makes their living by causing problems.


I don't like Sharpton or Jackson. I don't listen to them. Again you don't have the facts you keep making them up.


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> The eyewitness statements say Martin was on top of Zimmerman,* beating* him.
> 
> A broken nose and the wounds to the back of the head constitute "serious bodily injury", which is grounds to use deadly force to stop the attack
> 
> Trying to deny evidence based only on precise wording of a 911 call seems pretty silly
> 
> Have you heard any calls that said "Zimmerman murdered that poor little boy"?


The 911 tapes say that a guy with a white Tshirt was on top. They say nothing about a beating.

We do not have any info other than the shooter's on how the fight started, who hit who or why. All else is speculation. There is too much information that we do not have.


----------



## Darren

Allen W said:


> I wasn't referring to the media bias about him being black and wearing a hoodie, I was referring to posts on this thread.
> 
> Treyvon school records, local break ins, his parents or Zimmerman being the neighbor hood watch have nothing to do with it. [b[Zimmerman pursued him in the dark with a gun[/b] when no one was in danger, and now Treyvon is dead.
> 
> Zimmerman may be out of luck on the stand my ground law because he was following Treyvon at some point in this incident.


Zimmerman wouldn't have called in a suspicious sighting if a neighborhood watch hadn't been formed to assist law enforcement in combating crime because of the burglaries and home invasion in his gated community. If Trayvon hadn't been suspended and had other issues, his mother would not have felt the need to get him out of his home to get him away from his friends.

"Our nation is built on the strength of our citizens. Every day, we encounter situations calling upon us to be the eyes and ears of law enforcement. Not only does the Neighborhood Watch Program allow citizens to help in the fight against crime, it is also an opportunity for communities to bond through service."

Oddly enough that's from an organization website partnering with the Justice Department.

Deprecated Browser Error

From you I get the impression of a hunter, Zimmerman, stalking someone with his gun drawn. How did Zimmerman know there was no danger? Zimmerman obviously had his nose broken and his head gashed.


----------



## Darren

Zimmerman pleads not guilty. Zimmerman doesn't look that big in the picture at 5' 9". 

George Zimmerman charged with 2nd-degree murder: Trayvon Martin shooter to remain in jail (LIVE coverage) | The Lookout - Yahoo! News


----------



## Allen W

Darrin

I think he got in over his head, maybe trying to play cop a little too much.


----------



## pancho

dlmcafee said:


> Yes and in context they were satirical, maybe you missed that, my bad. I have no more evidence than you in this case but you still spew your bigoted assumptions. You assume the witness statements are true, you assume there is no other explanation of events, you assume forensic evidence supports your assumption. I am not going to assume anything other than this was handled wrong from the start and that is more of an opinion than an assumption.


I would say it was handled right from the start.
When the mobs took over things changed.
Evidence didn't matter.
Eye witness accounts didn't matter.
Calls to the police didn't matter.
911 tapes didn't matter.

The thing that matteres is some people saw a chance to be on TV and further their racist beliefs. Some saw a chance of getting some money.


----------



## pancho

painterswife said:


> I don't like Sharpton or Jackson. I don't listen to them. Again you don't have the facts you keep making them up.


For a person who doesn't like someone you sure do take their stories as facts.
I am not making up facts, just listening to the tapes, eye witnesses, and looking at the evidence.

How do you account for the wounds on Zimmerman?


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> I would say it was handled right from the start.
> When the mobs took over things changed.
> Evidence didn't matter.
> Eye witness accounts didn't matter.
> Calls to the police didn't matter.
> 911 tapes didn't matter.
> 
> The thing that matteres is some people saw a chance to be on TV and further their racist beliefs. Some saw a chance of getting some money.


You don't know that. We don't know what new evidence the prosecutor might have obtained that we don't know about. To assume that they have nothing new, or even nothing at all, doesn't agree with the charges filed. While I'm surprised at the 2nd degree murder charge, I can't really criticize that charge until I know what they have. We'll all have to wait and see.


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> I would say it was handled right from the start.
> When the mobs took over things changed.
> Evidence didn't matter.
> Eye witness accounts didn't matter.
> Calls to the police didn't matter.
> 911 tapes didn't matter.
> 
> The thing that matteres is some people saw a chance to be on TV and further their racist beliefs. Some saw a chance of getting some money.


None of us, none of the media and certainly none of the civil rights activists or members of the black caucus has all the evidence. Why not let the system work?


----------



## Darren

Allen W said:


> Darrin
> 
> I think he got in over his head, maybe trying to play cop a little too much.


That he got in over his head is obvious. I doubt he thought he was going to get his nose broken, his head bashed and have his KelTec malfunction while Trayvon was whaling on him.

If I could ask Zimmerman one question it would be, "Mr Zimmerman would you recommend a KelTec?" 

The ex-Mrs. Martin is back to claiming her son's death was a cold blooded murder. 

"Trayvon Martin's mother retracted her comments that she believes her son's fatal shooting by George Zimmerman was an accident, telling MSNBC-TV on Thursday afternoon that she actually believes "George Zimmerman stalked my son and murdered him in cold blood." 

U.S. News - Update: Trayvon Martin's mom retracts 'accident' characterization, says Zimmerman killed him in 'cold blood'


----------



## painterswife

pancho said:


> For a person who doesn't like someone you sure do take their stories as facts.
> I am not making up facts, just listening to the tapes, eye witnesses, and looking at the evidence.
> 
> How do you account for the wounds on Zimmerman?


How can I take their stories as fact when I don't know their stories? Again you assume facts not in evidence.

You are embellishing. plain and simple. A struggle accounts for injuries. That does not say how, or what happened in that struggle so you can not assume. "Trying to beat a man to death is why he was shot" is a far cry from a struggle with out corroboration.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> You don't know that. We don't know what new evidence the prosecutor might have obtained that we don't know about. To assume that they have nothing new, or even nothing at all, doesn't agree with the charges filed. While I'm surprised at the 2nd degree murder charge, I can't really criticize that charge until I know what they have. We'll all have to wait and see.


"The thing that matters is some people saw a chance to be on TV and further their racist beliefs. Some saw a chance of getting some money."

When the race whores don't address the black on black violence that has destroyed their communities but show up when it appears to be white on black violence, I'd say there's something involved other than a legitimate concern for good race relations.

Even the New York Times had to get innovative and change their description to white Hispanic from white. You can tell me there wasn't an agenda but I'll be LMAO at the same time.


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> None of us, none of the media and certainly none of the civil rights activists or members of the black caucus has all the evidence. Why not let the system work?


The system did work.
The mob didn't like the way the system worked.
The law didn't protect the criminal. The mob forced the law to go against the laws, the evidence, the eye witnesses, and the 911 calls.
Now the mob has its way. The criminal is the victim.


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> How can I take their stories as fact when I don't know their stories? Again you assume facts not in evidence.
> 
> You are embellishing. plain and simple. A struggle accounts for injuries. That does not say how, or what happened in that struggle so you can not assume. "Trying to beat a man to death is why he was shot" is a far cry from a struggle with out corroboration.


You're ignoring the witness who went by with his dog and made the 911 call that recorded the screams.


----------



## pancho

painterswife said:


> How can I take their stories as fact when I don't know their stories? Again you assume facts not in evidence.
> 
> You are embellishing. plain and simple. A struggle accounts for injuries. That does not say how, or what happened in that struggle so you can not assume. "Trying to beat a man to death is why he was shot" is a far cry from a struggle with out corroboration.


Kind of hard to believe you don't know their stories when you post them.
You either get your info straight from Sharpton and Jackson or 2nd hand from the people who do get their info from them.

You definately do not get your info from the facts, evidence, and eye witnesses.


----------



## painterswife

pancho said:


> Kind of hard to believe you don't know their stories when you post them.
> You either get your info straight from Sharpton and Jackson or 2nd hand from the people who do get their info from them.
> 
> You definately do not get your info from the facts, evidence, and eye witnesses.


What stories do you think I am posting that came from them?


----------



## painterswife

Darren said:


> You're ignoring the witness who went by with his dog and made the 911 call that recorded the screams.


No I am not. I am just not taking his words an extrapolating that into something else.


----------



## pancho

painterswife said:


> No I am not. I am just not taking his words an extrapolating that into something else.


I have a hard time thinking of anything else except what he saw.
He saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him.
What part of that is so hard to understand.

Oh, I forgot. Sharpton and Jackson said that didn't happen.
Go ahead and tell us what they said about the man.
I need a laugh.


----------



## painterswife

pancho said:


> I have a hard time thinking of anything else except what he saw.
> He saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him.
> What part of that is so hard to understand.
> 
> Oh, I forgot. Sharpton and Jackson said that didn't happen.
> Go ahead and tell us what they said about the man.
> I need a laugh.


I have read and listened to the tapes. No where does it say he was beating him. It says he was on top of him. Maybe you should re read and listen to the 911 tapes before you keep posting the same old drivel.


----------



## pancho

painterswife said:


> I have read and listened to the tapes. No where does it say he was beating him. It says he was on top of him. Maybe you should re read and listen to the 911 tapes before you keep posting the same old drivel.


You can do much better than that.
I barely got a chuckle out of that one.
Maybe you better get back on the black panther website for some more jokes.

How do you think Zimmerman got the broken nose and busted head?
Wait, I know. He did it himself so he could blame the poor little colored boy.


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> How do you think Zimmerman got the broken nose and busted head?


I leave open the possibility that Martin inflicted those injuries while defending himself.


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> No I am not. I am just not taking his words an extrapolating that into something else.


Aliens didn't break Zimmerman's nose and put the gash on the back of his head. Somehow I can't see Zimmerman doing that do himself. You're still left with the fact that one man was on top of the other beating him.

Have you ever heard the phrase, "You don't kick a man when he's down?" It takes a certain mindset to continue attacking a man on his back. The funeral director let the cat out of the bag when he mentioned Trayvon didn't have any injuries other than the bullet wound.

If you have an alternative explanation for how the back of Zimmerman's head was cut open, how he came to have grass on the back of his jacket, how his nose was broken and how the gun malfunctioned and how Trayvon did not sustain injuries from the fight other than the bullet wound, I'm very interested.


----------



## painterswife

pancho said:


> You can do much better than that.
> I barely got a chuckle out of that one.
> Maybe you better get back on the black panther website for some more jokes.
> 
> How do you think Zimmerman got the broken nose and busted head?
> Wait, I know. He did it himself so he could blame the poor little colored boy.


Are you actually reading what I have posted or just making things up as you go?


----------



## pancho

Nevada said:


> I leave open the possibility that Martin inflicted those injuries while defending himself.


Nevada, at this stage of the game I don't think many people really care about what you think.

You hit that same stopping point in this case just as you did when you said Bush would never give up the presidency.
People quit taking you serious then also.
Maybe someday something will jog you past these glitches.
Hope so because most of the time you have well thought out posts.


----------



## InvalidID

I think I should like to add my speculation. None of us really knows what happened even based on the evidence we've seen. But evidence plus gut feeling leads us as humans to want to speculate, we don't like open questions. So, here's mine.

I think Zimmerman was playing cop. Likely he's a wannabe that can't pass the tests or something. I think he saw someone acting strange and instead of waiting for help decided he'd go investigate for himself. Perhaps he was afraid the 'perp' would get away before police arrived. He was easy for Martin to spot as he was on the phone talking. I don't think he intended to kill the kid though. Generally one does not call 911 BEFORE murdering someone in cold blood. Generally one does have their weapon drawn before confronting someone they intend to shoot.

I think Martin is a 'hood rat. He may or may not have been up to something but he did not like Martin tailing him. Generally speaking hood rats will not get violent unless in a group, so this is odd to me as well. It doesn't really matter anymore though, because once you're on top of someone beating them you can see how this person would fear for their life. Remembering that the gun wasn't drawn until this point we can say Zimmerman hadn't intended to kill the kid until he was afraid for his life.

Sharpton and certain parts of the government plus many anti-gun types do not like people handling crime on their own and this is why it's such a big deal. Certain groups are riling people up for their own benefit. Mostly to keep honest folks from protecting themselves and their neighborhoods. They do not like people going out and stopping crime nor do they like people investigating these things. They believe we should depend on them for these 'services'. This becoming such a large issue, the attacks on the Stand Your Ground laws, the race card, the media LYING to us... All serves the purpose of keeping people afraid.

*JUSTICE, n. A commodity which in a more or less adulterated condition the State sells to the citizen as a reward for his allegiance, taxes and personal service.* ~Ambrose Bierce


----------



## pancho

Invalid, I think you are probably much closer to the truth than anyone so far.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Yes and in context they were satirical, maybe you missed that, my bad. I have no more evidence than you in this case but you still spew your* bigoted assumptions*. *You assume the witness statements are true*, you assume there is no other explanation of events, *you assume forensic evidence supports your assumption*. *I am not going to assume anything* other than this was handled wrong from the startand that is more of an opinion than an assumption.


 
Bigoted? Get real

Why would they lie?

I don't "assume" he had injuries.
It's well documented

LOL 
You continue making assumptions, all the while denying it


----------



## pancho

painterswife said:


> Are you actually reading what I have posted or just making things up as you go?


Yes, I am reading everything you have posted from the very first.
I will have to admit you have some of the funniest posts about something so serious. Are you really joking us or just don't know better?


----------



## Nevada

pancho said:


> Nevada, at this stage of the game I don't think many people really care about what you think.
> 
> You hit that same stopping point in this case just as you did when you said Bush would never give up the presidency.
> People quit taking you serious then also.
> Maybe someday something will jog you past these glitches.
> Hope so because most of the time you have well thought out posts.


The thing is, we still don't know the facts of this case.

******
PS -- We did pick up an additional allegation during the hearing this morning.

_Zimmerman pursued Florida teenager Trayvon Martin as he tried to run home and provoked a confrontation before shooting Martin in the chest during a struggle, prosecutors contended in court documents made public Thursday._
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...ovoked-confrontation-with-trayvon-martin?lite

So according to prosecutors, Martin was trying to run home. It would have been unethical for the prosecutor to say that without some kind of evidence to back it up.


----------



## Darren

Report from eye witness to the fight that called 911.

Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman


----------



## InvalidID

Nevada said:


> The thing is, we still don't know the facts of this case.
> 
> ******
> PS -- We did pick up an additional allegation during the hearing this morning.
> 
> _Zimmerman pursued Florida teenager Trayvon Martin as he tried to run home and provoked a confrontation before shooting Martin in the chest during a struggle, prosecutors contended in court documents made public Thursday._
> U.S. News - Prosecutors contend George Zimmerman provoked confrontation with Trayvon Martin
> 
> So according to prosecutors, Martin was trying to run home. It would have been unethical for the prosecutor to say that without some kind of evidence to back it up.


 And you think it is beyond a prosecutor to be unethical? Even been charged with anything before? I have, and the prosecutor 'forgot' to send me a court date knowing I would win the case. I was sleeping with one of his witnesses and she told me when to show up.

You should have seen his face when the judge called my name and I said here. When I asked if he was surprised to see me he almost choked on his tongue. Long story short, case dismissed and that guy is not a lawyer anymore.

So no, I don't think the prosecutors word is good enough. They'll try and make a case anyway they can.


----------



## time

Nevada said:


> The thing is, we still don't know the facts of this case.
> 
> ******
> PS -- We did pick up an additional allegation during the hearing this morning.
> 
> _Zimmerman pursued Florida teenager Trayvon Martin as he tried to run home and provoked a confrontation before shooting Martin in the chest during a struggle, prosecutors contended in court documents made public Thursday._
> U.S. News - Prosecutors contend George Zimmerman provoked confrontation with Trayvon Martin
> 
> So according to prosecutors, Martin was trying to run home. It would have been unethical for the prosecutor to say that without some kind of evidence to back it up.


LOL.

The evidence is the same evidence we already know of.

Someone might post the actuall affidavit, but more quotes can be found here.

Trayvon Martin accident George Zimmerman charged: Trayvon's mom clarifies 'accident' statement, calling Zimmerman a murderer - Orlando Sentinel


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> *The 911 tapes* say that a guy with a white Tshirt was on top. *They say nothing about a beating*.
> 
> We do not have any info other than the shooter's on how the fight started, *who hit who *or why. All else is speculation. *There is too much information that we do not have*.


If you don't have it, it's only because you haven't looked for it:

EYEWITNESS STATEMENT SAYS TRAYVON WAS BEATING UP ZIMMERMAN | 2 Way Street Politics

Eyewitness STATEMENT:



> âWhen I got upstairs and looked down, *the guy who was on top beating up the other guy*, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point,â John said.


We know they were fighting:



> Theyâre wrestling right in the back of my porch.


 
We know who was on top



> âThe guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: âhelp, helpâ¦


We know *who *had injuries CONSISTANT with a *beating*

We know "who hit who" because we know *who was injured* and who wasn't



> Sanford police say Zimmerman was *bloody in his face and head*, and the back of his shirt was wet and had grass stains, indicating *a struggle took place before the shooting.*


 
The eyewitness STATEMENTS are not "speculation".
They were taken the night of the incident.
The 911 *CALLS* are not the *only* evidence

Just because *you* don't know about it doesn't mean the information isn't available if you just LOOK for it


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> I leave open the possibility that Martin inflicted those injuries while defending himself.


What evidence is there to show Martin had *justification* to PHYSICALLY defend himself?

(Here's a hint: NONE)


----------



## Sonshine

Darren said:


> "The thing that matters is some people saw a chance to be on TV and further their racist beliefs. Some saw a chance of getting some money."
> 
> When the race whores don't address the black on black violence that has destroyed their communities but show up when it appears to be white on black violence, I'd say there's something involved other than a legitimate concern for good race relations.
> 
> Even the New York Times had to get innovative and change their description to white Hispanic from white. You can tell me there wasn't an agenda but I'll be LMAO at the same time.


I have no doubt that the media and those on the left have used this tragedy to promote division. However, I think too many are focusing on this instead of the actual case. I believe those on the left found a way to leak information and used it to stir up racial tensions. What I'm curious about is the information and evidence that was not leaked.


----------



## Sonshine

pancho said:


> The system did work.
> The mob didn't like the way the system worked.
> The law didn't protect the criminal. The mob forced the law to go against the laws, the evidence, the eye witnesses, and the 911 calls.
> Now the mob has its way. The criminal is the victim.


NONE of us has all the evidence, only what was leaked to us. I'd rather see ALL the evidence.


----------



## Sonshine

Darren said:


> You're ignoring the witness who went by with his dog and made the 911 call that recorded the screams.


I would like to have a professional determine who was screaming.


----------



## Sonshine

Darren said:


> Aliens didn't break Zimmerman's nose and put the gash on the back of his head. Somehow I can't see Zimmerman doing that do himself. You're still left with the fact that one man was on top of the other beating him.
> 
> Have you ever heard the phrase, "You don't kick a man when he's down?" It takes a certain mindset to continue attacking a man on his back. The funeral director let the cat out of the bag when he mentioned Trayvon didn't have any injuries other than the bullet wound.
> 
> If you have an alternative explanation for how the back of Zimmerman's head was cut open, how he came to have grass on the back of his jacket, how his nose was broken and how the gun malfunctioned and how Trayvon did not sustain injuries from the fight other than the bullet wound, I'm very interested.


If Martin didn't have any marks on his hands, how can you explain that? Most altercations like that would have caused some type of injuries to the one that was beating someone else. Although I do believe Martin did cause the injuries to Zimmerman. There's really no doubt that a fight happened, but that's really all I have seen that can be verified from what I have seen released.


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> Bigoted? Get real
> 
> Why would they lie?
> 
> I don't "assume" he had injuries.
> It's well documented
> 
> LOL
> You continue making assumptions, all the while denying it


Yep pretty much right on

bigÂ·otÂ·ed/&#712;big&#601;tid/
Adjective:	
Obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.
Expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> The thing is, we still don't know the facts of this case.
> 
> ******
> PS -- We did pick up an additional allegation during the hearing this morning.
> 
> _Zimmerman pursued Florida teenager Trayvon Martin as he tried to run home and provoked a confrontation before shooting Martin in the chest during a struggle, prosecutors contended in court documents made public Thursday._
> U.S. News - Prosecutors contend George Zimmerman provoked confrontation with Trayvon Martin
> 
> So *according to prosecutors, Martin was trying to run home*. It would have been unethical for the prosecutor to say that without some kind of evidence to back it up.


But according to Dee Dee, to whom you give so much credence , Martin said he would *NOT RUN*.
She also said Martin SPOKE (confronted) FIRST. (in one version)

So *which version* is the "truth" now?

The *mythical* scenario the State wants you to believe, or Dee Dee, who you claimed was so reliable before?

Why do you *NOW* believe the State when it* contradicts* your favorite witness so far?


----------



## Darren

Sonshine said:


> If Martin didn't have any marks on his hands, how can you explain that? Most altercations like that would have caused some type of injuries to the one that was beating someone else. Although I do believe Martin did cause the injuries to Zimmerman. There's really no doubt that a fight happened, but that's really all I have seen that can be verified from what I have seen released.


How are you going to injure your fist by punching someone in the face and breaking their nose? Likewise how are you going to injure your hands by slamming someone's head into a concrete sidewalk?

You don't necessarily injure your fists punching someone. Neither Martin or Zimmerman have been mentioned as having wounds to their hands.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> What evidence is there to show Martin had *justification* to PHYSICALLY defend himself?
> 
> (Here's a hint: NONE)


I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the prosecutor has nothing. That's hardly logical. If the prosecutor has nothing, acted without cause, and filed false reports to the court she's going to be in a lot of trouble.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Yep pretty much right on
> 
> bigÂ·otÂ·ed/&#712;big&#601;tid/
> Adjective:
> Obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own *opinions *and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.
> Expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance.


I'm not discussing opinions.
I'm going with the facts we have to work with

I don't care about your* opinions* if you don't try to pass them off as fact.


----------



## InvalidID

Nevada said:


> I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the prosecutor has nothing. That's hardly logical. If the prosecutor has nothing, acted without cause, and filed false reports to the court she's going to be in a lot of trouble.


 Not true at all. So long as she says she believes what she's saying and there is no proof to the contrary she's fine.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Sonshine said:


> I would like to have a* professional* determine who was screaming.


We would you think someone who *SAW and heard Zimmerman screaming* for help is less reliable than some "expert" who only has access to poor quality recordings?

These "experts" have already said their findings are NOT conclusive, and do NOT meet the "standards of evidence"


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not discussing opinions.
> I'm going with the facts we have to work with
> 
> I don't care about your* opinions* if you don't try to pass them off as fact.


Ok, do the same


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the prosecutor has nothing. That's hardly logical. If the prosecutor has nothing, acted without cause, and filed false reports to the court she's going to be in a lot of trouble.


That's bull! you can bet that the prosecutor covered her azz. That was obvious in her performance and theatrics during the press conference. The woman took the State of Florida off the hook by not presenting the case to a grand jury. That prevented an acquittal by a grand jury which would have unleashed God knows what violence in the state. And she filed a murder 2 charge requiring proof of a depraved mind. Don't tell me that isn't a reach.

The woman can give politicians pandering lessons.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the prosecutor has nothing. That's hardly logical. If the prosecutor has nothing, acted without cause, and filed false reports to the court she's going to be in a lot of trouble.


 
LOL

She has nothing *new* to add but her SPIN


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> If Martin didn't have any marks on his hands, how can you explain that?


After the first punch, he was supposedly slamming Zimmerman's head into the ground.
That wouldn't leave marks on your hands

Also, keep in mind that is ONLY based on a "report" from someone HIRED by the family (the funeral director) and NOT from the actual autopsy, so it may not even be true


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> 
> She has nothing *new* to add but her SPIN


Okay, you're on. We'll see if she has anything new before too long.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Ok, do the same


I have been all along.
It's your OPINION that I'm not

Disprove what I say *with facts to refute it* rather than the silly name calling youve resorted to.


----------



## InvalidID

Nevada said:


> Okay, you're on. We'll see if she has anything new before too long.


 You're going to want to be careful how much you trust this woman Nevada. She argued to have Zimmerman put in general population instead of protective custody. That is, in my opinion, nothing short of attempted murder on her part.

That certainly kills any ethics questions you have about her anyway.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Okay, you're on. We'll see if she has anything new before too long.


Anything new will be to Zimmerman's benefit
All she's offered so far is her SPECULATION as to how events unfolded.

Unless she has a* video* of that unaccounted for one-two minutes, she's *just guessing*, and that's not "evidence"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *She argued to have Zimmerman put in general population* instead of protective custody. That is, in my opinion, nothing short of attempted murder on her part.
> 
> That certainly kills any ethics questions you have about her anyway.


That's pure* insanity* unless she wants that NBP reward


----------



## InvalidID

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's pure* insanity* unless she wants that NBP reward


 Or knows she can't win the case...


----------



## Darren

Sonshine said:


> I have no doubt that the media and those on the left have used this tragedy to promote division. However, I think too many are focusing on this instead of the actual case. I believe those on the left found a way to leak information and used it to stir up racial tensions. What I'm curious about is the information and evidence that was not leaked.


We already have the key 911 tape recordings, the fact that Zimmerman was wounded, the fact the KelTec malfunctioned, the leak by the funeral director about Martin not being wounded during the fight other than the bullet wound, the girl friend's changing story, various maps synced with the 911 tapes showing the positions of the key events, the color of the two men's outerwear, the reason for Martin being sent away, the father's story for not being there with his son that night, and the leak that Zimmerman claimed he had to shoot in self defense.

Other than the autopsy, Martin's blood tests, tests on the clothing, Zimmerman's full statement, the test results on the KelTec and the photos taken by the police, I don't know what else hasn't been released.


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> I have been all along.
> It's your OPINION that I'm not
> 
> Disprove what I say *with facts to refute it* rather than the silly name calling youve resorted to.


There ya go I tried to compromise with ya, and you want to argue about that. 

One fact I am comfortable assuming (yep assume),,,you do not have all the facts and make assumptions based on media reports of facts obtained and edited by someone else. I've done this long enough to know the story you see floating the media waves is generally far from admissible fact in a legal proceeding.

Opinions are great silly.


----------



## Darren

InvalidID said:


> You're going to want to be careful how much you trust this woman Nevada. She argued to have Zimmerman put in general population instead of protective custody. That is, in my opinion, nothing short of attempted murder on her part.
> 
> That certainly kills any ethics questions you have about her anyway.


If that's true, it would have meant sure death for Zimmerman. That would obviously solve her problem. Do you have a link for that info? It's hard to believe the woman is that callous and cold-blooded even after her staged theatrics.


----------



## time

Sonshine said:


> I would like to have a professional determine who was screaming.


You do understand there is a witness that saw and heard zimmerman screaming for help don't you?

He actually talked back to zimmerman. During the fight.

No "profesional" is going to be able to dispute that.

Unless the witness is lying, it's very clear who was screaming.


----------



## Sonshine

Darren said:


> How are you going to injure your fist by punching someone in the face and breaking their nose? Likewise how are you going to injure your hands by slamming someone's head into a concrete sidewalk?
> 
> You don't necessarily injure your fists punching someone. Neither Martin or Zimmerman have been mentioned as having wounds to their hands.


Most fights I've seen both parties had injuries.


----------



## Sonshine

InvalidID said:


> You're going to want to be careful how much you trust this woman Nevada. She argued to have Zimmerman put in general population instead of protective custody. That is, in my opinion, nothing short of attempted murder on her part.
> 
> That certainly kills any ethics questions you have about her anyway.


Do you have proof of this?


----------



## Sonshine

Darren said:


> We already have the key 911 tape recordings, the fact that Zimmerman was wounded, the fact the KelTec malfunctioned, the leak by the funeral director about Martin not being wounded during the fight other than the bullet wound, the girl friend's changing story, various maps synced with the 911 tapes showing the positions of the key events, the color of the two men's outerwear, the reason for Martin being sent away, the father's story for not being there with his son that night, and the leak that Zimmerman claimed he had to shoot in self defense.
> 
> Other than the autopsy, Martin's blood tests, tests on the clothing, Zimmerman's full statement, the test results on the KelTec and the photos taken by the police, *I don't know what else hasn't been released.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> And neither do I, which is why I'm so surprised that so many have already made your decisions on this case all by leaked information without knowing what evidence there is. Part of the leaked info may be usable in a court of law, I don't know, but I'm willing to see what happens when it goes before the court system and how the jurors decide based on ALL the evidence instead of bits and pieces. There's been so much of the leaked information that has been tampered with that I really don't know how anyone can be so sure of the guilt or innocence of anyone at this point.


----------



## InvalidID

Sonshine said:


> Do you have proof of this?


 Was on TV. I'm hoping it's posted to the website so I can get a link.


----------



## time

Sonshine said:


> Most fights I've seen both parties had injuries.


I have been in many fights where only one of us recieved any injures. Being un-injured, I'm usually the one that that get's charged,,,,,,,,,,,,,when it was reported.

I'm guessing you havn't seen very many fights.


----------



## InvalidID

time said:


> I have been in many fights where only one of us recieved any injures. Being un-injured, I'm usually the one that that get's charged,,,,,,,,,,,,,when it was reported.
> 
> I'm guessing you havn't seen very many fights.


 I was going to say the same thing. I've whooped some --- in my day without getting hurt. I've also been blindsided and lost without injuring the other guy.


----------



## time

InvalidID said:


> I was going to say the same thing. I've whooped some --- in my day without getting hurt. I've also been blindsided and lost without injuring the other guy.


been whooped a time or two myself.:sob: But those don't get reported. I take my whoopins. Might go back fer seconds though. Heh

I've also broke my hands, had teeth marks get infected and the like. It's possible hands would be damaged, but it's not a guarrentee for sure.


----------



## InvalidID

time said:


> been whooped a time or two myself.:sob:
> 
> I've also broke my hands, had teeth marks get infected and the like. It's possible hands would be damaged, but it's not a guarrentee for sure.


 Another thing to take into account is that he may well have hurt his knuckles but died before any bruising or swelling could happen. All we know is he didn't break the skin or bone. And even at that he may well have broken the bone.


----------



## Darren

InvalidID said:


> Another thing to take into account is that he may well have hurt his knuckles but died before any bruising or swelling could happen. All we know is he didn't break the skin or bone. And even at that he may well have broken the bone.


Does the coroner Xray the body as part of an autopsy?


----------



## Sonshine

InvalidID said:


> Was on TV. I'm hoping it's posted to the website so I can get a link.


Thanks. If she really did this, someone should bring her up on charges.


----------



## Sonshine

time said:


> I have been in many fights where only one of us recieved any injures. Being un-injured, I'm usually the one that that get's charged,,,,,,,,,,,,,when it was reported.
> 
> I'm guessing you havn't seen very many fights.


Guess again.


----------



## Sonshine

Darren said:


> Does the coroner Xray the body as part of an autopsy?


I don't think the OFFICIAL autopsy report has been released and don't think it should be until the entire investigation is done. Parts have been leaked though, which is one reason so many people are drawing the conclusions they are. Problem with leaked information is that the person leaking it usually has an agenda, so they will only leak the information that supports the veiw they want others to have.


----------



## InvalidID

Darren said:


> Does the coroner Xray the body as part of an autopsy?


 Sometimes, but if they didn't focus on the hands you wouldn't likely notice a broken knuckle. Xray wouldn't show bruising or swelling though. Squeeze your fist tight enough and you can really nail a guy in the face without breaking anything.

Unless you're Ken Shamrock and hit so hard you break you own wrist.... and then keep hitting!


----------



## InvalidID

Sonshine said:


> Thanks. If she really did this, someone should bring her up on charges.


 I was thinking that too, but I don't think there is a legal recourse there unless he dies. Negligent homicide, but even then you'd have to charge the judge and all kinda people. I don't think it would work.


----------



## time

Sonshine said:


> I don't think the OFFICIAL autopsy report has been released and don't think it should be until the entire investigation is done. Parts have been leaked though, which is one reason so many people are drawing the conclusions they are. Problem with leaked information is that the person leaking it usually has an agenda, so they will only leak the information that supports the veiw they want others to have.


Do you make it a habit to contradict yourself?

You brought up Martins hands to make a point, then talk about "people" drawing conclusions with leaked information? 

You kill me with your double standard.


----------



## InvalidID

Sonshine said:


> I don't think the OFFICIAL autopsy report has been released and don't think it should be until the entire investigation is done. Parts have been leaked though, which is one reason so many people are drawing the conclusions they are. Problem with leaked information is that the person leaking it usually has an agenda, so they will only leak the information that supports the veiw they want others to have.


 IF I remember right both sides have agreed to seal the case. We won't know anything official until it's revealed at trial.


----------



## Sonshine

time said:


> Do you make it a habit to contradict yourself?
> 
> You brought up Martins hands to make a point, then talk about "people" drawing conclusions with leaked information?
> 
> You kill me with your double standard.


Someone else brought up the issue of Martin's lack of injuries, please reread the thread. I was just responding that I wondered about him not having any injuries since he had been fighting. So, where's the double standard in that?


----------



## Sonshine

InvalidID said:


> IF I remember right both sides have agreed to seal the case. We won't know anything official until it's revealed at trial.


Which is how it should have been from the start. Then it would never have gotten so out of control as it has.


----------



## Darren

Latest surprise in the Martin Zimmerman case:

Turns out that Alan Dershowitz, a liberal's liberal and a professor at Harvard law, thinks Corey's affadivit is "&#8220;not only thin, it&#8217;s irresponsible.&#8221; He went on to criticize the decision to charge Zimmerman for second degree murder by special prosecutor Angela Cory as being politically motivated. "

Harvard Prof. Alan Dershowitz: Zimmerman Arrest Affidavit &#8216;Irresponsible And Unethical&#8217; | Mediaite


----------



## pancho

InvalidID said:


> Or knows she can't win the case...


That is much more likely.
If something happens to Zimmerman they are free to make up any story they want.
The best way to get rid of Zimmerman is to put him in general population.
He wouldn't last the night.


----------



## time

Sonshine said:


> Which is how it should have been from the start. Then it would never have gotten so out of control as it has.


There wasn't a case to seal untill yesterday.


----------



## pancho

Sonshine said:


> Most fights I've seen both parties had injuries.


The last 3-4 fights I have had there wasn't a mark on me.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

InvalidID said:


> Or knows *she can't win* the case...


I'm beginning to think that's her game plan.
It satisfies the masses, and takes the heat away from her.

She knows she can't win a Murder 2 conviction.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Sonshine said:


> I don't think the OFFICIAL autopsy report has been released and don't think it should be until the entire investigation is done. *Parts have been leaked though*, which is one reason so many people are drawing the conclusions they are. Problem with leaked information is that the person leaking it usually has an agenda, so they will only leak the information that supports the veiw they want others to have.


None of the autopsy information has been released.
The comments about Martin's lack of injuries were from the funeral director hired by the family, who picked up the body from the police.

BY FLORIDA LAW, *none* of the autopsy information can be released as long as there is an ongong investigation


----------



## Evons hubby

Sonshine said:


> Most fights I've seen both parties had injuries.


As did this one.... Zimmerman had injuries about his face and head..... Martin had a bullet hole in his chest.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I've done this long enough to know the story you see floating the media waves is generally far from admissible fact in a legal proceeding.


And yet you *still ASSUME* to know where those facts came from, when many were directly from the *actual police report*, on the PD website, with NO media input


----------



## Darren

Zimmerman's bail hearing will be held next week.

Atty: Zimmerman bail hearing to be held next week - seattlepi.com


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> And yet you *still ASSUME* to know where those facts came from, when many were directly from the *actual police report*, on the PD website, with NO media input


The actual police report is just a preliminary documentation, and if you want to use that as evidence you might look at the Offense Discription box at the top of the page.

The police offense reports are not on their web site.

Sanford Police Department
How do I obtain a copy of a police or accident report? Copies of police and accident reports are available in the Records Unit at the Police Department. Requests can be made by mail or in person at the Police Department. Please contact Records at 407.688.5070 or 815 West 13thth Street, Sanford, FL 32771


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> The actual police report is just a preliminary documentation


That *facts* don't change if they fill out another report



> you might look at the Offense Discription box at the top of the page.


That's not "evidence", nor binding
It's the officers *opinion *as to what law *might* apply




> The police offense reports *are not on their web site*.


It *was* there, but evidently has been removed, or they are having problems with their site

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin Lakes Shooting Initial Report.pdf


Here it is on another page:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/120226_TrayvonMartinPoliceReport.pdf


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> That *facts* don't change if they fill out another report
> 
> 
> 
> That's not "evidence", nor binding
> It's the officers *opinion *as to what law *might* apply
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It *was* there, but evidently has been removed, or they are having problems with their site
> 
> http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin Lakes Shooting Initial Report.pdf
> 
> 
> Here it is on another page:
> 
> http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/120226_TrayvonMartinPoliceReport.pdf


Police reports are not available on line, a reporter or someone else obtained it in the LEGAL manner and released it it. That is the point, it is channeled through some other media or private source (your msnbcmrdia).

You were the one that said it was fact and fact can be used as evidence, not me.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> *Police reports are not available on line,* a reporter or someone else obtained it in the LEGAL manner and released it it. That is the point, it is channeled through some other media or private source (your msnbcmrdia).
> 
> *You were the one that said it was fact* and fact can be used as evidence, not me.


 
LOL

It *was *online, *on the official Sanford PD site*, and was RELEASED by the PD:

*http://www.sanfordfl.gov*/investigation/docs/Twin%20Lakes%20Shooting%20Initial%20Report.pdf

Are you claiming it's been* falsified* by the media?
Are you saying the officer's notes as to *what they observed* aren't *detailing* EVIDENCE?

If you are, then show your proof.
If not, what's your point?

The "fact" you pointed out was NOT one of the actual *details* I cited.

You need to pay closer attention to what I *really *say, and the links I post


----------



## Guest

The page cannot be found

The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> 
> It *was *online, *on the official Sanford PD site*, and was RELEASED by the PD:
> 
> *http://www.sanfordfl.gov*/investigation/docs/Twin%20Lakes%20Shooting%20Initial%20Report.pdf
> 
> Are you claiming it's been* falsified* by the media?NO, but do you know it has not been, the media has screwed with a lot in this case
> Are you saying the officer's notes as to *what they observed* aren't *detailing* EVIDENCE?NO but can only be used to refere to on direct testimony
> 
> If you are, then show your proof.
> If not, what's your point?
> 
> The "fact" you pointed out was NOT one of the actual *details* I cited.
> *Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm
> And yet you still ASSUME to know where those facts came from, when many were directly from the actual police report, on the PD website, with NO media input*
> 
> You need to pay closer attention to what I *really *say, and the links I post


Maybe I should just not pay attention to any of the twists and turns you spew, but it WAS entertaining to debate with someone who thinks they know it all,,,I do not


----------



## Hollowdweller

I dont' think all the facts are in on this yet.

Not sure how it will play out in court.

It is sounding now more like the shooter actually confronted the victim rather than the victim suprising the shooter and decking him with a single punch when he fell down.

Possible the shooter could still be liable since he actually pursued the victim and failed to identify himself as part of a neighborhood watch. Stand your ground may work in favor of the victim as call to GF indicates he was afraid for his life being pursued and if he actually attacked the shooter it's possible he felt his life was in danger esp if he could see the shooter was armed.


----------



## SteveD(TX)

Hollowdweller said:


> I dont' think all the facts are in on this yet.
> 
> Not sure how it will play out in court.
> 
> It is sounding now more like the shooter actually confronted the victim rather than the victim suprising the shooter and decking him with a single punch when he fell down.
> 
> Possible the shooter could still be liable since he actually pursued the victim and failed to identify himself as part of a neighborhood watch. Stand your ground may work in favor of the victim as call to GF indicates he was afraid for his life being pursued and if he actually attacked the shooter it's possible he felt his life was in danger esp if he could see the shooter was armed.


So, Trayvon may have actually committed suicide?


----------



## pancho

Hollowdweller said:


> I dont' think all the facts are in on this yet.
> 
> Not sure how it will play out in court.
> 
> It is sounding now more like the shooter actually confronted the victim rather than the victim suprising the shooter and decking him with a single punch when he fell down.
> 
> Possible the shooter could still be liable since he actually pursued the victim and failed to identify himself as part of a neighborhood watch. Stand your ground may work in favor of the victim as call to GF indicates he was afraid for his life being pursued and if he actually attacked the shooter it's possible he felt his life was in danger esp if he could see the shooter was armed.


It sure would help if you became familiar with what actually happened.
You seem to be listening to people who know little of what actually happened.
It happens a lot as those who want the story to change will yell the loudest. Some people actually listen to them instead of finding out what actually happened.
It is a very simple case when you use the facts and not the rumors, stories, guesses, and media coverage.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> *The page cannot be found*
> 
> The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.


I already told you that it *WAS* there.

That's* past* tense

The purpose of posting the LINK was so you could READ that it originally came from the SANFORD.GOV website.

I guess even with highighting it in red it still eluded you.



> Maybe I should just not pay attention to any of the twists and turns you spew, but it WAS entertaining to debate with someone who thinks they know it all,,,I do not


There are no "twists and turns" if you simply READ *what I post* and pay attention to the* details.*

It shouldnt require detailed explanations for you to be able to follow

I notice you didn't even attempt to answer any of the questions.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *It is sounding now* more like the shooter actually confronted the victim rather than the victim suprising the shooter and decking him with a single punch when he fell down.


You keep saying lots of things like that, but you haven't *backed them up* with anything at all.
Share your *new informaton* with us


> Stand your ground may work in favor of the victim as call to GF indicates he was *afraid for his life* being pursued and if he actually attacked the shooter it's possible he felt his life was in danger esp if he could see the shooter was armed.


He wasn't "afraid" enough to* keep* *running* (which he TOLD her he *wasn't* going to do at all), or to call for help.
Her testimony is likely to be biased, and has changed more than once.

The RECORDED calls and *eye*witnesses tend to support Zimmerman


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> I already told you that it *WAS* there.
> 
> That's* past* tense
> 
> The purpose of posting the LINK was so you could READ that it originally came from the SANFORD.GOV website.
> 
> I guess even with highighting it in red it still eluded you.
> 
> 
> 
> There are no "twists and turns" if you simply READ *what I post* and pay attention to the* details.*
> 
> It shouldnt require detailed explanations for you to be able to follow
> 
> I notice you didn't even attempt to answer any of the questions.


Posting an expired or invalid link proves nothing other than you can type.

Your answers to the questions are in red in post 2080 so I guess the red thing applies to you also


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Your answers to the questions are in red in post 2080


So you admit you have no proof they changed the report ( but still imply they could have, with no evidence of that at all)

And you admit the facts in the report ARE evidence, as I stated

In other words, all your arguments were just FOR the sake of argument



> Posting an expired or invalid link *proves nothing other than you can type*.


LOL
So are you now suggesting I fabricated the link?

You're funny


> http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin Lakes Shooting Initial Report.pdf


Google the above link and then tell me how I managed to type it into all the pages


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you admit you have no proof they changed the report ( but still imply they could have, with no evidence of that at all)
> 
> And you admit the facts in the report ARE evidence, as I stated
> 
> In other words, all your arguments were just FOR the sake of argument
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> So are you now suggesting I fabricated the link?
> 
> You're funny
> 
> 
> Google the above link and then tell me how I managed to type it into all the pages


Well you appear to lack any understanding in my replies and just made up false answers as if they were mine. The LINK does not exist is what I said and it only proves you typed it on your post. Have fun argue with your self I'm done with your perpetuation of propaganda.


----------



## FeralFemale

dlmcafee said:


> Well you appear to lack any understanding in my replies and just made up false answers as if they were mine. *The LINK does not exist is what I said and it only proves you typed it on your post. *Have fun argue with your self I'm done with your perpetuation of propaganda.


dlm,

Google (including quotation marks)

trayvon martin police report online "sanfordfl.gov"

and you will see much proof that the sanford gov website did once provide the report and 911 transcripts. It has since been scrubbed. As it should be so as not to pollute the jury pool -- as if that hasn't already happened.


----------



## Darren

FeralFemale said:


> dlm,
> 
> Google (including quotation marks)
> 
> trayvon martin police report online "sanfordfl.gov"
> 
> and you will see much proof that the sanford gov website did once provide the report and 911 transcripts. It has since been scrubbed. As it should be so as not to pollute the jury pool -- as if that hasn't already happened.


I saw the police report on Sanford's website. The report was linked by a number of websites. It doen't take much searching to find a website that downloaded the original police report. Even though Sanford scrubbed the police report, it was picked up all over the internet. I'd bet you could even find it in Google cache. So let's take a look. 

Whoops! Here it is describing Zimmerman bleeding with grass on his back.

Trayvon Martin Police Report


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Well *you appear to lack any understanding* in my replies and just made up false answers as if they were mine.
> 
> The LINK does not exist is what I said and it only proves you typed it on your post.
> 
> Have fun argue with your self I'm done with your perpetuation of propaganda.


 
No one else but you had any problem understanding what I REALLY said.

Don't get mad at me if you can't figure it out :shrug:


----------



## fantasymaker

Yvonne's hubby said:


> As did this one.... Zimmerman had injuries about his face and head..... Martin had a bullet hole in his chest.


 Good lord dont let me laugh about a death.



Hollowdweller said:


> I dont' think all the facts are in on this yet.
> 
> .


LOL I'm pretty sure all the FACTS are in but I s*uspect* a lot of evidence is still being manufactured.


----------



## Guest

FeralFemale said:


> dlm,
> 
> Google (including quotation marks)
> 
> trayvon martin police report online "sanfordfl.gov"
> 
> and you will see much proof that the sanford gov website did once provide the report and 911 transcripts. It has since been scrubbed. As it should be so as not to pollute the jury pool -- as if that hasn't already happened.


Thanks,,, I was doubting that it was, but to offer it as proof is a stretch. Any way thanks and I'll take your word for it. My opinion remains, Police reports can be used as referral to direct testimony and are not factual evidence.


----------



## Darren

Looks like Florida will have a tough time convicting Zimmerman. Under the law he'll appear before a judge to argue self defense before going to trial. Based on the previous cases at the link, the judge may dismiss the case. Dershowitiz's criticism of the affidavit points out the problems the prosecution has already created for themselves.

Martin's family may be barred from suing Zimmerman unless he's convicted. Even with the additional stand your ground laws, the FBI hasn't found a discernible increase in killings.

Law gives Zimmerman extra chances in legal fight | AP Nation - The News Tribune


----------



## suzfromWi

The video of Zimmerman in handcuffs, being led into the police station, showed NO signs of a beating, OR a broken nose...No blood anywhere that I could see...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Thanks,,, I was doubting that it was, but to offer it as proof is a stretch. Any way thanks and I'll take your word for it. My opinion remains, Police reports can be used as referral to direct testimony and are* not factual evidence*.


 
LOL

You're funny.

I told you more than once exactly *where* it came from, and *how to confirm* it, and you kept saying it wasn't true

Then someone else tells you the SAME THING, and you thank them, but still *try to deny* the FACTS contained in the report constitute EVIDENCE.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

suzfromWi said:


> The video of Zimmerman in handcuffs, being led into the police station, *showed NO signs* of a beating, OR a broken nose...No blood anywhere *that I could see*...


He had already been treated and cleaned up by EMT's

Later "stills" taken from the video clearly show the gash on the back of his head, and the police report tell what injuries he had when they arrived on the scene

Sometimes you have to dig around a little to find *the truth*, rather than jumping to conclusions from the first thing you see (or in this case, don't see):

Trayvon Martin Case: Enhanced Police Video Shows Injuries On George Zimmerman's Head



> *Enhanced* Police *Video Shows Injuries* On George Zimmerman's Head


----------



## Darren

suzfromWi said:


> The video of Zimmerman in handcuffs, being led into the police station, showed NO signs of a beating, OR a broken nose...No blood anywhere that I could see...


That was already discussed here along with a neighbor who was interviewed who saw the injuries later. That was part of the media's agenda which has set several of the networks up for defamation lawsuits. The police report also documents the injuries. Besides that the EMTs who treated him at the scene would have also filed a medical report.

At this point the facts that Zimmerman suffered a broken nose and a gash when his head banged against the concrete sidewalk is proven. The police report from the first officer on the scene specifically mentions that Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of his head and his nose.

Later examination of the video showed the gash. FWIW, other than the bullet wound, Martin's body showed no trace of damage as revealed by the funeral director. That has led some here to believe that it was Martin who attacked Zimmerman.

ABC is the network that initially lied about the video tape. A producer at NBC removed part of the 911 tape to make it appear that Zimmerman is racist. Another network (CNN?) lightened an old picture of Zimmerman to make him appear white. They turned his shirt from orange to pink in the process. With all of that and the bogus murder 2 affidivit filed by the special prosecutor, it looks like Zimmerman may be set for a big payday.


----------



## Old John

Moral of the Story:

"Never jump on a guy who is carrying a Gun!"

or:

"Never go to a Gunfight without a Gun!"

Sorry, Folks.......Tongue firmly in Cheek........


----------



## pancho

At this stage if there is anyone who has not read the police report it has to be because they choose not to.
The police report explains what they found, the damage done to Zimmermen, and also has 3 witnesses.
People can choose to ask all kinds of questions, make up all kinds of stories about what could have happened, and come to their own conclusions.
If during all of this they do not read the police report they have made a choice not to know what happened.
That is their choice. Just don't expect other people, who have read the police report, to take you seriously.


----------



## Guest

pancho said:


> At this stage if there is anyone who has not read the police report it has to be because they choose not to.
> The police report explains what they found, the damage done to Zimmermen, and also has 3 witnesses.
> People can choose to ask all kinds of questions, make up all kinds of stories about what could have happened, and come to their own conclusions.
> If during all of this they do not read the police report they have made a choice not to know what happened.
> That is their choice. Just don't expect other people, who have read the police report, to take you seriously.


Have you read the un-digitized, non redacted actual police report. I have not, but then again everyone on here has so much more an experienced conducting investigations and prosecuting crimes than I. Seriously this is nothing more than arm chair quarterbacking by *some* educated spectators,, seriously


----------



## Darren

dlmcafee said:


> Have you read the un-digitized, non redacted actual police report. I have not, but then again everyone on here has so much more an experienced conducting investigations and prosecuting crimes than I. Seriously this is nothing more than arm chair quarterbacking by *some* educated spectators,, seriously


Are you saying that because several of the major news networks lied or embellished the record, the police report posted on the Sanford City website is also suspect?


----------



## pancho

dlmcafee said:


> Have you read the un-digitized, non redacted actual police report. I have not, but then again everyone on here has so much more an experienced conducting investigations and prosecuting crimes than I. Seriously this is nothing more than arm chair quarterbacking by *some* educated spectators,, seriously


Have you read the police report done by the Sanford police dept?
Might be a good place to start.
Unless you are like many who would rather make it up as they go.
It is much easier to change when they are shown they do not know what they are talking about.


----------



## Guest

pancho said:


> Have you read the police report done by the Sanford police dept?
> Might be a good place to start.
> Unless you are like many who would rather make it up as they go.
> It is much easier to change when they are shown they do not know what they are talking about.


Yep I read the edited versions on the web. Does not change a thing, But if you think that is evidence good for you.


----------



## Darren

The only thing I saw that was blacked out was names and other information that would enable someone to identify the witnesses. I ddn't see anything that was changed or edited like the NBC editing that got a long term producer fired.

What did you see that you believe was changed?


----------



## Guest

Darren said:


> The only thing I saw that was blacked out was names and other information that would enable someone to identify the witnesses. I ddn't see anything that was changed or edited like the NBC editing that got a long term producer fired.
> 
> What did you see that you believe was changed?


Darren I am not arguing if the police report is altered (which you pointed out was) so much as to point out even if you had the report in your hands and it was the real thing it is nothing more than a preliminary report and not the actual investigative report (or you might say file, more than likely several inches thick). If you were to take the report as evidence than the UCR code used would be detrimental to Zimmerman. Police reports are not evidence as touted by some. Never base your final convictions on the initial report 100s of man hours go into the final determination.


----------



## Darren

The only thing I see relevant on the police report, initially made available to the public and now removed, is the mention of Zimmerman's injuries and the condition of the back of his jacket. Some do not want to accept that Zimmerman was injured. I don't see a reason for a police officer to lie about his observations. Other law enforcement members also encountered and observed Zimmerman's condition that evening. Anyone claiming Zimmerman was not injured is theorizing that there is a conspiracy on the part of the police department.

If Zimmerman had not been injured by Martin and seen by a witness being attacked, my thoughts about the incident might be different. Unlike others, I've sought information on the internet, noted discrepancies among various articles and considered the verified background information on both Martin and Zimmerman.

The media's biased handling of this is despicable. Their actions in railroading Zimmerman are deplorable. Fortunately their efforts were proven false early in the process. Even with all of that info available, we still had a poster here late in the thread that had no idea that Zimmerman was injured.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> The only thing I see relevant on the police report, initially made available to the public and now removed, is the mention of Zimmerman's injuries and the condition of the back of his jacket. Some do not want to accept that Zimmerman was injured.


I don't think anybody doubts that there was a fight and Zimmerman sustained injuries. What many here are skeptical about is the severity of the injuries, based on the video of Zimmerman being escorted into the police station.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> I don't think anybody doubts that there was a fight and Zimmerman sustained injuries. What many here are skeptical about is the severity of the injuries, based on the video of Zimmerman being escorted into the police station.


Yep, Zimmerman sustained injuries consistent with his version of the story.... Martin sustained at least one injury..... a gunshot wound to the chest.... which is also consistent with Zimmermans version of the story. Since there are no other stories of the incident... any other version is pure conjecture based upon someones imagination.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Have you read the un-digitized, non redacted actual police report. I have not, but then again everyone on here has so much more an experienced *conducting investigations* and prosecuting crimes than I. Seriously this is nothing more than arm chair quarterbacking by *some* educated spectators,, seriously


LOL
You continue to* deny* that the police report, published on Sanford's own website, contains evidence, but it's not helping your credibility.

You kept saying it it *couldn't have* been read from their website, even when you were given links and told how to verify it.

Unless you can come up with something to *refute* it, why not just admit *it's real*?



> * Police reports are not evidence as touted by some. *




The* INFORMATION* contined in them is *DOCUMENTATION* of the evidence
*None* of the observations are going to *change*

When you find yourself in a hole, it's time to stop digging


----------



## chamoisee

You guys have a lot more faith in cops than I do. I lost nearly all of my trust in them as protectors and trustworthy people when the Ruby Ridge thing went over.


----------



## Darren

Don't forget EMT's from the fire department were involved too. And at least one of Zimmerman's neighbors saw his injuries.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> You guys have a lot more faith in cops than I do.


Do you think they all lied just to protect Zimmerman?
If not, then you have to accept what they SAW as *evidence *of what really happened

The only ones *CAUGHT* telling lies so far have been Martin's family


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> What many here are skeptical about is the severity of the injuries, based on the video of Zimmerman being escorted into the police station.


You can be as skeptical as you like.
It doesn't change what happened


----------



## Guest

chamoisee said:


> You guys have a lot more faith in cops than I do. I lost nearly all of my trust in them as protectors and trustworthy people when the Ruby Ridge thing went over.


YA can't blame the media hypnotized, they all love a debate on issues that effect them not, or so we think. I do not totally believe anything I do not see for myself, and question even that. 

Having been a cop for 26yrs I DO NOT have faith in most of the modern law enforcement officers, only a few and the problem there is, you do not get to pick which ones you deal with. 

Just as an opinion, if the Zimmerman/Martin investigation was handled as it appears to me, my department wound have had a major turnover in personnel out of the Investigative Division.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> YA can't blame the *media hypnotized*





> if the Zimmerman/Martin investigation was handled *as it appears to me*


So what's your private, inside, totally reliable source on which you based your conclusions?


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Do you think they all lied just to protect Zimmerman?


Let's not forget that the lead police investigator didn't buy Zimmerman's story, and recommended that Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. To suggest that the police were totally on-board with Zimmerman's explanation simply isn't true.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> Let's not forget that the lead police investigator didn't buy Zimmerman's story, and recommended that Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. To suggest that the police were totally on-board with Zimmerman's explanation simply isn't true.


I recall someone wanting him charged but investigators aren't typically lawyers. that is why you have prosecutors. Where did you see the suggestion of manslaughter? That really undercuts the special prosecutor when someone looked at the same evidence and could only come up with manslaughter.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> I recall someone wanting him charged but investigators aren't typically lawyers. that is why you have prosecutors.


Yes, and the prosecutor has charged him with 2nd degree murder. Where's the problem?


----------



## Darren

Look at professor Dershowitz's commentary on the affidavit. It doesn't meet legal requirements. That's why some are saying it's either politics and pandering and setting the bar so high, Corey knows there will be no conviction.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Let's not forget that the lead police investigator didn't buy Zimmerman's story, and recommended that Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. To suggest that the police were totally on-board with Zimmerman's explanation simply isn't true.


Let's not forget the *evidence *didn't support his OPINION


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Yes, and the prosecutor has charged him with 2nd degree murder. Where's the problem?


They did that *to quiet the masses*.
There's no real evidence to support the charge


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Let's not forget the *evidence *didn't support his OPINION


Most of the evidence is Zimmerman's word, since the physical evidence at the time supported a variety of theories.

By that's behind us now. We don't know what evidence might have been uncovered during the more recent investigation. Until we know otherwise, we should assume that the prosecutor has uncovered compelling evidence.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> Most of the evidence is Zimmerman's word, since the physical evidence at the time supported a variety of theories.
> 
> By that's behind us now. We don't know what evidence might have been uncovered during the more recent investigation. Until we know otherwise, we should assume that the prosecutor has uncovered compelling evidence.


I guess you missed the part about pandering especially Corey's use of the term "sweet." The woman had her politician hat on that day. Obviously you haven't read Dershowitz's commentary. Compelling is fantasy based on the affidavit.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Most of the evidence is Zimmerman's word, since the *physical evidence at the time supported a variety of theories.*


LOL

No it didn't

It supported Zimmerman and no one else., as did EYEWITNESSES that you keep pretending don't exist.

All you have is *speculation*



> We don't know what evidence might have been uncovered during the more recent investigation


We know it won't CHANGE any of the other evidence
Nothing short of a video or another CREDIBLE *eye*witness can change the logical conclusions


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> I guess you missed the part about pandering especially Corey's use of the term "sweet." The woman had her politician hat on that day. Obviously you haven't read Dershowitz's commentary. Compelling is fantasy based on the affidavit.


If you can't even entertain the notion that the investigation might have uncovered important evidence, I think you are going overboard in your support of Zimmerman.

I'm satisfied now that charges have been brought. I'll take what ever happens, even if it turns out to be acquittal.


----------



## Darren

Have you read the affidavit and do you understand the purpose of an affidavit and what is supposed to be in it? The affidavit reads more like a campaign speech than a critical document in the legal process. Corey screwed the pooch on that one.

Based on the time that's passed it's unlikely anything new was uncovered with the possible exception of some of the tests on Martin's body.

When the struggle started in the backyards of the homes, anyone could have, and did, look out their window and see what was happening. Zimmerman would have been an idiot to have tried lying when there were that many windows. Any witness whose statement contradicted Zimmerman would have destroyed his claim of self defense. Either Zimmerman got lucky if he lied or he was telling the truth. 

No witness has contradicted Zimmerman's story. The media went through that place with a fine tooth comb. They had one of the witnesses on video. The media was busting their azz trying to find a hole in Zimmerman's statement.

If they couldn't find anything with the promise of easy cash and some 15 minute fame, I don't think the investigators did either.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> If they couldn't find anything with the promise of easy cash and some 15 minute fame, I don't think the investigators did either.


Corey doesn't have to lay out her case in public yet. She will have to let the defense know in the next week or two, but I doubt they will make it public either. We don't know, so we just have to wait and see.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> If you can't even entertain the notion that the investigation might have uncovered important evidence, I think you are going overboard in your support of Zimmerman.


You have to ignore *all *the evidence to make all your "theories" work.

I don't know why you think they could have found any "new" evidence by looking at the scene and talking to the same witnesses *again*
In fact, you are the ONLY one I've seen say anything at all about "new evidence"

It's plain to see the charges were just a result of public and POLITICAL pressure so the prosecutor could pass the buck


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> You have to ignore *all *the evidence to make all your "theories" work.
> 
> I don't know why you think they could have found any "new" evidence by looking at the scene and talking to the same witnesses *again*
> In fact, you are the ONLY one I've seen say anything at all about "new evidence"
> 
> It's plain to see the charges were just a result of public and POLITICAL pressure so the prosecutor could pass the buck


You don't know that you've seen all the evidence, you don't know that there is nothing new, so you are only speculating that the charges are unfounded. You are hitching your wagon to the idea that Corey is blowing hot air, but you have no way of knowing that.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> You don't know that you've seen all the evidence, you don't know that there is nothing new, so you are only speculating that the charges are unfounded. You are hitching your wagon to the idea that* Corey is blowing hot air,* but you have no way of knowing that.


The staged press conference was a political hot air extravaganza.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> The staged press conference was a political hot air extravaganza.


Of course it was a staged political event, but that doesn't mean she's got no new evidence.


----------



## Darren

Did you read the affidavit and Dershowitz's analysis, Nevada?


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> Did you read the affidavit and Dershowitz's analysis, Nevada?


The affidavit isn't going to detail new evidence. It will only go far enough to establish a prima facie case so he can face trial.


----------



## fantasymaker

Nevada said:


> Let's not forget that the lead police investigator didn't buy Zimmerman's story, and recommended that Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. To suggest that the police were totally on-board with Zimmerman's explanation simply isn't true.


Of course the police just might have years of experiance that lead to them thinking arrest them all let the system sort it out.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> The affidavit isn't going to detail new evidence. It will only go far enough to establish a prima facie case so he can face trial.


I'll take your response as meaning you didn't read what Dershowitz said if you think that it established a case for trial.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> The affidavit isn't going to detail *new evidence*. It will only go far enough to establish a prima facie case so he can face trial.


Once again, YOU are the only one who has used that term at all.

The affadavit she used for probable cause was the OLD evidence, and poorly written


----------



## Darren

Neighbor's statements on Zimmerman's injuries:

"Jorge Rodriguez, Zimmerman's next-door neighbor, told Reuters that when he saw Zimmerman the day after the incident, "he had two big, butterfly bandages on the back of his head, and another big bandage...on the bridge of his nose." He was talking to a police detective in his driveway.

Rodriguez's wife Audria also said she saw the bandages and a third neighbor, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, agreed with the Rodriguez couple's account. "I saw two bandages on the back of his head, and his nose was all swollen up," said the witness, who had watched from a nearby second-floor window.

The neighbors spoke to Reuters on Sunday and Monday, saying they felt they owed him their public support after he was charged with second-degree murder."

Trayvon Martin's killer showed signs of injury: neighbors - Yahoo! News


----------



## watcher

Sonshine said:


> Or maybe they have more evidence than we have.


If they do they are holding it close to the chest. From what I've heard/read about the paper they are STRETCHING it mighty thin to reach M2. They have a major problem with trying to say the police have the power to tell you to stop walking down the street keeping an eye on someone. They also have a problem with the fact the dispatcher didn't tell him directly to stop only that the police "didn't need" him to do it. Plus IIRC on the tape he tells her he will stop.


----------



## watcher

haypoint said:


> If they try him for Manslaughter and get a conviction, Zimmerman can tie up the courts for years with appeals.
> 
> If they charge him with murder in the 2nd, Zimmerman might be spooked and accept a plea to Manslaughter. Then there can't be any appeal.
> 
> But that's a risky move, because if Zimmerman doesn't take that bait, they'll have a hard time getting a conviction for murder duce.
> 
> The prison system doesn't want him. It would be too costly to keep his noticeable mug safe in the joint. Most prisoners in Florida can identify with wearing a hoody and have hard to see tattoos, " If I had a son he'd look just like Travon."
> 
> The last high profile black/white murder resulted in an acquittal and that didn't result in riots. I don't see how OJ's trial is any different.


I don't see him spooking. His dad's a judge and knows how the system works.


----------



## watcher

Sonshine said:


> I'm curious about what evidence they have that made them decide on 2nd degree murder charges instead of manslaughter.


IIRC, the paper on the indictment is online to be read.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> *1st Degree* Murder requires premeditation
> 
> 2nd Degree Murder, under Florida law:
> 
> Florida Crimes: Second Degree Murder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> <H3>10/20/Life*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> </H3>


I don't see them being able to get a jury to convict with that as the standard.


----------



## watcher

Darren said:


> Obviously the prosecutor doesn't believe Martin's death was an accident. I would be surprised if the prosecutor wasn't banging her head against the wall because the mother just made the case more difficult to get a conviction. Between Obama running his mouth, the media getting caught inventing news and now the mother letting Zimmerman off a murder 2 charge, getting a jury that can be impartial is going to be beyond tough.
> 
> U.S. News - Trayvon Martin's mom says she thinks his killing was an 'accident'
> 
> It now looks like Zimmerman is the only one with any common sense.


Remember she is a political being. If she wants to keep her job she has to get votes, to get votes she can't upset a large section of the black voting block.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> The 911 tapes say that a guy with a white Tshirt was on top. They say nothing about a beating.
> 
> We do not have any info other than the shooter's on how the fight started, who hit who or why. All else is speculation. There is too much information that we do not have.


And can NOT be proven in a court of law. What evidence is going to show if Martin hit Zimmerman first or if Zimmerman grabbed Martin first? None, zero, zilch. And as in baseball the tie goes to the runner. If the prosecution can't PROVE that Zimmerman attacked Martin there is no way they can get a conviction that will hold up on appeal.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> I leave open the possibility that Martin inflicted those injuries while defending himself.


Maybe but what evidence could prove it? The fact is unless there is hard proof to show that Zimmerman was the aggressor it's stupid to take the case before a judge. Even if they do manage to get a conviction from a jury it will be tossed on appeal.


----------



## Darren

Interesting viewpoint from a Black man.

"As a black conservative Tea Party patriot, I have been struggling with what I should do, if anything, in response to the rash of incidents of racial violence resulting from the Trayvon Martin / George Zimmerman case. Folks, a great evil is running the show in our country right now."

Yes, Calming The Storm of Trayvon Martin / George Zimmerman Related Racial Violence. : ThyBlackMan.com

[YOUTUBE]YQp0AyaI2ao[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Pearl B

My basic impression is that, someone either paid that guy to say that, or its a comedy routine.

He's just not coming across to me as realistic/valid. I laughed especially at the ode to Ronny. That was funny :hysterical: and seemed fake to me.


----------



## haypoint

Pearl B said:


> My basic impression is that, someone either paid that guy to say that, or its a comedy routine.
> 
> He's just not coming across to me as realistic/valid. I laughed especially at the ode to Ronny. That was funny :hysterical: and seemed fake to me.


I think he is real. What he said isn't funny. He has a bit of a speech problem and I believe he may be gay, but he is speaking from his heart. He gives a clear picture of what is happening in the black community.


----------



## Pearl B

He strikes me as an actor, or someone doing a comedy routine, thats what I found funny.


----------



## Darren

I understand that, Pearl. It's obvious he got choked up a couple of times especially when he talked about his father's experiences as a firefighter in Baltimore. 

Here's someone else, ex-NAACP President C.L. Bryant, who talks about the same subject.

[YOUTUBE]eb_a2aMBPcc[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## SteveD(TX)

Pearl B said:


> My basic impression is that, someone either paid that guy to say that, or its a comedy routine.
> 
> He's just not coming across to me as realistic/valid. I laughed especially at the ode to Ronny. That was funny :hysterical: and seemed fake to me.


It didn't come off as a comedy routine at all to me. The ode to Ronny was a bit odd, but it seems his affection for Reagan is genuine.


----------



## Sonshine

Pearl B said:


> My basic impression is that, someone either paid that guy to say that, or its a comedy routine.
> 
> He's just not coming across to me as realistic/valid. I laughed especially at the ode to Ronny. That was funny :hysterical: and seemed fake to me.


Really? I thought he was very convincing. I have seen some of the things he talked about, especially regarding welfare.


----------



## Sonshine

Darren said:


> Interesting viewpoint from a Black man.
> 
> "As a black conservative Tea Party patriot, I have been struggling with what I should do, if anything, in response to the rash of incidents of racial violence resulting from the Trayvon Martin / George Zimmerman case. Folks, a great evil is running the show in our country right now."
> 
> Yes, Calming The Storm of Trayvon Martin / George Zimmerman Related Racial Violence. : ThyBlackMan.com
> 
> [YOUTUBE]YQp0AyaI2ao[/YOUTUBE]


I loved the article he wrote. Too bad, like he said, mainstream media won't do any reporting on patriots like this man.


----------



## Sonshine

Darren said:


> I understand that, Pearl. It's obvious he got choked up a couple of times especially when he talked about his father's experiences as a firefighter in Baltimore.
> 
> Here's someone else, ex-NAACP President C.L. Bryant, who talks about the same subject.
> 
> [YOUTUBE]eb_a2aMBPcc[/YOUTUBE]


AMEN!!! Now that man tells the truth!!


----------



## Darren

We've heard Trayvon's story from his parents. Here's George's account of the encounter.

"Robert Zimmerman, a retired Virginia magistrate, said the family is in hiding and canât go to the doctor or do anything that requires using their own names.

He said his son had just made dinner for his wife and was heading to Target the night of the NBA All Star game when he spotted Trayvon, who he didnât recognize as a resident. He thought Trayvon looked suspicious, because there had been a rash of break-ins, and instead of walking on a main sidewalk, Trayvon was walking in a paved path that goes behind two sets of townhouses.

George Zimmerman called police, and started âwalking in the same general direction to see where the individual was going,â and get an address for police.

At one point, he said, Trayvon approached him saying, âDo you have an f-ing problem?â George replied no and reached for his cell phone.

Trayvon âpunched him in the nose, his nose was broken, and he was knocked to the concrete.â Robert Zimmerman said. âItâs my understanding Trayvon Martin got on top of him and just started beating him in the face, in his nose, hitting his head on the concrete.â

âAfter nearly a minute of being beaten,â Robert Zimmerman said George tried â with Trayvon still on top of him â to move away from the concrete onto the grass. In doing so, the gun he kept in a holster on his waist was exposed.

âTrayvon Martin said something to the effect of âyouâre going to die nowâ or youâre gonna die tonightâ -- something to that effect,â he said. âHe continued to beat George. At some point, George pulled his pistol and did what he did.â

In other points, he said:

â¢ He insisted that itâs George heard screaming in the 911 video.

â¢ He believes that the girl who claims she was on the phone with Trayon in the minutes that led up to the encounter is not telling the truth.

â¢ George had a broken nose and two cuts on his scalp.

â¢ He had not seen the police department surveillance video showing Zimmerman some time after the incident, in which he does not appear to have any injuries. Maybe he was cleaned up by then, he said.

âHeâs not dealing with it well. I donât know if the injuries are physical or mental. Heâs not in good shape,â Robert Zimmerman said.

Asked if he had a message for Trayvonâs family, he said: âIâm sorry for all of the hate -- from the attorneys, from everyone involved. Theyâre making up things that are not true about George. How heâs being portrayed is an absolute lie.â


Read more here: George Zimmermanâs dad: Trayvon Martin threatened to kill my son - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com


----------



## Darren

Sonshine said:


> I loved the article he wrote. Too bad, like he said, mainstream media won't do any reporting on patriots like this man.


The thing the media did report but it was lost in the noise was the results of a poll that showed about 20% of the Black respondents did not believe that Zimmerman murdered Martin.


----------



## fantasymaker

How come Zimmermans family isnt getting the Airtime Martins is?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> How come Zimmermans family isnt getting the Airtime Martins is?


There have been death threats against Zimmerman *and *his family.

They aren't going out in public


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> There have been death threats against Zimmerman *and *his family.
> 
> They aren't going out in public


They've gone public, at least when his father spoke-out in his favor. But Zimmerman's family isn't half as interesting of a story as Martin's family. The only thing the Zimmermans can offer is assurances that Zimmerman is innocent, which is predictable. The ongoing reaction of the victim's family will always be a good story.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> They've* gone public*, at least when his father spoke-out in his favor. But Zimmerman's family isn't half as interesting of a story as Martin's family.
> 
> The only thing the Zimmermans can offer is assurances that Zimmerman is innocent, which is predictable. The ongoing *reaction of the victim's family* will always be a good story.


You aren't paying attention

I said GOING *OUT* in public...And I know you find the *inflamatory, emotional, racist* *rhetoric* more interesting than the mere facts


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> They've gone public, at least when his father spoke-out in his favor. But Zimmerman's family isn't half as interesting of a story as Martin's family. The only thing the Zimmermans can offer is assurances that Zimmerman is innocent, which is predictable. The ongoing reaction of the victim's family will always be a good story.


So far the Martin family has undermined the prosecutor's case especially with the mother's mention of an accident. I'm sure, if they were honest, that would have been a best case scenario in their minds. Given Trayvon's school problems, it wasn't a big move to battery.

I'm sure they're carrying a ton of guilt at this point. The best they can do is shut up.


----------

